draft initial study/mitigated negative · pdf filemitigated negative declaration, or a...

Draft IS/MND

City of Suisun City June 2014

Zephyr Estates 1

CITY OF SUISUN CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

701 Civic Center Boulevard Suisun City, CA 94585 Phone 707-421-7335 FAX 707-429-3758

E-mail [email protected]

DRAFT

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Project Name: Zephyr Estates Subdivision

Project Numbers: AR 13-4-005, GPA 13-4-001, TSM 13-4-001, RZ 13-4-002, PD 13-4-

001

Project Location: Southeast corner of Walters Road and E. Tabor Avenue

Assessor’s Parcel Number(s): 0174-120-230

Project Size: 8.6 acres

Project Site Owner:

Ray Thompson

P.O. Box 840

Winters, CA 95694

Project

Applicant/Developer:

Robert Schwartz

114 Raven Hill Road

Orinda, CA 94563

Project Architect/Engineer:

SCO Planning, Engineering and Surveying

140 Litton Drive, Suite 240

Grass Valley, CA 95945

Proposed General Plan

Designation(s): Residential Medium-Density; General Commercial

Zoning: Residential Medium-Density; General Commercial

Lead Agency:

City of Suisun City

Community Development Department

701 Civic Center Boulevard

Suisun City, CA 94585

Lead Agency Contact: John Kearns, Associate Planner

(707) 421-7335

Date Prepared June 19, 2014

Chapter 1.0. Introduction Draft IS/MND


Zephyr Estates 1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Section 21080(a) of the California Public Resources Code states that analysis of a project’s environmental impact

is required for any “discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies,…” In this

case, the City of Suisun City (City) has determined that an initial study (IS) is required to determine whether there

is substantial evidence that implementing the Zephyr Estates Project would result in significant environmental

impacts.

Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (State CEQA Guidelines)

(Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et seq.), an IS is a preliminary environmental analysis

that is used by the lead agency as a basis for determining whether an environmental impact report (EIR), a

mitigated negative declaration, or a negative declaration is required for a project. The State CEQA Guidelines

require that an IS contain a project description; a description of the environmental setting; an identification of

environmental effects by checklist or other similar form; an explanation of environmental effects; a discussion of

mitigation for significant environmental effects; an evaluation of the project’s consistency with existing,

applicable land use controls; the names of persons who prepared the study; and identification of data sources used

in the review of environmental impacts and the conclusions reached in the document.

Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that a lead agency may prepare a mitigated negative

declaration when (1) the initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a

significant effect on the environment; or (2) the initial study identifies potentially significant effects, however

incorporation of mitigation measures into the project would reduce all impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation measures are identified to avoid, eliminate, or reduce potentially significant adverse impacts of the

proposed project. The mitigation measures in this IS are numbered to correspond to the resource area section

number. For example, Mitigation Measure 3.9-1 and 3.9-2 are the first and second mitigation measures identified

for Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality. Section 15064 specifies that, when an IS identifies significant

environmental impacts, the lead agency must prepare an EIR. The analysis in this IS concludes that the proposed

project, with implementation of mitigation measures, would have no significant impacts. As such, further

environmental review is not required by CEQA.

The subject of this IS is the proposed Zephyr Estates Project (the “proposed project”) in the city of Suisun City,

California. A description of the proposed project is presented in Chapter 2.0, “Project Description.”

1.1 PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Title: Zephyr Estates

Project Location: Undeveloped property at the southeast corner of East Tabor Avenue and

Walters Road

Lead Agency: City of Suisun City

Project Sponsor (Applicant): Schwartz Land Development Company

Draft IS/MND Chapter 1.0. Introduction

June 2014 City of Suisun City

1-2 Zephyr Estates

City Contact Person: John Kearns

Associate Planner

701 Civic Center Boulevard

Suisun City, CA 94585

[email protected]

1.2 PROJECT HISTORY

In 1997, the City of Suisun City certified the Peterson Ranch Environmental Impact Report which included the

8.58 acres at the southheast corner of East Tabor Avenue and Walters Road. Subsequently, the City of Suisun

City approved a development agreement which planned for a combination of High-Density Residential and

General Commercial. The development agreement for the property has since expired.

