PROJECT TITLE: Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision P2015-084, P2016-096; P2016-097; P2016-098

LEAD AGENCY: City of Novato Community Development Department 922 Machin Ave. Novato, California 94945

CONTACT PERSON: Brett Walker Senior Planner, City of Novato [email protected] (415) 493-4711

PROJECT LOCATION: 143-272-07 Misty Road, Novato

PROJECT APPLICANT: Ryder Homes of California, Inc.

GENERAL PLAN Low Density Residential (R1) DESIGNATION:

ZONING: Planned Development

EXISTING LAND USE: Undeveloped with graded building pads

PROJECT SUMMARY The proposed project site is located in a low density residential area approximately 3.5 miles east of downtown Novato, 1.3 miles northeast

of the Hwy 37 Petaluma River bridge, and 0.84 mile from the Petaluma River. The site consists of Assessor’s Parcel Number 143-272-07 and is located at the end of Misty Road in Novato, California. The proposed project would include the development of nine single-family homes on a vacant 8.7-acre hillside parcel which would begin low on the hillside and rise upward above Topaz Drive and sit below the upper ridgelines of this hillside. The homes would be one or two stories, range from 2,730 to 3,569 square feet, and would be between 21 feet and 27 feet, 2 inches in height. The nine lot areas range from 0.32 acre to 3.59 acre. Four different floor plans would be constructed, including both one- story and two-story designs. Houses would have dedicated two- and three-car garages attached to the units. On-street parallel parking is located on the north side of Misty Road, and 5 on-street parking spaces are located on the south side of Misty Road in two separate parking

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page i bays. The project would include the construction of necessary infrastructure improvements to serve the proposed subdivision, including installation of water and sewer lines, tree removal, the extension of Misty Road including additional sidewalk, drainage improvements, followed by the completion of all required site improvements on individual lots and the construction of the nine residences. There would also be installation of individual lot landscaping in the project development including a four-foot landscaping strip on the northern side of the street between the sidewalk and the street, and six to 14-foot wide landscape strips on the southern side of the street. No sidewalks are proposed for the southern side of the street.

The proposed project site is surrounded by single-family residential development and is within the existing Bahia Subdivision. The project is located on an undeveloped hillside which was previously graded with individual building pads. Sixteen and 8/10th percent (16.8%) of the parcel is in the 0-10% slope range, 15.3% in the 10-25% range and 67.9% is greater than 25% slope. The project site is accessible through an existing roadway network. Access to the Bahia Subdivision and to the proposed nine lots would be through Atherton Avenue onto Bugeia Lane to Bahia Drive and Topaz Drive. The subdivision would be served from an extension of Misty Road.

The closest highways to the proposed project site are U.S. Route 101 and Highway 37. There are currently no trails for viewshed at the proposed project site. The closest schools are Olive Elementary School, which is approximately 3.2 miles from the proposed site, and Marin Oaks High School, which is approximately 4.5 miles from the proposed project site. San Marin High School is 5.3 miles from the site. Novato High School is 5.2 miles from the project site. Sinaloa Middle School is 5.2 miles from the project site.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE Acronyms ...... v Project Location ...... 1 Project Description ...... 1 Surrounding Land Uses and Setting ...... 1 Background Documents and Plans ...... 2 Proposed Project Characteristics ...... 2 Entitlements and Required Approvals ...... 13 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: ...... 15 Determination: ...... 16 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: ...... 17 Report Preparers ...... 91 APPENDICES

A California Emissions Estimator Model Results B List of Species Observed On Site C Plant Species with Potential to Occur D Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur E Historic and Cultural Resources Evaluations F Geotechnical Evaluation G Sight Distance Evaluation FIGURES

1 Regional Map ...... 5 2 Vicinity Map ...... 7 3 Site Plan ...... 9 4 Water Line Plan ...... 11 5 CNDDB Map ...... 31 6 Biological Resources Map ...... 35 TABLES

1 Thresholds of Significance ...... 21 2 Average Daily Unmitigated Construction Emissions ...... 24 3 Daily Unmitigated Operational Emissions ...... 26 4 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types ...... 33 5 Special-Status Plant Species ...... 38 6 Special-Status Wildlife Species ...... 39 7 Estimated Annual Unmitigated Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 56 8 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels and Usage Factors ...... 69 9 Short-Term Sound Level Measurements and Traffic Counts ...... 70

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page iii 10 Vibration Velocities for Typical Construction Equipment ...... 72 11 Average Daily Traffic Volume ...... 79 12 Trip Generation Summary ...... 80 13 Trip Generation Summary for Construction Traffic ...... 81

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page iv ACRONYMS

AB Assembly Bill ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ADT average daily traffic AFY acre-feet per year APE area of potential affect BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BMP best management practice CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board CBC California Building Code CCAP Climate Change Action Plan CCR California Code of Regulations CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CH4 methane CMA Congestion Management Agency CMP Congestion Management Program CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNPS California Native Plant Society CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide dBA A-weighted decibel EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency GHG greenhouse gas GIS geographic information system GWP Global Warming Potential IPaC Information, Planning and Conservation IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers LOS level of service mph miles per hour MRZ Mineral Resource Zone MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System MT CO2E metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent N2O nitrous oxide NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NMWD North Marin Water District NOx oxides of nitrogen NUSD Novato Unified School District NWIC North West Information Center O3 ozone OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment PM2.5 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page v PM10 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less ROG reactive organic gas RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SCWA Sonoma County Water Agency SFBAAB San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin SO2 sulfur dioxide SSC Species of Special Concern SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan TAC toxic air contaminant TAM Transportation Authority of Marin USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service VHFHZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page vi PROJECT LOCATION

The proposed project site is located in a low density residential area approximately 3.5 miles east of downtown Novato, 1.3 miles northeast of the Hwy 37 Petaluma River bridge, and 0.84 mile from the Petaluma River. The site consists of Assessor’s Parcel Number 143-272-07 and is located at the end of Misty Road in Novato, California (Figure 1, Regional Map; Figure 2, Vicinity Map). The proposed project site is surrounded by single-family residential development and is within the existing Bahia Subdivision. The project is located on an undeveloped hillside which was previously graded with individual building pads. Sixteen and 8/10th percent (16.8%) of the parcel is in the 0-10% slope range, 15.3% in the 10-25% range and 67.9% is greater than 25% slope. The project site is accessible through an existing roadway network. Access to the Bahia Subdivision and to the proposed nine lots would be through Atherton Avenue onto Bugeia Lane to Bahia Drive and Topaz Drive. The subdivision would also be served from an extension of Misty Road. The closest highways to the proposed project site are U.S. Route 101 and Highway 37. There are currently no trails with viewshed opportunities of the proposed project site. The closest schools are Olive Elementary School, which is approximately 3.2 miles from the proposed site, and Marin Oaks High School, which is approximately 4.5 miles from the proposed project site.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed project would include the development of nine single-family homes on a vacant 8.7-acre hillside parcel which would begin low on the hillside and rise upward above Topaz Drive and sit below the upper ridgelines of this hillside. The homes would be one or two stories, range from 2,730 to 3,569 square feet, and would be between 21 feet and 27 feet, 2 inches in height. The nine lot areas range from 0.32 acre to 3.59 acre. Four different floor plans would be constructed. Houses would have dedicated two- and three-car garages attached to the units. Additional parking spots would be available along the southern side of Misty Road (Figure 3, Site Plan). The project would include the construction of necessary infrastructure improvements to serve the proposed subdivision, including installation of water and sewer lines, tree removal, the extension of Misty Road including additional sidewalk, drainage improvements, followed by the completion of all required site improvements on individual lots and the construction of the nine residences. There would also be installation of individual lot landscaping on the northern side of the street between the sidewalk and the street, and six to 14-foot wide landscape strips on the southern side of the street. No sidewalks are proposed for the southern side of the street.

SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING

 North – Low Density Residential/Rush Creek Open Space /Black John Slough  Northwest – Marin County Airport-Gnoss Field  South – Low Density Residential/ Community Facilities, Public Utilities, and Civic Uses  Southeast – Stone Tree Golf Club  East – Low Density Residential/ Petaluma River  West – Low Density Residential/ Open Space/ Valley Memorial Park

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 1 BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AND PLANS

The proposed project falls under the influence of the following City of Novato planning documents and policies:

 The City of Novato General Plan (1996)  The City of Novato Municipal Code

PROPOSED PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS

Design

Five homes would be placed on the northern side of Misty Road and four homes would be placed on the southern side. Based on the project plans submitted to the proposed houses would be Contemporary Farmhouse and Neo-Bungalow style with asphalt shingle roofs, front porches, and second story balconies. The styles for each home would differ in appearance and massing. The Design Review staff has noted that the overall appearance of the homes is fitting with the surrounding Bahia neighborhood and rural setting, which is comprised of a variety of architectural styles.

With a maximum 2:1 slope paralleling side property lines, each home would be vertically separated by at least 10 feet in elevation. The lowest sitting home would be at 40 feet in elevation and the highest two homes at 95 feet in elevation. The homes on lots 1-3, 8, and 9 would adhere to a 20 foot front yard setback, homes on lots 4-7 would adhere to a 15 foot setback due to their placement on the cul-de-sac. All homes would have a minimum 5ft east/10 west side yard and 20 foot rear yard setbacks.

Planned project lighting would consist of exterior coach lights on each home and 2 LED streetlights along Misty Road.

Utilities

All utilities serving the project would be installed underground. The Water service to the subdivision would be provided by North Marin Water District (NMWD), Novato Sanitary District would provide sewage disposal, and PG&E services the area with gas and electricity. MCE Clean Energy would also be available to provide electricity to the proposed project site.

To provide water service to the nine lots, the NMWD would require that a new water line be installed from Laguna Vista Drive downhill through Misty Road to Topaz Drive. This new waterline would connect two existing systems creating an emergency system backup for the main line on Topaz Drive while reducing the energy it would take to serve the proposed homes by pumping water up to Misty Road (Figure 4, Water Line Plan). The project would include a request from the City of Novato to allow a water line to extend from Laguna Vista Drive to the project site through a water line easement over City property.

The Novato Fire District would be responsible for fire protection services for the proposed project site and would require an access easement off of Misty Road to provide access to the open space behind the homes for the purpose of fire safety and brush removal. Access to the

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 2 easement would be controlled via curb cuts and a gate to allow for 4-wheel drive maintenance vehicle access. The location of this access is proposed at the end of Misty Road between lots 5 and 6 where a 12 foot easement is proposed for access and water utilities.

Stormwater treatment plans have been developed in a bioretention area for the overall project area.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 3 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 4 Napa County

Angwin Windsor Deer Larkfield- 116? Park Wikiup St. Forestville Helena Santa Rosa Occidental Napa County 128? South South Sonoma County Santa Rosa Santa ?29 Rosa

Bodega Rohnert ?12 Park Bay 121? Vacaville Napa County Napa Solano County ¤£101 ? Fairfield Petaluma 221 Sonoma County

Marin County Project Site American ?1 ?37 Canyon Novato ^ Inverness Vallejo

780 ¨¦§ Benicia Lucas Valley- Lagunitas-Forest Rodeo Marinwood West Knolls Vine Pittsburg Hercules San ?4 Hill Pinole Rafael Martinez 80 Concord ¨¦§ Pleasant Richmond Hill Mill Valley 131? 123? Walnut Lafayette Creek Marin Berkeley Orinda Alamo County ?24 ?13 Moraga ¨¦§680 Oakland Town Danville San Alameda ? Francisco 185 San 580 Ramon San Francisco County ?61 ¨¦§ San Mateo County San Castro Leandro Valley ?35 South San ¨¦§880 Fairview Francisco San Bruno Hayward n 0 5 10 238 Pacifica ?92 ¨¦§ Miles Copyright:© 2014Union Esri City Burlingame FIGURE 1 Regional Map

IS/MND for the Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision Z:\Templates\Arcmap\Current\Vicinity\8x11_Vicinty_Portrait.mxd INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 6 ?37

n 0 1,000 2,000 Feet Study Area

SOURCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Series Novato Quadrangle FIGURE 2 Vicinity Map

IS/MND for the Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision Date: 8/2/2017 - Last savedby: rstrobridge - Path: Z:\Projects\j1023301\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\ISMND\Figure_2 Vicinity.mxd

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 8 n 0 25 50 Feet

SOURCE: Bing Maps (Accessed in 2017), Carlson, Barbee & Gibson Inc. (2017) FIGURE 3 Site Plan

IS/MND for the Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision Date:7/14/2017 - Last saved by: rstrobridge - Path:Z:\Projects\j1023301\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\ISMND\Figure_3 Site Plan.mxd

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 10 Dr hia Ba

Topaz Dr

Malobar Dr

Misty Rd

e Av La ale gu nd na A Vi st Tik a D i r Rd

Study Area n 0 100 200 Feet Conceptual Water Line

SOURCE: Bing Maps (Accessed in 2017) FIGURE 4 Water Line Plan

IS/MND for the Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision Date:7/14/2017 - Last saved by: rstrobridge - Path:Z:\Projects\j1023301\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\ISMND\Figure_4 Water Line Plan.mxd

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 12

Landscaping Design and Fencing

The Preliminary Landscape Plan includes street trees and bio retention areas proposed for the project site. The landscaping plan also shows the proposed fence lines for each property. Fencing around the homes would be 6 feet in height. A galvanized wire mesh wood view fence in the rear yards would afford views onto the slopes behind the homes, 6 foot high wood fencing would be placed in the side yards, and 6 foot high wood fencing inclusive of one foot of lattice would separate the front yard space from the more private side and rear yard areas.

Selected trees and shrubs are a mix of drought tolerant and low maintenance landscaping. Trees would be spaced out along Misty Road including accent trees placed in front of the entrances of each home. On the north side of the street landscaping would be installed in a 4 foot strip between the sidewalk and street. On the south side of the street there would be no sidewalk and landscaping would come right up to the street. Various brush, shrubs, and ground cover would be installed on slopes in-between lots and within the front yards of each home. A community mailbox would be placed at the bottom of the street extension leading up to the neighborhood. The community mail box would reduce the need for a postal delivery up to every house.

Circulation, Access, and Parking

The required parking for the homes would be provided within individual two to three-car garages that would be accessed by driveways directly off of the planned Misty Road. The Misty Road extension would include a sidewalk on the north side of the street which would be separated from the street by a 4 foot wide planting strip. Access to the Bahia Subdivision and to the proposed nine lots would be through Atherton Avenue onto Bugeia Lane to Bahia Drive and Topaz Drive. The subdivision would also be served from an extension of Misty Road. Houses would have dedicated two- and three-car garages attached to the units. Additional parking spots would be available along the southern side of Misty Road (Figure 3).

ENTITLEMENTS AND REQUIRED APPROVALS

 Master Plan: Request to approve a Master Plan to establish allowable land uses and allowable density and intensity of development. The Master Plan will also establish the suitability of the property for the proposed development and the capacity of existing public facilities and systems to support the proposed development.  Precise Development Plan: Request to approve a Precise Development Plan to establish site planning, home designs and development standards such as setback requirements, height limits parking requirements, and landscaping. The final design plans approved for the Bahia Heights project will be treated as a component of the Precise Development Plan.  Request to Vacate Non-Access Easement: Request the removal of the 1 foot non-access easement in benefit of the City of Novato located at the end of Misty Road that currently blocks legal access to the site.  Tentative Subdivision Map: A subdivision will be necessary to facilitate the sales of the individual lots and homes as approved through the Precise Development Plan process.  Design Review: Request to obtain a recommendation from the Design Review Commission regarding the project’s site design, architecture, and landscaping. A formal Design Review recommendation is required for new development projects proposed on PD zoned parcels.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 13

 Planning Commission and City Council Approval.  Design exemption from City standards to allow a narrower street width and sidewalk on one side of the street.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 14

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Air Quality Resources Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Hazards and Hazardous Hydrology/Water Quality Emissions Materials Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population / Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/ Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance Tribal Cultural None with Mitigation Resources

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 15

DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature: Date:

Printed For: Name:

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 16

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than I. AESTHETICS Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a

scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock

outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Analysis a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

No Impact. The City of Novato General Plan Update (2035) identifies ridgelines and other scenic resources within the City of Novato’s planning area, including hillsides, Bay Plains, and Bay shorelines.1 Mount Burdell and Big Rock Ridge are examples of the significant scenic vistas in the City of Novato. The project site itself is not identified as a scenic resource, and is not visible from nearby ridgelines or other scenic vistas. Nor will the new homes be visible from any public venues, trails or properties. The proposed subdivision is located below the upper ridgelines of this hillside and rises westward from above Topaz Drive. The project would have no impact on the expansive views of the Bay Plains to the east and south, or the Bay Shoreline. Therefore, the project would have no impact on a scenic vista. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

No Impact. There are no officially designated state scenic highways in the vicinity of the project site. The project site is east of U.S. Highway 101, an Eligible State Scenic Highway, and within close proximity of Highway 37, an Unconstructed State Highway Eligible for Scenic

1 City of Novato. 2016. City of Novato General Plan 2035, Public Review Draft. August 2016. http://novato.org/government/community-development/general-plan-update.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 17

Designation.2 The project site is not visible from these highways, and would, therefore, not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway. No impact would occur. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

Less than Significant Impact. The visual character of the project site would substantially change with development of nine single-family homes on a vacant 8.7-acre hillside parcel. Placement of homes would begin low on the hillside and rise upward above Topaz Drive and sit below the upper ridgelines of this hillside. The homes would be one or two stories, range from 2,730 to 3,569 square feet, and would be between 21 feet and 27 feet, 2 inches in height. The nine lot areas range from 0.32 acre to 3.59 acre. Four different floor plans would be constructed, including both one-story and two- story designs. However, it would not substantially degrade the existing visual character. The project site is not currently landscaped, although it does have a mix of native and a few ornamental trees on the site, mainly blue oaks. Plans for the proposed development were to remain sensitive to and compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. Homes would be larger than some of the nearby residences, but all homes would have a minimum 5 ft. east/10 west side yard and 20 foot rear yard setbacks. The Contemporary Farmhouse and Neo-Bungalow style would also give the facility a residential appearance and a variety of landscaped outdoor spaces would create a streetscape appearance. Planned selected trees and shrubs are a mix of drought tolerant and low maintenance landscaping. Trees would be spaced out along Misty Road including accent trees placed in front of the entrances of each home. On the north side of the street landscaping would be installed in a 4-foot strip between the sidewalk and street. On the south side of the street there would be no sidewalk and landscaping would come right up to the street. Various brush, shrubs, and ground cover would be installed on slopes in-between lots and within the front yards of each home. Given these details, the proposed project would not be substantially different from vegetation currently on the site and would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings, and the impact would be less than significant. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Less than Significant Impact. The project site is currently undeveloped with limited on-site lighting. The project would increase the amount of lighting to provide for the comfort, safety, and security of residents and visitors. This would include new sources of light to illuminate the interior and exterior of the buildings and Misty Road. Project approvals will include requirements that site lighting would be directed and installed to prevent off-site glare. Because new home heights are between 21 and 27 feet and will be built below the ridge line into the hillside, the project will not create sun shadow or glare problems. Street light requirements have been implemented into proposed project plans. Planned project lighting would consist of exterior coach lights on each home and two LED streetlights along Misty Road. The new LED lights will be between 12’ and 15’ tall with 70W, 120V, and lantern post tops. Given these details, the proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, and the impact would be less than significant.

2 Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2011. “California Scenic Highway Mapping System: Marin County.” September 7, 2011.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 18

Less Than II. AGRICULTURE AND Potentially Significant With Less Than FORESTRY RESOURCES Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of

Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

Analysis a–e) No Impact. The California Department of Conservation, Important Farmland Map for Marin County indicates that there is no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. The project site is currently zoned as Planned Development, and is not subject to any Williamson Act contracts.3 The proposed project, therefore, would not conflict with any existing zoning for agricultural use. Likewise, there are no areas identified or designated in the City Novato’s General Plan or zoning map as forest or timber land on or near the project site.4,5 The proposed use of the site

3 City of Novato. 2001. City of Novato Zoning Map. Adopted April 24, 2001. http://novato.org/ home/showdocument?id=11991. 4 City of Novato. 2016. City of Novato General Plan 2035, Public Review Draft. August 2016. http://novato.org/government/community-development/general-plan-update.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 19

as nine single-family homes would not involve any changes to the environment that would otherwise result in the conversion of farmland or forest land to other uses, and no impact would occur.

Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than III. AIR QUALITY Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation

of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal

or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial

pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a

substantial number of people?

Analysis

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted updated CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, including new thresholds of significance in June 2010, and revised them in May 2011. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines advise lead agencies on how to evaluate potential air quality impacts, including establishing quantitative and qualitative thresholds of significance. The BAAQMD resolutions adopting and revising the significance thresholds in 2011 were set aside by a judicial writ of mandate on March 5, 2012. In May of 2012, BAAQMD updated its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to continue to provide direction on recommended analysis methodologies, but without recommended quantitative significance

5 City of Novato. 1996. City of Novato General Plan.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 20

thresholds.6 On August 13, 2013, the First District Court of Appeal ordered the trial court to reverse the judgment and upheld the BAAQMD’s CEQA thresholds. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines were recently re-released in May 2017 and include the same thresholds as in the 2010 and 2011 Guidelines for criteria air pollutants, toxic air contaminants (TACs), and greenhouse gases (GHGs).7 The Guidelines also address the December 2015 Supreme Court’s opinion (California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 369). The BAAQMD significance thresholds are summarized in Table 1.

In general, the BAAQMD significance thresholds for ozone (O3) precursors (reactive organic gases [ROG] and oxides of nitrogen [NOx]), particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10), particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5), and carbon monoxide (CO) address the first three air quality significance criteria. According to the BAAQMD, these thresholds are intended to maintain ambient air quality concentrations of these criteria air pollutants below state and federal standards and to prevent a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional nonattainment with ambient air quality standards. The TAC thresholds (cancer and noncancer risks) and local CO thresholds address the fourth significance criterion, and the BAAQMD odors threshold addresses the fifth significance criterion.

Table 1 Thresholds of Significance

Construction Thresholds Operational Thresholds Average Daily Emissions Average Daily Emissions Maximum Annual Emissions Pollutant (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (tons/year) ROG 54 54 10

NOx 54 54 10

PM10 82 (exhaust-only) 82 15

PM2.5 54 (exhaust-only) 54 10

PM10/PM2.5 (fugitive dust) Best Management Practices None Local CO None 9.0 ppm (8-hour average, 20.0 ppm (1-hour average) Risks and Hazards (Individual Compliance with Qualified Community Risk Reduction Plan Project) or Increased cancer risk of >10.0 in a million Increased noncancer risk of >1.0 Hazard Index (Chronic or Acute) Ambient PM2.5 increase >0.3 μg/m3 annual average Zone of Influence: 1,000-foot radius from property line of source or receptor Risks and Hazards Compliance with Qualified Community Risk Reduction Plan (Cumulative) or

6 BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 2012. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Updated May 2012. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning% 20and%20Research/CEQA/BAAQMD%20CEQA%20Guidelines_Final_May%202012.ashx?la=en. 7 BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Updated May 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and- research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 21

Table 1 Thresholds of Significance

Construction Thresholds Operational Thresholds Average Daily Emissions Average Daily Emissions Maximum Annual Emissions Pollutant (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (tons/year) Cancer risk of >100 in a million (from all local sources) Noncancer risk of >10.0 Hazard Index (chronic, from all local sources) Ambient PM2.5 >0.8 μg/m3 annual average (from all local sources) Zone of Influence: 1,000-foot radius from property line of source or receptor Accidental Release of Acutely None Storage or use of acutely hazardous material located near Hazardous Air Pollutants receptors or new receptors located near stored or used acutely hazardous materials considered significant Odors None Five confirmed complaints to BAAQMD per year averaged over 3 years Source: BAAQMD 20178 lbs/day = pounds per day; tons/year = tons per year; ppm = parts per million; g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less; CO = carbon monoxide a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

Less than Significant Impact. An area is designated as “in attainment” when it is in compliance with the federal and/or state standards. These standards are set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or California Air Resources Board (CARB) for the maximum level of a given air pollutant that can exist in the outdoor air without unacceptable effects on human health or public welfare with a margin of safety. The project site is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), which is designated non-attainment for the federal 8- hour O3 and 24-hour PM2.5 standards. The area is in attainment or unclassified for all other federal standards. The area is designated non-attainment for state standards for 1-hour and 8- hour O3, 24-hour PM10, annual PM10, and annual PM2.5.

On April 19, 2017, the BAAQMD adopted the Spare the Air: Cool The Climate Final 2017 Clean Air Plan.9 The 2017 Clean Air Plan provides a regional strategy to protect public health and the climate. The BAAQMD 2017 Guidelines identify a three-step methodology for determining a project’s consistency with the current Clean Air Plan. If the responses to these three questions can be concluded in the affirmative, and those conclusions are supported by substantial evidence, then the BAAQMD considers the project to be consistent with air quality plans prepared for the Bay Area.

8 BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Updated May 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and- research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. 9 BAAQMD. 2017. Spare the Air: Cool the Climate - Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. April 19, 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-air- plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 22

The first question to be assessed in this methodology is “does the project support the goals of the Air Quality Plan” (currently the 2017 Clean Air Plan)? The BAAQMD-recommended measure for determining project support for these goals is consistency with BAAQMD thresholds of significance. If a project would not result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts, after the application of all feasible mitigation measures, the project would be consistent with the goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan. As indicated in the following discussion with regard to air quality impact questions b) and c), the project would result in less than significant short-term construction and long-term operational emissions. Therefore, the project would be considered to support the primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan and, therefore, consistent with the current Clean Air Plan.

The second question to be assessed in this consistency methodology is “does the project include applicable control measures from the Clean Air Plan?” The 2017 Clean Air Plan contains 85 control measures aimed at reducing air pollution in the Bay Area. Projects that incorporate all feasible air quality plan control measures are considered to be consistent with the Clean Air Plan. The control strategies of the 2017 Clean Air Plan include measures in the categories of stationary sources, the transportation sector, the buildings sector, the energy sector, the agriculture sector, natural and working lands, the waste sector, the water sector, and super- greenhouse-gas pollutant measures. Depending on the control measure, the tools for implementation include leveraging the BAAQMD rules and permitting authority, regional coordination and funding, working with local governments to facilitate best policies in building codes, outreach and education, and advocacy strategies. The proposed project is required to comply with all applicable BAAQMD rules and would incorporate energy efficiency and green building measures in compliance with state standards and/or local building codes. These regulations and codes are designed with considerable overlap, thus the project would include applicable control measures from the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

The third question to be assessed in this consistency methodology is “does the project disrupt or hinder implementation of any control measures from the Clean Air Plan?” Examples of how a project may cause the disruption or delay of control measures include a project that precludes an extension of a transit line or bike path, or proposes excessive parking beyond parking requirements. Since development of the single family residences under the project would not include physical changes that could create any barriers or impediments to planned or future improvements to transit or bicycle facilities in the area, the proposed project would not hinder implementation of Clean Air Plan control measures.

In summary, the responses to all three of the questions with regard to Clean Air Plan consistency are affirmative and the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the current Clean Air Plan. This is a less than significant impact. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2016.3.1 was used to estimate emissions from construction and operation of the proposed project. CalEEMod is a statewide computer model developed in cooperation with air districts throughout the state to quantify criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions associated with the construction and operational activities from a variety of land use projects, such as residential, commercial, and industrial facilities. CalEEMod input parameters,

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 23

including the proposed project land use type and size, construction schedule, and soils export quantity were based on information provided by the project applicant.

Construction. The proposed project would consist of the development of nine single-family homes (approximately 27,467-square-feet total) on 8.7-acres. Construction is anticipated to start in May 2018 and finish in September 2019.

Standard construction methods would be employed for building construction. Sources of emissions would include: off-road construction equipment exhaust, on-road vehicles exhaust and entrained road dust (i.e., material delivery trucks, haul trucks, and worker vehicles), fugitive dust associated with site preparation and grading activities, and ROG off-gassing from paving and architectural coating activities. Detailed assumptions associated with project construction are included in Appendix A.

Average daily emissions were computed by dividing the total construction emissions by the number of active construction days, which were then compared to the BAAQMD construction thresholds of significance. Table 2 shows average daily construction emissions of O3 precursors 10 (ROG and NOx), PM10 exhaust, and PM2.5 exhaust during project construction.

Table 2 Average Daily Unmitigated Construction Emissions

ROG NOx PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Exhaust Year Pounds per Day 2018-2019 Construction 3.6 24.2 1.4 1.3 BAAQMD Construction Thresholds 54 54 82 54 Exceed Threshold? No No No No

Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter The values shown are average daily emissions based on total overall construction emissions divided by 279 active work days. See Appendix A for complete results.

As shown in Table 2, construction of the proposed project would not exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds. Criteria air pollutant emissions during construction would be less than significant. Although the BAAQMD does not have a quantitative significance threshold for fugitive dust, the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines recommend that projects determine the significance for fugitive dust through application of best management practices (BMPs). These BMPs are incorporated below in Mitigation Measure AIR-1, which would ensure potential dust impacts would be less than significant, as well as reduce engine exhaust emissions.

10 Fuel combustion during construction and operations would also result in the generation of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and CO. These values are included in Appendix A. However, since the SFBAAB is in attainment of these pollutants, the BAAQMD has not established a quantitative mass-significance threshold for comparison and are not included in the project-generated emissions tables in this document. Notably, the BAAQMD does have screening criteria for operational localized CO, which are discussed in more detail below.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 24

Mitigation Measure AIR-1: The following emissions control measures shall be implemented during project construction. The City of Novato shall verify compliance with items 1 and 9 (below) prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits. Items 2 through 8 (inclusive) shall be included as notes on construction plans and subject to verification through field inspections.

1. An inventory of construction equipment and a schedule for equipment use shall be submitted to the City of Novato before issuance of grading permits. The inventory shall demonstrate that the off-road-vehicle fleet used for project construction meets the following requirements: a. Through construction phasing and equipment scheduling, the project contractor shall limit equipment operation to a maximum of 6 hours per day for each piece of active equipment. b. All rubber-tired dozers, tractors, loaders, and backhoes used at the site shall be powered by Tier 3 engines and shall have Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters. c. All excavators and concrete/industrial saws used at the site shall be powered by Tier 2 engines and shall have Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters. 2. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 3. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off site shall be covered. 4. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. 5. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. 6. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. 7. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California Airborne Toxics Control Measure Title 13, Section 2485, of the California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 8. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition before operation. 9. The construction contractor shall post a publicly visible sign at the project site with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of Novato regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s phone number shall be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Operations. Operation of the project would generate criteria pollutant (including ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5) emissions from mobile sources (vehicular traffic), area sources (consumer products, architectural coatings, landscaping equipment), and energy sources (natural gas appliances, space and water heating). CalEEMod was used to estimate daily emissions from the operational sources. To estimate project-generated mobile source emissions, the CalEEMod default trip rate for single-family homes was used. Table 3 summarizes the daily area, energy,

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 25

and mobile emissions of criteria pollutants that would be generated by project development and compares the emissions to BAAQMD operational thresholds.

Table 3 Daily Unmitigated Operational Emissions

ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 Source Pounds per Day Area 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 Energy 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Mobile 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.1 Total 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.1 BAAQMD Operational Thresholds 54 54 82 54 Exceed Threshold? No No No No

Note: ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter The values shown are the maximum summer or winter daily emissions results from CalEEMod. Total emissions may not sum exactly due to rounding. See Appendix A for complete results.

As indicated in Table 3, project-related operational emissions of ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds during operations, and thus, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact in relation to regional operational emissions.

In regards to localized CO concentrations, according to the BAAQMD thresholds, a project would result in a less-than-significant impact if the following screening criteria are met:

1. The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans. 2. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. 3. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway).

The change in project uses would generate minimal new traffic trips and given these low numbers would comply with the BAAQMD localized CO screening criteria. Accordingly, project-related traffic would not exceed CO standards and therefore, no further analysis was conducted for CO impacts. As described in III c) below, this CO emissions impact would be considered less than significant on a project-level and cumulative basis. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

Less than Significant Impact. Past, present, and future development projects may contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. Per BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines, by its nature air pollution is largely a cumulative impact; no single project is sufficient in size to, by

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 26

itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be considered cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore, if the proposed project’s emissions are below the BAAQMD thresholds or screening criteria, then the proposed project’s cumulative impact would be less than significant.

As described in criterion “b” above, criteria pollutant emissions generated by short-term construction and long-term operations of the project would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds. Thus, the project would have a less than significant cumulative impact in relation to regional emissions. In addition, project-related traffic would not exceed the BAAQMD CO screening criteria and would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact in relation to localized CO. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

Less than Significant Impact. The BAAQMD has adopted project and cumulative thresholds for three risk-related air quality indicators for sensitive receptors: cancer risks, noncancer health effects, and increases in ambient air concentrations of PM2.5. These impacts are addressed on a localized basis rather than a regional basis and are specific to the sensitive receptors identified for the project. Sensitive receptors are groups of individuals, including children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, that may be more susceptible to health risks due to chemical exposure, and sensitive-receptor population groups are likely to be located at hospitals, medical clinics, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, residences, and retirement homes. The proposed project site is surrounded by single-family residential development and is within the existing Bahia Subdivision. The project is located on an undeveloped hillside which was previously graded with individual building pads.

“Incremental cancer risk” is the net increased likelihood that a person continuously exposed to concentrations of TACs resulting from a project over a 9-, 30-, and 70-year exposure period would contract cancer based on the use of standard Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) risk-assessment methodology.11 In addition, some TACs have non- carcinogenic effects. TACs that would potentially be emitted during construction activities would be diesel particulate matter, emitted from heavy-duty construction equipment and heavy-duty trucks. Heavy-duty construction equipment and diesel trucks are subject to CARB air toxic control measures to reduce diesel particulate matter emissions. According to the OEHHA, health risk assessments, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic emissions, should be based on a 30-year exposure period for the maximally exposed individual resident; however, such assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the project).12 Thus, the duration of proposed construction activities would only constitute a small percentage of the total 30-year exposure period. Notably, implementation of

11 OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spot Program – Risk Assessment Guidelines – Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. February 2015. http://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 12 Ibid.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 27

Mitigation Measure AIR-1 (described above) would minimize project-generated fugitive dust and exhaust (criteria pollutants and TACs).

Regarding operations, the proposed project would not result in stationary sources that would emit air pollutants or TACs.

In summary, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or health risk during construction or operations, and this impact would be less than significant on a project level and cumulative basis. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

No Impact. BAAQMD has identified typical sources of odor in the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines,13 a few examples of which include manufacturing plants, rendering plants, coffee roasters, wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, and solid waste transfer stations. While sources that generate objectionable odors must comply with air quality regulations, the public’s sensitivity to locally produced odors often exceeds regulatory thresholds. The proposed project would not include uses that have been identified by BAAQMD as potential sources of objectionable odors. There would be no impact related to potential odors.

Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional

plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

13 BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Updated May 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and- research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 28

Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with

established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological

resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

Methodology

Special-status biological resources present or potentially present on the project site were identified through a literature search using the following sources: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information, Planning and Conservation (IPaC) Trust Resource Report14; the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (Figure 5, CNDDB Map)15; and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) online Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants.16 Searches were completed for the

14 USFWS. 2017. “Critical Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Species.” Critical Habitat Portal Online Mapper. http://ecos.fws.gov/crithab/. 15 CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2017. California Natural Diversity Database. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB. 16 CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2017. “Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants” (online edition, v8-02). Sacramento, California: California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Program. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 29

following U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute quadrangles: Novato, Petaluma, Petaluma River, Sears Point, Petaluma Point, San Quentin, San Rafael, Bolinas, and San Geronimo.

For this review, special-status species are those that are (1) listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act as threatened or endangered; (2) listed or candidates for listing under the California Endangered Species Act as threatened or endangered; (3) a state fully protected species; (4) a CDFW Species of Special Concern; or (5) a species listed on the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants with a California Rare Plant Rank of 1 or 2.

Special-status vegetation communities are those communities identified as high priority for inventory in the List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations by a state rarity ranking of S1, S2, or S3.17

Additionally, the Arborist’s Preliminary Report – Tree Removal Plan for Alternative 1, prepared by Becky Duckles, Consulting Arborist & Landscape Advisor,18 was reviewed in the course of this review.

Latin and common names for plant species with a California Rare Plant Rank follow the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants.19 For plant species without a California Rare Plant Rank, Latin names follow the Jepson Interchange List of Currently Accepted Names of Native and Naturalized Plants of California20 and common names follow the United States Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service Plants Database.21 Natural vegetation communities were mapped in the field using the Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd Edition22 and the List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations.23

17 CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2010. “List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations. Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program.” https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/ Data/VegCAMP/ Natural-Communities/List. 18 Duckles, B. 2016. Arborist’s Preliminary Report – Tree removal plan – alternate 1. Prepared for the City of Novato, Bahia Heights Project. October 28, 2016. 19 CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2017. “Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants” (online edition, v8-02). Sacramento, California: California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Program. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org. 20 Jepson Flora Project (eds.) 2017. Jepson eFlora, http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/. 21 United States Department of Agriculture, 2017. “Natural Resources Conservation Service- Plant Database.” https://www.plants.usda.gov/checklist.html. 22 Sawyer et al. 2009. “CNPS List of Vegetation Types Described in A Manual of California Vegetation.” http://www.cnps.org/cnps/vegetation/pdf/mcv2_veglist_sn_200911.pdf 23 CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2010. “List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations. Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program.” https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/ Data/VegCAMP/ Natural-Communities/List

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 30 Study Area 1 Mile CNDDB Buffer CNDDB Species California Ridgway's rail California black rail San Pablo song sparrow Salt marsh harvest mouse Salt marsh common yellowthroat n 0 0.25 0.5 Miles Western pond turtle

SOURCE: USDA NAIP Imagery (2016); CDFW CNDDB FIGURE 5 CNDDB Map

IS/MND for the Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision Date: 7/26/2017 - Last saved by: rstrobridge - Path: Z:\Projects\j1023301\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\ISMND\Figure_5 CNDDB.mxd

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 32

Setting/Existing Conditions

Dudek biologists conducted a reconnaissance-level site visit on July 6, 2017 to document existing conditions, habitat and land cover types, and potential for special-status species occurrence. The site visit including walking meandering transects over 100% of the approximately 9.49 acre proposed project area, (including the 8.7-acre project site and the .79- acre proposed water pipeline footprint including 50-foot to either side of the pipeline footprint) (study area; Figure 6, Biological Resources Map). All plant and animal species observed during the site visit were recorded, and then identified to a taxonomic level sufficient to determine rarity, included as Appendix B).

Based on the background research and site visit, described above, the study area supports seven land cover or habitat types (refer to Figure 6 and Table 4).

Table 4 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types

Macrogroup Scientific Name Acres Terrestrial MG009: California Forest and Woodland Quercus douglasii Woodland Alliance (Blue oak woodland) 1.04 Querus doulgasii – Quercus agrifolia Woodland Association 1.71 (Mixed oak woodland) Quercus agrifolia Woodland Association (Coast live oak 0.46 Woodland) Quercus agrifolia – Umbellularia californica Woodland 1.62 Association (Coast live oak – California Bay Woodland) MG045: California Annual and Perennial Avena (barbata, fatua) Herbaceous Semi-Natural Alliance (Wild 4.15 Grassland Oats Grasslands) Stipa pulchra Herbaceous Alliance (Purple needle grass 0.47 grassland) Total 9.45 Aquatic Wetlands Seasonal Wetland 0.04 Total 0.04 Source: Sawyer et al. 200924; CDFW 201025

Blue Oak Woodland. Blue oak woodland is characterized by a dominance (greater than 50% relative cover) of blue oak (Quercus douglasii) in the tree canopy.26 At the project site, blue oak

24 Sawyer et al. 2009. “CNPS List of Vegetation Types Described in A Manual of California Vegetation.” http://www.cnps.org/cnps/vegetation/pdf/mcv2_veglist_sn_200911.pdf. 25 CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2010. “List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations. Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program.” https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/ Data/VegCAMP/ Natural-Communities/List. 26 Sawyer et al. 2009. “CNPS List of Vegetation Types Described in A Manual of California Vegetation.” http://www.cnps.org/cnps/vegetation/pdf/mcv2_veglist_sn_200911.pdf.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 33

woodland occurs along the northern edge, and intergrades with coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) at the northwestern and western project boundary. The understory of this habitat type was generally open, with an herbaceous layer consisting of species found in the wild oats grassland, described in the following text.

Mixed Oak Woodland. Mixed oak woodland consists of an alliance of blue oak and coast live oak.27 The mixed oak woodland on site occurs where the blue oak woodland and coast live oak woodland integrated to form a tree canopy co-dominated by the two oak species. The mixed oak woodland on site had a more developed shrub layer that included poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), pink honeysuckle (Lonicera hispidula), sticky monkeyflower (Mimulus aurantiacus), and small madrone trees (Arbutus menziesii). Several small leather oaks (Quercus durata) are present within the margins of this habitat where it meets grassland. The herbaceous understory consists of species found in the wild oats grassland, described in the following text, with the exception of an increased cover of blue wild rye (Elymus glaucus).

Coast Live Oak Woodland. Coast live oak woodland is characterized by a dominance (greater than 50% relative cover) of coast live oak in the tree canopy.28 At the project site, coast live oak woodland occurs in the very western portion, adjacent to a small drainage that channels hillside runoff from the project site southwest through the residential areas. The understory of this habitat type was generally open, with few shrubs, and an herbaceous layer consisting of species found in the wild oats grassland, as described in the following text.

Coast Live Oak – California Bay Woodland. Coast live oak and California bay (Umbellularia californica) woodland is an alliance between the two woodland types where the two tree species are co-dominant in the tree canopy.29 On site, the coast live oak – California bay woodland occurs along the central drainage that runs from west to east. The understory of this habitat type is influenced by the intermittent flow of the stream channel. Shrubs present include poison oak and pink honeysuckle. The herb layer was similar to the wild oats grassland and also contained the following species: western brackenfern (Pteridium aquilinum), California bedstaw (Gallium californicum ssp. flaccidum), Field hedge parsley (Torilis arvensis), and bugle hedgenettle (Stachys ajugoides).

Wild Oats Grassland. The primary habitat type in the project site is wild oat grassland, also known as California annual grassland. Wild oats grassland is characterized by 50% or greater cover in the herbaceous layer.30 On site, this habitat type is dominated by wild oats (Avena barbata) and contains a mix of native and non-native grasses and forbs including: bromes (Bromus hordeaceus and B. diandrus), doveweed (Croton seteger), narrowleaf cottonrose (Logfia gallica), Chilean bird’s-foot trefoil (Acmspon wrangelianus), and rat-tail fescue (Festuca myuros). This habitat type has a state rarity rank of S3, meaning this habitat is imperiled in California.

27 Ibid. 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid. 30 Ibid.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 34 Dr hia Ba

Topaz Dr

Malobar Dr

Misty Rd

e Av ale nd La A gu n Ti a V ki ist Study Area Rd a D r Aquatic Land Cover Types Wetland Ephemeral Stream Pipe Vegetation Community/Land Cover Types BOW, Blue oak woodland BOW/CLO, Mixed oak woodland CABAY/CLO, California bay woodland CAG, California annual grassland CLO, Coast live oak woodland STI, Needlegrass grassland n 0 100 200 Feet URB, Urban

SOURCE: SOURCE: USDA NAIP Imagery (2016) FIGURE 6 Biological Resources Map

IS/MND for the Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision Date: 8/2/2017 - Last savedby: rstrobridge - Path: Z:\Projects\j1023301\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\ISMND\Figure_6 BioResources.mxd

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 36

Purple Needle Grass Grassland Purple needle grass grassland is characterized by a cover of purple needle grass (Stipa pulchra) that is at least 5% absolute vegetative cover or 10% relative cover in the herbaceous layer.31 This grassland on site was co-dominant California oatgrass (Danthonia californica), wild oats, and blue wild rye. This habitat type has a state rarity rank of S3?32, meaning this habitat is imperiled in California. The question mark denotes that the ranking is inexact due to insufficient samples over the full expected range of the habitat type, but the existing information points to this rank.33

Seasonal Wetland. One seasonal wetland occurs in the eastern portion of the project site. This area appears to have been graded in the past to capture runoff from the site and channel it through a corrugated metal pipeline and off site. Through inundation over the years, this low point has gained the hydrological and vegetative characteristics of a seasonally flooded wetland. Plant species present include dove weed, swamp pricklegrass (Crypsis schoenoides), pennyroyal (Mentha pulegium), Mexican rush (Juncus mexicanus), and rabbitsfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis).

Analysis a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is surrounded by residential housing and has been graded in the past. However, the woodland, grassland, and riparian habitat on site may provide suitable habitat for a number of special-status plant and wildlife species, as well as migratory and nesting birds. The following section discusses potential impacts and appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for special-status species.

Special-Status Plant Species

Results of the CNDDB, IPaC and CNPS searches revealed 64 special-status plant species that have potential to occur at the project site. Of these 64 species, 62 were removed from consideration based on lack of suitable habitat or soil substrates, or because the site is outside the known geographic or elevation range for the species (Appendix C). The remaining species with moderate potential to occur at the project site are presented in Table 5 and discussed further below.

31 Ibid. 32 A question mark represents a rank qualifier, denoting an inexact or uncertain numeric rank. 33 CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2017. California Natural Diversity Database. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 37

Table 5 Special-Status Plant Species

Status Scientific Name Common Name (Federal/State/CNPS) Amsinckia lunaris bent-flowered fiddleneck None/None/1B.2 Hemizonia congesta ssp. congesta congested-headed hayfield tarplant None/None/1B.2

Bent-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia lunaris). Bent-flowered fiddleneck is an annual herb found in coastal bluff scrub, cismontane woodland, and valley and foothill grassland at elevations ranging from 10 to 1,640 feet above mean sea level.34 This species is endemic to California and generally blooms from March through June. The nearest CNDDB occurrence for this species was documented approximately 7 miles southwest of the project site.35

The annual grassland and oak woodland on site provide potentially suitable habitat for bent- flowered fiddleneck. Although the site survey was performed outside the bloom period for this species, there would likely have been remnants of Amsinckia species within the grassland on site. No evidence of any species in the genus Amsinckia were noted during the site survey. Thus, although there is potentially suitable habitat present, it is unlikely this species occurs at the project site and no impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation.

Congested-headed hayfield tarplant (Hemizonia congesta ssp. cogesta). Congested-headed hayfield tarplant is an annual herb found in valley and foothill grassland and sometimes along roadsides at elevations ranging from 66 to 1,837 feet above mean sea level.36 This species is endemic to California and generally blooms from April through November. The nearest CNDDB occurrence for this species was documented approximately 2.5 miles south of the project site.37

The annual grassland on site provides potentially suitable habitat for congested-headed hayfield tarplant; however, this species was not noted within the project site during the site survey, which was performed when it would have been evident and identifiable. Thus, although there is potentially suitable habitat present, it is unlikely this species occurs at the project site and no impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation.

34 CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2017. “Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants” (online edition, v8-02). Sacramento, California: California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Program. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org. 35 CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2017. California Natural Diversity Database. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB. 36 CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2017. “Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants” (online edition, v8-02). Sacramento, California: California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Program. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org. 37 CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2017. California Natural Diversity Database. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 38

Based on the site conditions, as described above, special-status plant species are not anticipated to be present and no impacts are anticipated to occur as a result of project implementation.

Special-Status Wildlife Species

Results of the CNDDB and IPaC searches revealed 29 listed or special-status species or species proposed for listing as rare, threatened, or endangered by either the CDFW or the USFWS. Of these 29 species, 21 species were removed from consideration due to no or low potential for occurrence at the project site for reasons such as lack of suitable habitat or because the site is outside the known geographic or elevation range of the species (Appendix D). The remaining species with moderate potential to occur at the project site are presented in Table 6 and discussed further below.

Table 6 Special-Status Wildlife Species

Status Scientific Name Common Name (Federal/State Birds Athene cunicularia (burrow sites & some burrowing owl BCC/SSC wintering sites) Elanus leucurus (nesting) white-tailed kite None/FP Geothlypis trichas sinuosa saltmarsh common yellowthroat BCC/SSC Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus California black rail BCC/ST, FP Melospiza melodia samuelis San Pablo song sparrow BCC/SSC Rallus obsoletus obsoletus Ridgway’s rail FE/SE Mammals Antrozous pallidus pallid bat None/SSC Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend's big-eared bat None/SSC

Nesting and Migratory Birds

Birds and active nests are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. If construction activities occur during the bird nesting season (typically February 1 through August 31), nesting birds could be disturbed by construction noise and tree removal, which would be considered a significant impact. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 will ensure that impacts to potentially occurring special-status and nesting birds are reduced to below a level of significance by a required pre-construction bird survey and appropriate measures applied in the event that nesting birds are found on site.

Special-Status bird Species

Special-status bird species known to occur in the project vicinity include burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), saltmarsh common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa), California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus), San Pablo song sparrow (Melospiza melodia samuelis), Ridgway’s rail (Rallus obsoletus obsoletus). Of these species, 4 species (saltmarsh common yellowthroat, California black rail, San Pablo song

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 39

sparrow, and Ridgway’s rail) are associated with marshland type habitats. Marsh type habitats occur in the immediate vicinity, but they are not present on site; therefore, it is unlikely that these species are present in the project area. Suitable distance (close to a quarter of a mile) and separation by existing residential development occurs between the site, and known occurrences and habitat associations for these species, that temporary and permanent impacts from increased noise and lighting would have a less than significant impact. Furthermore, in the event that birds are on site, implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1 would ensure impacts to these special status bird species are less than significant.

Western burrowing owl is a CDFW-designated species of special concern in California. This species ranges throughout the Central Valley, along the coast, and in the interior portion of the Coast Ranges in California. Suitable habitat includes grasslands with appropriate burrows for shelter and breeding. Suitable habitat for this species has declined due to agricultural and urban development, and this species has been increasingly found to use non-native grassland along roadsides, field borders, levee embankments, and dryland pastures adjacent to open foraging habitat. Suitable small mammal burrows are an essential component of burrowing owl habitat. Burrowing owls typically use burrows made by fossorial mammals, such as ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beecheyi) or American badgers (Taxidea taxus). Suitable foraging and nesting habitat for this species occurs in the California annual grassland present on site; however, during the 2017 reconnaissance survey no burrows or burrowing activity was found, so it is unlikely this species is currently in the project site. Given the surrounding residential development any potential permanent impacts from increased noise and lighting would be less than significant. Temporary impacts from increased noise and lighting during construction activities could result in adverse impacts if present. In the event that burrowing owls are on site implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1 would ensure impacts to burrowing owl are less than significant.

White-tailed kite is a fully protected species in California. Suitable habitat for this species includes low elevation open grasslands, savannah, marsh, agricultural areas, and woodlands. Their prey base consists primarily of small mammals, especially meadow voles. Within the project area the California annual grasslands provides suitable foraging habitat. The oak woodland on site is suitable nesting habitat. In the event that white-tailed kite are on site implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1 would ensure impacts are less than significant.

Special-Status Bat Species

The project site contains potentially suitable habitat for two protected bat species, the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) and Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), both CDFW Species of Special Concern. The site does not contain any structures (mines, rocks formations, or buildings) on site that would provide for roosting; however, some species of special status bats may use trees for roosting. Tree removal and general construction activities would have the potential to disturb or harm protected bat species, in the event that they are present at the time of construction activities. Mitigation measure BIO-2 has been provided to address potential effects to protected bat species at the project site and implementation of mitigation measure BIO-2 would ensure impacts are less than significant.

Impacts to Special-Status wildlife species would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 40

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: If tree removal or construction activities begin during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct pre- construction surveys for any raptor or other nesting migratory bird nests within or immediately adjacent to the project site no more than 30 days prior to the commencement of any construction activity or tree removal. The pre-construction surveys shall be conducted between February 1 and August 31, and shall follow accepted survey protocols for nesting and burrowing birds. Trees within a 200-foot radius shall be included in the surveys. If active nests are located in the work area, the biologist, in consultation with CDFW, shall establish an appropriately sized buffer around the nest or burrow within which no work shall be allowed until the young have successfully fledged. Unless otherwise agreed upon in consultation with CDFW, a 50-foot buffer shall be placed around passerine nests and a 250- foot buffer shall be placed around raptor nests. If the qualified biologist determines that a smaller buffer zone is acceptable, the size of the buffer zone may be reduced upon approval by CDFW.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2: No more than 30 days prior to construction (including demolition work and tree trimming/removal activities), a qualified biologist will conduct a visual and acoustic preconstruction survey for roosting special-status bats and/or signs of bats (i.e., guano) within 300 feet of suitable tree roosting habitat. A minimum of one day and one evening will be included in the visual preconstruction survey, which should concentrate on the period when roosting bats are most detectable (i.e., when leaving the roosts between one hour before sunset and two hours after sunset). b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The site is identified as “Urban Developed” by the City of Novato.38 Additionally, the Novato City General Plan identifies the site as “Low Density Residential.”39 However, due to the length of time since the original grading occurred, the habitat has recovered to an extent. Purple needle grass grassland occurs at the top of the hill at the western extent of the project site and California bay – coast live oak woodland occurs along the drainage in the southern portion of the project site (Figure 6). Both of these habitat types have a state rarity rank of S3, meaning they are sensitive natural communities that are imperiled in California and should be analyzed under CEQA. Although the proposed footprint of the houses on site will not affect these sensitive natural communities, ground-disturbing activities associated with installation of the water pipeline will result in

38 City of Novato. 2014. “Figure 9-1.” In City of Novato Existing Conditions Report. http://novato.org/ home/showdocument?id=11290. 39 City of Novato. 2014. City of Novato General Plan. Adopted March 8, 1996, latest revision May 13, 2014. City of Novato Community Development Department. http://novato.org/home/ showdocument?id=13576.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 41

direct impacts to purple needle grass grassland. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3, potential impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels.

The City of Novato Municipal Code contains policies regarding the protection of waterways and riparian corridors (Chapter 19 Division 35). A riparian corridor occurs along the drainage that directs rainwater runoff from the southern portion of the site through an ephemeral channel to a culvert at the southeast corner of the site (Figure 6). This riparian corridor is not one of the watercourses shown on EN Map 1 of the Novato General Plan; thus, the protections outlined in Division 19.35 of the Novato Municipal Code do not apply. Regardless, no work is proposed within this riparian zone and no direct impacts are anticipated. Potential indirect effects to this habitat type from project construction include storm water runoff and sedimentation. Implementation of mitigation measures BIO-4 will ensure that no impacts to the riparian corridor occur as a result of project implementation.

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Measure BIO-3: To mitigate impacts to approximately 0.028 acres of purple needle grass grassland as a result of water pipeline installation, all areas of ground disturbance shall be seeded with a native seed mix that includes purple needle grass and California oatgrass. Other regionally appropriate species that may be included in the seed mix include blue wild-rye, California poppy (Eschscholzia californica), and bicolor lupine (Lupinus bicolor). The area should be seeded in late fall (November or December) to coincide with the rainy season. Biodegradable erosion control should be used to prevent erosion during plant establishment.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4: To prevent erosion and sedimentation into the nearby ephemeral drainage during construction, stormwater runoff best management practices (BMPs) shall be implemented at the project site. These measures shall include, but are not limited to, biodegradable silt fence, straw wattles, and hydroseeding of bare ground. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As described above, the project site contains ephemeral drainages and seasonal wetlands, all of which may be considered potentially jurisdictional under Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act (Figure 6). Development has been designed to avoid the drainages on site; thus, no impacts to the ephemeral drainages are anticipated.

The seasonal wetland feature was created during the original grading of the site that appears to have occurred in the 1960s.40 Due to the length of time since grading activities, this wetland is considered to be normal conditions at the site and appears to have developed hydrophytic

40 NETR (National Environmental Title Research, LLC). 2017. Historic Aerial of Novato, CA. Available online at https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. V.0.0.70.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 42

vegetation and hydrology. Construction of the proposed project would result in direct impacts to this wetland through the placement of fill material. With implementation of mitigation measure BIO-5, impacts to this potentially jurisdictional wetland feature would be reduced to less-than-significant levels.

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Measure BIO-5: A wetland delineation shall be performed for the project site to verify the presence of potentially jurisdictional wetland features.

If the wetland feature qualifies as jurisdictional, the project proponent shall obtain requisite wetland regulatory permits such as a Nationwide Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and/or Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. During the course of permitting, mitigation of direct impacts will be agreed upon, which may include the purchase of credits, to ensure no net loss of wetlands result from the proposed project and may consist of off-site mitigation of impacted seasonal wetland at a minimum ratio of 3:1 (preserved wetlands: impacted wetlands). The mitigation wetlands must be located within the Novato area watershed. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

Less than Significant. The project site is an infill site within an existing residential development. The property is surrounded by existing housing and has limited connectivity to any surrounding habitat or wildlife corridor. The ephemeral drainage and seasonal wetland on site end in culverts and any potential impacts to these features would not affect the movement of migratory fish. The proposed project would result in an intensification of use at the project site, but would not result in the development of significant quantities of undeveloped land that could serve as an important corridor or linkage for any migratory or resident species, with the exception of possible nesting birds, as discussed above. Nesting birds could be disturbed during construction and tree removal, but implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-4 would further ensure that this potential impact would be less than significant. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The City of Novato Municipal Code contains policies related to the preservation and protection of woodlands and forest resources (Chapter 19 Division 39), and heritage trees (Chapter 17).41 Woodlands and forest resource areas are determined at the discretion of the Director of Community Development. The site is designated as “Urban Developed” by the City of Novato existing conditions report

41 City of Novato. 2017. City of Novato Municipal Code. Codified through Ordinance No. 1617. February 7, 2017. https://library.municode.com/ca/novato/codes/code_of_ordinances.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 43

Figure 9-1 vegetation.42 Heritage trees are defined as any tree with a trunk diameter of 24 inches or greater as measured at 24 inches above grade, or any tree otherwise identified by the Director of Community Development. Site planning has been designed to conform to areas that were previously graded in the past where possible. Previously graded areas are now dominated by California annual grasslands. However, the proposed project would result in the removal of twenty three (23) trees. Thirteen (13) trees are proposed for removal along the new water line with another ten (10) to be removed as part of the grading near Misty Road. All trees proposed for removal are below 24 inches in diameter and, therefore, do not meet the definitions of a heritage tree.43

Chapter 19.39.040 of the Novato Municipal Code provides guidelines for tree and forest retention and mitigation, including requiring retention of a minimum of 75% of existing native trees on a development site. During the 2017 reconnaissance survey, habitats were mapped using geographic information systems (GIS), potential permanent impacts occur to 0.04 out of 1.04 acres (4%) of blue oak woodland and 0.05 out of 1.62 acres (3%) of California bay woodland/coast live oak woodland. Mitigation, meaning retention of the majority of native trees on the project site has been incorporated into the project design. Measure BIO–7 would further ensure compliance with the City of Novato’s Tree Removal Permit process in addition to consistency with the City’s Tree Ordinance. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any existing policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Measure BIO-7: The proposed project would result in the removal of 23 trees. A tree removal permit application shall be obtained from the City of Novato’s planning department prior to tree removal. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

No Impact. As indicated in the CDFW Regional Conservation Plan Map, the project site is not located or participating in any applicable habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or related plan.44 Therefore, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan and there would be no impact.

42 City of Novato. 2014. “Figure 9-1.” In City of Novato Existing Conditions Report. http://novato.org/ home/showdocument?id=11290. 43 Becky Duckles Consulting Arborist & Landscape Advisor. 2016. Arborist’s Preliminary Report – Tree removal plan – alternate 1. October 28, 2016. 44 CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2015. “California Regional Conservation Plans” [map]. July 2017. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=68626&inline.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 44

Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?

Analysis a, b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?

Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Dudek conducted a cultural resources records search of the California Historical Resources Information System at the North West Information Center (NWIC) (see Appendix E). The NWIC records search indicated that no previously recorded cultural resources were located within the Project Area. The NWIC records search documented one archaeological site, CA-MRN-189, as being located within a half-mile of the Project area of potential affects (APE). Review of the NWIC records indicate that one (1) previous cultural resources technical investigation has been conducted within the project area and seven (7) studies have been concluded within one-half mile of the proposed project. The study that covered the project area was coordinated by David Chavez in 1979 and this study included a 900-acre reconnaissance of the Bahia Development between Bugeia Lane, the Petaluma River, Black John Slough and the Rush Creek/Basalt Creek confluence. The investigation encompassed 100% of the current Bahia Heights Project area. Chavez (1979) found no evidence for archeological sites or isolates in the records search or during the reconnaissance survey (Appendix E).

On July 5, 2017, Dudek Archaeologist Sarah Brewer performed a pedestrian survey of the entire project APE. The survey covered approximately 9.2 acres and no cultural resources were identified during the survey. Surface visibility was low during the reconnaissance survey, but the ground surface was periodically cleared to inspect for artifacts. There was no evidence of a prehistoric or historic site within the Project APE. The steep slope of the landscape indicated

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 45

low potential for historic or prehistoric settlement. Other more level areas of the project site were created by mechanical grading, which disturbed the natural ground surface in those areas.

On June 20, 2016, the City of Novato sent a letter to the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, the local federally recognized tribe with whom the City normally consults, notifying them of the Bahia Heights Project. On July 6, 2016 the Federated Indians of Graton Racheria responded with a request to be consulted after technical studies have been conducted. They also requested copies of the results of the records search and survey for the Project.

Based on the negative results of survey and subsurface probing efforts, it appears that the project site is of low potential to encounter subsurface archaeological deposits and, accordingly, of low archaeological sensitivity. With the expectation that the project will proceed as currently designed, no additional archaeological investigation is recommended. However, it is always possible that limited remnants of intact archaeological deposits are present between areas inspected through subsurface probing, below the original layer of fill material. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would ensure that impacts to archaeological resources would remain less than significant.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1: In the event that archaeological resources (sites, features, or artifacts) are exposed during construction activities for the proposed project, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, can be retained to evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. Depending upon the significance of the find under CEQA (Section 15064.5(f); PRC 21082), the archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data recovery may be warranted.

Therefore, with full implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on historical and archeological resources. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. On July 4, 2017, Dudek archaeologist Sarah Brewer performed a pedestrian survey of the entire project APE. Surface visibility was low due to a heavy cover of dead grasses; however, the ground surface was periodically cleared to inspect the ground surface during the course of the survey. Subsurface erosional exposures and rodent burrows were opportunistically sought for evidence of subsurface cultural deposits. Site soils were a gravelly loam with many sub angular pebbles. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil survey characterizes the site soils as Bressa variant-McMullin variant complex, 30% to 50% slopes and identifies the depth to bedrock at 30-34 inches.45 The project site is classified as having low sensitivity for buried cultural deposits. Although there is low potential for paleontological resources to be discovered on the site, there is the possibility of

45 United States Department of Agriculture, National Resource Conservation Service. 2017. Soil Map for Marin County, California. Accessed online, July 19, 2017.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 46

unanticipated discovery during excavation and other ground-disturbing activities, which could lead to a significant impact. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would ensure that impacts to paleontological resources remain less than significant.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2: If a suspected paleontological fossil is encountered, project construction shall be halted within 50 feet of the find and a qualified paleontologist shall be contacted to assess the find. If deemed scientifically significant, the find shall be recorded and salvaged by a qualified paleontologist. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Although there is no evidence of human remains on the project site, there is the potential to encounter human remains during project construction due to the extensive history of Native American inhabitance in Marin County. Existing regulations under Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code state that if human remains are discovered during project construction, no further disturbance can occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b), remains must be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. As such, Mitigation Measure CUL-3, Procedures for Encountering Human Remains, has been incorporated into the project to ensure that potential impacts are less than significant by providing standard procedures in the event that human remains are encountered during project construction. Therefore, with full implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on human remains.

Mitigation Measure CUL-3, Procedures for Encountering Human Remains: If human remains are encountered, the City of Novato shall ensure that work is halted in the vicinity and the County Coroner is notified. At the same time, a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to evaluate the situation. If human remains are of Native American origin, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of identification, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Significant With Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 47

Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Significant With Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist

for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground

shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure,

including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or

the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal

systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 48

Analysis a) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Less than Significant Impact. The information presented below is based on the Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation prepared for the project by PJC & Associates in January 2016 and an addendum letter in November 2016 (Appendix F). Based on review of geologic maps, Alquist–Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone maps, and on-site reconnaissance, there is no evidence that any fault crosses the proposed project site (Appendix F). No known active fault passes through the site and the site is not located in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Studies Zone. However, in a seismically active region such as Northern California, there is always some possibility for future faulting at any site. Nonetheless, historical occurrences of surface faulting have generally closely followed the trace of the more recently active faults.46 Since there is no substantial evidence that the project site is located on or immediately adjacent to a known fault, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact with regard to fault rupture hazards.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The San Francisco Bay Region has experienced several historic earthquakes from the San Andreas and associated active faults. The three closest known active faults to the site are the Rodgers Creek, Hayward, and San Andreas (North Coast) faults. The Rodgers Creek fault is located 6.1 miles to the northeast, the Hayward fault is located 7.4 miles to the southeast, and the San Andreas (North Coast) fault is located 14.8 miles southwest of the site. The estimated maximum site acceleration from an earthquake on Rodgers Creek fault is 0.473g (Appendix F).

The intensity of ground shaking at any specific location within the city depends on the characteristics of the earthquake, the distance from the earthquake and on the local geologic and soil conditions. In 2014, The Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities estimated that there is a 72% chance of one or more large earthquakes (Magnitude 6.7 or greater) in the San Francisco Bay region within the next 30 years.47 Based on this information, it is likely that the project site would be subjected to strong seismic ground shaking. The site is located within a zone of high seismic activity related to the active faults that transverse through the surrounding region. Future damaging earthquakes could occur on any of these fault systems during the lifetime of the proposed project. The intensity of the ground shaking at the site would depend upon the distance to the causative earthquake

46 An active fault as a fault that has ruptured in the last 11,000 years (Sections 2621-2630, Public Resources Code). 47 USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2016. “Earthquake Outlook for the San Francisco Bay Region 2014- 2043.” Revised August 2016. https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2016/3020/fs20163020.pdf.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 49

epicenter, the magnitude of the shock, the response characteristics of the underlying earth materials, and the quality of construction. Appendix F describes general geotechnical conditions on the site and provides parameters to which proposed structures would be designed. Appendix F indicates that the project would be located on a site that is feasible and appropriate to develop from a geotechnical standpoint. In other words, development of the site would not present any geologic or seismic risks that are unique or unusual for the region. Application of standard construction/engineering practices and current regulatory standards for earthquake-resistant construction (i.e., the California Building Code [CBC], City ordinances and conditions of approval) would be adequate to address seismic hazards.

Appendix F is a design level geotechnical investigation, and, as such, site-specific exploratory test pits and soil testing was implemented. These recommendations, set forth in the geotechnical investigation report, must be incorporated into project design and construction. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects from seismic ground shaking; impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Prior to the issuance of any construction or grading permits, the design level geotechnical investigation shall be reviewed by the City Engineer. The proposed project shall be designed to comply with the recommendations made in the geotechnical investigation report prepared for the project by PJC & Associates, Incorporated in January 2016 and addendum letter in November 2016. Construction methods for the project shall incorporate all specifications, design criteria, and recommendations contained in the design level geotechnical investigation report as a condition of project approval. The following recommendations and criteria for design and construction of the project include but are not limited to:

 Site grading and earthwork (stripping, excavation, and compaction)  Residence foundations: post tensioned concrete slabs-on-grade (vertical loads, settlement, and lateral loads)  Retaining walls (foundation, static lateral earth pressures, lateral loads, and drainage)  Seismic Design (site class, mapped acceleration parameters, spectral response acceleration parameters, and design spectral acceleration parameters)  Drainage (foundation subdrains and underslab subdrains)

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Liquefaction generally occurs as a result of strong ground shaking in areas where granular sediment or fill material either contains, or is located immediately above, high moisture content. The ground shaking transforms the material from a solid state to a temporarily liquid state. Liquefaction is a serious hazard because buildings in areas that experience liquefaction may sink or suffer major structural damage. According to Figure 10-2 (Liquefaction Hazard Areas) of Novato’s

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 50

Existing Conditions Report, the project site has low liquefaction potential.48 In addition, Appendix F indicates the site has a very low risk of liquefaction.