Source: SCO Planning and Engineering

Figure 1-1: Zephyr Estates Site Plan

mailto:[email protected]



Zephyr Estates 1-3

Source: SCO Planning and Engineering

Figure 1-2: Zephyr Estates Perspective

Draft IS/MND Chapter 1.0. Introduction


1-4 Zephyr Estates

1.3 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION

This IS is organized into five chapters:

Chapter 1.0, “Introduction”: This chapter provides introductory information such as the project history, the

project applicant, and the lead agency for the proposed project.

Chapter 2.0, “Project Description”: The chapter provides a detailed description of the proposed project,

including project characteristics, project objectives, and environmental review requirements.

Chapter 3.0, “Initial Study Checklist and Environmental Impact Analysis”: This chapter contains the

completed IS checklist. The checklist contains an assessment and discussion of impacts associated with each

particular environmental issue. When the evaluation identifies potentially significant effects, as identified in

the checklist, mitigation measures are provided to reduce such impacts to less-than-significant levels

whenever feasible.

Chapter 4.0, “Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program”: This chapter provides the mitigation measures

identified throughout the document.



Zephyr Estates 1-5

This page intentionally left blank.

Zephyr Estates Initial Study AECOM City of Suisun City 2-1 Project Description

2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW

The Schwartz Land Development Company is proposing to the City of Suisun City to subdivide the

approximately 8.6-acre property located at the southeast corner or East Tabor Avenue & Walters Road in Suisun

City into a commercial parcel of 1.5 acres, with the remaining 7.1 acres to be subdivided into 59 and single-

family lots.

2.2 PROJECT LOCATION

The project site is located in Solano County, within the incorporated area of the city of Suisun City. The property

is adjacent to Walters Road to the west, East Tabor Avenue to the north, Charleston Street to the east, and

Carswell Lane to the south. The project site is depicted in Exhibit 2-1.

2.3 EXISTING SETTING

The site is approximately 8.6 acres in land area and is currently undeveloped. The site is adjacent to single-family

homes to the south and east, a church to the north, and the unincorporated community of Tolenas to the west.

The project site is located within a mostly developed area at the northeastern edge of the city of Suisun City.

Historically, the project site was used for hay production and surrounding lands were characterized by a mixture

of agriculture, rural residential properties, natural habitat, and Travis Air Force Base. Today, most of the

surrounding area is developed, but open space exists to the east between a neighboring residential development

and Travis Air Force Base.

The project site was previously graded, is relatively flat, with an elevation range of 45 to 60 feet above mean sea

level, and slopes generally to the southwest. A constructed drainage swale is present along the western site

boundary of the project site.

2.4 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS

The commercial portion of the project is located at the northwest corner of the project site. The site plan shows

four commercial buildings of 2,600, 4,800, 4,800, and 2,300 square feet. Three of the four buildings are located

close to the intersection of East Tabor Avenue and Walters Road. The total building area is anticipated to be

between 14,000 and 17,000 square feet. The applicant has indicated that the project would have a parking ratio of

between 1:250 square feet and 1:300 square feet. The site plan currently shows a ratio of 1:250.

The proposed site plan includes a gathering area between the commercial portion of the site and the residential

portion with bicycle racks and seating. The City will require that this area is open and accessible to the public and

residents of the project site.

The proposed residential lots range from approximately 3,000 square feet to 6,000 square feet. The applicant

anticipates two-story homes between 1,500 and 1,900 square feet in size.

The applicant proposes access to the project site from Walters Road, East Tabor Lane, Charleston Street, and

Carswell Lane. The Walters Drive is proposed as a right in, right out only access point.

AECOM Zephyr Estates Initial Study Project Description 2-2 City of Suisun City

2.4.1 PHASING

The project applicant has indicated that construction would begin in the spring of 2015. Infrastructure would

likely be complete within one construction season and homes would be constructed in phases depending on

market conditions. The applicant has provided no indication of when the commercial part of the project would be

constructed or operated.

For certain parts of the analysis presented in this Initial Study, it is necessary to estimate actual construction

phasing and timing of occupation of the residential and commercial components of the project. To provide

reasonable but conservative results, this analysis assumes a relatively ambitious phasing/construction schedule.

For air pollutant emissions analysis, for example, it was assumed that all of the proposed land uses would be

completed and operational in 2016.

2.4.2 INFRASTRUCTURE

The applicant proposes to obtain water service from the Solano Irrigation District and sewer service from the

Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District. Stormwater would be provided by the City of Suisun City. The applicant will be

required to comply with all relevant design standards of each service provider.