A site-specific determination of whether the site is susceptible to liquefaction is a standard component of geotechnical reports. The field investigation encountered firm bedrock at relatively shallow depths. Such bedrock is not considered to be prone to liquefaction. Therefore, the report concluded that the risk of liquefaction at the site is nonexistent. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would ensure that earthwork and foundation recommendations to address liquefaction, if necessary, are incorporated into design and construction plans of the proposed project. As discussed above, the available information indicates that the site has a very low risk of liquefaction.

Therefore, impacts related to seismic-related ground failure would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

iv) Landslides?

Less than Significant Impact. Landslides are “downward and outward movements of slope-forming materials including rock, soil, artificial fill, or combinations of such materials. The size and distance of movement of landslides can greatly vary.”49 The City’s Existing Conditions Report notes that landslides are more common in the upland areas, although the Novato hilly areas are relatively stable with low risk of landslide. This is reflected in Figure 10-3, Landslide Hazard Areas, which indicates the project site has low landslide potential.50 No global landslides were observed at or near the project site. However, a relatively small questionable landslide area was identified outside of the building area Lot 6. Furthermore, areas of questionable soil creep were observed south of Lot 7 and Lot 8. Soil creep is common on slopes in the Novato area on hillsides exceeding 15% to 20%. The questionable landslide area and soil creep areas are entirely located in the forested hillside area outside of the project site and do not pose significant geologic hazards to the project site. Therefore, impacts related to landslides would be less than significant. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

Less than Significant Impact. The potential for the project to result in substantial soil erosion, including loss of topsoil, is addressed under Item IX, Hydrology and Water Quality. The discussion and conclusions therein are equally applicable to this significance criterion. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.

48 City of Novato. 2014. “Chapter 10, Geology,” page 10-8. In City of Novato Existing Conditions Report. Accessed June 20, 2017. http://novato.org/home/showdocument?id=11289. 49 Ibid, page 10-9. 50 Ibid, page 10-10.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 51

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

Less than Significant Impact. As described above, the potential for liquefaction at the project site is low and the project is not located within an area with potential for seismic slope instability. Lateral spreading and landslides are not anticipated. Field exploration encountered firm bedrock at relatively shallow depths. The depth to bedrock was about two feet below the ground surface and consists of conglomerate that was highly cemented and could offer significant resistance to the heavy equipment during site grading. Accordingly, it may be necessary to use heavy equipment that is capable of excavating firm bedrock. Such bedrock is not considered to be prone to liquefaction, lateral spreading and landslides. Subsidence tends to occur in broad groundwater basins upon which there is substantial groundwater pumping or oil/gas production. Accordingly, the project site is not located in an area with known current or historic subsidence.51 Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Expansive soils have a potential to undergo significant changes in volume in the form of either shrinking or swelling due to changes in moisture content. Periodic shrinking and swelling of expansive soils can cause extensive damage to buildings, other structures, and roads. Based on Atterburg Limits testing, the native surface soils at TP-1 and TP-9 are low to moderate in plasticity (PI = 26 at 0.5 feet at TP-1 and PI= 14 at 0.5 feet in TP-9) and should be considered to have low to moderate expansion potential. As shown in Figure 10-4 of Novato’s Existing Conditions Report, Expansive Soils, the project site contains moderate potential for expansion.

Moderately expansive soils would have the potential to experience volumetric changes with changes in the moisture content. The resulting volumetric changes could cause intolerable differential movement and distress to structures and slabs-on-grade. Conventional foundations and conventional concrete slabs-on-grade would be prone to intolerable differential settlement, heave and resultant slab cracking if constructed on these soils in its existing condition. Post- tensioned slabs could be designed to accept potential heave and/or settlement or the soils could be removed and replaced as properly compacted fill. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would ensure that earthwork recommendations to address expansive soils, if necessary, are incorporated into design and construction plans of the proposed project.

Therefore, the impact is less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

51 Department of Water Resources. 2017. Groundwater Information Center Interactive Map Viewer. Subsidence Map Layers. Accessed June 20, 2017. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/gicima/.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 52

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

No Impact The proposed project would be connected to the City’s wastewater treatment system and would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems; thus there would be no impact to soils.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Significant With Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of

reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Analysis

Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate, such as temperature, precipitation, or wind, lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are often called GHGs. The greenhouse effect traps heat in the troposphere through a threefold process: (1) short-wave radiation emitted by the Sun is absorbed by the Earth; (2) the Earth emits a portion of this energy in the form of long-wave radiation; and (3) GHGs in the upper atmosphere absorb this long-wave radiation and emit this long-wave radiation into space and back toward the Earth. This trapping of the long-wave (thermal) radiation emitted back toward the Earth is the underlying process of the greenhouse effect.

Principal GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), O3, and water vapor. Some GHGs, such as CO2, CH4, and nitrous oxide, occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes and human activities. Of these gases, CO2 and CH4 are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Emissions of CO2 are largely byproducts of fossil-fuel combustion, whereas CH4 results mostly from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Manufactured GHGs, which have a much greater heat- absorption potential than CO2, include fluorinated gases, such as hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride, which are associated with certain industrial products and processes.52

52 CAT (California Climate Action Team). 2006. Climate Action Team Report to the Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. Sacramento, California. March 2006. http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/ climate_action_team/reports/2006report/2006-04-03_FINAL_CAT_REPORT.PDF.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 53

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) developed the Global Warming Potential (GWP) concept to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. The GWP of a GHG is defined as the ratio of the time-integrated radiative forcing from the instantaneous release of 1 kilogram of a trace substance relative to 53 that of 1 kilogram of a reference gas. The reference gas used is CO2; therefore, GWP-weighted emissions are measured in metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MT CO2E).

Regarding impacts from GHGs, both BAAQMD and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) consider GHG impacts to be exclusively cumulative impacts;5455 therefore, assessment of significance is based on a determination of whether the GHG emissions from a project represent a cumulatively considerable contribution to the global atmosphere. This analysis uses both a quantitative and a qualitative approach. The quantitative approach is used to address the first significance criterion: “Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?” This analysis considers that, because the quantifiable thresholds developed by BAAQMD were formulated based on Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and California Climate Change Scoping Plan reduction targets for which its set of strategies were developed to reduce GHG emissions statewide, a project cannot exceed a numeric BAAQMD threshold without also conflicting with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs (the state Climate Change Scoping Plan). Therefore, if a project exceeds a numeric threshold and results in a significant cumulative impact, it would also result in a significant cumulative impact with respect to plan, policy, or regulation consistency, even though the project may incorporate measures and have features that would reduce its contribution to cumulative GHG emissions.

Separate thresholds of significance are established for operational emissions from stationary sources (such as generators, furnaces, and boilers) and nonstationary sources (such as on-road vehicles). The threshold for stationary sources is 10,000 MT CO2E per year (i.e., emissions above this level may be considered significant). For nonstationary sources, the following three separate thresholds have been established:

 Compliance with a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy (i.e., if a project is found to be out of compliance with a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy, its GHG emissions may be considered significant).

53 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2014. “Summary for Policymakers.” In Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report. A Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/. 54 BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Updated May 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and- research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. 55 CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association). 2008. CEQA & Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. January 2008.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 54

 1,100 MT CO2E per year (i.e., emissions above this level may be considered significant).

 4.6 MT CO2E per service population per year (i.e., emissions above this level may be considered significant). (Service population is the sum of residents plus employees expected for a development project.)

The quantitative threshold of 1,100 MT CO2E per year adopted by BAAQMD is applied to this analysis. If the project construction or operational GHG emissions would exceed this threshold then, consistent with BAAQMD Air Quality Guidelines, it would be considered to have a cumulatively considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively significant impact on climate change. a, b) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Less than Significant.

Construction. Construction of the proposed project would result in GHG emissions, which are primarily associated with use of off-road construction equipment, on-road hauling and vendor (material delivery) trucks, and worker vehicles. Since the BAAQMD has not established construction-phase GHG thresholds, construction GHG emissions were amortized assuming a 30-year development life after completion of construction and added to operational emissions to compare to the BAAQMD operational GHG threshold. CalEEMod was used to estimate GHG emissions associated with project construction. Amortized GHG emissions associated with project construction would result in annualized generation of 15 MT CO2E.

Operations. Long-term operational emissions would occur over the life of the project. CalEEMod was used to estimate GHG emissions from motor vehicle trips, grid electricity usage, solid waste, and other sources (including area sources, natural gas combustion, and water/wastewater conveyance).

CalEEMod default mobile source data, including temperature, trip characteristics, variable start information, emission factors, and trip distances, were conservatively used for the model inputs. Project-related traffic was assumed to be comprised of a mixture of vehicles in accordance with the model defaults for the specified land uses. It is assumed that the first full year of operations would be in year 2020.

The estimation of operational energy emissions was based on CalEEMod land use defaults and total area (i.e., square footage) of the proposed project. Annual natural gas (non-hearth) and electricity emissions were estimated in CalEEMod using the emissions factors for PG&E as a conservative estimate and adjusted to account for 33% renewable portfolio standard by 2020. The most recent amendments to Title 24, Part 6, referred to as the 2016 standards, became effective on January 1, 2017. Residential buildings constructed in accordance with the 2016 standards are anticipated to use 28% less energy for lighting, heating, cooling, ventilation, and water heating than the 2013 standards. Although these standards would be required, they were accounted for in the “Mitigation” options of CalEEMod and are thus part of the mitigated emissions output.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 55

Supply, conveyance, treatment, and distribution of water for the project require the use of electricity, which would result in associated indirect GHG emissions. Similarly, wastewater generated by the proposed project requires the use of electricity for conveyance and treatment, along with GHG emissions generated during wastewater treatment. Water consumption estimates for both indoor and outdoor water use and associated electricity consumption from water use and wastewater generation were estimated using CalEEMod default values.

The proposed project would generate solid waste and would therefore result in CO2E emissions associated with landfill off-gassing. CalEEMod default solid waste generation values for the specified land uses were used.

The estimated operational project-generated GHG emissions from area sources, energy usage, motor vehicles, solid waste generation, water supply, and wastewater treatment are shown in Table 7. Table 7 also compares total project-generated operational GHG emissions plus amortized construction GHG emissions to the BAAQMD’s GHG significance threshold of 1,100 MT CO2E per year.

Table 7 Estimated Annual Unmitigated Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Emission Source CO2E (MT/year) Area 1.2 Energy 36.1 Mobile 75.8 Solid Waste 5.5 Water Supply and Wastewater 1.5 Total 120.1 Amortized Construction Emissions 15.1 Operation + Amortized Construction Total 135.2 BAAQMD GHG Threshold 1,100 Significant (Yes or No)? No

Note: CO2E = carbon dioxide-equivalent; MT/year = metric tons per year Project GHG emissions are based on the annual CalEEMod outputs Total emissions may not sum exactly due to rounding. See Appendix A for complete results.

Table 7 indicates that the GHG emissions associated with the proposed changes in use would be below BAAQMD’s GHG threshold of 1,100 MT CO2E per year. Therefore, the project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment and this would represent a cumulatively less-than-significant GHG impact.

The City of Novato adopted a Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) in 2009, which was updated in a 2015 White Paper.56 The CCAP outlines strategies to achieve a GHG reduction target of 15% below 2005 levels by the year 2020 and 40% below 2005 levels by the year 2035. Since the project would comply with applicable statewide and local requirements, the project would not conflict with the CCAP.

56 City of Novato. 2015. General Plan 2035 Policy White Paper – Climate Change Action Plan. March 2015.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 56

Regarding consistency with Senate Bill 32 (goal of reducing GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030) and Executive Order S-3-05 (goal of reducing GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050), there are no established protocols or thresholds of significance for that future-year analysis. However, CARB forecasts that compliance with the current Scoping Plan puts the state on a trajectory of meeting these long-term GHG goals, although the specific path to compliance is unknown.57 As discussed previously, the project would result in minimal GHG emissions and would not conflict with the state’s trajectory toward future GHG reductions. With respect to future GHG targets under Senate Bill 32 and Executive Order S-3- 05, CARB has also made clear its legal interpretation that it has the requisite authority to adopt whatever regulations are necessary, beyond the AB 32 horizon year of 2020, to meet the reduction targets in 2030 and in 2050; this legal interpretation by an expert agency provides evidence that future regulations will be adopted to continue the state on its trajectory toward meeting these future GHG targets.

Based on the preceding considerations, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, and no mitigation is required. This impact would be less than significant.

Less Than VIII. HAZARDS AND Potentially Significant With Less Than HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine

transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident

conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

57 CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework. May 2014. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/ updatedscopingplan2013.htm.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 57

Less Than VIII. HAZARDS AND Potentially Significant With Less Than HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government

Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result

in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency

response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including

where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

Analysis a, b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would involve construction of nine homes that would be one or two stories and range from 2,730 to 3,569 square feet each. The nine lot areas range from 0.32 acre to 3.59 acre. During construction, a variety of hazardous substances and wastes would be stored, used, and generated on the project site, including fuels for machinery and vehicles, new and used motor oil, cleaning solvents, paints, and storage containers. Provisions to properly manage hazardous substances and wastes during

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 58

construction would be included as Best Management Practices in construction specifications and in contract-specific permitting, thus becoming the responsibility of the construction contractors. In addition to the construction specifications, the proposed project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations pertaining to the transport, use, disposal, handling, and storage of hazardous waste during the construction phase to reduce the likelihood and severity of accidents during transit.

Operation of the proposed project would not include the transport, handling, or disposal of hazardous materials other than routine maintenance, household, and landscaping materials. Although limited quantities of these hazardous materials (e.g., cleaning agents, paints and thinners, fuels, insecticides, herbicides) are expected to be used during construction and operation of the proposed project, these would not entail the use of such substances in quantities that would present a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

No Impact. No schools are located within 0.25 mile of the project site. The closest schools are Olive Elementary School, which is approximately 3.2 miles from the proposed site, and Marin Oaks High School, which is approximately 4.2 miles from the proposed project site.

As there are no schools located within 0.25 mile of the project site, there would be no impacts to schools from the proposed project. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

No Impact. The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.58 Therefore, the project would not result in a significant hazard to the public or to the environment. Although no impacts are anticipated due to contaminated soils on the project site, if contaminated soils are located during the course of construction for the proposed project, all standard hazardous remediation and removal procedures would be included in project findings and thus followed. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

No Impact. The nearest airport to the project site is the Marin County Airport (or Gnoss Field), located approximately 1.7 miles to the northwest. The proposed project is located outside the geographic planning boundary of the Marin County Airport’s Land Use Plan,59 and would not

58 CalEPA (California Environmental Protection Agency). 2007. “Cortese List: Section 65962.5(a).” 59 Marin County Airport Land Use Commission. 1991. Airport Land Use Plan for Marin County Airport Gnoss Field. June 10, 1991.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 59

result in a safety hazard related to airport operations for anyone working or residing on the project site. No impacts would occur. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

No Impact. The project site is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip; therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the proposed project. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

No Impact. The City of Novato adopted an Emergency Operations Plan in 2009 to outline the planned response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with disasters affecting Novato and address integration and coordination with other governmental agencies.60 The plan notes the primary transportation arteries through Novato and Marin are U.S. Highway 101 and State Route 37. The proposed project would not require closure of any main evacuation routes during construction or operation, and would not obstruct emergency response plans. Furthermore, the proposed project would obtain written confirmation and approval from the Novato Fire District, Novato Police Department, and other applicable departments to ensure the site design provides adequate emergency vehicle access and appropriate signage, and complies with the requirements of the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with or impair implementation of the Emergency Operations Plan, and no impact would occur. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

Less than Significant Impact. The CalFire Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHZ) map defines a fire hazard “based on the physical conditions that give a likelihood that an area will burn over a 30- to 50-year period without considering modifications such as fuel reduction.” In areas served by local fire protection services, CalFire identifies only areas of extreme fire hazard in the VHFHZ map, rather than quantifying a range of fire hazard ranks; all other areas are labeled as “non-VHFHZ.”61

The VHFHZ map for the City of Novato identifies the project site as non-VHFHZ.62 However, the project site does fall within land designated by the City as a Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Area. The proposed project would be subject to review by the City of Novato for compliance with all applicable provisions contained within the California Fire Code and the California Building Code prior to issuance of building permits and particularly those designed for new construction in WUI areas. Because the proposed project would be required

60 The City of Novato Office of Emergency Services. 2009. Emergency Operations Plan. May 2009. 61 CalFire (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2007. “Fact Sheet: California Fire Hazard Severity Zones.” May 2007. http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/downloads/FHSZ_fact_sheet.pdf. 62 CalFire. 2008. “Very High Fire Hazard Zones in LRA, As Recommended by CalFire: Novato” [map]. 1:24,000. October 16, 2008. http://calfire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps/FHSZ/marin/Novato.pdf.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 60

to conform to all applicable fire and building code regulations, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to substantial risk related to wildland fires. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water

quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 61

Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving

flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

Analysis a, f) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

Less than Significant Impact. Water quality standards and waste discharge requirements applicable to the site include the State Water Resources Control Board’s Construction General Permit (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, as amended), and the Phase II Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. The Construction General Permit addresses pollutants generated during construction activities and the MS4 Permit addresses long-term sources of polluted runoff from site activities and impervious surfaces.

Because construction would disturb more than 1 acre of soil, the project must obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit. To obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit, the applicant, among other things, must prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which must address pollutant sources, non-stormwater discharges resulting from construction dewatering, best management practices (BMPs), and other requirements specified in Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ. BMPs will include any measures included in the project’s erosion control plans. The SWPPP will also include dust control practices to prevent wind erosion, sediment tracking, and dust generation by construction equipment. A Qualified SWPPP Practitioner will oversee implementation of the project SWPPP, including visual inspections, sampling, and analysis, and ensuring overall compliance. As a standard condition of approval, developers are required to submit to the City their permit coverage documents (including a SWPPP) prior to approval of Improvement Plans.

There are no known sources of water quality contamination in the project vicinity and no parking lots producing runoff proximate to the site. The proposed project would be required to demonstrate compliance with the NPDES MS4 Permit and the Construction General Permit. Implementation of the BMPs contained in the SWPPP and compliance with the Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Ordinance (which regulates new development and redevelopment consistent with the MS4 Permit) would reduce project impacts to water quality. Therefore, the

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 62

proposed project would not degrade water quality and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located in an area that is not reliant on groundwater for municipal supply, and the project does not propose a groundwater supply well. The North Marin Water District supplies the City with municipal water derived from surface water sources. The North Marin Water District has no developed groundwater supply source.63 Therefore, groundwater-related impacts of the project, such as a reduction in recharge, if any, would not adversely affect the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells (because there are none). Therefore, the project would not contribute to the depletion of groundwater supplies by using wells or well-water and impacts would be less than significant. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?

Less than Significant Impact. The site is located in an upland, hillside setting and no significant hydrologic features, including streams, marsh, bay, lake or flood zones are located on the site. According to the design level geological investigation by PJC & Associates, site drainage consists of surface infiltration and sheet flow downward toward the southeast. Regional drainage is provided by man-made ditches and existing storm drain pipelines, located adjacent to Misty Road, and then east to the Petaluma River. While the project will include stormwater collection facilities, it will not alter the overall existing drainage pattern of the site or the area; therefore the project would have a less-than-significant impact. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

Less than Significant Impact. According to the design level geological investigation by PJC & Associates, site drainage consists of surface infiltration and sheet flow downward toward the southeast. Regional drainage is provided by man-made ditches and existing storm drain pipelines, located adjacent to Misty Road, and then to east to the Petaluma River. Stormwater collection facilities included in the project design will support and not significantly alter the overall existing drainage pattern of the site. Thus, because the project will not increase on-or off-site flooding in a 25-year storm, and will result in minimal increase in a 100-year storm so that flooding does not affect public safety or private property, the project impacts with regard to flooding on site or off site would be less than significant.

63 NMWD (North Marin Water District). 2016. “Table 4-3.” In North Marin Water District 2016 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2016.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 63

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

Less than Significant Impact. As described under Item d), the report states the peak flow rate meets the design capacity for the proposed storm drain pipes, and that the project-related increase in the 25-year peak flow event will be captured by the proposed on-site retention/detention systems and this will not be delivered to the off-site storm drain during peak rain events. As described under Item d), the project also meets the design criteria for the 100-year storm event. Therefore the project would have less than significant impacts with regard to the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

No Impact. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map #06041C0282E, dated March 16, 2016, the project site is located outside of the 100-year and 500-year flood plains.64 Since the project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area, there would be no impact. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?

No Impact. As noted above, the project site is not within a 100-year flood hazard area. Therefore, impacts from flood hazard structures that would impede or redirect flood flows would have no impact. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

No Impact. As noted above, the project site is not within a 100-year flood hazard area. The project site is not in the path of water that could escape from a failed levee or dam Therefore, impacts from flood hazard structures that would impede or redirect flood flows would have no impact. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

No Impact. Although the project site is not far from both the Petaluma River and Bay waters it is sufficiently inland and higher in elevation, to be located in an area that is not susceptible to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.65 Therefore, no impact would occur.

64 FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2015. “FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map 0641C0292D.” National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance Maps. Accessed August 10, 2017. https://msc.fema.gov/portal. 65 CalEMA (California Emergency Management Agency). 2009. “Marin County Tsunami Inundation USGS 24K Quads” [map]. June 15, 2009. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geologic_hazards/ Tsunami/Inundation_Maps/Marin.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 64

Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than X. LAND USE AND PLANNING Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Physically divide an established

community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general

plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

Analysis a) Physically divide an established community?

No Impact. The proposed project would not include any construction of a physical barrier that would physically divide the existing area surrounding the proposed project site. No freeways, railroad tracks, etc. are included as part of the proposed project. The proposed project would involve the development of nine single-family homes on a vacant parcel and would change the use of the existing site, but would be compatible with the existing residential uses in the proposed project area.

The property does not provide access or connection between any local residential areas or local services such as businesses, commercial areas, or parks. Construction associated with the proposed project would not result in major changes to any public roadways. The proposed use as a residential development would be compatible with the existing residential uses in the project vicinity. Therefore, the project would not physically divide an established community, and impacts would be none.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 65

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

No Impact. Land use on the project site is regulated by the Land Use Element of the City of Novato General Plan, Chapter 2 and the City of Novato Zoning Ordinance (Chapter XIX of the Municipal Code).66

Under the City of Novato General Plan, the project site is currently assigned the Low Density Residential (R1) land use designation, which permits single-family residences at a density of 1.1 to 5.0 dwelling units per acre. The low density residential designation applies to areas appropriate for the development of single family homes and related accessory residential uses. Additionally, certain agriculture, recreation, education, assembly, lodging, day care and utility uses may be allowed. The proposed new subdivision, with a density of approximately 1 unit per acre, will reflect a lower density of development than the surrounding properties. The zoning for the proposed project area is “planned development.” The Project was also design to be in compliance with the City’s Hillside and Ridgeline Protection Ordinance (Division 19.26) which allows for specific building height and size and siting, particularly in conjunction with ridgelines. Adoption of the proposed project would not conflict with the City of Novato General Plan the City of Novato Zoning Ordinance, or the Hillside and Ridgeline Protection Ordinance (Division 19.26) and therefore no impacts would occur as a result of the proposed project. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

No Impact. As indicated in the CDFW Regional Conservation Planning Program,67 the project site is not located within the plan area of any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The proposed project would have no impact.

Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than XI. MINERAL RESOURCES Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would

be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

66 City of Novato. 1978. The Revised General Ordinances of the City of Novato; Municipal Code. With Amendments. https://www.municode.com/library/ca/novato/codes/code_of_ordinances. 67 CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2016. “Natural Community Conservation Planning.” https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/NCCP/Plans 11/21/16.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 66

Analysis a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

No Impact. The California Department of Conservation’s Division of Mining and Geology implements the Mineral Land Classification program, which divides land into four categories called Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs) based on the quality of geologic information available on a given geographic area and the estimated economic value of the resource.68 The project site is designated as a MRZ-3, indicating that there is not enough available data to evaluate the economic significance of underlying mineral deposits).69 The Novato General Plan identifies the four sectors that contain regionally significant resources (MRZ-2 zones): Rush Creek Open Space preserve, the Black Point area, Burdell Mountain, and Bowman Canyon.70 Significant mineral deposits are not known to be present at surrounding sites, and there is no record of significant deposits encountered during previous development of the project site. Because there are no known mineral resources underlying the project site, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a loss of availability of any known mineral resource. The proposed project would have no impact. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

No Impact. As noted above, the City of Novato General Plan describes four sites in Novato that have been designated by the State Division of Mines and Geology as Resource Sectors (MRZ-2 zones). As shown in the General Plan Figure EL-7 Mineral Resources, the project site is not located within any of the four areas identified as mineral resource sites.71 Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of any locally important mineral resources delineated on a local general plan or other land use plan, and it would have no impact.

68 DOC (California Department of Conservation). 1998. Guidelines for Classification and Designation of Mineral Lands. 69 DOC. 1982. Mineral Land Classification Map: Aggregate Resources Only, Marin County. 70 City of Novato. 2016. City of Novato General Plan 2035, Public Review Draft. August 2016. http://novato.org/government/community-development/general-plan-update. 71 Ibid, page 3-21.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 67

Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than XII. NOISE Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local

general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) Create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) Create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the

project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport

or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people

residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

Analysis a, c, and d) Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is surrounded by residential uses along the vicinity roadways of Topaz Drive, Malobar Drive, and Andale Avenue. The primary source of noise in the area is roadway noise. During project construction, heavy equipment would be used for demolition, grading, excavation, paving, and building construction, which would increase ambient noise levels. Noise levels would vary depending on the type of equipment used, how it is operated, and how well it is maintained. Standard construction equipment, such as graders, backhoes, loaders, and trucks, would be used for this work.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 68

As distance between a receptor and the equipment increases, and as distance between areas with simultaneous construction activity increases, dispersion and distance attenuation reduce the effects of separate noise sources added together.

The typical noise levels for various pieces of construction equipment at a distance of 50 feet are presented in Table 8. The noise values represent maximum noise generation, or full-power operation, of the equipment.

Table 8 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels and Usage Factors

Actual Measured Number of Spec 721.560 Lmax @50ft (dBA, Actual Data Equipment Acoustical Use Lmax @ 50ft slow) samples Samples Description Impact Device? Factor (%) (dBA, slow) averaged* (Count) Most Other No 50 85 -- N/A -- 0 Equipment > 5 HP Backhoe No 40 80 78 372 Chain Saw No 20 85 84 46 Compactor No 20 80 83 57 (ground) Compressor (air) No 40 80 78 18 Concrete Mixer No 40 85 79 40 Truck Concrete Pump No 20 82 81 30 Truck Crane No 16 85 81 405 Dozer No 40 85 82 55 Dump Truck No 40 84 76 31 Excavator No 40 85 81 170 Flat Bed Truck No 40 84 74 4 Generator No 50 82 81 19 Generator No 50 70 73 74 (<25KVA, VMS signs) Grader No 40 85 -- N/A -- 0 Paver No 50 85 77 9 Pickup Truck No 40 55 75 1 Pneumatic Tools No 50 85 85 90 Pumps No 50 77 81 17 Roller No 20 85 80 16 Source: DOT 200672

72 DOT. 2006. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model: User’s Guide. Final Report. FHWA-HEP-06-015. DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-06-02. Cambridge, Massachusetts: DOT, Research and Innovative Technology Administration. Final Report. August 2006.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 69

The nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed project would be the residences with adjacent property lines. The majority of nearby residences are at least 50 feet from the boundary of the project site. Two exceptions are the residences at the northwest and southwest corners of Topaz Drive / Misty Road intersection. For these two residences the project boundary is about 10 feet from existing structures, but the distance between these nearby residential structures and the boundary of construction activities (i.e., building envelope) is more likely to be at least 50 feet. Construction of the proposed project would expose these nearby sensitive receptors to increased ambient exterior noise levels. As shown in Table 8, outdoor noise levels at noise- sensitive receptors 50 feet from the noise source could reach as high as 85dBA Lmax. However, a typical residential building can reduce noise levels by 25 dBA (outdoor to indoor) with the windows closed, which would reduce the maximum interior noise level to about 60 dBA at 50 feet. Although the anticipated construction noise levels would be readily noticeable to adjacent residences, construction noise would be regulated through the City of Novato’s Municipal Code.

Pursuant to Novato Municipal Code Section 19.22.070(B), the following are exempt from allowable noise level requirements of the Code:

 Authorized construction activities between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays,  Authorized grading activities and equipment operations between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays when City inspector are available, and  Other construction activities as authorized in writing by the Community Development Director.

Construction activities that occur between the hours for construction noise listed above are exempted by the City; nonetheless, construction activities could result in a temporary but noticeable increase in ambient noise levels in the project area. Because construction would be required to adhere to NMCS 19.22.070(B) schedule restrictions which avoid sensitive evening and overnight periods, and because of the limited duration of construction activities, construction activities would be considered to result in a less‐than‐significant short‐term impact.

After construction, noise at the project site would return to ambient levels, although there would be a slight increase in noise due to the new residences on the site and the slight increase in vehicle trips associated with the project.

Dudek visited the proposed project site on July 11, 2017 to measure ambient sound levels in the vicinity. Jonathan Leech of Dudek conducted the sound level measurements. A short-term (30 minute) measurement was conducted along Topaz Road accompanied by manual traffic counts. The measurements were completed using calibrated SoftDB Model Piccolo 3 integrating sound level meters. Piccolo sound level meters meet the ANSI standard for a Type 2 general purpose sound level meter. Table 9 presents the results of the short-term noise measurements with the traffic count data for the measurement.

Table 9 Short-Term Sound Level Measurements and Traffic Counts

Distance to Roadway Edge Estimated Vehicle Speed (mph) Leq1 Lmax2 Lmin3 Cars 12 feet 25 51.1 68.6 39.4 27 Notes: 1 Equivalent Continuous Sound Level (Time-Average Sound Level)

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 70

2 Maximum Measured Sound Level 3 Minimum Measured Sound Level Temperature 72 degrees Fahrenheit, 3-mile-per-hour light northeast wind.

The short term measurement shows that traffic noise levels are approximately 51 dBA Leq at 12 feet from the edge of the pavement for the number of cars documented in Table 9.

The project is expected to generate an average of 86 average daily trips (ADTs), 7 AM peak hour trips and 9 PM peak hour trips daily, which would travel along the nearby roadways and into and out of the project site. The project would be accessed from Topaz Road. As indicated in the Transportation Section, Topaz Drive in the vicinity of Misty Way is estimated to have an existing traffic volume of approximately 1930 ADT. The project added trips would therefore account for an increase of only 4% in the roadway volumes along Topaz Road. The project would therefore not result in an increase in vehicle trips that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load on the vicinity street system.

Beyond vehicle trips, operational noise will be limited to that produced by exterior mechanical equipment associated with the proposed residences. The primary noise sources would be heat pump condensers and air conditioners. General assumptions regarding HVAC equipment are used to analyze the potential for operational noise impacts from the HVAC equipment. Based upon noise emission data from a representative residential condenser model line (Trane 4DCY4024 through 4DCY4060), the sound power levels would range from 68 to 76 dBA.73 City of Novato Zoning Ordinance - Section 19.22.070 states that uses, activities, and processes shall not generate or emit any noise or sound in excess of 45 dBA at night (10 p.m. to 6 a.m.) and 60 dBA during the day (6 a.m. to 10 p.m.) beyond the property line of the parcel on which they are located.74 Using a sound power level of 68 dBA, noise levels in excess of 45 dBA could occur within 50 feet of the HVAC equipment; given that some existing residences could be within 50 feet of introduced HVAC equipment, the potential exists for the night-time limit of 45 dBA to be exceeded, resulting in a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure N-1, Noise Attenuating Structures, would be incorporated to ensure that operational noise impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure N-1, Noise Attenuating Structures: To ensure noise from heating and cooling equipment would comply with the City Noise Ordinance, the following would be implemented:

 Ensure any manufacturer recommended noise control treatments are installed on residential mechanical equipment such that noise level associated with the generation of said equipment complies with the City Noise Ordinance.  Enclose equipment in cement blocks or other type of structure capable of achieving the attenuation necessary to reduce noise levels at the property line to comply with the City Noise Ordinance.

73 Trane. 2013. Product Data: 4DCY4024 through 4DCY4060 Single Packaged Convertible Dual Fuel 14 SEER. 74 City of Novato, Zoning Ordinance - Division 19-22 – General Performance Standards, Section 19.22.070 – Noise and Construction Hours.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 71

 Prior to final approval of building plans, a noise analysis shall be prepared that demonstrates that the equipment complies with the City Noise Ordinance.

Operational noise produced by the exterior mechanical equipment associated with proposed residences, such as heating and air conditioning units (or other elements such as emergency generators), would be subject to compliance with the City of Novato noise ordinance requirements and would be less than significant with applied mitigation. b) Expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

Less than Significant Impact. As described above, project construction would involve use of a variety of heavy equipment; however, no pile driving or blasting is required or permitted.

For demolition and construction, the potential for damage to existing structures could result from ground-borne vibrations greater than 0.2 inches per second PPV, based on the FTA Noise and Vibration Manual (May 2006) construction vibration criterion for conventional structures. Construction activities within 200 feet and pile driving within 600 feet would be potentially disruptive to vibration-sensitive operations75; vibration sensitive operations in this context would include high precision laboratories and medical surgical facilities, neither of which exist in the proximity of the project site. No large rotating equipment is anticipated in association with single family residences, and thus operational vibration issues are not expected to be significant.

Construction of retaining walls is expected during the project. Table 10 shows typical vibration levels for equipment that might be used for the project construction. The closest retaining wall is about 33 feet from the property line and about 46 feet from the nearest existing structure. Thus ground-borne vibration levels produced during construction are not expected to have an impact at off-site sensitive receptor locations.

Table 10 Vibration Velocities for Typical Construction Equipment

PPV at 25 Feet Approximate Ground Vibration Level 25 Equipment (Inches Per Second) feet (VdB re 1microinch/second) Large Bulldozer 0.089 87 Loaded Trucks 0.076 86 Jackhammer 0.035 79 Small Bulldozer 0.003 58 Source: FTA 200676

75 Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2002. Transportation-Related Earthborne Vibrations. Report No. TAV-02-01-R9201. California Department of Transportation; Environmental Program; Environmental Engineering; Noise, Air Quality, and Hazardous Waste Management Office. February 20, 2002. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/transportation%20related%20earthborne%20 vibrations.pdf. 76 FTA (Federal Transit Administration). 2006. Transit Noise & Vibration Impact Assessment. Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment. May 2006.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 72

All pieces of equipment are below the 0.2 inch per second threshold of significance. Therefore, the project would have less than a significant vibration impact. e, f) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

No Impact. The project site is located approximately 1.7 miles from Gnoss Field (Marin County Airport). Airport noise contours from the 2013 FEIR77 for the airport show noise contours do not extend to the proposed project site. Occasionally, aircraft operations associated with the airport may be heard by future residents of the proposed project. However, based on the noise contours reviewed, the air field will not expose future residents of the proposed project to significant noise.

Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

Analysis a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would include nine single-family homes and these homes would be one or two stories ranging from 3-4 bedrooms for each home. The exact number of residents will fluctuate depending on how these units are populated; however, 30-40 people would be considered an average number given the unit configuration. The increase in population compared to existing population levels would not be substantial. The addition of nine

77 Landrum & Brown. Gnoss Field Airport Final Environmental Impact Report: Chapter Four – Noise. November 2013. http://www.gnossfieldeis-eir.com/pdf/Volume2/d-4.7%20Noise.pdf Accessed July 19, 2017.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 73

single-family homes would not include any new businesses or new infrastructure that would create a substantial population growth. The proposed project would result in the extension of a water line to serve the proposed project site, but the water line would not be extended into other undeveloped areas or provide water service beyond the population of this project. Thus, the project would not indirectly create population growth. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. b, c) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

No Impact. The project site is on a vacant property and does not currently include any housing units. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in displacement of any existing housing or people, and would not necessitate construction of replacement housing elsewhere as a result of such a displacement. No impact would occur.

Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services:

Fire protection? Police protection? Schools Parks Other public facilities?

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 74

Analysis a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services?

Less than Significant Impact. The City of Novato is served by the five fire stations of the Novato Fire Protection District. The nearest station to the project site and the first station to respond to the project site would be Station 62 (Atherton), located at 450 Atherton Avenue, approximately 2.6 miles from the project site. Police protection would be provided by the Novato Police Department, located at 909 Machin Avenue, approximately 3.8 miles from the project site. Based on the description of the proposed project, existing emergency services are expected to be sufficient to meet the needs of the proposed facilities without the provision of new or expanded emergency service facilities. Due to the proposed project size, the proposed project would not result in any substantial demand for school facilities. The proposed project would not increase the demand for parks and is not expected to necessitate construction of new parks. There is at least one park within 0.5 mile from the proposed project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not necessitate the construction of new governmental facilities that would have a significant environmental impact. Impacts would be less than significant.

The City of Novato is served by the Novato Unified School District (NUSD), which includes eight elementary schools, three middle schools, two high schools, a K‐8 charter school, and an early intervention program.78 The District had an average daily attendance of 7,420 students in the 2015–2016 school year, which was a 0.55% decrease from 7,461 students in the 2014– 2015 school year.79

The NUSD uses a student yield factor of 0.7 students per single‐family detached household for capacity planning purposes.80 Applying that factor, the project’s 9 units could generate 7 new students. These 7 new students would likely attend the local elementary school and high schools. Based on the District’s boundary maps, students at the project site would attend Olive Elementary School which has a capacity of 400 students, and either high school as Novato High School is approximately 5.4 miles from the proposed project site and San Marin High School is approximately 5.3 miles from the proposed project site. Also, Marin Oaks High School (alternative high school) is 4.5 miles from the proposed project site. Novato High School has a capacity of 2,077 students and San Marin High School has a capacity of 1,183 students.81 Enrollments at the schools for the 2015–2016 school year were: 342 students at

78 Novato Unified School District. 2017. http://nusd.org/. 79 Education Data Partnership of the Department of Education. 2017. “Novato Unified.” http://www.ed-data.org/district/Marin/Novato-Unified. 80 Schreder 2014. “Level I Developer Fee Study for Unified School District.” May 28, 2014. http://nusd.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Developer-Fee-Study-5.28.14-jsa-Increase.pdf 81 City of Novato, Existing Conditions Report, Public Services and Facilities, 2012.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 75

Olive Elementary, 1,296 at Novato High School, and 1,076 at San Marin High School.82 Therefore, at this time there is adequate capacity to accommodate the approximately 7 students that could be generated by the proposed project. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the project sponsor will be required to pay a development impact fee to the Novato School District. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than XV. RECREATION Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might, have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

Analysis a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would involve construction of a 9-lot subdivision and residential development. Rush Creek Preserve, Slade Park, Downtown Recreation Center, Hill Recreation Center/Margaret Todd Senior Center, and Scottsdale Pond are the closest recreational facilities to the project site. These potential new residents may use the existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities but the small number of users associated with this project would not cause any acceleration in the physical deterioration of such facilities. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might, have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

No Impact. The proposed project would not involve construction or expansion of any recreational facilities. No impacts would occur.

82 Education Data Partnership of the Department of Education. 2017. “Novato High.” http://www.ed- data.org/school/Marin/Novato-Unified/Novato-High.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 76

Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and

non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or

a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or

dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or

pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

This analysis is based on Dudek’s assessment of the existing vicinity roadway and traffic conditions and the project’s trip generation to determine the proposed project’s impact on its surroundings.

Background and Existing Setting

The proposed project would include the development of nine single-family homes on a vacant 8.7-acre site located in the Bahia Community in the City of Novato. The project site is accessible through an existing roadway network. Access to the Bahia Subdivision and to the proposed

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 77

nine lots would be via Atherton Avenue onto Bugeia Lane to Bahia Drive and then Topaz Drive. The subdivision would be served from an extension of Misty Road, which currently connects to Topaz Road as a short dead-end segment.

Atherton Avenue, is two-lane Arterial roadway that connects with Highway 101 to the west and SR 37 to the east. The speed limit on Atherton Avenue is 45 miles per hour (mph).

Bugeia Lane, is a Collector street and provides access road to the existing Bahia community. The road is two-lane between Atherton Avenue and H Lane, at which point it widens and becomes Bahia Drive, the entrance to the Bahia Community. The speed limit on Bugeia Lane is 35 mph.

Bahia Drive, is a Local street and is an extension of Bugeia Lane east of H Lane. Near Topaz Drive, Bahia Drive narrows to two lanes. It is the main access to schools, shopping, downtown Novato, and Highway 101 from the Bahia community.

Topaz Drive is a local street, as it serves local traffic feeding into arterial and collector streets. It provides access to Bahia Drive at the west and Bolero Drive at the east. It is a 2-lane street with a 36 foot wide paved way. There is a continuous raised sidewalk with curb and on-street parking available on either side of the street. The posted speed limit on Topaz Drive is 25 mph. During the site visit, Dudek transportation staff observed that due to a number of curves along Topaz Drive, vehicles tend to drive below the posted speed limit.

Misty Way is a two-lane Local Street with a 30 foot wide paved way. It has a raised sidewalk with curb on the north side of the street, and parking is allowed on either side. This street currently provides vehicular access to two single-family homes (i.e., driveways for these homes connect to Misty Way) and would be extended to provide access to the proposed nine single- family homes. Currently, Misty Way does not have a posted speed limit. As Misty Way provides access to only a few homes and ends in a cul-de-sac, the practical existing vehicle speed is anticipated to be around 15 mph.

The intersection of Topaz Drive and Misty Way is currently an uncontrolled intersection, set at more or less 90 degrees to Topaz Way, but on the outside of a broad curve.

Level of Service Thresholds for City of Novato and Marin County

City of Novato General Plan policies establish standards for acceptable levels of service for intersections. Intersections with traffic signals or four-way stop signs should operate at LOS D or better. For intersections with stop signs on side streets only, LOS E is acceptable. Traffic studies prepared for the General Plan Existing Conditions Report found that nearly all of the 41 intersections studied at that time operated at acceptable levels of service. The two exceptions were the stop-controlled intersections of South Novato Boulevard and Redwood Boulevard and Alameda del Prado and Nave Drive. Both of these intersections operated at LOS E during the morning peak period.

Several roadway and freeway segments in the City of Novato are part of the Marin County Congestion Management Program (CMP) network. The Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM), which serves as the region’s congestion management agency, has established LOS standards for designated roadways in Marin County. The CMP LOS standards focus on

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 78

roadway segments. The standards affecting Novato include a LOS E requirement for US 101 and a LOS D requirement for SR 37 and designated CMP major arterial segments of Novato Boulevard, South Novato Boulevard and Bel Marin Keys Boulevard. The General Plan Existing Conditions Report evaluated roadway segment and freeway operations for the weekday PM peak period. All of the designated road segments in the City of Novato operate at LOS A or B. All roadway and freeway segments within the City’s jurisdiction meet the thresholds required by the Marin County CMP.2

Existing Average Daily Traffic Volume

Based on an average daily traffic (ADT) count from a study conducted for establishing the speed limit on Bugeia Lane, it is estimated that the existing ADT along Topaz Drive would be approximately 1,518. The City of Novato General Plan does not specify a capacity threshold for local streets, therefore a level of service analysis has not been provided for Topaz Drive or Misty Way. Table 11 provides an estimate of existing average daily traffic on Bugeia Lane and Topaz Drive utilizing a growth rate of 1% per year.

Table 11 Average Daily Traffic Volume

Estimated Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on Bugeia Lane and Topaz Drive Street Classification ADT (2013) Estimated ADT (2017) Bugeia Ln. Collector 2,650 * 2,758 Topaz Dr. Local Street 1,460 (estimated) 1,518

* Staff Report, City of Novato

Based on the 2035 General Plan Existing Conditions Report and an estimate of existing average daily traffic volumes near the proposed project, all roadway segments and intersections operate at acceptable level of service conditions under existing conditions.83 a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

No Impact. As the project generates a very low volume of daily and peak hour trips, a level of service analysis of roadway segments and intersections is not required. The low number of project generated trips and residents also correlates to low use of pedestrian routes and mass transit systems. Thus there would be no significant impact associated with the conflict of an applicable plan, ordinance or policy-establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system.

83 City of Novato. 2016. City of Novato General Plan 2035, Public Review Draft. August 2016. http://novato.org/government/community-development/general-plan-update

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 79

Project Trip Generation

Table 12 provides a summary of trip generation for the project based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. The proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 86 daily trips, with 7 trips (2 inbound, 5 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 9 trips (6 inbound, 3 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour.

Table 12 Trip Generation Summary

Trip Generation Rates AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Daily Trip Rate Unit Total % In % Out Total % In % Out Single-Family Detached 9.52 DU 0.75 25% 75% 1.0 63% 37% Housing Trip Generation Total No. AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use of Units Unit Daily Total In Out Total In Out Single-Family Detached 9 DU 86 7 2 5 9 6 3 Housing DU – Dwelling Unit

Construction Traffic

Construction of the proposed nine single-family homes would require deliveries of equipment and materials to the project site, as well as daily trips by construction workers. As the project site is accessed via Misty Way, the addition of construction-related traffic may create temporary parking requirements along this street segment. Movement of truck traffic for deliveries of equipment and materials along Topaz Drive, a local street with curves, and vehicles travelling at lower speed than the posted speed limit, could cause short-term operational impacts described below.

Table 13 provides a trip generation summary of proposed project’s construction related traffic (based on trip generation from CalEEMod). Based on each of the construction phases, one-way worker and truck trips were utilized to estimate the average daily trips for construction traffic. As shown in Table 13, a maximum of 84 ADT would be generated during the grading phase of the project, and would last approximately 59 days. During all other phases of construction, the traffic would be lower than the ADT generated during the grading phase. Construction traffic levels would be small for a project of this size and would be expected to operate outside of the peak hour of the street. Therefore, the roadway segments and intersections in the project area are not anticipated to experience adverse impacts on level of service.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 80

Table 13 Trip Generation Summary for Construction Traffic

Construction Traffic Estimate (from CalEEMod) No. of Trips (one-way) Average Daily Trips (Two-way) Total Average Construction Phase Workers Trucks Days Workers Trucks Daily Trips 1. Site Prep 18 - 10 36 - 36 2. Grading 18 12 59 36 48* 84 3. Construction 3 1 240 6 4** 10 4. Paving 15 - 20 30 - 30 5. Architectural Coating 1 - 20 2 - 2 * Truck trips were estimated by dividing the 680 one-way haul truck trips by number of days (59 days) for which the activity is planned, thereby approximately 12 one-way truck trips are estimated per day. Applying a PCE factor of 2, average daily two-way truck trips would be 12*2*2 = 48 ADT; ** Truck trip, estimated by applying a PCE factor of 2, average daily two-way truck trips would be 1*2*2 = 4 ADT b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

No Impact. The passage of Proposition 111 in June 1990 established a process for each metropolitan county in California that has an urbanized area with a population over 50,000 to prepare a congestion management program (CMP). The Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) is designated as the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) to oversee the CMP in Marin County.

TAM established the CMP roadway network in 1991. TAM monitors the CMP roadway system based on established LOS standards. These standards are different based on the type of roadway: arterials have a LOS standard of D and freeways or expressways have a standard of LOS E.84

If a general plan update or amendment, or major development proposal is projected to generate a net increase of 100 vehicle trips during the PM (afternoon) peak hour, information is to be forwarded to TAM for comment and is subject to a CMP analysis. Local jurisdictions are responsible for determining which projects meet these criteria. The PM peak hour is most appropriate for this determination given that for most roadway segments, traffic levels of service are worse during the PM peak hour than during the AM peak hour.85

Since the proposed project would generate less than 10 PM peak hour trips, it is not subject to a CMP analysis, per criteria established by TAM.

Marin County maintains an inventory of proposed development projects, known as "PROPDEV." PROPDEV includes all projects with at least five residential units or at least 5,000 square feet of non-residential use. The PROPDEV database file covers 40 items of information including location, project sponsor, acreage, zoning, square feet of building area, and status of

84 Marin County. 2015. Final Report CMP Update, Land Use Analysis. September 24, 2015. 85 Ibid.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 81

development application. Many projects in Marin County are generally too small to effectively analyze using the county model on an individual basis. Once TAM has received updates on land use changes from the planning departments of each local government in Marin County, it should then biennially update the MTM with updated land use information. In addition to land use changes, local governments are also responsible for advising TAM of planned changes to the roadway network and transit system based on their knowledge of developer mitigations.86

Since the proposed project does not generate significant number of PM peak hour trips, it would not conflict with an applicable congestion management program or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways or have a significant impact on the performance of the circulation system. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

No Impact. The nearest airport to the project site is the Gnoss Field (or Marin County Airport), located approximately 1.7 miles to the northwest. The proposed project is not located within an Airport Land Use Plan, and would not result in any change in, or impact to, air traffic patterns. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Access to the proposed project would be via Atherton Avenue onto Bugeia Lane to Bahia Drive and then Topaz Drive. It would be served from an extension of Misty Way. Misty Way is a public street that commences at Topaz Drive and ends in a cul-de-sac. The intersection of Topaz Drive and Misty Way is currently an uncontrolled intersection, set at more or less 90 degrees to Topaz Way, but on the outside of a broad curve.

Dudek evaluated the adequacy of sight distance at the Topaz Drive/Misty Way intersection, as this intersection would be the proposed project’s access and would also provide access for heavy construction equipment and delivery truck traffic during construction activity. A summary of an intersection sight distance evaluation for the Topaz Drive and Misty Way intersection is provided in Appendix G.

As shown in the sight distance analysis, with the extension of Misty Way to serve nine new single- family homes, the existing obstruction patterns associated with the intersection of Topaz Drive /Misty Way would not provide adequate sight distance as an uncontrolled intersection. The presence of vegetation at the south-west corner and the vehicles parked at the north-west corner of this intersection obstruct the sight distance for the vehicles exiting Misty Way. Sight distance at the Topaz Drive /Misty Way intersection can be improved by incorporating the following mitigation measures:

Mitigation Measure T-1, Sight Distance Improvements: Sight distance at the Topaz Drive /Misty Way intersection will be improved by incorporating the following:  Modify visual site distance obstruction caused by vegetation by trimming the bushes and shrubs at the south-west corner of the intersection;

86 Ibid.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 82

 Restrict parking within 25 feet along the west side of the Topaz Drive north approach to the Topaz Drive/Misty Way intersection;  Install a stop sign along the minor approach (Misty Way). A stop sign would enhance safety of vehicles and pedestrians using this intersection.

With the mitigation measures implemented, the proposed project would have less-than- significant-impact due to inadequate sight distance at the Topaz Drive/Misty Way intersection. e) Result in inadequate emergency access?

No Impact. The project would provide for emergency vehicle access via Misty Way. Emergency responders would be able to reach the project site via Topaz Drive and Misty Way, and would be able to access all the proposed nine single-family homes and make a turn around the cul-de- sac. Emergency access is considered adequate and the project would have no impacts from inadequate emergency access. f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

No Impact. The project access is via extension of Misty Way that would be a Local street with 30 foot wide paved way, with sidewalk along the north side, and parking along the south side of the street. Currently, there is no public transit stop or striped bicycle lane along either Topaz Drive or Misty Way. The City does not currently have adopted bicycle or pedestrian plans for this area. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities and the project would have no impacts on these facilities.

Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local

register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 83

Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying

the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Analysis a, b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources or a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.

Less than Significant Impact. Based on review of existing records, and the results of the surface survey, the Project will not have an adverse effect on tribal cultural resources. As designed, no known historical buildings or features listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources features will be impacted by the project. (Appendix E).

Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 84

Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of

existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements

and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

Analysis a, e) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?

Less than Significant Impact. Wastewater services would be provided to the proposed project by the Novato Sanitary District, which operates under the authority and regulations of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Facilities associated with the proposed project would connect to municipal sewer systems. Wastewater would flow to the Novato Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Novato Sanitary District completed the Novato Treatment Plant Improvement Project in 2010, and combined flows with the former Ignacio Treatment Plant. The treatment plant has an average dry weather flow capacity of 7.0 million

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 85

gallons per day (mgd), an average wet weather flow capacity of 10.3 mgd, and a peak three- hour flow capacity of 52 mgd.87 According to the 2015 Operations and Maintenance Report for the Novato Sanitary District, the treatment plant’s peak wet weather capacity is 30.7 mgd. The reported noted that in 2015, the plant handled an annual average of 3.25 million gallons of wastewater per dry weather day and the peak wet weather flow was 14.22 mgd in 2015.88 Assuming the proposed project’s daily water use would exit the project site as wastewater, the project would result in less than 7,000 gallons of wastewater per day (based on a water demand of 173 gpcd and 40 new residents (see Impact d, below)).

The proposed project’s wastewater would be accommodated within the Novato Wastewater Treatment Plant’s remaining dry weather capacity of approximately 3.7 mgd and peak wet weather capacity of 30.7 mgd. During wet weather flow, wastewater would also be accommodated within the Treatment Plant’s capacity. The project would not substantially increase wet weather flow. The proposed project would not require the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of existing treatment facilities.

Wastewater from the project would be directed to existing facilities, which would continue to comply with all provisions of the NPDES program, as enforced by the RWQCB. Therefore, the project would not result in an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements and the impact is less than significant. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

Less than Significant Impact. As explained in Impact a., above, treatment capacity in the city is projected according to the buildout scenario addressed in the City of Novato’s General Plan.

The proposed project would, fit within the projected wastewater demands accounted for in the Novato Sanitary District Master Plan.89 As described above, the wastewater service needs of the proposed project would be met by existing facilities and would not require installation of new facilities, the construction and operation of which could have a potential environmental impact.

Similarly, the North Marin Water District (NMWD) Urban Water Management Plan projects future water demand in its service area based on buildout90 included in the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Projections 2013.91 ABAG’s Projections 2013 are based on adopted general plans within NMWD’s service area, including the City of Novato’s 1996 General Plan. Because the proposed project would be consistent with the water demands projected in the NMWD Urban Water Management Plan, the proposed project would not necessitate

87 City of Novato. 2014. “Chapter 16, Utilities,” page 16-14. In City of Novato Existing Conditions Report. http://novato.org/home/showdocument?id=11285 88 Novato Sanitary District. 2016. Novato Sanitary District 2015 Operations and Maintenance Report. http://www.novatosan.com/newsletters-press-documents/documents/#planning-and-facilities 89 Novato Sanitary District. 2005. Novato Sanitary District Master Plan. 90 NMWD (North Marin Water District). 2016. “Table 4-3.” In North Marin Water District 2016 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2016. 91 ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments). 2013. “Bay Area Plan Projections 2013. http://abag.ca.gov/planning/housing/projections13.html.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 86

construction of any new facilities for water provision that could result in an adverse environmental impact. The impact would be less than significant. c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

Less than Significant Impact. Storm drainage facilities are also discussed in Hydrology and Water Quality, above. The environmental effects associated with construction of these facilities are encompassed within the environmental effects of construction of the entire project.

As such, the proposed project would continue to be adequately served by existing and proposed storm drains and bio‐retention basins. The project, therefore, would require new or expanded facilities, but would result in a less‐than‐significant impact on the storm drainage system. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

Less than Significant Impact. Water service is provided to the City of Novato by the NMWD. The Novato Water System serves primarily the City of Novato and surrounding unincorporated areas in Marin County encompassing approximately 75 square miles. As described above under XVII b)., the NMWD Urban Water Management Plan projects future water demand in its service area92 based on buildout included in ABAG’s Projections 2013. ABAG’s Projections 2013 are based on adopted general plans within NMWD’s service area, including the City of Novato’s 1996 General Plan.

In 2016, NMWD adopted the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan in accordance with the Urban Water Management Act. In the 2015 UWMP, the District’s base daily per capita water use was estimated to be 173 gallons (gpcd). Based on the water demand of up to 173 gpcd and 40 new residents, the proposed project would result in an average daily demand of less than 7,000 gallons per day, and an average annual demand of approximately 2.5 million gallons per year.93

The 2015 UWMP projects future water demand in its service area. These projections are based on providing adequate water supply to meet demand associated with buildout according to the ABAG Projections 2013. ABAG’s Projections are, in turn, based upon adopted General Plans within the NMWD service area. Given that the project would require a General Plan Amendment, the water demand generated by the project was not anticipated in the 2015 UWMP. However, according to the 2015 UWMP, water supply for 2020 was projected to be 12,067 acre-feet per year (afy), and total demand was projected to be 10,662 afy, resulting in a surplus of 1,405 afy.94 The water required by the project would be accommodated by the remaining capacity.

92 NMWD. 2016. “Table 4-3.” In North Marin Water District 2016 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2016. 93 NMWD (North Marin Water District). 2016. North Marin Water District 2016 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2016. 94 NMWD (North Marin Water District). 2016. “Table 7-7.” In North Marin Water District 2016 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2016.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 87

The UWMP notes the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) (the source of approximately 80% of the NMWD’s water) conducted water supply reliability modeling that shows there is adequate water supply to meet 100% of SCWA demands for both average and multiple dry years.95 During a severe drought condition, under the single-dry year scenario, the District may not have adequate supplies and will still have the ability to impose mandatory water use restrictions. The District’s projected water supply portfolio is highly stable because it relies largely on current contracted and permitted water supply from the Agency and also has local surface water that can further supplement the Agency supply, particularly during drought conditions.

Therefore, although water demands were not anticipated in the NMWD Urban Water Management Plan, the project would not exceed NMWD’s projected water supply for 2020 and the future, and the impact would be less than significant. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?

Less than Significant Impact. Solid waste collection and disposal services for the proposed project would be provided by Novato Disposal Service. Novato Disposal Service transfers solid waste directly to Redwood Landfill, located at 8950 Redwood Highway in Novato. Redwood Landfill has a maximum permitted throughput of 2,300 tons per day and estimated remaining capacity of 26,000,000 cubic yards.96 The estimated closure date for the landfill is July 2024.

Solid waste generation for the proposed project was determined based on rates published by the California Department of Resource Recycling and Recovery. The generation rate for residential homes is approximately10 pounds of waste per household per day.97 The nine unit development would generate approximately 90 pounds of solid waste per day, or 0.045 tons. Since the Redwood Landfill has a maximum daily throughput of 2,300 tons, the project’s contribution would be accommodated within the existing landfill, and impacts would be less than significant. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

Less than Significant Impact. Project demolition and construction would generate solid waste in the form of building materials, asphalt, and general construction waste. The City of Novato requires all construction, demolition, and renovation projects to divert, by recycling or reuse, at least 50% of debris (by weight) from the project. In addition, a waste management plan is

95 NMWD (North Marin Water District). 2016. North Marin Water District 2016 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2016. 96 CalRecycle (California Department of Recycling and Recovery). 2016. “Facility/Site Summary Details: Redwood Landfill.” Accessed May 27, 2015. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/ 21-AA-0001/Detail. 97 CalRecycle (California Department of Recycling and Recovery). 2016. “Public Sector and Institutions: Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates.” Accessed November 10, 2016. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 88

required prior to issuance of a construction or demolition permit to ensure that the 50% goal will be met. Compliance with the City of Novato’s regulations would bring about compliance with applicable regulations.

The City of Novato has adopted the Per Capita Disposal and Goal Measurement (2007 and Later) in accordance with Senate Bill 1016, which builds on Assembly Bill 939, the Source Reduction, Recycling Elements Program, intended to meet the requirements of the California Integrated Waste Management Act. The City of Novato implements this program through the general solid waste collection service, provided by Novato Disposal. Since the proposed project would use the Novato Disposal collection services, it would be in compliance with the City of Novato’s solid waste requirements. As described above, compliance with the City of Novato’s requirements would bring about compliance with the federal and state regulations pertaining to solid waste. The impact would be less than significant.

Less Than XVIV. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF Potentially Significant With Less Than SIGNIFICANCE Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to

eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project

are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Analysis a, c) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As described in the analysis presented in the preceding sections, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified herein, the proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels;

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 89

threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory; or otherwise cause substantial adverse effects on human beings through impacts on the aesthetic environment, geologic resources, hazards, land use, noise, traffic, or other elements of the environment. b) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The analysis provided in the preceding sections demonstrate that the proposed project would result in development prescribed by and accounted for in the City of Novato’s General Plan. Any incremental environmental effects related to the project would be negligible and would not contribute considerably to any cumulatively significant environmental impact. The potential environmental effects related to the proposed project as identified above would be mitigated to less than significant through implementation of the mitigation measures identified herein.

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 90

REPORT PREPARERS

This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the City of Novato by Dudek, 465 Magnolia Avenue, Larkspur, California 94939. The following professionals participated in its preparation:

City of Novato

Matthew Gilster, Planner II Brett Walker, Senior Planner

Dudek

Darcey Rosenblatt, Senior Project Manager Bridget Freitas, Associate Planner Nina Isaieva, GIS Analyst Rachel Strobridge, GIS Technician Paul Keating, Biologist Matt Morales, Technical Resource Specialist Chris Barnobi, Environmental Acoustician

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 91

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision December 2017 Initial Study Page 92

APPENDIX A California Emissions Estimator Model Results

CalEEMod Version 2016.3.1 Outputs Annual, Summer, Winter, Mitigation Report

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Date: 7/20/2017 1:36 PM

Bahia Heights Project - Marin County, Annual Bahia Heights Project Marin County, Annual

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage

Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population

Single Family Housing 9.00 Dwelling Unit 8.70 27,467.00 26

1.2 Other Project Characteristics

Urbanization Rural Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 69

Climate Zone 5 Operational Year 2020

Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company

CO2 Intensity 499.66 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N2O Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr)

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

Project Characteristics - Adjusted CO2 Intensity Factor to 33% RPS by 2020 Land Use - 9 single family residential homes on 8.7 acres Construction Phase - Construction start in May 2018 and end September 2019 Off-road Equipment - Added one trencher for waterline installation Grading - 5,440 CY of surplus soils to be exported per the Conceptual Grading Plan Vehicle Trips - Default trip generation assumed Woodstoves - Only gas fireplaces assumed, no woodburning devices per BAAQMD Reg 6 Rule 3 Energy Use - Default energy use Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - BAAQMD basic dust controls (water 2x daily and limit vehicle speeds to 15 mph on unpaved areas) Energy Mitigation - Exceed 2013 Title 24 by 28% for residences to approximate 2016 Title 24 compliance Water Mitigation - 20% indoor/outdoor reduction in water assumed for CALGreen compliance Page 1 of 24 Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 40 15

tblConstructionPhase NumDays 230.00 240.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 59.00

tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/22/2019 8/30/2019

tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/27/2019 8/3/2019

tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/9/2018 8/3/2018

tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/24/2019 9/1/2018

tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/11/2018 5/14/2018

tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 6/25/2019 8/4/2019

tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/10/2018 9/2/2018

tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 6/12/2018 5/15/2018

tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 5/28/2019 8/4/2018

tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 5/29/2018 5/1/2018

tblFireplaces NumberGas 2.25 9.00

tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 0.72 0.00

tblFireplaces NumberWood 3.87 0.00

tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 5,440.00

tblLandUse BuildingSpaceSquareFeet 16,200.00 27,467.00

tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 16,200.00 27,467.00

tblLandUse LotAcreage 2.92 8.70

tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.50 0.50

tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Trenchers tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 499.66 tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2018 2020 tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural

tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 0.36 0.00

tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 0.36 0.00

Page 2 of 24 2.0 Emissions Summary

2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Year tons/yr MT/yr

2018 0.2573 2.5675 1.6480 2.9100e- 0.2970 0.1425 0.4394 0.1526 0.1324 0.2849 0.0000 263.8118 263.8118 0.0665 0.0000 265.4739 003 2019 0.3791 1.6510 1.3498 2.1400e- 2.3500e- 0.1007 0.1030 6.4000e- 0.0947 0.0954 0.0000 187.1598 187.1598 0.0445 0.0000 188.2713 003 003 004 Maximum 0.3791 2.5675 1.6480 2.9100e- 0.2970 0.1425 0.4394 0.1526 0.1324 0.2849 0.0000 263.8118 263.8118 0.0665 0.0000 265.4739 003

Mitigated Construction

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Year tons/yr MT/yr

2018 0.2573 2.5675 1.6480 2.9100e- 0.1408 0.1425 0.2833 0.0706 0.1324 0.2030 0.0000 263.8115 263.8115 0.0665 0.0000 265.4736 003 2019 0.3791 1.6510 1.3498 2.1400e- 2.3500e- 0.1007 0.1030 6.4000e- 0.0947 0.0954 0.0000 187.1595 187.1595 0.0445 0.0000 188.2711 003 003 004 Maximum 0.3791 2.5675 1.6480 2.9100e- 0.1408 0.1425 0.2833 0.0706 0.1324 0.2030 0.0000 263.8115 263.8115 0.0665 0.0000 265.4736 003

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 52.17 0.00 28.79 53.50 0.00 21.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction

Page 3 of 24 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)

1 5-1-2018 7-31-2018 1.4328 1.4328

2 8-1-2018 10-31-2018 0.8063 0.8063

3 11-1-2018 1-31-2019 0.8323 0.8323

4 2-1-2019 4-30-2019 0.7495 0.7495

5 5-1-2019 7-31-2019 0.7747 0.7747

6 8-1-2019 9-30-2019 0.2320 0.2320

Highest 1.4328 1.4328

Page 4 of 24 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Area 0.1288 1.7500e- 0.0675 1.0000e- 4.5000e- 4.5000e- 4.5000e- 4.5000e- 0.0000 1.2327 1.2327 1.3000e- 2.0000e- 1.2421 003 005 004 004 004 004 004 005 Energy 2.5700e- 0.0219 9.3300e- 1.4000e- 1.7700e- 1.7700e- 1.7700e- 1.7700e- 0.0000 42.8076 42.8076 1.5000e- 6.7000e- 43.0461 003 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 004 Mobile 0.0244 0.0814 0.2699 8.3000e- 0.0727 9.8000e- 0.0737 0.0195 9.2000e- 0.0205 0.0000 75.7810 75.7810 2.7400e- 0.0000 75.8494 004 004 004 003 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.2167 0.0000 2.2167 0.1310 0.0000 5.4917

Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1860 1.0124 1.1984 0.0192 4.6000e- 1.8156 004 Total 0.1557 0.1051 0.3467 9.8000e- 0.0727 3.2000e- 0.0759 0.0195 3.1400e- 0.0227 2.4027 120.8337 123.2364 0.1545 1.1500e- 127.4449 004 003 003 003

Mitigated Operational

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Area 0.1288 1.7500e- 0.0675 1.0000e- 4.5000e- 4.5000e- 4.5000e- 4.5000e- 0.0000 1.2327 1.2327 1.3000e- 2.0000e- 1.2421 003 005 004 004 004 004 004 005 Energy 1.8800e- 0.0161 6.8500e- 1.0000e- 1.3000e- 1.3000e- 1.3000e- 1.3000e- 0.0000 35.9074 35.9074 1.3600e- 5.5000e- 36.1051 003 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 004 Mobile 0.0244 0.0814 0.2699 8.3000e- 0.0727 9.8000e- 0.0737 0.0195 9.2000e- 0.0205 0.0000 75.7810 75.7810 2.7400e- 0.0000 75.8494 004 004 004 003 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.2167 0.0000 2.2167 0.1310 0.0000 5.4917

Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1488 0.8099 0.9587 0.0153 3.7000e- 1.4525 004 Total 0.1550 0.0993 0.3442 9.4000e- 0.0727 2.7300e- 0.0755 0.0195 2.6700e- 0.0222 2.3655 113.7310 116.0965 0.1506 9.4000e- 120.1407 004 003 003 004

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Percent 0.44 5.56 0.72 4.08 0.00 14.69 0.62 0.00 14.97 2.07 1.55 5.88 5.79 2.58 18.26 5.73 Reduction

Page 5 of 24 3.0 Construction Detail

Construction Phase

Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week

1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 5/1/2018 5/14/2018 5 10

2 Grading Grading 5/15/2018 8/3/2018 5 59

3 Building Construction Building Construction 9/2/2018 8/3/2019 5 240

4 Paving Paving 8/4/2018 9/1/2018 5 20

5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 8/4/2019 8/30/2019 5 20

Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0

Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 29.5

Acres of Paving: 0

Residential Indoor: 55,621; Residential Outdoor: 18,540; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking

OffRoad Equipment

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48

Grading Trenchers 1 8.00 78 0.50

Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38

Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29

Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20

Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74

Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42

Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38

Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40

Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37

Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41

Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37

Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36

Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Page 6 of 24 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40

Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45

Trips and VMT

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Vehicle Class Class Architectural Coating 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Building Construction 9 3.00 1.00 0.00 10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Grading 7 18.00 0.00 680.00 10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction

Water Exposed Area Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads Clean Paved Roads