2.5 REQUIRED DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS

Project approval requires the lead agency (and responsible agencies) to approve the project or project components,

issue required permits, or affirm compliance with agency requirements. The City of Suisun City is the lead

agency. A lead agency, as defined in Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, is “the public agency that has

the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project.” Actions would be required for the project

may include, but are not limited to:

► Subdivision Map Approval: to subdivide the property into 60 lots (59 residential lots and 1 commercial lot).

► General Plan Amendment: to allow for approximately 7.1 acres of single-family residential development and

1.5 acres of commercial development.

► Rezone: to allow for approximately 7.1 acres of Residential Single-Family (RS) and 1.5 acres of General

Commercial (GC).

► Planned Unit Development: to allow flexibility with respect to minimum lot sizes, lot frontage, building

setbacks, and potentially other development standards in the base zoning.

► Site Plan/Architectural Review: to review potential floor plans, elevations, perspectives, design standards, and

building materials.

Zephyr Estates Initial Study AECOM City of Suisun City 2-3 Project Description

Source: SCO Planning, Engineering, & Surveying 2013, adapted by AECOM 2014

Exhibit 2-1 Proposed Site Plan

Zephyr Estates AECOM City of Suisun City 2-5 Project Description

Chapter 3.0. Initial Study Checklist and Environmental Impact Analysis Draft IS/MND


Zephyr Estates 3-1

3.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

ANALYSIS

The environmental factors checked below ( ) would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least

one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" prior to mitigation as indicated by the checklist on the

following pages.

Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions Population/Housing

Agriculture and Forestry

Resources

Hazards and Hazardous

Materials Public Services

Air Quality Hydrology and Water Quality Recreation

Biological Resources Land Use/Planning Transportation/Traffic

Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities/Service Systems

Geology/Soils Noise Mandatory Findings of

Significance

DETERMINATION: 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 would be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there would 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 would 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

Draft IS/MND Chapter 3.0. Initial Study Checklist and Environmental Impact Analysis


3-2 Zephyr Estates


Chapter 3.0. Initial Study Checklist and Environmental Impact Analysis Draft IS/MND 3.1 Aesthetics

City of Suisun City June 2014 Zephyr Estates 3.1-1

3.1 AESTHETICS

Issue Potentially Significant

Impact

Less-Than-Significant

Impact with Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-Than-Significant

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 that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

3.1.1 Environmental Setting

The site is relatively flat land lying slightly above the existing street grade. The land is entirely vacant and mostly consists of weeds. The property is surrounded by single-family homes to the south and east, a religious institution to the north and vacant property to the west across Walters Road. 3.1.2 Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation

a) No Impact – The Suisun City General Plan identifies scenic resources in the City, including the Suisun Marsh and the historic downtown area. The 1992 City of Suisun City General Plan does not designate the proposed Zephyr Estates Subdivision project area as a scenic resource, therefore there would be no impact to any scenic vistas.

b) No Impact – The project site is not located along a state scenic highway, nor does it contain any other scenic resources such as rock outcroppings or historic buildings.

c) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated – The project site contains mostly grasses and weeds. The open space value of the vacant portion is reduced by the weedy vegetation and the nearby urban development. The overall visual character of the project site is not considered of high quality. Proposed development would not substantially degrade the visual character of the site and could conceivably improve its character with the addition of residential landscaping. Nonetheless, development of the site would represent a change from the existing visual setting and the following mitigation shall be included.

Mitigation Measures:

MM 1-1 Final design plans shall be presented to the Planning Commission for conformance with the City’s Development Guidelines for Site Planning and Architecture.

Timing/Implementation: Prior to construction. Enforcement/Monitoring: Suisun City Community Development Department.


3.1 Aesthetics


3.1-2 Zephyr Estates

MM 1-2 Prior to construction, the City of Suisun City shall review and approve the landscape plan that

would be incorporated into the final design of the Zephyr Estates project. The landscape plan shall

incorporate the following components, as feasible:

Drought-resistant plants consistent with the General Plan’s plant palette.

Xeric (adapted to arid conditions) landscaping techniques.

An irrigation design that conforms to water conservation measures established in AB1881 the

Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (effective as of January 1, 2010).

Attractive walls and other visually pleasing hardscape into the final design of the project to

enhance the limited open space that would serve the project residents and the travelers using East

Tabor and Walters Road.

Trees and shrubs to break the visual monotony and soften the appearance of walls and vines to

deter graffiti to the maximum extent feasible.