3.2 Site Preparation - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Fugitive Dust 0.0903 0.0000 0.0903 0.0497 0.0000 0.0497 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 0.0228 0.2410 0.1124 1.9000e- 0.0129 0.0129 0.0119 0.0119 0.0000 17.3800 17.3800 5.4100e- 0.0000 17.5152 004 003 Total 0.0228 0.2410 0.1124 1.9000e- 0.0903 0.0129 0.1032 0.0497 0.0119 0.0615 0.0000 17.3800 17.3800 5.4100e- 0.0000 17.5152 004 003

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site Page 7 of 24 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 3.7000e- 2.8000e- 2.6600e- 1.0000e- 7.1000e- 1.0000e- 7.1000e- 1.9000e- 0.0000 1.9000e- 0.0000 0.6729 0.6729 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.6733 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 004 005 Total 3.7000e- 2.8000e- 2.6600e- 1.0000e- 7.1000e- 1.0000e- 7.1000e- 1.9000e- 0.0000 1.9000e- 0.0000 0.6729 0.6729 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.6733 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 004 005

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Fugitive Dust 0.0407 0.0000 0.0407 0.0223 0.0000 0.0223 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 0.0228 0.2410 0.1124 1.9000e- 0.0129 0.0129 0.0119 0.0119 0.0000 17.3799 17.3799 5.4100e- 0.0000 17.5152 004 003 Total 0.0228 0.2410 0.1124 1.9000e- 0.0407 0.0129 0.0535 0.0223 0.0119 0.0342 0.0000 17.3799 17.3799 5.4100e- 0.0000 17.5152 004 003

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Page 8 of 24 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 3.7000e- 2.8000e- 2.6600e- 1.0000e- 7.1000e- 1.0000e- 7.1000e- 1.9000e- 0.0000 1.9000e- 0.0000 0.6729 0.6729 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.6733 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 004 005 Total 3.7000e- 2.8000e- 2.6600e- 1.0000e- 7.1000e- 1.0000e- 7.1000e- 1.9000e- 0.0000 1.9000e- 0.0000 0.6729 0.6729 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.6733 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 004 005

3.3 Grading - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Fugitive Dust 0.1936 0.0000 0.1936 0.0994 0.0000 0.0994 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 0.0952 1.0255 0.5676 9.8000e- 0.0549 0.0549 0.0505 0.0505 0.0000 89.0990 89.0990 0.0277 0.0000 89.7925 004 Total 0.0952 1.0255 0.5676 9.8000e- 0.1936 0.0549 0.2485 0.0994 0.0505 0.1499 0.0000 89.0990 89.0990 0.0277 0.0000 89.7925 004

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 3.6300e- 0.1121 0.0352 2.7000e- 5.7200e- 4.7000e- 6.1900e- 1.5700e- 4.5000e- 2.0300e- 0.0000 26.5261 26.5261 1.5600e- 0.0000 26.5650 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 003 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 2.2100e- 1.6300e- 0.0157 4.0000e- 4.1800e- 3.0000e- 4.2100e- 1.1100e- 3.0000e- 1.1400e- 0.0000 3.9699 3.9699 1.1000e- 0.0000 3.9727 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 Total 5.8400e- 0.1137 0.0509 3.1000e- 9.9000e- 5.0000e- 0.0104 2.6800e- 4.8000e- 3.1700e- 0.0000 30.4960 30.4960 1.6700e- 0.0000 30.5377 003 004 003 004 003 004 003 003

Mitigated Construction On-Site Page 9 of 24 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Fugitive Dust 0.0871 0.0000 0.0871 0.0447 0.0000 0.0447 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 0.0952 1.0255 0.5676 9.8000e- 0.0549 0.0549 0.0505 0.0505 0.0000 89.0989 89.0989 0.0277 0.0000 89.7924 004 Total 0.0952 1.0255 0.5676 9.8000e- 0.0871 0.0549 0.1421 0.0447 0.0505 0.0953 0.0000 89.0989 89.0989 0.0277 0.0000 89.7924 004

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 3.6300e- 0.1121 0.0352 2.7000e- 5.7200e- 4.7000e- 6.1900e- 1.5700e- 4.5000e- 2.0300e- 0.0000 26.5261 26.5261 1.5600e- 0.0000 26.5650 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 003 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 2.2100e- 1.6300e- 0.0157 4.0000e- 4.1800e- 3.0000e- 4.2100e- 1.1100e- 3.0000e- 1.1400e- 0.0000 3.9699 3.9699 1.1000e- 0.0000 3.9727 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 Total 5.8400e- 0.1137 0.0509 3.1000e- 9.9000e- 5.0000e- 0.0104 2.6800e- 4.8000e- 3.1700e- 0.0000 30.4960 30.4960 1.6700e- 0.0000 30.5377 003 004 003 004 003 004 003 003

3.4 Building Construction - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Off-Road 0.1152 1.0058 0.7560 1.1600e- 0.0645 0.0645 0.0606 0.0606 0.0000 102.2399 102.2399 0.0251 0.0000 102.8661 003 Page 10 of 24 Total 0.1152 1.0058 0.7560 1.1600e- 0.0645 0.0645 0.0606 0.0606 0.0000 102.2399 102.2399 0.0251 0.0000 102.8661 003

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 2.5000e- 5.2400e- 2.2400e- 1.0000e- 2.5000e- 4.0000e- 3.0000e- 7.0000e- 4.0000e- 1.1000e- 0.0000 1.0266 1.0266 6.0000e- 0.0000 1.0280 004 003 003 005 004 005 004 005 005 004 005 Worker 5.4000e- 4.0000e- 3.8200e- 1.0000e- 1.0200e- 1.0000e- 1.0200e- 2.7000e- 1.0000e- 2.8000e- 0.0000 0.9644 0.9644 3.0000e- 0.0000 0.9651 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Total 7.9000e- 5.6400e- 6.0600e- 2.0000e- 1.2700e- 5.0000e- 1.3200e- 3.4000e- 5.0000e- 3.9000e- 0.0000 1.9910 1.9910 9.0000e- 0.0000 1.9932 004 003 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Off-Road 0.1152 1.0058 0.7560 1.1600e- 0.0645 0.0645 0.0606 0.0606 0.0000 102.2398 102.2398 0.0251 0.0000 102.8660 003 Total 0.1152 1.0058 0.7560 1.1600e- 0.0645 0.0645 0.0606 0.0606 0.0000 102.2398 102.2398 0.0251 0.0000 102.8660 003

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

Page 11 of 24 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 2.5000e- 5.2400e- 2.2400e- 1.0000e- 2.5000e- 4.0000e- 3.0000e- 7.0000e- 4.0000e- 1.1000e- 0.0000 1.0266 1.0266 6.0000e- 0.0000 1.0280 004 003 003 005 004 005 004 005 005 004 005 Worker 5.4000e- 4.0000e- 3.8200e- 1.0000e- 1.0200e- 1.0000e- 1.0200e- 2.7000e- 1.0000e- 2.8000e- 0.0000 0.9644 0.9644 3.0000e- 0.0000 0.9651 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Total 7.9000e- 5.6400e- 6.0600e- 2.0000e- 1.2700e- 5.0000e- 1.3200e- 3.4000e- 5.0000e- 3.9000e- 0.0000 1.9910 1.9910 9.0000e- 0.0000 1.9932 004 003 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005

3.4 Building Construction - 2019 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Off-Road 0.1818 1.6231 1.3216 2.0700e- 0.0993 0.0993 0.0934 0.0934 0.0000 181.0302 181.0302 0.0441 0.0000 182.1328 003 Total 0.1818 1.6231 1.3216 2.0700e- 0.0993 0.0993 0.0934 0.0934 0.0000 181.0302 181.0302 0.0441 0.0000 182.1328 003

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Page 12 of 24 Vendor 3.9000e- 8.8800e- 3.4800e- 2.0000e- 4.6000e- 6.0000e- 5.2000e- 1.3000e- 6.0000e- 1.9000e- 0.0000 1.8283 1.8283 1.0000e- 0.0000 1.8308 004 003 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 004 Worker 8.7000e- 6.2000e- 6.0700e- 2.0000e- 1.8200e- 1.0000e- 1.8300e- 4.8000e- 1.0000e- 5.0000e- 0.0000 1.6754 1.6754 4.0000e- 0.0000 1.6765 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Total 1.2600e- 9.5000e- 9.5500e- 4.0000e- 2.2800e- 7.0000e- 2.3500e- 6.1000e- 7.0000e- 6.9000e- 0.0000 3.5037 3.5037 1.4000e- 0.0000 3.5073 003 003 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 004

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Off-Road 0.1818 1.6231 1.3216 2.0700e- 0.0993 0.0993 0.0934 0.0934 0.0000 181.0300 181.0300 0.0441 0.0000 182.1325 003 Total 0.1818 1.6231 1.3216 2.0700e- 0.0993 0.0993 0.0934 0.0934 0.0000 181.0300 181.0300 0.0441 0.0000 182.1325 003

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 3.9000e- 8.8800e- 3.4800e- 2.0000e- 4.6000e- 6.0000e- 5.2000e- 1.3000e- 6.0000e- 1.9000e- 0.0000 1.8283 1.8283 1.0000e- 0.0000 1.8308 004 003 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 004 Worker 8.7000e- 6.2000e- 6.0700e- 2.0000e- 1.8200e- 1.0000e- 1.8300e- 4.8000e- 1.0000e- 5.0000e- 0.0000 1.6754 1.6754 4.0000e- 0.0000 1.6765 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Total 1.2600e- 9.5000e- 9.5500e- 4.0000e- 2.2800e- 7.0000e- 2.3500e- 6.1000e- 7.0000e- 6.9000e- 0.0000 3.5037 3.5037 1.4000e- 0.0000 3.5073 003 003 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 004

3.5 Paving - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On-Site Page 13 of 24 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Off-Road 0.0164 0.1752 0.1480 2.3000e- 9.5600e- 9.5600e- 8.8000e- 8.8000e- 0.0000 20.8116 20.8116 6.4800e- 0.0000 20.9736 004 003 003 003 003 003 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.0164 0.1752 0.1480 2.3000e- 9.5600e- 9.5600e- 8.8000e- 8.8000e- 0.0000 20.8116 20.8116 6.4800e- 0.0000 20.9736 004 003 003 003 003 003

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 6.2000e- 4.6000e- 4.4400e- 1.0000e- 1.1800e- 1.0000e- 1.1900e- 3.1000e- 1.0000e- 3.2000e- 0.0000 1.1214 1.1214 3.0000e- 0.0000 1.1222 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Total 6.2000e- 4.6000e- 4.4400e- 1.0000e- 1.1800e- 1.0000e- 1.1900e- 3.1000e- 1.0000e- 3.2000e- 0.0000 1.1214 1.1214 3.0000e- 0.0000 1.1222 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Off-Road 0.0164 0.1752 0.1480 2.3000e- 9.5600e- 9.5600e- 8.8000e- 8.8000e- 0.0000 20.8116 20.8116 6.4800e- 0.0000 20.9736 004 003 003 003 003 003 Page 14 of 24 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.0164 0.1752 0.1480 2.3000e- 9.5600e- 9.5600e- 8.8000e- 8.8000e- 0.0000 20.8116 20.8116 6.4800e- 0.0000 20.9736 004 003 003 003 003 003

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 6.2000e- 4.6000e- 4.4400e- 1.0000e- 1.1800e- 1.0000e- 1.1900e- 3.1000e- 1.0000e- 3.2000e- 0.0000 1.1214 1.1214 3.0000e- 0.0000 1.1222 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Total 6.2000e- 4.6000e- 4.4400e- 1.0000e- 1.1800e- 1.0000e- 1.1900e- 3.1000e- 1.0000e- 3.2000e- 0.0000 1.1214 1.1214 3.0000e- 0.0000 1.1222 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2019 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Archit. Coating 0.1934 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 2.6600e- 0.0184 0.0184 3.0000e- 1.2900e- 1.2900e- 1.2900e- 1.2900e- 0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 2.2000e- 0.0000 2.5587 003 005 003 003 003 003 004 Total 0.1960 0.0184 0.0184 3.0000e- 1.2900e- 1.2900e- 1.2900e- 1.2900e- 0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 2.2000e- 0.0000 2.5587 005 003 003 003 003 004

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

Page 15 of 24 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 4.0000e- 3.0000e- 2.6000e- 0.0000 8.0000e- 0.0000 8.0000e- 2.0000e- 0.0000 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0725 0.0725 0.0000 0.0000 0.0726 005 005 004 005 005 005 005 Total 4.0000e- 3.0000e- 2.6000e- 0.0000 8.0000e- 0.0000 8.0000e- 2.0000e- 0.0000 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0725 0.0725 0.0000 0.0000 0.0726 005 005 004 005 005 005 005

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Archit. Coating 0.1934 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 2.6600e- 0.0184 0.0184 3.0000e- 1.2900e- 1.2900e- 1.2900e- 1.2900e- 0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 2.2000e- 0.0000 2.5586 003 005 003 003 003 003 004 Total 0.1960 0.0184 0.0184 3.0000e- 1.2900e- 1.2900e- 1.2900e- 1.2900e- 0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 2.2000e- 0.0000 2.5586 005 003 003 003 003 004

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Page 16 of 24 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 4.0000e- 3.0000e- 2.6000e- 0.0000 8.0000e- 0.0000 8.0000e- 2.0000e- 0.0000 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0725 0.0725 0.0000 0.0000 0.0726 005 005 004 005 005 005 005 Total 4.0000e- 3.0000e- 2.6000e- 0.0000 8.0000e- 0.0000 8.0000e- 2.0000e- 0.0000 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0725 0.0725 0.0000 0.0000 0.0726 005 005 004 005 005 005 005

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Mitigated 0.0244 0.0814 0.2699 8.3000e- 0.0727 9.8000e- 0.0737 0.0195 9.2000e- 0.0205 0.0000 75.7810 75.7810 2.7400e- 0.0000 75.8494 004 004 004 003 Unmitigated 0.0244 0.0814 0.2699 8.3000e- 0.0727 9.8000e- 0.0737 0.0195 9.2000e- 0.0205 0.0000 75.7810 75.7810 2.7400e- 0.0000 75.8494 004 004 004 003

4.2 Trip Summary Information

Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT

Single Family Housing 85.68 89.19 77.58 196,373 196,373 Total 85.68 89.19 77.58 196,373 196,373 4.3 Trip Type Information

Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %

Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C- H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Single Family Housing 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00W 15.00 54.00 86 11 3

4.4 Fleet Mix Page 17 of 24 Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Single Family Housing 0.586103 0.042797 0.200835 0.113384 0.018054 0.005119 0.010148 0.010539 0.002013 0.003657 0.005892 0.000682 0.000777

5.0 Energy Detail

Historical Energy Use: N

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

Exceed Title 24

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Electricity 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 17.2703 17.2703 1.0000e- 2.1000e- 17.3571 Mitigated 003 004 Electricity 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 17.4111 17.4111 1.0100e- 2.1000e- 17.4986 Unmitigated 003 004 NaturalGas 1.8800e- 0.0161 6.8500e- 1.0000e- 1.3000e- 1.3000e- 1.3000e- 1.3000e- 0.0000 18.6372 18.6372 3.6000e- 3.4000e- 18.7479 Mitigated 003 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004 NaturalGas 2.5700e- 0.0219 9.3300e- 1.4000e- 1.7700e- 1.7700e- 1.7700e- 1.7700e- 0.0000 25.3965 25.3965 4.9000e- 4.7000e- 25.5475 Unmitigated 003 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated

NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr

Single Family 475913 2.5700e- 0.0219 9.3300e- 1.4000e- 1.7700e- 1.7700e- 1.7700e- 1.7700e- 0.0000 25.3965 25.3965 4.9000e- 4.7000e- 25.5475 Housing 003 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004 Total 2.5700e- 0.0219 9.3300e- 1.4000e- 1.7700e- 1.7700e- 1.7700e- 1.7700e- 0.0000 25.3965 25.3965 4.9000e- 4.7000e- 25.5475 003 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004

Page 18 of 24 Mitigated

NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr

Single Family 349247 1.8800e- 0.0161 6.8500e- 1.0000e- 1.3000e- 1.3000e- 1.3000e- 1.3000e- 0.0000 18.6372 18.6372 3.6000e- 3.4000e- 18.7479 Housing 003 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004 Total 1.8800e- 0.0161 6.8500e- 1.0000e- 1.3000e- 1.3000e- 1.3000e- 1.3000e- 0.0000 18.6372 18.6372 3.6000e- 3.4000e- 18.7479 003 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated

Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Use

Land Use kWh/yr t MT/yr o

Single Family 76821.9 17.4111 1.0100e- 2.1000e- 17.4986 Housing 003 004 Total 17.4111 1.0100e- 2.1000e- 17.4986 003 004

Mitigated

Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Use Page 19 of 24 Land Use kWh/yr t MT/yr o

Single Family 76200.7 17.2703 1.0000e- 2.1000e- 17.3571 Housing 003 004 Total 17.2703 1.0000e- 2.1000e- 17.3571 003 004

6.0 Area Detail

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Mitigated 0.1288 1.7500e- 0.0675 1.0000e- 4.5000e- 4.5000e- 4.5000e- 4.5000e- 0.0000 1.2327 1.2327 1.3000e- 2.0000e- 1.2421 003 005 004 004 004 004 004 005 Unmitigated 0.1288 1.7500e- 0.0675 1.0000e- 4.5000e- 4.5000e- 4.5000e- 4.5000e- 0.0000 1.2327 1.2327 1.3000e- 2.0000e- 1.2421 003 005 004 004 004 004 004 005

6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr

Architectural 0.0193 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating Consumer 0.1073 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products Page 20 of 24 Hearth 1.1000e- 9.7000e- 4.1000e- 1.0000e- 8.0000e- 8.0000e- 8.0000e- 8.0000e- 0.0000 1.1236 1.1236 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 1.1302 004 004 004 005 005 005 005 005 005 005 Landscaping 2.0400e- 7.8000e- 0.0671 0.0000 3.7000e- 3.7000e- 3.7000e- 3.7000e- 0.0000 0.1092 0.1092 1.1000e- 0.0000 0.1118 003 004 004 004 004 004 004 Total 0.1288 1.7500e- 0.0675 1.0000e- 4.5000e- 4.5000e- 4.5000e- 4.5000e- 0.0000 1.2327 1.2327 1.3000e- 2.0000e- 1.2421 003 005 004 004 004 004 004 005

Mitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr

Architectural 0.0193 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating Consumer 0.1073 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products Hearth 1.1000e- 9.7000e- 4.1000e- 1.0000e- 8.0000e- 8.0000e- 8.0000e- 8.0000e- 0.0000 1.1236 1.1236 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 1.1302 004 004 004 005 005 005 005 005 005 005 Landscaping 2.0400e- 7.8000e- 0.0671 0.0000 3.7000e- 3.7000e- 3.7000e- 3.7000e- 0.0000 0.1092 0.1092 1.1000e- 0.0000 0.1118 003 004 004 004 004 004 004 Total 0.1288 1.7500e- 0.0675 1.0000e- 4.5000e- 4.5000e- 4.5000e- 4.5000e- 0.0000 1.2327 1.2327 1.3000e- 2.0000e- 1.2421 003 005 004 004 004 004 004 005

7.0 Water Detail

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

Apply Water Conservation Strategy

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Category t MT/yr o

Mitigated 0.9587 0.0153 3.7000e- 1.4525 004 Page 21 of 24 Unmitigated 1.1984 0.0192 4.6000e- 1.8156 004

7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated

Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e door Use

Land Use Mgal t MT/yr o

Single Family 0.586386 / 1.1984 0.0192 4.6000e- 1.8156 Housing 0.369678 004 Total 1.1984 0.0192 4.6000e- 1.8156 004

Mitigated

Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e door Use

Land Use Mgal t MT/yr o

Single Family 0.469109 / 0.9587 0.0153 3.7000e- 1.4525 Housing 0.295743 004 Total 0.9587 0.0153 3.7000e- 1.4525 004

8.0 Waste Detail

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

Page 22 of 24 Category/Year

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

t MT/yr o

Mitigated 2.2167 0.1310 0.0000 5.4917

Unmitigated 2.2167 0.1310 0.0000 5.4917

8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated

Waste Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Disposed

Land Use tons t MT/yr o

Single Family 10.92 2.2167 0.1310 0.0000 5.4917 Housing Total 2.2167 0.1310 0.0000 5.4917

Mitigated

Waste Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Disposed

Land Use tons t MT/yr o

Single Family 10.92 2.2167 0.1310 0.0000 5.4917 Housing Page 23 of 24 Total 2.2167 0.1310 0.0000 5.4917

9.0 Operational Offroad

Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment

Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators

Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

Boilers

Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type

User Defined Equipment

Equipment Type Number

11.0 Vegetation

Page 24 of 24 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Date: 7/20/2017 2:02 PM

Bahia Heights Project - Marin County, Summer Bahia Heights Project Marin County, Summer

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage

Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population

Single Family Housing 9.00 Dwelling Unit 8.70 27,467.00 26

1.2 Other Project Characteristics

Urbanization Rural Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 69

Climate Zone 5 Operational Year 2020

Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company

CO2 Intensity 499.66 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N2O Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr)

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

Project Characteristics - Adjusted CO2 Intensity Factor to 33% RPS by 2020 Land Use - 9 single family residential homes on 8.7 acres Construction Phase - Construction start in May 2018 and end September 2019 Off-road Equipment - Added one trencher for waterline installation Grading - 5,440 CY of surplus soils to be exported per the Conceptual Grading Plan Vehicle Trips - Default trip generation assumed Woodstoves - Only gas fireplaces assumed, no woodburning devices per BAAQMD Reg 6 Rule 3 Energy Use - Default energy use Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - BAAQMD basic dust controls (water 2x daily and limit vehicle speeds to 15 mph on unpaved areas) Energy Mitigation - Exceed 2013 Title 24 by 28% for residences to approximate 2016 Title 24 compliance Water Mitigation - 20% indoor/outdoor reduction in water assumed for CALGreen compliance Page 1 of 20 Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value

tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 40 15

tblConstructionPhase NumDays 230.00 240.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 59.00

tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/22/2019 8/30/2019

tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/27/2019 8/3/2019

tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/9/2018 8/3/2018

tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/24/2019 9/1/2018

tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/11/2018 5/14/2018

tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 6/25/2019 8/4/2019

tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/10/2018 9/2/2018

tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 6/12/2018 5/15/2018

tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 5/28/2019 8/4/2018

tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 5/29/2018 5/1/2018

tblFireplaces NumberGas 2.25 9.00

tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 0.72 0.00

tblFireplaces NumberWood 3.87 0.00

tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 5,440.00

tblLandUse BuildingSpaceSquareFeet 16,200.00 27,467.00

tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 16,200.00 27,467.00

tblLandUse LotAcreage 2.92 8.70

tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.50 0.50

tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Trenchers tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 499.66 tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2018 2020 tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural

tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 0.36 0.00

tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 0.36 0.00

Page 2 of 20 2.0 Emissions Summary

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Year lb/day lb/day

2018 4.6403 48.2473 23.0479 0.0439 18.2141 2.5779 20.7921 9.9699 2.3717 12.3416 0.0000 4,485.533 4,485.533 1.1973 0.0000 4,512.990 4 4 4 2019 19.6055 21.1994 17.2914 0.0274 0.0308 1.2908 1.3216 8.3000e- 1.2136 1.2219 0.0000 2,643.805 2,643.805 0.6334 0.0000 2,659.640 003 6 6 4 Maximum 19.6055 48.2473 23.0479 0.0439 18.2141 2.5779 20.7921 9.9699 2.3717 12.3416 0.0000 4,485.533 4,485.533 1.1973 0.0000 4,512.990 4 4 4

Mitigated Construction

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Year lb/day lb/day

2018 4.6403 48.2473 23.0479 0.0439 8.2777 2.5779 10.8556 4.5080 2.3717 6.8797 0.0000 4,485.533 4,485.533 1.1973 0.0000 4,512.990 4 4 4 2019 19.6055 21.1994 17.2914 0.0274 0.0308 1.2908 1.3216 8.3000e- 1.2136 1.2219 0.0000 2,643.805 2,643.805 0.6334 0.0000 2,659.640 003 6 6 4 Maximum 19.6055 48.2473 23.0479 0.0439 8.2777 2.5779 10.8556 4.5080 2.3717 6.8797 0.0000 4,485.533 4,485.533 1.1973 0.0000 4,512.990 4 4 4

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 54.46 0.00 44.93 54.74 0.00 40.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction

Page 3 of 20 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Area 0.7368 0.1828 0.8191 1.1500e- 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0000 223.6899 223.6899 5.5700e- 4.0800e- 225.0438 003 003 003 Energy 0.0141 0.1202 0.0511 7.7000e- 9.7200e- 9.7200e- 9.7200e- 9.7200e- 153.3967 153.3967 2.9400e- 2.8100e- 154.3083 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 Mobile 0.1599 0.4453 1.5941 5.0900e- 0.4370 5.6300e- 0.4426 0.1169 5.2900e- 0.1222 512.2833 512.2833 0.0176 512.7239 003 003 003 Total 0.9108 0.7482 2.4643 7.0100e- 0.4370 0.0335 0.4705 0.1169 0.0332 0.1501 0.0000 889.3699 889.3699 0.0261 6.8900e- 892.0760 003 003

Mitigated Operational

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Area 0.7368 0.1828 0.8191 1.1500e- 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0000 223.6899 223.6899 5.5700e- 4.0800e- 225.0438 003 003 003 Energy 0.0103 0.0882 0.0375 5.6000e- 7.1300e- 7.1300e- 7.1300e- 7.1300e- 112.5697 112.5697 2.1600e- 2.0600e- 113.2386 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 Mobile 0.1599 0.4453 1.5941 5.0900e- 0.4370 5.6300e- 0.4426 0.1169 5.2900e- 0.1222 512.2833 512.2833 0.0176 512.7239 003 003 003 Total 0.9071 0.7162 2.4507 6.8000e- 0.4370 0.0309 0.4679 0.1169 0.0306 0.1475 0.0000 848.5428 848.5428 0.0254 6.1400e- 851.0064 003 003

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Percent 0.41 4.27 0.55 3.00 0.00 7.72 0.55 0.00 7.80 1.73 0.00 4.59 4.59 2.98 10.89 4.60 Reduction

Page 4 of 20 3.0 Construction Detail

Construction Phase

Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week

1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 5/1/2018 5/14/2018 5 10

2 Grading Grading 5/15/2018 8/3/2018 5 59

3 Building Construction Building Construction 9/2/2018 8/3/2019 5 240

4 Paving Paving 8/4/2018 9/1/2018 5 20

5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 8/4/2019 8/30/2019 5 20

Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0

Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 29.5

Acres of Paving: 0

Residential Indoor: 55,621; Residential Outdoor: 18,540; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area:

OffRoad Equipment

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48

Grading Trenchers 1 8.00 78 0.50

Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38

Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29

Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20

Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74

Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42

Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38

Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40

Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37

Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41

Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37

Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36

Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Page 5 of 20 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40

Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45

Trips and VMT

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Vehicle Class Class Architectural Coating 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Building Construction 9 3.00 1.00 0.00 10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Grading 7 18.00 0.00 680.00 10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction

Water Exposed Area Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads Clean Paved Roads

3.2 Site Preparation - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 4.5627 48.1988 22.4763 0.0380 2.5769 2.5769 2.3708 2.3708 3,831.623 3,831.623 1.1928 3,861.444 9 9 8 Total 4.5627 48.1988 22.4763 0.0380 18.0663 2.5769 20.6432 9.9307 2.3708 12.3014 3,831.623 3,831.623 1.1928 3,861.444 9 9 8

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site Page 6 of 20 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0776 0.0485 0.5716 1.6000e- 0.1479 1.0100e- 0.1489 0.0392 9.3000e- 0.0402 159.5679 159.5679 4.5000e- 159.6804 003 003 004 003 Total 0.0776 0.0485 0.5716 1.6000e- 0.1479 1.0100e- 0.1489 0.0392 9.3000e- 0.0402 159.5679 159.5679 4.5000e- 159.6804 003 003 004 003

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Fugitive Dust 8.1298 0.0000 8.1298 4.4688 0.0000 4.4688 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 4.5627 48.1988 22.4763 0.0380 2.5769 2.5769 2.3708 2.3708 0.0000 3,831.623 3,831.623 1.1928 3,861.444 9 9 8 Total 4.5627 48.1988 22.4763 0.0380 8.1298 2.5769 10.7067 4.4688 2.3708 6.8396 0.0000 3,831.623 3,831.623 1.1928 3,861.444 9 9 8

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Page 7 of 20 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0776 0.0485 0.5716 1.6000e- 0.1479 1.0100e- 0.1489 0.0392 9.3000e- 0.0402 159.5679 159.5679 4.5000e- 159.6804 003 003 004 003 Total 0.0776 0.0485 0.5716 1.6000e- 0.1479 1.0100e- 0.1489 0.0392 9.3000e- 0.0402 159.5679 159.5679 4.5000e- 159.6804 003 003 004 003

3.3 Grading - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Fugitive Dust 6.5628 0.0000 6.5628 3.3691 0.0000 3.3691 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 3.2282 34.7616 19.2418 0.0331 1.8624 1.8624 1.7134 1.7134 3,329.317 3,329.317 1.0365 3,355.229 6 6 2 Total 3.2282 34.7616 19.2418 0.0331 6.5628 1.8624 8.4251 3.3691 1.7134 5.0824 3,329.317 3,329.317 1.0365 3,355.229 6 6 2

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.1211 3.7040 1.1585 9.2800e- 0.2010 0.0159 0.2170 0.0551 0.0153 0.0703 996.6479 996.6479 0.0573 998.0808 003 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0776 0.0485 0.5716 1.6000e- 0.1479 1.0100e- 0.1489 0.0392 9.3000e- 0.0402 159.5679 159.5679 4.5000e- 159.6804 003 003 004 003 Total 0.1987 3.7525 1.7301 0.0109 0.3489 0.0170 0.3659 0.0943 0.0162 0.1105 1,156.215 1,156.215 0.0618 1,157.761 8 8 2

Mitigated Construction On-Site Page 8 of 20 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Fugitive Dust 2.9532 0.0000 2.9532 1.5161 0.0000 1.5161 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 3.2282 34.7616 19.2418 0.0331 1.8624 1.8624 1.7134 1.7134 0.0000 3,329.317 3,329.317 1.0365 3,355.229 6 6 2 Total 3.2282 34.7616 19.2418 0.0331 2.9532 1.8624 4.8156 1.5161 1.7134 3.2295 0.0000 3,329.317 3,329.317 1.0365 3,355.229 6 6 2

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.1211 3.7040 1.1585 9.2800e- 0.2010 0.0159 0.2170 0.0551 0.0153 0.0703 996.6479 996.6479 0.0573 998.0808 003 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0776 0.0485 0.5716 1.6000e- 0.1479 1.0100e- 0.1489 0.0392 9.3000e- 0.0402 159.5679 159.5679 4.5000e- 159.6804 003 003 004 003 Total 0.1987 3.7525 1.7301 0.0109 0.3489 0.0170 0.3659 0.0943 0.0162 0.1105 1,156.215 1,156.215 0.0618 1,157.761 8 8 2

3.4 Building Construction - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Off-Road 2.6795 23.3900 17.5804 0.0269 1.4999 1.4999 1.4099 1.4099 2,620.935 2,620.935 0.6421 2,636.988 1 1 3 Page 9 of 20 Total 2.6795 23.3900 17.5804 0.0269 1.4999 1.4999 1.4099 1.4099 2,620.935 2,620.935 0.6421 2,636.988 1 1 3

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 5.7000e- 0.1197 0.0492 2.5000e- 6.1200e- 9.5000e- 7.0700e- 1.7600e- 9.1000e- 2.6700e- 26.5611 26.5611 1.4600e- 26.5977 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 003 Worker 0.0129 8.0800e- 0.0953 2.7000e- 0.0246 1.7000e- 0.0248 6.5400e- 1.6000e- 6.6900e- 26.5946 26.5946 7.5000e- 26.6134 003 004 004 003 004 003 004 Total 0.0186 0.1278 0.1445 5.2000e- 0.0308 1.1200e- 0.0319 8.3000e- 1.0700e- 9.3600e- 53.1557 53.1557 2.2100e- 53.2111 004 003 003 003 003 003

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Off-Road 2.6795 23.3900 17.5804 0.0269 1.4999 1.4999 1.4099 1.4099 0.0000 2,620.935 2,620.935 0.6421 2,636.988 1 1 3 Total 2.6795 23.3900 17.5804 0.0269 1.4999 1.4999 1.4099 1.4099 0.0000 2,620.935 2,620.935 0.6421 2,636.988 1 1 3

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

Page 10 of 20 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 5.7000e- 0.1197 0.0492 2.5000e- 6.1200e- 9.5000e- 7.0700e- 1.7600e- 9.1000e- 2.6700e- 26.5611 26.5611 1.4600e- 26.5977 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 003 Worker 0.0129 8.0800e- 0.0953 2.7000e- 0.0246 1.7000e- 0.0248 6.5400e- 1.6000e- 6.6900e- 26.5946 26.5946 7.5000e- 26.6134 003 004 004 003 004 003 004 Total 0.0186 0.1278 0.1445 5.2000e- 0.0308 1.1200e- 0.0319 8.3000e- 1.0700e- 9.3600e- 53.1557 53.1557 2.2100e- 53.2111 004 003 003 003 003 003

3.4 Building Construction - 2019 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Off-Road 2.3612 21.0788 17.1638 0.0269 1.2899 1.2899 1.2127 1.2127 2,591.580 2,591.580 0.6313 2,607.363 2 2 5 Total 2.3612 21.0788 17.1638 0.0269 1.2899 1.2899 1.2127 1.2127 2,591.580 2,591.580 0.6313 2,607.363 2 2 5

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Page 11 of 20 Vendor 4.9900e- 0.1135 0.0427 2.5000e- 6.1200e- 8.1000e- 6.9300e- 1.7600e- 7.7000e- 2.5300e- 26.4234 26.4234 1.4000e- 26.4583 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 003 Worker 0.0118 7.1000e- 0.0849 2.6000e- 0.0246 1.7000e- 0.0248 6.5400e- 1.5000e- 6.6900e- 25.8020 25.8020 6.6000e- 25.8186 003 004 004 003 004 003 004 Total 0.0168 0.1206 0.1276 5.1000e- 0.0308 9.8000e- 0.0317 8.3000e- 9.2000e- 9.2200e- 52.2254 52.2254 2.0600e- 52.2769 004 004 003 004 003 003

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Off-Road 2.3612 21.0788 17.1638 0.0269 1.2899 1.2899 1.2127 1.2127 0.0000 2,591.580 2,591.580 0.6313 2,607.363 2 2 5 Total 2.3612 21.0788 17.1638 0.0269 1.2899 1.2899 1.2127 1.2127 0.0000 2,591.580 2,591.580 0.6313 2,607.363 2 2 5

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 4.9900e- 0.1135 0.0427 2.5000e- 6.1200e- 8.1000e- 6.9300e- 1.7600e- 7.7000e- 2.5300e- 26.4234 26.4234 1.4000e- 26.4583 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 003 Worker 0.0118 7.1000e- 0.0849 2.6000e- 0.0246 1.7000e- 0.0248 6.5400e- 1.5000e- 6.6900e- 25.8020 25.8020 6.6000e- 25.8186 003 004 004 003 004 003 004 Total 0.0168 0.1206 0.1276 5.1000e- 0.0308 9.8000e- 0.0317 8.3000e- 9.2000e- 9.2200e- 52.2254 52.2254 2.0600e- 52.2769 004 004 003 004 003 003

3.5 Paving - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On-Site Page 12 of 20 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Off-Road 1.6437 17.5209 14.7964 0.0228 0.9561 0.9561 0.8797 0.8797 2,294.088 2,294.088 0.7142 2,311.943 7 7 2 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 1.6437 17.5209 14.7964 0.0228 0.9561 0.9561 0.8797 0.8797 2,294.088 2,294.088 0.7142 2,311.943 7 7 2

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0646 0.0404 0.4763 1.3300e- 0.1232 8.4000e- 0.1241 0.0327 7.8000e- 0.0335 132.9732 132.9732 3.7500e- 133.0670 003 004 004 003 Total 0.0646 0.0404 0.4763 1.3300e- 0.1232 8.4000e- 0.1241 0.0327 7.8000e- 0.0335 132.9732 132.9732 3.7500e- 133.0670 003 004 004 003

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Off-Road 1.6437 17.5209 14.7964 0.0228 0.9561 0.9561 0.8797 0.8797 0.0000 2,294.088 2,294.088 0.7142 2,311.943 7 7 2 Page 13 of 20 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 1.6437 17.5209 14.7964 0.0228 0.9561 0.9561 0.8797 0.8797 0.0000 2,294.088 2,294.088 0.7142 2,311.943 7 7 2

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0646 0.0404 0.4763 1.3300e- 0.1232 8.4000e- 0.1241 0.0327 7.8000e- 0.0335 132.9732 132.9732 3.7500e- 133.0670 003 004 004 003 Total 0.0646 0.0404 0.4763 1.3300e- 0.1232 8.4000e- 0.1241 0.0327 7.8000e- 0.0335 132.9732 132.9732 3.7500e- 133.0670 003 004 004 003

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2019 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Archit. Coating 19.3351 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 0.2664 1.8354 1.8413 2.9700e- 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 281.4481 281.4481 0.0238 282.0423 003 Total 19.6016 1.8354 1.8413 2.9700e- 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 281.4481 281.4481 0.0238 282.0423 003

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

Page 14 of 20 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 3.9200e- 2.3700e- 0.0283 9.0000e- 8.2100e- 6.0000e- 8.2700e- 2.1800e- 5.0000e- 2.2300e- 8.6007 8.6007 2.2000e- 8.6062 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 Total 3.9200e- 2.3700e- 0.0283 9.0000e- 8.2100e- 6.0000e- 8.2700e- 2.1800e- 5.0000e- 2.2300e- 8.6007 8.6007 2.2000e- 8.6062 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Archit. Coating 19.3351 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 0.2664 1.8354 1.8413 2.9700e- 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0238 282.0423 003 Total 19.6016 1.8354 1.8413 2.9700e- 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0238 282.0423 003

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Page 15 of 20 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 3.9200e- 2.3700e- 0.0283 9.0000e- 8.2100e- 6.0000e- 8.2700e- 2.1800e- 5.0000e- 2.2300e- 8.6007 8.6007 2.2000e- 8.6062 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 Total 3.9200e- 2.3700e- 0.0283 9.0000e- 8.2100e- 6.0000e- 8.2700e- 2.1800e- 5.0000e- 2.2300e- 8.6007 8.6007 2.2000e- 8.6062 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Mitigated 0.1599 0.4453 1.5941 5.0900e- 0.4370 5.6300e- 0.4426 0.1169 5.2900e- 0.1222 512.2833 512.2833 0.0176 512.7239 003 003 003 Unmitigated 0.1599 0.4453 1.5941 5.0900e- 0.4370 5.6300e- 0.4426 0.1169 5.2900e- 0.1222 512.2833 512.2833 0.0176 512.7239 003 003 003

4.2 Trip Summary Information

Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT

Single Family Housing 85.68 89.19 77.58 196,373 196,373 Total 85.68 89.19 77.58 196,373 196,373 4.3 Trip Type Information

Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %

Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C- H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Single Family Housing 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00W 15.00 54.00 86 11 3

4.4 Fleet Mix Page 16 of 20 Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Single Family Housing 0.586103 0.042797 0.200835 0.113384 0.018054 0.005119 0.010148 0.010539 0.002013 0.003657 0.005892 0.000682 0.000777

5.0 Energy Detail

Historical Energy Use: N

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

Exceed Title 24

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

NaturalGas 0.0103 0.0882 0.0375 5.6000e- 7.1300e- 7.1300e- 7.1300e- 7.1300e- 112.5697 112.5697 2.1600e- 2.0600e- 113.2386 Mitigated 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 NaturalGas 0.0141 0.1202 0.0511 7.7000e- 9.7200e- 9.7200e- 9.7200e- 9.7200e- 153.3967 153.3967 2.9400e- 2.8100e- 154.3083 Unmitigated 004 003 003 003 003 003 003

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated

NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day

Single Family 1303.87 0.0141 0.1202 0.0511 7.7000e- 9.7200e- 9.7200e- 9.7200e- 9.7200e- 153.3967 153.3967 2.9400e- 2.8100e- 154.3083 Housing 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 Total 0.0141 0.1202 0.0511 7.7000e- 9.7200e- 9.7200e- 9.7200e- 9.7200e- 153.3967 153.3967 2.9400e- 2.8100e- 154.3083 004 003 003 003 003 003 003

Page 17 of 20 Mitigated

NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day

Single Family 0.956842 0.0103 0.0882 0.0375 5.6000e- 7.1300e- 7.1300e- 7.1300e- 7.1300e- 112.5697 112.5697 2.1600e- 2.0600e- 113.2386 Housing 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 Total 0.0103 0.0882 0.0375 5.6000e- 7.1300e- 7.1300e- 7.1300e- 7.1300e- 112.5697 112.5697 2.1600e- 2.0600e- 113.2386 004 003 003 003 003 003 003

6.0 Area Detail

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Mitigated 0.7368 0.1828 0.8191 1.1500e- 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0000 223.6899 223.6899 5.5700e- 4.0800e- 225.0438 003 003 003 Unmitigated 0.7368 0.1828 0.8191 1.1500e- 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0000 223.6899 223.6899 5.5700e- 4.0800e- 225.0438 003 003 003

6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated

Page 18 of 20 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

SubCategory lb/day lb/day

Architectural 0.1060 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating Consumer 0.5878 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products Hearth 0.0204 0.1742 0.0741 1.1100e- 0.0141 0.0141 0.0141 0.0141 0.0000 222.3529 222.3529 4.2600e- 4.0800e- 223.6743 003 003 003 Landscaping 0.0227 8.6200e- 0.7450 4.0000e- 4.1000e- 4.1000e- 4.1000e- 4.1000e- 1.3370 1.3370 1.3000e- 1.3696 003 005 003 003 003 003 003 Total 0.7368 0.1828 0.8191 1.1500e- 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0000 223.6899 223.6899 5.5600e- 4.0800e- 225.0438 003 003 003

Mitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

SubCategory lb/day lb/day

Architectural 0.1060 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating Consumer 0.5878 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products Hearth 0.0204 0.1742 0.0741 1.1100e- 0.0141 0.0141 0.0141 0.0141 0.0000 222.3529 222.3529 4.2600e- 4.0800e- 223.6743 003 003 003 Landscaping 0.0227 8.6200e- 0.7450 4.0000e- 4.1000e- 4.1000e- 4.1000e- 4.1000e- 1.3370 1.3370 1.3000e- 1.3696 003 005 003 003 003 003 003 Total 0.7368 0.1828 0.8191 1.1500e- 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0000 223.6899 223.6899 5.5600e- 4.0800e- 225.0438 003 003 003

7.0 Water Detail

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

Apply Water Conservation Strategy

8.0 Waste Detail

Page 19 of 20 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

9.0 Operational Offroad

Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment

Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators

Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

Boilers

Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type

User Defined Equipment

Equipment Type Number

11.0 Vegetation

Page 20 of 20 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Date: 7/20/2017 2:54 PM

Bahia Heights Project - Marin County, Winter Bahia Heights Project Marin County, Winter

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage

Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population

Single Family Housing 9.00 Dwelling Unit 8.70 27,467.00 26

1.2 Other Project Characteristics

Urbanization Rural Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 69

Climate Zone 5 Operational Year 2020

Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company

CO2 Intensity 499.66 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N2O Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr)

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

Project Characteristics - Adjusted CO2 Intensity Factor to 33% RPS by 2020 Land Use - 9 single family residential homes on 8.7 acres Construction Phase - Construction start in May 2018 and end September 2019 Off-road Equipment - Added one trencher for waterline installation Grading - 5,440 CY of surplus soils to be exported per the Conceptual Grading Plan Vehicle Trips - Default trip generation assumed Woodstoves - Only gas fireplaces assumed, no woodburning devices per BAAQMD Reg 6 Rule 3 Energy Use - Default energy use Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - BAAQMD basic dust controls (water 2x daily and limit vehicle speeds to 15 mph on unpaved areas) Energy Mitigation - Exceed 2013 Title 24 by 28% for residences to approximate 2016 Title 24 compliance Water Mitigation - 20% indoor/outdoor reduction in water assumed for CALGreen compliance Page 1 of 20 Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value

tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 40 15

tblConstructionPhase NumDays 230.00 240.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 59.00

tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/22/2019 8/30/2019

tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/27/2019 8/3/2019

tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/9/2018 8/3/2018

tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/24/2019 9/1/2018

tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/11/2018 5/14/2018

tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 6/25/2019 8/4/2019

tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/10/2018 9/2/2018

tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 6/12/2018 5/15/2018

tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 5/28/2019 8/4/2018

tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 5/29/2018 5/1/2018

tblFireplaces NumberGas 2.25 9.00

tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 0.72 0.00

tblFireplaces NumberWood 3.87 0.00

tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 5,440.00

tblLandUse BuildingSpaceSquareFeet 16,200.00 27,467.00

tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 16,200.00 27,467.00

tblLandUse LotAcreage 2.92 8.70

tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.50 0.50

tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Trenchers tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 499.66 tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2018 2020 tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural

tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 0.36 0.00

tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 0.36 0.00

Page 2 of 20 2.0 Emissions Summary

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Year lb/day lb/day

2018 4.6463 48.2587 23.0266 0.0437 18.2141 2.5779 20.7921 9.9699 2.3717 12.3416 0.0000 4,460.574 4,460.574 1.1971 0.0000 4,488.070 9 9 2 2019 19.6058 21.2029 17.2929 0.0274 0.0308 1.2909 1.3216 8.3000e- 1.2137 1.2220 0.0000 2,641.276 2,641.276 0.6334 0.0000 2,657.112 003 3 3 3 Maximum 19.6058 48.2587 23.0266 0.0437 18.2141 2.5779 20.7921 9.9699 2.3717 12.3416 0.0000 4,460.574 4,460.574 1.1971 0.0000 4,488.070 9 9 2

Mitigated Construction

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Year lb/day lb/day

2018 4.6463 48.2587 23.0266 0.0437 8.2777 2.5779 10.8556 4.5080 2.3717 6.8797 0.0000 4,460.574 4,460.574 1.1971 0.0000 4,488.070 9 9 2 2019 19.6058 21.2029 17.2929 0.0274 0.0308 1.2909 1.3216 8.3000e- 1.2137 1.2220 0.0000 2,641.276 2,641.276 0.6334 0.0000 2,657.112 003 3 3 3 Maximum 19.6058 48.2587 23.0266 0.0437 8.2777 2.5779 10.8556 4.5080 2.3717 6.8797 0.0000 4,460.574 4,460.574 1.1971 0.0000 4,488.070 9 9 2

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 54.46 0.00 44.93 54.74 0.00 40.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction

Page 3 of 20 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Area 0.7368 0.1828 0.8191 1.1500e- 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0000 223.6899 223.6899 5.5700e- 4.0800e- 225.0438 003 003 003 Energy 0.0141 0.1202 0.0511 7.7000e- 9.7200e- 9.7200e- 9.7200e- 9.7200e- 153.3967 153.3967 2.9400e- 2.8100e- 154.3083 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 Mobile 0.1408 0.4827 1.6291 4.7700e- 0.4370 5.6500e- 0.4426 0.1169 5.3100e- 0.1222 479.4292 479.4292 0.0177 479.8727 003 003 003 Total 0.8917 0.7856 2.4993 6.6900e- 0.4370 0.0336 0.4705 0.1169 0.0332 0.1501 0.0000 856.5158 856.5158 0.0263 6.8900e- 859.2248 003 003

Mitigated Operational

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Area 0.7368 0.1828 0.8191 1.1500e- 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0000 223.6899 223.6899 5.5700e- 4.0800e- 225.0438 003 003 003 Energy 0.0103 0.0882 0.0375 5.6000e- 7.1300e- 7.1300e- 7.1300e- 7.1300e- 112.5697 112.5697 2.1600e- 2.0600e- 113.2386 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 Mobile 0.1408 0.4827 1.6291 4.7700e- 0.4370 5.6500e- 0.4426 0.1169 5.3100e- 0.1222 479.4292 479.4292 0.0177 479.8727 003 003 003 Total 0.8880 0.7536 2.4857 6.4800e- 0.4370 0.0310 0.4679 0.1169 0.0306 0.1475 0.0000 815.6888 815.6888 0.0255 6.1400e- 818.1551 003 003

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Percent 0.42 4.07 0.54 3.14 0.00 7.72 0.55 0.00 7.80 1.73 0.00 4.77 4.77 2.97 10.89 4.78 Reduction

Page 4 of 20 3.0 Construction Detail

Construction Phase

Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week

1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 5/1/2018 5/14/2018 5 10

2 Grading Grading 5/15/2018 8/3/2018 5 59

3 Building Construction Building Construction 9/2/2018 8/3/2019 5 240

4 Paving Paving 8/4/2018 9/1/2018 5 20

5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 8/4/2019 8/30/2019 5 20

Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0

Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 29.5

Acres of Paving: 0

Residential Indoor: 55,621; Residential Outdoor: 18,540; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area:

OffRoad Equipment

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48

Grading Trenchers 1 8.00 78 0.50

Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38

Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29

Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20

Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74

Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42

Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38

Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40

Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37

Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41

Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37

Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36

Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Page 5 of 20 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40

Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45

Trips and VMT

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Vehicle Class Class Architectural Coating 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Building Construction 9 3.00 1.00 0.00 10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Grading 7 18.00 0.00 680.00 10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction

Water Exposed Area Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads Clean Paved Roads

3.2 Site Preparation - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 4.5627 48.1988 22.4763 0.0380 2.5769 2.5769 2.3708 2.3708 3,831.623 3,831.623 1.1928 3,861.444 9 9 8 Total 4.5627 48.1988 22.4763 0.0380 18.0663 2.5769 20.6432 9.9307 2.3708 12.3014 3,831.623 3,831.623 1.1928 3,861.444 9 9 8

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site Page 6 of 20 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0835 0.0599 0.5503 1.4800e- 0.1479 1.0100e- 0.1489 0.0392 9.3000e- 0.0402 147.6095 147.6095 4.2800e- 147.7166 003 003 004 003 Total 0.0835 0.0599 0.5503 1.4800e- 0.1479 1.0100e- 0.1489 0.0392 9.3000e- 0.0402 147.6095 147.6095 4.2800e- 147.7166 003 003 004 003

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Fugitive Dust 8.1298 0.0000 8.1298 4.4688 0.0000 4.4688 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 4.5627 48.1988 22.4763 0.0380 2.5769 2.5769 2.3708 2.3708 0.0000 3,831.623 3,831.623 1.1928 3,861.444 9 9 8 Total 4.5627 48.1988 22.4763 0.0380 8.1298 2.5769 10.7067 4.4688 2.3708 6.8396 0.0000 3,831.623 3,831.623 1.1928 3,861.444 9 9 8

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Page 7 of 20 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0835 0.0599 0.5503 1.4800e- 0.1479 1.0100e- 0.1489 0.0392 9.3000e- 0.0402 147.6095 147.6095 4.2800e- 147.7166 003 003 004 003 Total 0.0835 0.0599 0.5503 1.4800e- 0.1479 1.0100e- 0.1489 0.0392 9.3000e- 0.0402 147.6095 147.6095 4.2800e- 147.7166 003 003 004 003

3.3 Grading - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Fugitive Dust 6.5628 0.0000 6.5628 3.3691 0.0000 3.3691 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 3.2282 34.7616 19.2418 0.0331 1.8624 1.8624 1.7134 1.7134 3,329.317 3,329.317 1.0365 3,355.229 6 6 2 Total 3.2282 34.7616 19.2418 0.0331 6.5628 1.8624 8.4251 3.3691 1.7134 5.0824 3,329.317 3,329.317 1.0365 3,355.229 6 6 2

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.1260 3.8176 1.2409 9.1600e- 0.2010 0.0163 0.2173 0.0551 0.0156 0.0707 983.6479 983.6479 0.0591 985.1244 003 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0835 0.0599 0.5503 1.4800e- 0.1479 1.0100e- 0.1489 0.0392 9.3000e- 0.0402 147.6095 147.6095 4.2800e- 147.7166 003 003 004 003 Total 0.2095 3.8775 1.7911 0.0106 0.3489 0.0173 0.3662 0.0943 0.0165 0.1108 1,131.257 1,131.257 0.0633 1,132.841 3 3 0

Mitigated Construction On-Site Page 8 of 20 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Fugitive Dust 2.9532 0.0000 2.9532 1.5161 0.0000 1.5161 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 3.2282 34.7616 19.2418 0.0331 1.8624 1.8624 1.7134 1.7134 0.0000 3,329.317 3,329.317 1.0365 3,355.229 6 6 2 Total 3.2282 34.7616 19.2418 0.0331 2.9532 1.8624 4.8156 1.5161 1.7134 3.2295 0.0000 3,329.317 3,329.317 1.0365 3,355.229 6 6 2

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.1260 3.8176 1.2409 9.1600e- 0.2010 0.0163 0.2173 0.0551 0.0156 0.0707 983.6479 983.6479 0.0591 985.1244 003 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0835 0.0599 0.5503 1.4800e- 0.1479 1.0100e- 0.1489 0.0392 9.3000e- 0.0402 147.6095 147.6095 4.2800e- 147.7166 003 003 004 003 Total 0.2095 3.8775 1.7911 0.0106 0.3489 0.0173 0.3662 0.0943 0.0165 0.1108 1,131.257 1,131.257 0.0633 1,132.841 3 3 0

3.4 Building Construction - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Off-Road 2.6795 23.3900 17.5804 0.0269 1.4999 1.4999 1.4099 1.4099 2,620.935 2,620.935 0.6421 2,636.988 1 1 3 Page 9 of 20 Total 2.6795 23.3900 17.5804 0.0269 1.4999 1.4999 1.4099 1.4099 2,620.935 2,620.935 0.6421 2,636.988 1 1 3

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 6.0500e- 0.1219 0.0551 2.5000e- 6.1200e- 9.7000e- 7.0900e- 1.7600e- 9.3000e- 2.6900e- 25.9788 25.9788 1.5500e- 26.0176 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 003 Worker 0.0139 9.9900e- 0.0917 2.5000e- 0.0246 1.7000e- 0.0248 6.5400e- 1.6000e- 6.6900e- 24.6016 24.6016 7.1000e- 24.6194 003 004 004 003 004 003 004 Total 0.0200 0.1319 0.1468 5.0000e- 0.0308 1.1400e- 0.0319 8.3000e- 1.0900e- 9.3800e- 50.5804 50.5804 2.2600e- 50.6370 004 003 003 003 003 003

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Off-Road 2.6795 23.3900 17.5804 0.0269 1.4999 1.4999 1.4099 1.4099 0.0000 2,620.935 2,620.935 0.6421 2,636.988 1 1 3 Total 2.6795 23.3900 17.5804 0.0269 1.4999 1.4999 1.4099 1.4099 0.0000 2,620.935 2,620.935 0.6421 2,636.988 1 1 3

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

Page 10 of 20 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 6.0500e- 0.1219 0.0551 2.5000e- 6.1200e- 9.7000e- 7.0900e- 1.7600e- 9.3000e- 2.6900e- 25.9788 25.9788 1.5500e- 26.0176 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 003 Worker 0.0139 9.9900e- 0.0917 2.5000e- 0.0246 1.7000e- 0.0248 6.5400e- 1.6000e- 6.6900e- 24.6016 24.6016 7.1000e- 24.6194 003 004 004 003 004 003 004 Total 0.0200 0.1319 0.1468 5.0000e- 0.0308 1.1400e- 0.0319 8.3000e- 1.0900e- 9.3800e- 50.5804 50.5804 2.2600e- 50.6370 004 003 003 003 003 003

3.4 Building Construction - 2019 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Off-Road 2.3612 21.0788 17.1638 0.0269 1.2899 1.2899 1.2127 1.2127 2,591.580 2,591.580 0.6313 2,607.363 2 2 5 Total 2.3612 21.0788 17.1638 0.0269 1.2899 1.2899 1.2127 1.2127 2,591.580 2,591.580 0.6313 2,607.363 2 2 5

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Page 11 of 20 Vendor 5.2900e- 0.1154 0.0479 2.4000e- 6.1200e- 8.2000e- 6.9400e- 1.7600e- 7.9000e- 2.5500e- 25.8298 25.8298 1.4800e- 25.8667 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 003 Worker 0.0127 8.7700e- 0.0812 2.4000e- 0.0246 1.7000e- 0.0248 6.5400e- 1.5000e- 6.6900e- 23.8664 23.8664 6.3000e- 23.8821 003 004 004 003 004 003 004 Total 0.0180 0.1241 0.1291 4.8000e- 0.0308 9.9000e- 0.0318 8.3000e- 9.4000e- 9.2400e- 49.6961 49.6961 2.1100e- 49.7488 004 004 003 004 003 003

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Off-Road 2.3612 21.0788 17.1638 0.0269 1.2899 1.2899 1.2127 1.2127 0.0000 2,591.580 2,591.580 0.6313 2,607.363 2 2 5 Total 2.3612 21.0788 17.1638 0.0269 1.2899 1.2899 1.2127 1.2127 0.0000 2,591.580 2,591.580 0.6313 2,607.363 2 2 5

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 5.2900e- 0.1154 0.0479 2.4000e- 6.1200e- 8.2000e- 6.9400e- 1.7600e- 7.9000e- 2.5500e- 25.8298 25.8298 1.4800e- 25.8667 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 003 Worker 0.0127 8.7700e- 0.0812 2.4000e- 0.0246 1.7000e- 0.0248 6.5400e- 1.5000e- 6.6900e- 23.8664 23.8664 6.3000e- 23.8821 003 004 004 003 004 003 004 Total 0.0180 0.1241 0.1291 4.8000e- 0.0308 9.9000e- 0.0318 8.3000e- 9.4000e- 9.2400e- 49.6961 49.6961 2.1100e- 49.7488 004 004 003 004 003 003

3.5 Paving - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On-Site Page 12 of 20 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Off-Road 1.6437 17.5209 14.7964 0.0228 0.9561 0.9561 0.8797 0.8797 2,294.088 2,294.088 0.7142 2,311.943 7 7 2 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 1.6437 17.5209 14.7964 0.0228 0.9561 0.9561 0.8797 0.8797 2,294.088 2,294.088 0.7142 2,311.943 7 7 2

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0696 0.0499 0.4585 1.2400e- 0.1232 8.4000e- 0.1241 0.0327 7.8000e- 0.0335 123.0079 123.0079 3.5700e- 123.0971 003 004 004 003 Total 0.0696 0.0499 0.4585 1.2400e- 0.1232 8.4000e- 0.1241 0.0327 7.8000e- 0.0335 123.0079 123.0079 3.5700e- 123.0971 003 004 004 003

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Off-Road 1.6437 17.5209 14.7964 0.0228 0.9561 0.9561 0.8797 0.8797 0.0000 2,294.088 2,294.088 0.7142 2,311.943 7 7 2 Page 13 of 20 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 1.6437 17.5209 14.7964 0.0228 0.9561 0.9561 0.8797 0.8797 0.0000 2,294.088 2,294.088 0.7142 2,311.943 7 7 2

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0696 0.0499 0.4585 1.2400e- 0.1232 8.4000e- 0.1241 0.0327 7.8000e- 0.0335 123.0079 123.0079 3.5700e- 123.0971 003 004 004 003 Total 0.0696 0.0499 0.4585 1.2400e- 0.1232 8.4000e- 0.1241 0.0327 7.8000e- 0.0335 123.0079 123.0079 3.5700e- 123.0971 003 004 004 003

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2019 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Archit. Coating 19.3351 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 0.2664 1.8354 1.8413 2.9700e- 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 281.4481 281.4481 0.0238 282.0423 003 Total 19.6016 1.8354 1.8413 2.9700e- 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 281.4481 281.4481 0.0238 282.0423 003

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

Page 14 of 20 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 4.2200e- 2.9200e- 0.0271 8.0000e- 8.2100e- 6.0000e- 8.2700e- 2.1800e- 5.0000e- 2.2300e- 7.9555 7.9555 2.1000e- 7.9607 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 Total 4.2200e- 2.9200e- 0.0271 8.0000e- 8.2100e- 6.0000e- 8.2700e- 2.1800e- 5.0000e- 2.2300e- 7.9555 7.9555 2.1000e- 7.9607 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Archit. Coating 19.3351 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 0.2664 1.8354 1.8413 2.9700e- 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0238 282.0423 003 Total 19.6016 1.8354 1.8413 2.9700e- 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0238 282.0423 003

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Page 15 of 20 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 4.2200e- 2.9200e- 0.0271 8.0000e- 8.2100e- 6.0000e- 8.2700e- 2.1800e- 5.0000e- 2.2300e- 7.9555 7.9555 2.1000e- 7.9607 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 Total 4.2200e- 2.9200e- 0.0271 8.0000e- 8.2100e- 6.0000e- 8.2700e- 2.1800e- 5.0000e- 2.2300e- 7.9555 7.9555 2.1000e- 7.9607 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Mitigated 0.1408 0.4827 1.6291 4.7700e- 0.4370 5.6500e- 0.4426 0.1169 5.3100e- 0.1222 479.4292 479.4292 0.0177 479.8727 003 003 003 Unmitigated 0.1408 0.4827 1.6291 4.7700e- 0.4370 5.6500e- 0.4426 0.1169 5.3100e- 0.1222 479.4292 479.4292 0.0177 479.8727 003 003 003

4.2 Trip Summary Information

Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT

Single Family Housing 85.68 89.19 77.58 196,373 196,373 Total 85.68 89.19 77.58 196,373 196,373 4.3 Trip Type Information

Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %

Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C- H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Single Family Housing 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00W 15.00 54.00 86 11 3

4.4 Fleet Mix Page 16 of 20 Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Single Family Housing 0.586103 0.042797 0.200835 0.113384 0.018054 0.005119 0.010148 0.010539 0.002013 0.003657 0.005892 0.000682 0.000777

5.0 Energy Detail

Historical Energy Use: N

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

Exceed Title 24

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

NaturalGas 0.0103 0.0882 0.0375 5.6000e- 7.1300e- 7.1300e- 7.1300e- 7.1300e- 112.5697 112.5697 2.1600e- 2.0600e- 113.2386 Mitigated 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 NaturalGas 0.0141 0.1202 0.0511 7.7000e- 9.7200e- 9.7200e- 9.7200e- 9.7200e- 153.3967 153.3967 2.9400e- 2.8100e- 154.3083 Unmitigated 004 003 003 003 003 003 003

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated

NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day

Single Family 1303.87 0.0141 0.1202 0.0511 7.7000e- 9.7200e- 9.7200e- 9.7200e- 9.7200e- 153.3967 153.3967 2.9400e- 2.8100e- 154.3083 Housing 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 Total 0.0141 0.1202 0.0511 7.7000e- 9.7200e- 9.7200e- 9.7200e- 9.7200e- 153.3967 153.3967 2.9400e- 2.8100e- 154.3083 004 003 003 003 003 003 003

Page 17 of 20 Mitigated

NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day

Single Family 0.956842 0.0103 0.0882 0.0375 5.6000e- 7.1300e- 7.1300e- 7.1300e- 7.1300e- 112.5697 112.5697 2.1600e- 2.0600e- 113.2386 Housing 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 Total 0.0103 0.0882 0.0375 5.6000e- 7.1300e- 7.1300e- 7.1300e- 7.1300e- 112.5697 112.5697 2.1600e- 2.0600e- 113.2386 004 003 003 003 003 003 003

6.0 Area Detail

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Mitigated 0.7368 0.1828 0.8191 1.1500e- 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0000 223.6899 223.6899 5.5700e- 4.0800e- 225.0438 003 003 003 Unmitigated 0.7368 0.1828 0.8191 1.1500e- 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0000 223.6899 223.6899 5.5700e- 4.0800e- 225.0438 003 003 003

6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated

Page 18 of 20 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

SubCategory lb/day lb/day

Architectural 0.1060 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating Consumer 0.5878 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products Hearth 0.0204 0.1742 0.0741 1.1100e- 0.0141 0.0141 0.0141 0.0141 0.0000 222.3529 222.3529 4.2600e- 4.0800e- 223.6743 003 003 003 Landscaping 0.0227 8.6200e- 0.7450 4.0000e- 4.1000e- 4.1000e- 4.1000e- 4.1000e- 1.3370 1.3370 1.3000e- 1.3696 003 005 003 003 003 003 003 Total 0.7368 0.1828 0.8191 1.1500e- 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0000 223.6899 223.6899 5.5600e- 4.0800e- 225.0438 003 003 003

Mitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

SubCategory lb/day lb/day

Architectural 0.1060 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating Consumer 0.5878 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products Hearth 0.0204 0.1742 0.0741 1.1100e- 0.0141 0.0141 0.0141 0.0141 0.0000 222.3529 222.3529 4.2600e- 4.0800e- 223.6743 003 003 003 Landscaping 0.0227 8.6200e- 0.7450 4.0000e- 4.1000e- 4.1000e- 4.1000e- 4.1000e- 1.3370 1.3370 1.3000e- 1.3696 003 005 003 003 003 003 003 Total 0.7368 0.1828 0.8191 1.1500e- 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0000 223.6899 223.6899 5.5600e- 4.0800e- 225.0438 003 003 003

7.0 Water Detail

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

Apply Water Conservation Strategy

8.0 Waste Detail

Page 19 of 20 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

9.0 Operational Offroad

Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment

Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators

Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

Boilers

Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type

User Defined Equipment

Equipment Type Number

11.0 Vegetation

Page 20 of 20 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1

Date: 7/20/2017 2:55 PM

Bahia Heights Project Marin County, Mitigation Report

Construction Mitigation Summary

Exhaust Exhaust Phase ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Percent Reduction Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Building Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Grading 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Site Preparation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

OFFROAD Equipment Mitigation

Equipment Type Fuel Type Tier Number Mitigated Total Number of Equipment DPF Oxidation Catalyst

Air Compressors Diesel No Change 0 1 No Change 0.00

Excavators Diesel No Change 0 1 No Change 0.00

Trenchers Diesel No Change 0 1 No Change 0.00

Cranes Diesel No Change 0 1 No Change 0.00

Forklifts Diesel No Change 0 3 No Change 0.00

Graders Diesel No Change 0 1 No Change 0.00

Pavers Diesel No Change 0 2 No Change 0.00

Rollers Diesel No Change 0 2 No Change 0.00

Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel No Change 0 4 No Change 0.00 Page 1 of 8 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Diesel No Change 0 10 No Change 0.00

Generator Sets Diesel No Change 0 1 No Change 0.00

Paving Equipment Diesel No Change 0 2 No Change 0.00

Welders Diesel No Change 0 1 No Change 0.00

Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 Exhaust PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Unmitigated tons/yr Unmitigated mt/yr Air Compressors 2.66000E-003 1.83500E-002 1.84100E-002 3.00000E-005 1.29000E-003 1.29000E-003 0.00000E+000 2.55325E+000 2.55325E+000 2.20000E-004 0.00000E+000 2.55865E+000

Cranes 5.54300E-002 6.61350E-001 2.49380E-001 6.10000E-004 2.82600E-002 2.60000E-002 0.00000E+000 5.47307E+001 5.47307E+001 1.72200E-002 0.00000E+000 5.51611E+001

Excavators 8.53000E-003 9.13300E-002 9.66300E-002 1.50000E-004 4.43000E-003 4.07000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.39051E+001 1.39051E+001 4.33000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.40133E+001

Forklifts 5.99300E-002 5.33050E-001 4.32110E-001 5.50000E-004 4.17700E-002 3.84300E-002 0.00000E+000 4.97079E+001 4.97079E+001 1.56400E-002 0.00000E+000 5.00988E+001

Generator Sets 5.59200E-002 4.67770E-001 4.47810E-001 7.90000E-004 2.86600E-002 2.86600E-002 0.00000E+000 6.78249E+001 6.78249E+001 4.51000E-003 0.00000E+000 6.79377E+001

Graders 1.53300E-002 2.10260E-001 5.64800E-002 2.00000E-004 6.84000E-003 6.29000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.79288E+001 1.79288E+001 5.58000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.80683E+001

Pavers 6.52000E-003 7.21700E-002 5.85300E-002 9.00000E-005 3.53000E-003 3.24000E-003 0.00000E+000 8.58438E+000 8.58438E+000 2.67000E-003 0.00000E+000 8.65119E+000

Paving Equipment 4.76000E-003 5.31700E-002 5.07200E-002 8.00000E-005 2.60000E-003 2.40000E-003 0.00000E+000 7.43901E+000 7.43901E+000 2.32000E-003 0.00000E+000 7.49690E+000

Rollers 5.16000E-003 4.98700E-002 3.87100E-002 5.00000E-005 3.43000E-003 3.16000E-003 0.00000E+000 4.78824E+000 4.78824E+000 1.49000E-003 0.00000E+000 4.82550E+000

Rubber Tired 5.18900E-002 5.58920E-001 1.94750E-001 3.80000E-004 2.71700E-002 2.50000E-002 0.00000E+000 3.47250E+001 3.47250E+001 1.08100E-002 0.00000E+000 3.49952E+001 Dozers Tractors/Loaders/B 1.05970E-001 1.05460E+000 9.82720E-001 1.32000E-003 7.27800E-002 6.69600E-002 0.00000E+000 1.19207E+002 1.19207E+002 3.74000E-002 0.00000E+000 1.20141E+002 ackhoes Trenchers 1.34200E-002 1.20630E-001 7.86100E-002 1.00000E-004 9.18000E-003 8.44000E-003 0.00000E+000 9.13375E+000 9.13375E+000 2.84000E-003 0.00000E+000 9.20483E+000

Welders 4.86500E-002 1.97390E-001 2.19090E-001 3.10000E-004 1.25600E-002 1.25600E-002 0.00000E+000 2.25865E+001 2.25865E+001 3.98000E-003 0.00000E+000 2.26859E+001

Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 Exhaust PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Mitigated tons/yr Mitigated mt/yr Air Compressors 2.66000E-003 1.83500E-002 1.84100E-002 3.00000E-005 1.29000E-003 1.29000E-003 0.00000E+000 2.55325E+000 2.55325E+000 2.20000E-004 0.00000E+000 2.55864E+000

Cranes 5.54300E-002 6.61350E-001 2.49380E-001 6.10000E-004 2.82600E-002 2.60000E-002 0.00000E+000 5.47307E+001 5.47307E+001 1.72200E-002 0.00000E+000 5.51611E+001

Excavators 8.53000E-003 9.13300E-002 9.66300E-002 1.50000E-004 4.43000E-003 4.07000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.39051E+001 1.39051E+001 4.33000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.40133E+001

Forklifts 5.99300E-002 5.33050E-001 4.32110E-001 5.50000E-004 4.17700E-002 3.84300E-002 0.00000E+000 4.97079E+001 4.97079E+001 1.56400E-002 0.00000E+000 5.00988E+001 Page 2 of 8 Generator Sets 5.59200E-002 4.67770E-001 4.47810E-001 7.90000E-004 2.86600E-002 2.86600E-002 0.00000E+000 6.78248E+001 6.78248E+001 4.51000E-003 0.00000E+000 6.79376E+001

Graders 1.53300E-002 2.10260E-001 5.64800E-002 2.00000E-004 6.84000E-003 6.29000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.79288E+001 1.79288E+001 5.58000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.80683E+001

Pavers 6.52000E-003 7.21700E-002 5.85300E-002 9.00000E-005 3.53000E-003 3.24000E-003 0.00000E+000 8.58437E+000 8.58437E+000 2.67000E-003 0.00000E+000 8.65118E+000

Paving Equipment 4.76000E-003 5.31700E-002 5.07200E-002 8.00000E-005 2.60000E-003 2.40000E-003 0.00000E+000 7.43900E+000 7.43900E+000 2.32000E-003 0.00000E+000 7.49690E+000

Rollers 5.16000E-003 4.98700E-002 3.87100E-002 5.00000E-005 3.43000E-003 3.16000E-003 0.00000E+000 4.78823E+000 4.78823E+000 1.49000E-003 0.00000E+000 4.82550E+000

Rubber Tired Dozers 5.18900E-002 5.58920E-001 1.94750E-001 3.80000E-004 2.71700E-002 2.50000E-002 0.00000E+000 3.47249E+001 3.47249E+001 1.08100E-002 0.00000E+000 3.49952E+001

Tractors/Loaders/Bac 1.05960E-001 1.05459E+000 9.82720E-001 1.32000E-003 7.27800E-002 6.69600E-002 0.00000E+000 1.19206E+002 1.19206E+002 3.74000E-002 0.00000E+000 1.20141E+002 khoes Trenchers 1.34200E-002 1.20630E-001 7.86100E-002 1.00000E-004 9.18000E-003 8.44000E-003 0.00000E+000 9.13374E+000 9.13374E+000 2.84000E-003 0.00000E+000 9.20482E+000

Welders 4.86500E-002 1.97390E-001 2.19090E-001 3.10000E-004 1.25600E-002 1.25600E-002 0.00000E+000 2.25865E+001 2.25865E+001 3.98000E-003 0.00000E+000 2.26858E+001

Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 Exhaust PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Percent Reduction Air Compressors 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 3.90831E-006

Cranes 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.27899E-006 1.27899E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.26901E-006

Excavators 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.43832E-006 1.43832E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.42721E-006

Forklifts 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.20705E-006 1.20705E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.19763E-006

Generator Sets 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.17951E-006 1.17951E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.17755E-006

Graders 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.67329E-006 1.67329E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.10691E-006

Pavers 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.16491E-006 1.16491E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.15591E-006

Paving Equipment 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.34426E-006 1.34426E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000

Rollers 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 2.08845E-006 2.08845E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000

Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.15191E-006 1.15191E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.14301E-006

Tractors/Loaders/Bac 9.43663E-005 9.48227E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.17443E-006 1.17443E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.16529E-006 khoes Trenchers 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.09484E-006 1.09484E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.08639E-006

Welders 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.32823E-006 1.32823E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 8.81607E-007

Fugitive Dust Mitigation

Page 3 of 8 Yes/No Mitigation Measure Mitigation Input Mitigation Input Mitigation Input

No Soil Stabilizer for unpaved PM10 Reduction 0.00 PM2.5 Reduction 0.00 Roads No Replace Ground Cover of Area PM10 Reduction 0.00 PM2.5 Reduction 0.00 Disturbed Yes Water Exposed Area PM10 Reduction 55.00 PM2.5 Reduction 55.00 Frequency (per 2.00 day) No Unpaved Road Mitigation Moisture Content 0.00 Vehicle Speed 15.00 % (mph) Yes Clean Paved Road % PM Reduction 0.00

Unmitigated Mitigated Percent Reduction

Phase Source PM10 PM2.5 PM10 PM2.5 PM10 PM2.5 Architectural Coating Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Architectural Coating Roads 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Building Construction Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Building Construction Roads 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Grading Fugitive Dust 0.19 0.10 0.09 0.04 0.55 0.55

Grading Roads 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paving Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paving Roads 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Site Preparation Fugitive Dust 0.09 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.55 0.55

Site Preparation Roads 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Operational Percent Reduction Summary

Exhaust Exhaust Total Category ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Percent Reduction Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page 4 of 8 Consumer Products 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Electricity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.81 0.99 0.00 0.81

Hearth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Natural Gas 26.85 26.63 26.58 28.57 26.55 26.55 0.00 26.62 26.62 26.53 27.66 26.62

Water Indoor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.03 19.57 20.00

Water Outdoor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Operational Mobile Mitigation

Project Setting: Mitigation Category Measure % Reduction Input Value 1 Input Value 2 Input Value 3 SelectedNo Land Use Increase Density 0.00 No Land Use Increase Diversity -0.01 0.13 No Land Use Improve Walkability Design 0.00 No Land Use Improve Destination Accessibility 0.00 No Land Use Increase Transit Accessibility 0.25 No Land Use Integrate Below Market Rate Housing 0.00 Land Use Land Use SubTotal 0.00 No Neighborhood Enhancements Improve Pedestrian Network

No Neighborhood Enhancements Provide Traffic Calming Measures No Neighborhood Enhancements Implement NEV Network 0.00 Neighborhood Enhancements Neighborhood Enhancements Subtotal 0.00 No Parking Policy Pricing Limit Parking Supply 0.00 No Parking Policy Pricing Unbundle Parking Costs 0.00 Page 5 of 8 No Parking Policy Pricing On-street Market Pricing 0.00 Parking Policy Pricing Parking Policy Pricing Subtotal 0.00 No Transit Improvements Provide BRT System 0.00 No Transit Improvements Expand Transit Network 0.00 No Transit Improvements Increase Transit Frequency 0.00 Transit Improvements Transit Improvements Subtotal 0.00 Land Use and Site Enhancement Subtotal 0.00 No Commute Implement Trip Reduction Program No Commute Transit Subsidy No Commute Implement Employee Parking "Cash Out" No Commute Workplace Parking Charge No Commute Encourage Telecommuting and Alternative 0.00 Work Schedules

No Commute Market Commute Trip Reduction Option 0.00 No Commute Employee Vanpool/Shuttle 0.00 2.00 No Commute Provide Ride Sharing Program Commute Commute Subtotal 0.00 No School Trip Implement School Bus Program 0.00 Total VMT Reduction 0.00

Area Mitigation

Measure Implemented Mitigation Measure Input Value No Only Natural Gas Hearth No No Hearth No Use Low VOC Cleaning Supplies No Use Low VOC Paint (Residential Interior) 100.00 No Use Low VOC Paint (Residential Exterior) 150.00 Page 6 of 8 No Use Low VOC Paint (Non-residential Interior) 100.00 No Use Low VOC Paint (Non-residential Exterior) 150.00 No Use Low VOC Paint (Parking) 150.00 No % Electric Lawnmower No % Electric Leafblower No % Electric Chainsaw

Energy Mitigation Measures

Measure Implemented Mitigation Measure Input Value 1 Input Value 2 Yes Exceed Title 24 28.00 No Install High Efficiency Lighting No On-site Renewable

Appliance Type Land Use Subtype % Improvement ClothWasher 30.00 DishWasher 15.00 Fan 50.00 Refrigerator 15.00

Water Mitigation Measures

Measure Implemented Mitigation Measure Input Value 1 Input Value 2 Yes Apply Water Conservation on Strategy 20.00 20.00 No Use Reclaimed Water 0.00 0.00 No Use Grey Water 0.00 No Install low-flow bathroom faucet 32.00 No Install low-flow Kitchen faucet 18.00 No Install low-flow Toilet 20.00 No Install low-flow Shower 20.00 Page 7 of 8 No Turf Reduction 0.00 No Use Water Efficient Irrigation Systems 6.10 No Water Efficient Landscape 0.00 0.00

Solid Waste Mitigation

Mitigation Measures Input Value Institute Recycling and Composting Services Percent Reduction in Waste Disposed

Page 8 of 8

APPENDIX B List of Species Observed On Site

APPENDIX B List of Species Observed On Site

PLANT SPECIES

FERNS AND FERN ALLIES

DENNSTAEDTIACEAE—BRACKEN FAMILY Pteridium aquilinum—western brackenfern

DRYOPTERIDACEAE—WOOD FERN FAMILY Dryopteris arguta—coastal woodfern

PTERIDACEAE—BRAKE FAMILY Pentagramma triangularis—goldback fern

GYMNOSPERMS AND GNETOPHYTES

CUPRESSACEAE—CYPRESS FAMILY Hesperocyparis macrocarpa—Monterey cypress

ANGIOSPERMS (MONOCOTS)

AGAVACEAE—AGAVE FAMILY Chlorogalum pomeridianum—wavyleaf soap plant

IRIDACEAE—IRIS FAMILY Iris macrosiphon—bowltube iris

JUNCACEAE—RUSH FAMILY Juncus mexicanus—Mexican rush

POACEAE—GRASS FAMILY * Agrostis avenacea—Pacific bentgrass * Aira caryophyllea—silver hairgrass * Avena fatua—wild oat * Brachypodium distachyon—purple false brome * Briza maxima—big quakinggrass * Briza minor—little quakinggrass * Bromus diandrus—ripgut brome * Bromus hordeaceus—soft brome * Crypsis schoenoides—swamp pricklegrass * Cynosurus echinatus—annual dogtails Danthonia californica—California oat grass Elymus glaucus—blue wild rye * Festuca myuros—rat-tail fescue

10233 B-1 December 2017 APPENDIX B (Continued)

* Gastridium phleoides—nit grass * Hordeum marinum—seaside barley * Phalaris aquatica—Harding grass swards * Polypogon monspeliensis—annual rabbitsfoot grass Stipa lepida—foothill needle grass Stipa pulchra—purple needle grass

THEMIDACEAE—BRODIAEA FAMILY Triteleia laxa—Ithuriel's spear

ANGIOSPERMS (DICOTS)

ANACARDIACEAE—SUMAC OR CASHEW FAMILY Toxicodendron diversilobum—poison oak

APIACEAE—CARROT FAMILY * Torilis arvensis—spreading hedgeparsley * Foeniculum vulgare—fennel

ASTERACEAE—SUNFLOWER FAMILY Achillea millefolium—common yarrow Achyrachaena mollis—blow wives Baccharis pilularis—coyote brush * Carduus pycnocephalus—Italian plumeless thistle * Hypochaeris glabra—smooth cat's ear * Logfia gallica—narrowleaf cottonrose Madia elegans—common madia Madia gracilis—grassy tarweed * Pseudognaphalium luteoalbum—Jersey cudweed

CAPRIFOLIACEAE—HONEYSUCKLE FAMILY Lonicera hispidula—pink honeysuckle Symphoricarpos mollis—creeping snowberry

CARYOPHYLLACEAE—PINK FAMILY * Petrorhagia dubia—hairypink

ERICACEAE—HEATH FAMILY Arctostaphylos manzanita ssp. manzanita—whiteleaf manzanita Arbutus menziesii—madrone

EUPHORBIACEAE—SPURGE FAMILY Croton setiger—dove weed

10233 B-2 December 2017 APPENDIX B (Continued)

FABACEAE—LEGUME FAMILY Acmispon americanus—Spanish clover Acmispon wrangelianus—Chilean bird's-foot trefoil Lupinus bicolor—miniature lupine * Trifolium glomeratum—clustered clover * Trifolium hirtum—rose clover * Vicia sativa—garden vetch

FAGACEAE—OAK FAMILY Quercus agrifolia—coast live oak Quercus douglasii—blue oak Quercus durata—leather oak Quercus garryana—Oregon white oak

GENTIANACEAE—GENTIAN FAMILY Zeltnera muehlenbergii—Muhlenberg's centaury

GERANIACEAE—GERANIUM FAMILY * Erodium cicutarium—redstem stork's bill

LAMIACEAE—MINT FAMILY * Mentha pulegium—pennyroyal Stachys ajugoides—bugle hedgenettle

LAURACEAE—LAUREL FAMILY Umbellularia californica—California bay

MYRTACEAE—MYRTLE FAMILY * Eucalyptus globulus—Tasmanian bluegum

ONAGRACEAE—EVENING PRIMROSE FAMILY Clarkia purpurea—winecup clarkia

PHRYMACEAE—LOPSEED FAMILY Mimulus aurantiacus—bush monkeyflower

PLANTAGINACEAE—PLANTAIN FAMILY Plantago erecta—dwarf plantain * Plantago lanceolata—narrowleaf plantain

ROSACEAE—ROSE FAMILY * Pyracantha angustifolia—narrowleaf firethorn Rosa gymnocarpa—dwarf rose

10233 B-3 December 2017 APPENDIX B (Continued)

RUBIACEAE—MADDER FAMILY Galium californicum ssp. flaccidum—California bedstraw

VISCACEAE—MISTLETOE FAMILY Phoradendron leucarpum—oak mistletoe

WILDLIFE SPECIES – VERTEBRATES

BIRDS

ACCIPITRIDAE – HAWKS Buteo lineatus – red-shouldered hawk

CATHARTIDAE – NEW WORLD VULTURES Cathartes aura – turkey vulture

COLUMBIDAE – PIGEONS AND DOVES Zenaida macroura – mourning dove

CORVIDAE – JAYS AND CROWS Aphelocoma californica – California scrub-jay Corvus corax – common raven

PHASIANIDAE – PARTRIDGES, GROUSE, TURKEYS, AND OLD WORLD QUAIL Meleagris gallopavo – wild turkey

PICIFORMES – WOODPECKERS AND ALLIES Melanerpes formicivorus – acorn woodpecker

TURDIDAE – THRUSHES Turdus migratorius – American Robin

MAMMAL

CANIDAE—WOLVES & FOXES Canis latrans—coyote

LEPORIDAE—HARES & RABBITS Lepus californicus—black-tailed jackrabbit

* signifies introduced (non-native) species

10233 B-4 December 2017

APPENDIX C Plant Species with Potential to Occur

APPENDIX C Plant Species with Potential to Occur

Status Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/ Blooming Scientific Name Common Name (Federal/State/CRPR) Period/ Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur Allium peninsulare Franciscan onion None/None/1B.2 Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland; Not expected to occur. No suitable soils var. franciscanum clay, volcanic, often serpentinite/perennial bulbiferous present. herb/May–June/171–1,001 Alopecurus aequalis Sonoma FE/None/1B.1 Marshes and swamps (freshwater), riparian Not expected to occur. No suitable var. sonomensis alopecurus scrub/perennial herb/May–July/16–1,198 marsh or riparian scrub habitat present. Amorpha californica Napa false indigo None/None/1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest (openings), chaparral, Not expected to occur. The site is var. napensis cismontane woodland/perennial deciduous shrub/Apr– outside of the species’ known elevation July/394–6,562 range. Amsinckia lunaris bent-flowered None/None/1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, cismontane woodland, valley and Moderate potential to occur. The fiddleneck foothill grassland/annual herb/Mar–June/10–1,640 grassland onsite provides potentially suitable habitat for this species. The nearest documented occurrence for this species is located approximately 7 miles southwest of the project site (CDFW 2017). Arctostaphylos Mt. Tamalpais None/None/1B.3 Chaparral, valley and foothill grassland; serpentinite, Not expected to occur. The site is montana ssp. manzanita rocky/perennial evergreen shrub/Feb–Apr/525–2,493 outside of the species’ known elevation montana range. Arctostaphylos Marin manzanita None/None/1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest, closed-cone coniferous Not expected to occur. No suitable virgata forest, chaparral, north coast coniferous forest; sandstone or granitic soils present. sandstone or granitic/perennial evergreen shrub/Jan– Mar/197–2,297 Astragalus coastal marsh None/None/1B.2 Coastal dunes (mesic), coastal scrub, marshes and Not expected to occur. No suitable pycnostachyus var. milk-vetch swamps (coastal salt, streamsides)/perennial coastal dune, scrub, or marsh habitat pycnostachyus herb/Apr–Oct/0–98 present. Astragalus tener var. alkali milk-vetch None/None/1B.2 Playas, valley and foothill grassland (adobe clay), Not expected to occur. No suitable tener vernal pools; alkaline/annual herb/Mar–June/3–197 adobe clay or alkaline soils present. Blennosperma bakeri Sonoma sunshine FE/CE/1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland (mesic), vernal Not expected to occur. Although the pools/annual herb/Mar–May/33–361 wetland onsite provides potentially suitable habitat, the nearest documented occurrence of this species is located approximately 8 miles northeast of the project site (CDFW 2017).

10233 C-1 December 2017 APPENDIX C (Continued)

Status Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/ Blooming Scientific Name Common Name (Federal/State/CRPR) Period/ Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur Calamagrostis Thurber's reed None/None/2B.1 Coastal scrub (mesic), marshes and swamps Not expected to occur. No suitable crassiglumis grass (freshwater)/perennial rhizomatous herb/May–Aug/33– coastal scrub or marsh habitat present. 197 California round-leaved None/None/1B.2 Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland; Not expected to occur. No suitable clay macrophylla filaree clay/annual herb/Mar–May/49–3,937 soils present. Calochortus Tiburon mariposa FT/CT/1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland (serpentinite)/perennial Not expected to occur. No suitable tiburonensis lily bulbiferous herb/Mar–June/164–492 serpentine soils present. Cardamine angulata seaside None/None/2B.1 Lower montane coniferous forest, north coast Not expected to occur. No suitable bittercress coniferous forest; wet areas, streambanks/perennial perennially mesic habitat present. herb/(Jan) Mar–July/82–3,002 Carex lyngbyei Lyngbye's sedge None/None/2B.2 Marshes and swamps (brackish or Not expected to occur. No suitable freshwater)/perennial rhizomatous herb/Apr–Aug/0–33 marsh habitat present. Castilleja affinis var. Tiburon FE/CT/1B.2 Valley and foothill grassland (serpentinite)/perennial Not expected to occur. No suitable neglecta paintbrush herb (hemiparasitic)/Apr–June/197–1,312 serpentine soils present. Ceanothus Nicasio None/None/1B.2 Chaparral (maritime)/perennial shrub/Mar–May/771– Not expected to occur. The site is decornutus ceanothus 951 outside of the species’ known elevation range and there is no suitable chaparral habitat present. Ceanothus masonii Mason's None/CR/1B.2 Chaparral (openings, rocky, serpentinite)/perennial Not expected to occur. The site is ceanothus evergreen shrub/Mar–Apr/755–1,640 outside of the species’ known elevation range. Centromadia parryi pappose tarplant None/None/1B.2 Chaparral, coastal prairie, meadows and seeps, Not expected to occur. No suitable ssp. parryi marshes and swamps (coastal salt), valley and foothill habitat present. grassland (vernally mesic); often alkaline/annual herb/May–Nov/0–1,378 Chloropyron Point Reyes None/None/1B.2 Marshes and swamps (coastal salt)/annual herb Not expected to occur. No suitable maritimum ssp. bird's-beak (hemiparasitic)/June–Oct/0–33 swamp habitat present. palustre Chloropyron molle soft bird's-beak FE/CR/1B.2 Marshes and swamps (coastal salt)/annual herb Not expected to occur. No suitable ssp. molle (hemiparasitic)/July–Nov/0–10 swamp habitat present. Chorizanthe San Francisco None/None/1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal prairie, Not expected to occur. No suitable cuspidata var. Bay spineflower coastal scrub; sandy/annual herb/Apr–July (Aug)/10– coastal scrub, dune, or prairie habitat cuspidata 705 present.

10233 C-2 December 2017 APPENDIX C (Continued)

Status Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/ Blooming Scientific Name Common Name (Federal/State/CRPR) Period/ Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur Chorizanthe valida Sonoma FE/CE/1B.1 Coastal prairie (sandy)/annual herb/June–Aug/33– Not expected to occur. There is no spineflower 1,001 suitable sandy coastal prairie habitat present. Cirsium hydrophilum Mt. Tamalpais None/None/1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, meadows and Not expected to occur. The site is var. vaseyi thistle seeps; serpentinite seeps/perennial herb/May– outside of the species’ known elevation Aug/787–2034 range and there is no suitable habitat present. Collinsia corymbosa round-headed None/None/1B.2 Coastal dunes/annual herb/Apr–June/0–66 Not expected to occur. No suitable Chinese-houses coastal dune habitat present. Delphinium bakeri Baker's larkspur FE/CE/1B.1 Broadleafed upland forest, coastal scrub, valley and Not expected to occur. The site is foothill grassland; decomposed shale, often outside of the species’ known elevation mesic/perennial herb/Mar–May/262–1,001 range. Delphinium luteum golden larkspur FE/CR/1B.1 Chaparral, coastal prairie, coastal scrub; Not expected to occur. There is no rocky/perennial herb/Mar–May/0–328 suitable chaparral, coastal prairie, or coastal scrub habitat present. Dirca occidentalis western None/None/1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest, closed-cone coniferous Not expected to occur. Although there is leatherwood forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, north coast potentially suitable habitat in the California coniferous forest, riparian forest, riparian woodland; bay woodland onsite, this species has not mesic/perennial deciduous shrub/Jan–Mar (Apr)/82– been previously documented within 10 1,394 miles of the project site (CDFW 2017). This species is a tree identifiable year round; it was not observed during the site survey and is not present. Downingia pusilla dwarf downingia None/None/2B.2 Valley and foothill grassland (mesic), vernal Not expected to occur. Although the pools/annual herb/Mar–May/3–1,460 wetland may provide potentially suitable habitat, the nearest documented occurrence for this species is located approximately 7 miles northeast of the project site. It has not been documented east of the Petaluma River drainage (CDFW 2017). Entosthodon kochii Koch's cord moss None/None/1B.3 Cismontane woodland (soil)/moss/N.A./591–3281 Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known elevation range.

10233 C-3 December 2017 APPENDIX C (Continued)

Status Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/ Blooming Scientific Name Common Name (Federal/State/CRPR) Period/ Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur Eriogonum luteolum Tiburon None/None/1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal prairie, Low potential to occur. Although the var. caninum buckwheat valley and foothill grassland; serpentinite, sandy to grassland onsite provides potentially gravelly/annual herb/May–Sep/0–2,297 suitable habitat, there are no serpentine or sandy soils present. The nearest documented occurrence for this species is located approximately 3.4 miles west of the project site. Fissidens minute pocket None/None/1B.2 North coast coniferous forest (damp coastal Not expected to occur. No suitable pauperculus moss soil)/moss/N.A./33–3,360 coniferous forest present. Fritillaria lanceolata Marin checker lily None/None/1B.1 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal prairie, coastal Not expected to occur. No suitable var. tristulis scrub/perennial bulbiferous herb/Feb–May/49–492 coastal scrub or prairie habitat present. Fritillaria liliacea fragrant fritillary None/None/1B.2 Cismontane woodland, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, Low potential to occur. Although the valley and foothill grassland; often grassland onsite provides potentially serpentinite/perennial bulbiferous herb/Feb–Apr/10– suitable habitat, there are no serpentine 1,345 soil substrates present. The nearest documented occurrence for this species is located approximately 2.6 miles west of the project site. Gilia capitata ssp. blue coast gilia None/None/1B.1 Coastal dunes, coastal scrub/annual herb/Apr–July/7– Not expected to occur. No suitable chamissonis 656 coastal dune or scrub habitat present. Gilia capitata ssp. woolly-headed None/None/1B.1 Coastal bluff scrub, valley and foothill grassland; Not expected to occur. No suitable tomentosa gilia serpentinite, rocky, outcrops/annual herb/May– serpentine soils or rocky outcrops present. July/33–722 Gilia millefoliata dark-eyed gilia None/None/1B.2 Coastal dunes/annual herb/Apr–July/7–98 Not expected to occur. No suitable coastal dune habitat present. Helianthella castanea Diablo None/None/1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, cismontane Not expected to occur. The site is helianthella woodland, coastal scrub, riparian woodland, valley and outside the known geographic range for foothill grassland/perennial herb/Mar–June/197–4,265 this species, which is known only from the east Bay area (CDFW 2017).

10233 C-4 December 2017 APPENDIX C (Continued)

Status Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/ Blooming Scientific Name Common Name (Federal/State/CRPR) Period/ Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur Hemizonia congesta congested- None/None/1B.2 Valley and foothill grassland; sometimes Moderate potential to occur. The ssp. congesta headed hayfield roadsides/annual herb/Apr–Nov/66–1,837 grassland onsite provides potentially tarplant suitable habitat for this species. The nearest documented occurrence for this species is located approximately 2.5 miles south of the project site (CDFW 2017). Hesperolinon Marin western FT/CT/1B.1 Chaparral, valley and foothill grassland; Not expected to occur. No suitable congestum flax serpentinite/annual herb/Apr–July/16–1,214 serpentine soils present. Holocarpha Santa Cruz FT/CE/1B.1 Coastal prairie, coastal scrub, valley and foothill Not expected to occur. No suitable soils macradenia tarplant grassland; often clay, sandy/annual herb/June– present. Oct/33–722 Horkelia tenuiloba thin-lobed None/None/1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, valley and foothill Not expected to occur. No suitable soils horkelia grassland; mesic openings, sandy/perennial present. herb/May–July (Aug)/164–1,640 Kopsiopsis hookeri small groundcone None/None/2B.3 North coast coniferous forest/perennial rhizomatous Not expected to occur. The site is herb (parasitic)/Apr–Aug/295–2,904 outside of the species’ known elevation range and there is no suitable habitat present. Lasthenia conjugens Contra Costa FE/None/1B.1 Cismontane woodland, playas (alkaline), valley and Not expected to occur. No suitable goldfields foothill grassland, vernal pools; mesic/annual alkaline soils present. herb/Mar–June/0–1,542 Leptosiphon croceus coast yellow None/None/1B.1 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal prairie/annual herb/Apr– Not expected to occur. No suitable leptosiphon May/33–492 coastal bluff scrub or prairie habitat present. Lessingia micradenia Tamalpais None/None/1B.2 Chaparral, valley and foothill grassland; usually Not expected to occur. The site is var. micradenia lessingia serpentinite, often roadsides/annual herb/(June) July– outside of the species’ known elevation Oct/328–1,640 range. Lilium pardalinum Pitkin Marsh lily FE/CE/1B.1 Cismontane woodland, meadows and seeps, marshes Not expected to occur. The site is ssp. pitkinense and swamps (freshwater); mesic, sandy/perennial outside the known geographic region for bulbiferous herb/June–July/115–213 this species and suitable mesic or sandy soils are not present.

10233 C-5 December 2017 APPENDIX C (Continued)

Status Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/ Blooming Scientific Name Common Name (Federal/State/CRPR) Period/ Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur Microseris paludosa marsh microseris None/None/1B.2 Closed-cone coniferous forest, cismontane woodland, Low potential to occur. Although the coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland/perennial grassland and woodland onsite may herb/Apr–June (July)/16–1,165 provide potentially suitable habitat for this species, the nearest documented occurrence is located approximately 14 miles west of the project site. Navarretia Baker's navarretia None/None/1B.1 Cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous Low potential to occur. The wetland leucocephala ssp. forest, meadows and seeps, valley and foothill onsite may provide suitable habitat for this bakeri grassland, vernal pools; mesic/annual herb/Apr– species. The nearest documented July/16–5,709 occurrence is located approximately 3.7 miles west of the project site. Navarretia rosulata Marin County None/None/1B.2 Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral; serpentinite, Not expected to occur. The site is navarretia rocky/annual herb/May–July/656–2,083 outside of the species’ known elevation range. Pentachaeta white-rayed FE/CE/1B.1 Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland Not expected to occur. Suitable bellidiflora pentachaeta (often serpentinite)/annual herb/Mar–May/115–2034 serpentine soils are not present and the site is outside the known geographic range for this species. Plagiobothrys glaber hairless None/None/1A Meadows and seeps (alkaline), marshes and swamps Not expected to occur. Suitable alkaline popcornflower (coastal salt)/annual herb/Mar–May/49–591 or coastal salt marsh habitat is not present. Plagiobothrys mollis Petaluma None/None/1A Marshes and swamps (coastal salt), valley and foothill Not expected to occur. Suitable marsh or var. vestitus popcornflower grassland (mesic)/perennial herb/June–July/33–164 mesic habitat is not present. Pleuropogon North Coast None/CT/1B.1 Broadleafed upland forest, meadows and seeps, north Not expected to occur. Suitable mesic hooverianus semaphore grass coast coniferous forest; open areas, mesic/perennial habitat is not present. rhizomatous herb/Apr–June/33–2,201 Quercus parvula var. Tamalpais oak None/None/1B.3 Lower montane coniferous forest/perennial evergreen Not expected to occur. The site is tamalpaisensis shrub/Mar–Apr/328–2,461 outside of the species’ known elevation range and there is no suitable vegetation present. Sidalcea calycosa Point Reyes None/None/1B.2 Marshes and swamps (freshwater, near Not expected to occur. No suitable ssp. rhizomata checkerbloom coast)/perennial rhizomatous herb/Apr–Sep/10–246 marsh habitat present. Sidalcea hickmanii Marin None/None/1B.3 Chaparral (serpentinite)/perennial herb/May– Not expected to occur. No serpentine ssp. viridis checkerbloom June/164–1,411 soils present.

10233 C-6 December 2017 APPENDIX C (Continued)

Status Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/ Blooming Scientific Name Common Name (Federal/State/CRPR) Period/ Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur Stebbinsoseris Santa Cruz None/None/1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest, closed-cone coniferous Not expected to occur. Although there is decipiens microseris forest, chaparral, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, valley grassland onsite, the project site is outside and foothill grassland; open areas, sometimes the known geographic range of this serpentinite/annual herb/Apr–May/33–1,640 species and it has not been documented within 10 miles of the project site (CDFW 2017). Streptanthus Tamalpais None/None/1B.3 Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral; Not expected to occur. The site is batrachopus jewelflower serpentinite/annual herb/Apr–July/1,001–2,133 outside of the species’ known elevation range and no suitable habitat is present. Streptanthus Tiburon FE/CE/1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland (serpentinite)/annual Not expected to occur. No serpentine glandulosus ssp. jewelflower herb/May–June/98–492 soils present. niger Streptanthus Mt. Tamalpais None/None/1B.2 Chaparral, valley and foothill grassland; Not expected to occur. The site is glandulosus ssp. bristly jewelflower serpentinite/annual herb/May–July (Aug)/492–2,625 outside of the species’ known elevation pulchellus range. Symphyotrichum Suisun Marsh None/None/1B.2 Marshes and swamps (brackish and Not expected to occur. No marsh or lentum aster freshwater)/perennial rhizomatous herb/May–Nov/0–10 swamp habitat present Trifolium amoenum two-fork clover FE/None/1B.1 Coastal bluff scrub, valley and foothill grassland Low potential to occur. Although the (sometimes serpentinite)/annual herb/Apr–June/16– grassland onsite provides potentially 1,362 suitable habitat, there are no serpentine soils present. The nearest documented occurrence is located approximately 8 miles northwest of the project site (CDFW 2017). Trifolium hydrophilum saline clover None/None/1B.2 Marshes and swamps, valley and foothill grassland Not expected to occur. No mesic, (mesic, alkaline), vernal pools/annual herb/Apr– alkaline habitat present. June/0–984 Triquetrella coastal None/None/1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub; soil/moss/N.A./33– Not expected to occur. No suitable californica triquetrella 328 coastal scrub present.

10233 C-7 December 2017 APPENDIX C (Continued)

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

10233 C-8 December 2017

APPENDIX D Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur

APPENDIX D Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur

Status Row Labels Common Name (Federal/State) Habitat Potential to Occur Amphibians and reptiles Actinemys marmorata western pond None/SSC Slow-moving permanent or intermittent streams, ponds, Low potential to occur. Potential upland turtle small lakes, and reservoirs with emergent basking sites; aestivation and nesting habitat on site. The adjacent uplands used for nesting and during winter nearest CNDDB record is located within 1 mile; however, the site is geographically isolated from suitable aquatic habitat by surrounding residential development. Ambystoma californiense California tiger FT/ST, WL Annual grassland, valley–foothill hardwood, and valley– Not expected to occur. The site is outside of salamander foothill riparian habitats; vernal pools, other ephemeral the species known geographic range. pools, and (uncommonly) along stream courses and man- made pools if predatory fishes are absent Rana boylii foothill yellow- None/SSC Rocky streams and rivers with open banks in forest, Not expected to occur. Potential breeding legged frog chaparral, and woodland habitat was dry by July 2017 site visit. Nearest CNDDB record over 8 miles away. The site is geographically isolated by surrounding residential development. Rana draytonii California red- FT/SSC Lowland streams, wetlands, riparian woodlands, livestock Not expected to occur. Potential breeding legged frog ponds; dense, shrubby or emergent vegetation associated habitat was dry by July 2017 site visit. The with deep, still or slow-moving water; uses adjacent uplands nearest CNDDB record over 1 mile away. Site is geographically isolated by surrounding residential development. Birds Agelaius tricolor (nesting tricolored BCC/PSE, SSC Nests near freshwater, emergent wetland with cattails or Low potential to occur. Marginal foraging colony) blackbird tules, but also in Himalayan blackberrry; forages in habitat present on site. Nearest CNDDB grasslands, woodland, and agriculture occurrence 3 miles away. Athene cunicularia burrowing owl BCC/SSC Nests and forages in grassland, open scrub, and agriculture, Moderate potential to occur. Grasslands on (burrow sites and some particularly with ground squirrel burrows site are potential foraging habitat, but are not wintering sites) suitable nesting habitat due to lack of burrows. There are multiple CNDDB occurrences within 5 miles of site.

10233 D-1 December 2017 APPENDIX D (Continued)

Status Row Labels Common Name (Federal/State) Habitat Potential to Occur Buteo swainsoni Swainson's BCC/ST Nests in open woodland and savanna, riparian, and in Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat (nesting) hawk isolated large trees; forages in nearby grasslands and present on site; however, Swainson’s hawk is agricultural areas such as wheat and alfalfa fields and primarily found in the central valley and no pasture recent CNDDB occurrences within 5 miles of site. Charadrius alexandrinus western snowy FT, BCC/SSC On coasts nests on sandy marine and estuarine shores; in Not expected to occur. No suitable nesting nivosus (nesting) plover the interior nests on sandy, barren or sparsely vegetated or foraging habitat present. flats near saline or alkaline lakes, reservoirs, and ponds Circus cyaneus (nesting) northern harrier None/SSC Nests in open wetlands (marshy meadows, wet lightly- Low potential to occur. Suitable habitat grazed pastures, old fields, freshwater and brackish present. Nearest CNDDB record over 10 marshes); also in drier habitats (grassland and grain fields); miles away. forages in grassland, scrubs, rangelands, emergent wetlands, and other open habitats Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite None/FP Nests in woodland, riparian, and individual trees near open High potential to occur. Suitable habitat on (nesting) lands; forages opportunistically in grassland, meadows, site. Nearest CNDDB occurrence 2.5 miles scrubs, agriculture, emergent wetland, savanna, and away. disturbed lands Geothlypis trichas Saltmarsh BCC/ SSC Nests and forages in emergent wetlands including woody Moderate potential to occur. No suitable sinuosa common swamp, brackish marsh, and freshwater marsh. habitat on site; however, documented yellowthroat occurrences for this species to the north and east of the project site. Laterallus jamaicensis California black BCC/ST, FP Tidal marshes, shallow freshwater margins, wet meadows, Moderate potential to occur. No suitable coturniculus rail and flooded grassy vegetation; suitable habitats are often habitat on site; however, documented supplied by canal leakage in Sierra Nevada foothill occurrences for this species to the north and populations east of the project site. Melospiza melodia San Pablo song BCC/SSC Nests and forages in tidal and muted tidal saltmarsh Moderate potential to occur. No suitable samuelis sparrow habitat on site; however, documented occurrences for this species to the north, south and east of the project site. Rallus obsoletus Ridgway’s rail FE/SE Coastal salt or brackish marshes Moderate potential to occur. No suitable obsoletus habitat on site; however, documented occurrences for this species to the north and east of the project site. Riparia riparia (nesting) bank swallow None/ST Nests in riparian, lacustrine, and coastal areas with vertical Not expected to occur. No suitable nesting banks, bluffs, and cliffs with sandy soils; open country and or foraging habitat present. water during migration

10233 D-2 December 2017 APPENDIX D (Continued)

Status Row Labels Common Name (Federal/State) Habitat Potential to Occur Fishes Eucyclogobius newberryi tidewater goby FE/SSC Brackish water habitats along the California coast from Agua Not expected to occur. No suitable habitat Hedionda Lagoon, San Diego County, to the mouth of the present. Smith River Oncorhynchus kisutch coho salmon - FE/SE Streams and small freshwater tributaries during first half of Not expected to occur. No suitable habitat central life cycle and estuarine and marine waters of the Pacific present. California coast Ocean during the second half of life cycle. Spawns in small ESU streams with stable gravel substrates. Oncorhynchus mykiss steelhead - FT/None Coastal basins from Redwood Creek south to the Gualala Not expected to occur. No suitable habitat irideus central River, inclusive; does not include summer-run steelhead present. California coast DPS Spirinchus thaleichthys longfin smelt FC/ST, SSC Aquatic, estuary Not expected to occur. No suitable habitat present. Thaleichthys pacificus eulachon FT/None Found in Klamath River, Mad River, and Redwood Creek Not expected to occur. No suitable habitat and in small numbers in Smith River and Humboldt Bay present. tributaries Mammals Antrozous pallidus pallid bat None/SSC Grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, forests; most common Moderate potential to occur. Suitable in open, dry habitats with rocky outcrops for roosting, but foraging habitat on site; nearest documented also roosts in man-made structures and trees occurrence 3 miles away Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend's big- None/SSC Mesic habitats characterized by coniferous and deciduous Moderate potential to occur. Suitable eared bat forests and riparian habitat, but also xeric areas; roosts in foraging habitat on site; nearest documented limestone caves and lava tubes, man-made structures, and occurrence 3 miles away tunnels Microtus californicus San Pablo vole None/SSC Saltmarshes of San Pablo Creek Not expected to occur. No suitable habitat sanpabloensis present. Reithrodontomys salt-marsh FE/SE, FP Saline emergent wetlands, preference for pickleweed saline Not expected to occur. No suitable raviventris harvest mouse emergent wetlands; also uses adjacent grasslands pickleweed habitat on or adjacent to the site. Sorex ornatus sinuosus Suisun shrew None/SSC Tidal and brackish marsh communities Not expected to occur. No suitable habitat present. Sorex vagrans salt-marsh None/SSC Saltmarsh inundated daily by tidal waters Not expected to occur. No suitable habitat halicoetes wandering present. shrew

10233 D-3 December 2017 APPENDIX D (Continued)

Status Row Labels Common Name (Federal/State) Habitat Potential to Occur Taxidea taxus American None/SSC Dry, open, treeless areas; grasslands, coastal scrub, Not expected to occur. Grassland on site badger agriculture, and pastures, especially with friable soils does not contain suitable burrows. Nearest occurrence 8 miles away. Invertebrates Callophrys mossii San Bruno elfin FE/None Coastal chaparral, on steep north-facing slopes, and in fog- Not expected to occur. No suitable habitat bayensis butterfly belt of the mountains near San Francisco Bay present. Syncaris pacifica California FE/SE Endemic to Marin, Napa, and Sonoma Counties; found in Not expected to occur. No suitable habitat freshwater low-elevation, low-gradient streams where riparian cover is present. shrimp moderate to heavy

10233 D-4 December 2017

APPENDIX E Historic and Cultural Resources Evaluations

July 20, 2017 10233

Brett Walker, Senior Planner City of Novato, Community Development 922 Machin Avenue Novato, California 94945

Subject: Negative Cultural Resources Inventory for the Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision Project, Novato, Marin County, California

Dear Mr. Walker:

On July 5, 2017, Dudek archaeologist Sarah Brewer, B.A. conducted an archaeological field survey at the proposed Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision Project (Project) in the city of Novato (City), Marin County, California (Project) (Figure 1). The City is the lead agency responsible for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The parcel proposed for development covers 8.8 acres. The focus of the survey was to characterize existing conditions and identify whether archaeological resources are present, or have the potential to be present within the Project area. Dudek completed the cultural resources investigations in compliance with CEQA requirements for the inventory, management, and protection of cultural resources. This letter report describes the results of Dudek’s study, which includes archaeological background research, field methods, results, and recommendations. Dudek’s findings indicate that there is little or no potential for significant cultural resources to be impacted by the Project.

All cultural resource fieldwork and reporting for this project was supervised by Ryan Brady, M.A., RPA, who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology. Dudek conducted a cultural resources records search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) records search, which found no documented cultural resources within the Project Area. The NWIC records search documented one archaeological site, CA-MRN-189, as being located within one-quarter mile of the Project area of potential effects (APE). It is Dudek’s understanding that the City of Novato is accomplishing Native American consultation for this project. An intensive field survey of the APE did not identify any cultural resources.

Mr. Brett Walker Subject: Negative Cultural Resources Inventory for the Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision Project, Novato, Marin County, California

Project Description and Location

The Project site is located on a steep, previously-terraced landscape along the Petaluma River just northwest of the San Pablo Bay in Novato. The Project site is bound by adjacent properties facing Malobar Drive to the north, Topaz Drive to the east, Andale Avenue on the south, and the property boundary on the west.

The Project consists of a cul-de-sac and nine residences that would be built along a westward extension of Misty Road (Figure 2). In addition to the residential development, the Project includes a water line that begins in the east at the intersection of Misty Road and Topaz Drive, extends west along Misty Road to the end of the cul-de-sac, and then continues through a field to connect with a water line at Laguna Vista Drive (Figure 3).

The project is located in Northern coastal scrub and Oak woodland habitats (Barbour et al. 2007). The on-site vegetation includes seasonal grasses and scattered oak including Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and Valley oak (Quercus lobata.) and Bay laurel (Laurus nobilis). The elevation ranges from 25–55 feet above mean sea level.

REGULATORY CONTEXT

State of California

The California Register of Historical Resources

In California, the term “historical resource” includes “any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California” (Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1(j)). In 1992, the California legislature established the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) “to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change” (PRC Section 5024.1(a)). The criteria for listing resources on the CRHR, enumerated in the following text, were developed to be in accordance with previously established criteria developed for listing in the NRHP. According to PRC Section 5024.1(c)(1–4), a resource is considered historically significant if it (i) retains “substantial integrity,” and (ii) meets at least one of the following criteria:

(1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage

10233 5 July 2017 Mr. Brett Walker Subject: Negative Cultural Resources Inventory for the Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision Project, Novato, Marin County, California

(2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past (3) 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 (4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history

To understand the historic importance of a resource, sufficient time must have passed to obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource. A resource less than 50 years old may be considered for listing in the CRHR if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance (see 14 CCR 4852(d)(2)).

The CRHR protects cultural resources by requiring evaluations of the significance of prehistoric and historic resources. The criteria for the CRHR are nearly identical to those for the NRHP, and properties listed or formally designated as eligible for listing in the NRHP are automatically listed in the CRHR, as are state landmarks and points of interest. The CRHR also includes properties designated under local ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys.

California Environmental Quality Act

As described further in the following text, the following CEQA statutes and CEQA Guidelines are of relevance to the analysis of archaeological, historic, and tribal cultural resources:

PRC Section 21083.2(g) defines “unique archaeological resource.” PRC Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) define “historical resources.” In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b) defines the phrase “substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource.” It also defines the circumstances when a project would materially impair the significance of a historical resource. PRC Section 21074(a) defines “tribal cultural resources.” PRC Section 5097.98 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) set forth standards and steps to be employed following the accidental discovery of human remains in any location other than a dedicated ceremony.

PRC Sections 21083.2(b)–(c) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 provide information regarding the mitigation framework for archaeological and historic

10233 6 July 2017 Mr. Brett Walker Subject: Negative Cultural Resources Inventory for the Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision Project, Novato, Marin County, California

resources, including examples of preservation-in-place mitigation measures; preservation-in-place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to significant archaeological sites because it maintains the relationship between artifacts and the archaeological context, and may also help avoid conflict with religious or cultural values of groups associated with the archaeological site(s).

Under CEQA, a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it may cause “a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource” (PRC Section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)). If a site is either listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or if it is included in a local register of historic resources, or identified as significant in a historical resources survey (meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(q)), it is a “historical resource” and is presumed to be historically or culturally significant for purposes of CEQA (PRC Section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)). The lead agency is not precluded from determining that a resource is a historical resource, even if it does not fall within this presumption (PRC Section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)).

A “substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource” reflecting a significant effect under CEQA means “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1); PRC Section 5020.1(q)). In turn, the significance of a historical resource is materially impaired when a project does any of the following:

(1) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register; or (2) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or (3) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA [CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(2)].

10233 7 July 2017 Mr. Brett Walker Subject: Negative Cultural Resources Inventory for the Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision Project, Novato, Marin County, California

Pursuant to these sections, the CEQA inquiry begins with evaluating whether a project site contains any “historical resources,” then evaluates whether that project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource such that the resource’s historical significance is materially impaired.

If it can be demonstrated that a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that they cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (Section 21083.2(a), (b), and (c)).

Section 21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:

(1) Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information (2) Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type (3) Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person

Impacts to non-unique archaeological resources are generally not considered a significant environmental impact (PRC Section 21083.2(a); CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(4)). However, if a non-unique archaeological resource qualifies as tribal cultural resource (PRC 21074(c); 21083.2(h)), further consideration of significant impacts is required.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 assigns special importance to human remains and specifies procedures to be used when Native American remains are discovered. As described in the following text, these procedures are detailed in PRC Section 5097.98.

Native American Historic Cultural Sites

State law (PRC Section 5097 et seq.) addresses the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction; establishes procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project; and established the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to resolve disputes regarding the disposition of such remains. In addition, the Native American Historic Resource Protection Act makes it a misdemeanor punishable by up

10233 8 July 2017 Mr. Brett Walker Subject: Negative Cultural Resources Inventory for the Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision Project, Novato, Marin County, California to 1 year in jail to deface or destroy an Indian historic or cultural site that is listed or may be eligible for listing in the CRHR.

California Health and Safety Code section 7050.5

In the event that Native American human remains or related cultural material are encountered, Section 15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines (as incorporated from PRC Section 5097.98) and California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 define the subsequent protocol. If human remains are encountered, excavation or other disturbances shall be suspended of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains or related material. Protocol requires that a county-approved coroner be contacted in order to determine if the remains are of Native American origin. Should the coroner determine the remains to be Native American, the coroner must contact the NAHC within 24 hours. The most likely descendent may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in PRC Section 5097.98 (14 CCR 15064.5(e)).

NWIC RECORDS SEARCH

A records search of the APE and the surrounding one-half-mile radius was completed by NWIC staff on May 23, 2017 (Confidential Appendix A). This search included their collection of mapped prehistoric, historical and built-environment resources, Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Site Records, technical reports, and archival resources. Additional sources consulted included the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Inventory of Historical Resources/CRHR and listed OHP Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility, California Inventory of Historic Resources, Historical maps, Local Inventories, and GLO Maps.

Previously Conducted Studies:

NWIC records indicate that one (1) previous cultural resources technical investigation has been conducted within the project area and seven (7) studies have been concluded within one-half mile of the proposed project (Table 1). The study that covered the project area was coordinated by David Chavez in 1979. This study included a 900-acre reconnaissance of the Bahia Development between Bugeia Lane, the Petaluma River, Black John Slough and the Rush Creek/Basalt Creek confluence. The investigation encompassed 100% of the current Bahia Heights Project area. Chavez (1979) found no evidence for archaeological sites or isolates in the records search or during the reconnaissance survey.

10233 9 July 2017 Mr. Brett Walker Subject: Negative Cultural Resources Inventory for the Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision Project, Novato, Marin County, California

Table 1 Previous technical studies within a one-half-mile radius of the APE.

Report Number Author(s) Year Title Company Within APE S-000845 Ann G. King 1978 An Archaeological Survey of a The Anthropology No Proposed Minor Subdivision, Laboratory, Sonoma Assessor's Parcel Number 143-181- State College 07, Novato, Marin County, California S-000952 Thomas L. Jackson 1977 A preliminary archaeological Archaeological No reconnaissance of portions of the Consulting and BAHIA planned community Research Services, development, Novato, California Inc. (letter report) S-001165 Cindy 1978 Pipeline and Water Treatment Plant Holman & No Desgrandchamp Facilities, Marin County. Associates and Matthew Clark

S-001655 David Chavez 1979 Archaeological Field Reconnaissance Anthropological Yes of the Bahia Development Area, Studies Center Novato, Marin County, California S-002336 Laurence H. Shoup 1980 Archaeological Reconnaissance of Archaeological No and Suzanne Baker the Atherton Project, Marin County, Consultants California. S-007205 Enid J. Robinson 1985 An Archaeological Investigation of the Cultural Resources No 54-Acre Toy Unit of the Petaluma Facility, Sonoma Marsh Wildlife Area, Marin County, State University California. S-007938 Katherine Flynn Archaeological Reconnaissance of Archaeological No the Nave Master and Development Resource Service Plan Parcel on Atherton Avenue, Novato (File Number 375-010). S-039171 Heidi Koenig and 2011 North Bay Water Reuse Authority, ESA-Cultural No Brad Brewster North Bay Water Recycling Program; Resources Group Marin, Sonoma, and Napa Counties, Cultural Resources Survey Report

Previously Identified Cultural Resources:

No cultural resources have been previously identified within the APE; however, NWIC results identified one resource within the half-mile radius (Table 2). Prehistoric site CA-MRN-189 was recorded by Nels Nelson in 1907 as a shellmound located on the west side of the Petaluma creek marsh. A subsequent study by Gericke (1985) speculated that the site was misplotted on early NWIC maps. Gericke replotted the site location based on information from Nelson’s study, but did

10233 10 July 2017 Mr. Brett Walker Subject: Negative Cultural Resources Inventory for the Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision Project, Novato, Marin County, California not complete a field reconnaissance. Jablonowski visited the updated site location in 1990 and found no evidence for the site, suggesting it was still misplotted, or destroyed.

Table 2 Previously recorded cultural resource within a one-half-mile radius of the APE.

Resource Primary Trinomial Name Recording Events Reports P-21-000214 CA-MRN- Nelson No. 189 1971 (N.C. Nelson, [none]); S-001655 000189 1985 (Christian Gericke, California Archaeological Inventory); 1990 (Michael Jablonowski, Sonoma State University

NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION

On June 20, 2016, the City of Novato sent a letter to the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, the local federally-recognized tribe with whom the City normally consults, notifying them of the Bahia Heights Project. On July 6, 2016, the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria responded with a request to be consulted after the technical studies have been conducted. They also requested copies of the results of the records search and survey for the Project.

METHODS

Intensive Pedestrian Survey Results

On July 5, 2017, Dudek Archaeologist Sarah Brewer performed a pedestrian survey of the entire project APE. Ms. Brewer walked 15-meter transects across the entire survey area and inspected the ground for evidence of cultural resources. The survey covered approximately 9.2 acres. Surface visibility was low due to a heavy cover of dead grasses, however the ground surface was visible in some areas along trails, near roads, and between low-laying vegetation. Vegetation was periodically cleared to inspect the ground surface during the course of the survey. Subsurface erosional exposures and rodent burrows were opportunistically sought for evidence of subsurface cultural deposits. Site soils were a gravelly loam with many sub angular pebbles. The USDA soil survey characterizes the site soils as Bressa variant-McMullin variant complex, 30 to 50 percent slopes and identifies the depth to bedrock at 30–34 inches (United States Department of Agriculture, National Resource Conservation Service 2017). There is no potential for buried cultural deposits.

10233 11 July 2017 Mr. Brett Walker Subject: Negative Cultural Resources Inventory for the Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision Project, Novato, Marin County, California

During the field visit, Ms. Brewer found the project site heavily disturbed with past terrace cuts, presumably made in advance of previous planned development. The undisturbed landscape is steep and characterized by slopes greater than a 30%, which are not conducive to prehistoric settlements.

No cultural resources were identified during the survey.

SUMMARY AND MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

Dudek’s background research and field investigation identified little potential for cultural resources within the Project APE. The NWIC records search indicated that no previously recorded cultural resources were located within the Project Area. One resource was plotted within a half-mile of the project APE. One previous cultural resources study encompassed 100% of the current Project APE and found no evidence of cultural resources (Chavez 1979).

The field investigation did not identify any cultural resources. Surface visibility was low during the reconnaissance survey, but the ground surface was periodically cleared to inspect for artifacts. There was no evidence for a prehistoric or historic site within the Project APE. Furthermore, the steep slope of the landscape indicated low potential for prehistoric or historic settlement. The remaining, more level areas of the landscape were created by mechanical grading, which disturbed the natural ground surface in those areas.

Based on our review of existing records, and the results of the surface survey, the Project will not have an adverse effect on a significant historical resource. As designed, no known historical buildings or features will be impacted by the project.

Management Recommendations

This project, as currently designed, will not impact any historical resources or contribute to a significant effect under CEQA.

Additional Recommendations

Should human remains be discovered at any time, work will halt in that area and procedures set forth in the California Public Resources Code (Section 5097.98) and State Health and Safety Code (Section 7050.5) will be followed, beginning with notification to the City of Novato and the County Coroner. If Native American remains are present, the County Coroner will contact the Native American Heritage Commission to designate a Most Likely Descendent, who will arrange for the dignified disposition and treatment of the remains.

10233 12 July 2017 Mr. Brett Walker Subject: Negative Cultural Resources Inventory for the Bahia Heights Residential Subdivision Project, Novato, Marin County, California

Should you have any questions relating to this report and its findings please do not hesitate to contact me directly.

Respectfully Submitted,

______Ryan Brady, MA, R.P.A. Archaeologist DUDEK Office: 831.345.8715 Email: [email protected] cc: Sarah Brewer, Adam Giacinto, Dudek

Att: Figure 1. Regional Map Figure 2. Vicinity Map Figure 3. Project Site Map Confidential Appendix A (Confidential): NWIC Records Search Information

REFERENCES CITED

Barbour, Michael G., Todd Keeler-Wolf, and Alan A. Schoenherr (editors) 2007 Terrestrial Vegetation of California (3rd edition). University of California Press, Berkeley.

Chavez, David 1979 Archaeological Field Reconnaissance of the Bahia Development Area, Novato, Marin County, California. Report on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.

United States Department of Agriculture, National Resource Conservation Service 2017 Soil Map for Marin County, California. Accessed online, July 19, 2017.

10233 13 July 2017 Nap

Angwin Windsor Deer Larkfield- 116 Park ? Wikiup St. Forestville Helena Santa Rosa Occidental Napa County 128 South South Sonoma County ? Santa Rosa Santa ?29 Rosa

Bodega Rohnert ?12 Park Bay 121? Napa County V Napa Solano County ¤£101 221 Fairfield Petaluma ? Sonoma County

Marin County Project Site American ?1 ?37 Canyon Novato ^ Inverness Vallejo ¨¦§780 Benicia Lucas Valley- Lagunitas-Forest Rodeo Marinwood We Knolls Vine Pitts Hercules San ?4 Hill Pinole Rafael Martinez ¨¦§80 Concord Pleasant Richmond Hill Mill Valley 131? 123? Walnut Lafayette Creek Marin Berkeley County Orinda Alamo ?24 ?13 Moraga ¨¦§680 Oakland Town Danvill San Alameda 185 Francisco ? Sa ¨¦§580 Ram San Francisco County ?61 San Mateo County San Castro Leandro Valley ?35 South San ¨¦§880 Fairview Francisco San Bruno Hayward 0105 92 ¨¦§238 Pacifica ? n Miles Copyright:© 2014Union Esri City Burlingame FIGURE 1 Regional Map

%DKLD+HLJKWV&XOWXUDO/HWWHU5HSRUW Z:\Templates\Arcmap\Current\Vicinity\8x11_Vicinty_Portrait.mxd ?37

01,000 2,000 n Feet Project Site

SOURCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Novato Quadrangle FIGURE 2 Township 3N, Range 6W, Section 9 Vicinity Map

Bahia Heights Cultural Letter Report Date: 8/16/2017 - Last saved by: rstrobridge - Path: Z:\Projects\j1023301\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Cultural\Figure2_Vicinity.mxd Path: - rstrobridge by: saved Last - 8/16/2017 Date: Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS

2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 (925) 866-0322 SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 www.cbandg.com

FIGURE 3 Project Site Map

Bahia Heights Cultural Letter Report

APPENDIX A (CONFIDENTIAL) NWIC Records Search Results

APPENDIX F Geotechnical Evaluation

APPENDIX G Sight Distance Evaluation

MEMORANDUM

To: Darcey Rosenblatt, Dudek Bridget Freitas, Dudek From: Sabita Tewani, Transportation Planner, Dudek Subject: Sight Distance Evaluation for the Topaz Drive and Misty Way Intersection in the Bahia Community, City of Novato Date: August 1, 2017 Attachments: Figure 1, Sight Distance Measurement at the Topaz Drive and Misty Way Intersection

This memorandum presents Dudek’s summary of an intersection sight distance evaluation for the Topaz Drive and Misty Way intersection, for the proposed Bahia Heights project in the City of Novato.

PROJECT BACKGROUND AND SIGHT DISTANCE GUIDELINES

The proposed Bahia Heights project includes the development of nine single-family homes on a vacant 8.7-acre site located in the Bahia Community in the City of Novato. The subdivision would be served from an extension of Misty Road which currently connects to Topaz Drive.

Existing Roadway Conditions

Based on City of Novato’s roadway classification, Topaz Drive is a Local street, as it serves local traffic feeding into arterial and collector streets. It is a 2-lane street with a 36 foot wide paved way. There is a continuous raised sidewalk with curb and on-street parking available on either side of the street. The posted speed limit on Topaz Drive is 25 miles per hour (mph). During the site visit for this evaluation, Dudek transportation staff observed that due to a number of curves along Topaz Drive, vehicles tend to drive below the posted speed limit.

Misty Way is a two-lane Local Street with a 30 foot wide paved way. It has a raised sidewalk with curb on the north side of the street, and parking is allowed on either side. This street currently provides access to two single-family homes and would be extended to provide access to the

Memorandum Subject: Sight Distance Evaluation for the Topaz Drive and Misty Way Intersection in the Bahia Community, City of Novato proposed nine single-family homes. Currently, Misty Way does not have a posted speed limit. As Misty Way provides access to only a few homes and ends in a cul-de-sac, the practical existing vehicle speed is anticipated to be around 15 mph.

The intersection of Topaz Drive and Misty Way is currently an uncontrolled intersection, set at more or less 90 degrees to Topaz Way, but on the outside of a broad curve (Refer to Figure 1).

Sight Distance

Intersection sight distance (i.e., the length of roadway visible to a driver) needs to be provided adequately so that drivers approaching an intersection have an unobstructed view of the intersection and traffic control devices, along with sufficient length along the intersecting streets to anticipate and minimize potential conflicts between vehicles. The necessary sight distance for a particular intersection is dependent upon the posted speed for the involved roadways, and whether or not traffic control (i.e., stop sign or traffic signal) is present at the intersection.

Intersections include all cases where two streets intersect, and also locations where driveways intersect streets. The area needed to be clear of sight obstruction for safe turning movements is called the "sight distance triangle." The horizontal and vertical alignment of a street affects sight distance for a driver traveling along that street. Obstructions such as buildings, fences, signs, walls, parked vehicles, cut slopes, shrubs, bushes, trees, flowers, plants and other objects within and outside of the right of way can also negatively affect sight distance. Some objects may be located within sight distance areas, but not significantly obstruct the required visibility of the driver. Depending upon the type of obstruction, the driver may be able to effectively see over, under or around some objects within sight distance areas. The sight distance requirements are applicable to the allowable or restricted location of all obstructions, including signs, landscaping, fencing, on-street parking, buildings and other improvements.

Table 1 lists the minimum recommended sight distances for specific design speeds. For example, if a vehicle is travelling at 15 mph, a sight distance of 70 feet is the minimum recommended stopping sight distance.

2 August 2017 Memorandum Subject: Sight Distance Evaluation for the Topaz Drive and Misty Way Intersection in the Bahia Community, City of Novato

Table 1 Minimum Recommended Sight Distances

Vehicle Speed Stopping Sight Distance (mph) (feet) 15 70 20 90 25 115 30 140 35 165 40 195 45 220 50 245 55 285 Source: 2001 AASHTO Green Book and 2001 AASHTO Little Green Book

Dudek evaluated the adequacy of sight distance at the Topaz Drive/ Misty Way intersection, as this intersection would be the proposed project’s access and would also provide access for heavy construction equipment and delivery truck traffic during construction activity.

SIGHT DISTANCE PROCEDURE

The methodology for sight distance measurement at an uncontrolled intersection is provided in the Handbook of Simplified Practice for Traffic Studies, Ch. 4: Sight Distance, Center for Transportation Research and Education, Iowa State University Institute for Transportation (https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/sight_distance_study_Iowa.pdf). Four key steps that were used for determining sight distance at the Topaz Drive/ Misty Way intersection are as follows:

 The minimum recommended sight distances for Topaz Avenue and Misty Way were determined based on the speed limit of 25 mph and 15 mph, respectively, using Table 1.  Sighting and target rods representing driver’s eye height (3.5 feet) and vehicle height (4.25 feet), respectively, were used to measure the sight distance at the intersection.  Sight distance measurements were gathered for the intersection by positioning the sighting and target rod on the intersecting approaches of Topaz Drive and Misty Way.

 Sight distance analysis was performed comparing the recommended sight distance to the measured sight distance at the Topaz Drive/ Misty Way intersection.

3 August 2017 Memorandum Subject: Sight Distance Evaluation for the Topaz Drive and Misty Way Intersection in the Bahia Community, City of Novato

SIGHT DISTANCE ANALYSIS

Dudek staff conducted sight distance measurements at the uncontrolled intersection of Topaz Drive and Misty Way on Tuesday, July 11, 2017. The survey was conducted during the morning (11 a.m.) under clear weather conditions. The sight distance was measured for the Topaz Drive north and south approaches to the Topaz Drive /Misty Way intersection.

Based on the sight distance standards provided in Table 1, the recommended sight distance on the Topaz Drive south approach is 115 feet. However, as measured, available sight distance on the Topaz Drive south approach is approximately 30 feet. Obstruction limiting the sight distance consists of vegetation at the south-west corner of the Topaz Drive /Misty Way intersection (See picture 3). Therefore, the measured sight distance does not satisfy the minimum recommended for the Topaz Drive south approach of the intersection.

The sight distance along the Topaz Drive north approach was difficult to measure due to a van parked at the north-west corner of Topaz Drive (see Picture 4). It was estimated that the available sight distance on the Topaz Drive north approach without the parked van would be approximately 25 feet. The recommended sight distance for this approach is 115 feet; however, the horizontal alignment of the street and vehicles parked on the street at the corner, obstructed the sight distance to well below 115 feet. Therefore, the measured sight distance does not satisfy the minimum recommended for the Topaz Drive north approach of the intersection.

Figure 1 illustrates the recommended and measured sight distance triangles at the Topaz Drive /Misty Way intersection. Table 2 provides a summary of the recommended and observed sight distances at this intersection.

Table 2 Recommended and Observed Sight Distances at Topaz Drive/Misty Way Intersection

Sight Distance at Topaz Drive/Misty Way Intersection Vehicle Speed Stopping Sight Distance (feet) Street/ Approach (mph) Recommended Measured Topaz Dr. (North Approach) 25 115 Approximately 30 Topaz Dr. (South Approach) 25 115 Approximately 25

4 August 2017 Memorandum Subject: Sight Distance Evaluation for the Topaz Drive and Misty Way Intersection in the Bahia Community, City of Novato

MITIGATION

As shown in the sight distance analysis, with the extension of Misty Way to serve nine new single- family homes, the existing obstruction patterns associated with the intersection of Topaz Drive /Misty Way would not provide adequate sight distance as an uncontrolled intersection. The presence of vegetation at the south-west corner and the vehicles parked at the north-west corner of this intersection obstruct the sight distance for the vehicles exiting Misty Way.

Sight distance at the Topaz Drive /Misty Way intersection can be improved by incorporating the following mitigation measures:

 Modify obstruction caused by vegetation by trimming the bushes and shrubs at the south- west corner of the intersection;

 Restrict parking within 25 feet along the west side of the Topaz Drive north approach to the Topaz Drive/Misty Way intersection;

 Installing either a yield or a stop sign along the minor approach (Misty Way). A stop sign would not be warranted based on the traffic volumes at the Topaz Drive/ Misty Way intersection, however, it would enhance safety of vehicles and pedestrians using this intersection.

5 August 2017 Memorandum Subject: Sight Distance Evaluation for the Topaz Drive and Misty Way Intersection in the Bahia Community, City of Novato

References

Iowa State University Institute for Transportation, Ames, IA: 2001. Smith, Duane. “Handbook of Simplified Practice for Traffic Studies, Ch. 4: Sight Distance.” Center for Transportation Research and Education. https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/sight_distance_study_Iowa.pdf Accessed on July 2017

AASHTO. 2001. Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low Volume Local Roads (Little Green Book). Washington, D.C.: American Association of State Highway and Transportation

AASHTO. 2001. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (Green Book), 4th ed. Washington D.C.: American Association of State Highway and Transportation http://www.kirklandwa.gov/depart/Public_Works/Transportation_and_Traffic/Sight_Distance_P rocedures.htm Accessed on July 2017 http://www.caltrans.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/erratas/HDM_6th_Ed_MCT_Errata_010407.pdf, Accessed on July, 2017

6 August 2017 Memorandum Subject: Sight Distance Evaluation for the Topaz Drive and Misty Way Intersection in the Bahia Community, City of Novato

1. View looking east (towards Topaz Drive) from the drivers’ decision point (on 2. View looking south along Topaz Drive Misty Way)

3. Vegetation at the south-west corner of 4. View looking north along Topaz Drive Topaz Drive and Misty Way intersection

7 August 2017 d x m . e c n a t s i D t h g i S _ 1 e r u g i F \ c i f f a r T \ T N E M U C

O Project Site Boundary D \ C O D P

A >! Decision Point M \ 1 0 3 3 2 0 1 j

\ Sight Distance Triangle s t c e j o r P \ : Recommended Z

: h t a

P n

0 25 50

-

Measured e Feet g d i r b o r t s r

: y b d e FIGURE 1 v SOURCE: Bing Maps (Accessed 2017) a s t s a L

-

Sight Distance Measurement at the Topaz Drive and Misty Road Intersection 7 1 0 2 / 7 2 / 7

: e t a D