Timing/Implementation: Prior to construction.

Enforcement/Monitoring: Suisun City Community Development Department.

MM 1-3 New trees shall be incorporated into the landscape plans for the Zephyr Estates subdivision and

along E. Tabor and Walters Road (within the project improvement area) that meet the City’s standard

for trees within new developments.



Implementation of MM 1-1, MM 1-2, and MM 1-3 would reduce aesthetic impacts as a result of the Suisun

Station subdivision to a less than significant level.

d) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated – The proposed Zephyr Estates subdivision would result

in development of the site with 59 residences, 1.5 acres of commercial land and associated infrastructure.

These improvements would introduce new sources of light and glare as part of the proposed facility and

infrastructure development.

Mitigation Measure:

MM 1-4 All outdoor lighting associated with the proposed development shall be:

Designed and located to minimize ambient light levels for any given application, consistent with

public safety standards.

Placed in areas of pedestrian activity, at building entrances, and along roadways.

Shielded with non-glare hoods and focused within the project. Lighting shall minimize glare on

adjacent properties and into the night sky.

Ornamental, pedestrian scale lighting fixtures shall be utilized to the degree possible.


3.1 Aesthetics


Zephyr Estates 3.1-3

Area lighting shall be directed downward with no splay of lighting directed offsite. No lighting

shall blink, flash or be of unusually high intensity or brightness.



Implementation of MM 1-4 would reduce impacts associated with lighting and glare to a less than significant

level.


3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources



3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

Issue Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact No Impact

In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are

significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the

California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment

Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation

as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture

and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest

resources, including timberland, are significant environmental

effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection

regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the

Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy

Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement

methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the

California Air Resources Board. 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) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,

forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section

12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code

section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production

(as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

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?


The project site is designated as “grazing land” on the most recent map of important farmland published by the

Department of Conservation (DOC). Grazing land is defined as “land on which the existing vegetation is suited to

the grazing of livestock”. Residential has been present on the surrounding land for the last several years, leaving

the site isolated. Due to the limited size of the site and its isolated nature within an urban/suburban context, the

sites are not considered a valuable agricultural resource and, therefore, the conversion of the sites to residential

use would not be significant impact.


3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources



Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation

a) No Impact – The Solano County Important Farmland Map (2012), prepared by the California Department of

Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, classifies the land proposed for development as

“grazing land”, which is land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. The land is

not classified as farmland as defined in this document. Therefore, no loss or conversion of farmland would

result from development proposed by this project.

b) No Impact – The land within the project site is currently zoned for urban land uses. No agricultural zoning is

proposed. The parcels are within the City limits and Suisun City does not participate in the Williamson Act

program. Therefore, the project site is not under, nor would it conflict with, a Williamson Act contract.

c) No Impact – Timberland (as defined by California Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned

Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104[g]) is not present on-site, because no

active or potential commercial timber operations are present. Since the project would not result in the

development of forest land or the removal of timberland, the proposed project would not result in the loss or

conversion of forest land or timberland, and no impact to this resource would occur.

d) No Impact – The project does not involve forest land in any way, thus would not impact

e) No Impact – As stated previously in Impact 3.2a-d, the proposed project would not result in the conversion or

loss of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance; Williamson Act contract

parcels; or forest land and timberland. No other changes to the existing environment as a result of the

proposed project would result in the loss of agricultural or forest land resources. Consequently, the proposed

project would have no impact on these resources.

Zephyr Estates AECOM City of Suisun City 3.3-1 Environmental Checklist

3.3 AIR QUALITY

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant with

Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

III. Air Quality. 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?

3.3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The proposed project is located in the city of Suisun City, which is part of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin

(SFBAAB).1 California’s air basins have been created to group regions together that have similar factors that

affect air quality. Ambient concentrations of air pollutants are determined by the amount of emissions released by

pollutant sources and the atmosphere’s ability to transport and dilute such emissions. Natural factors that affect

transport, dilution, and generation of air pollutants include terrain, wind, atmospheric stability, and the presence

of sunlight.

TOPOGRAPHY, METEOROLOGY, AND CLIMATE

The SFBAAB includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara

counties, as well as the southern a portion of Sonoma County and the southwestern portion of Solano County,

including the project vicinity.

Meteorological conditions in the SFBAAB are warm and mainly dry in summers, and mild and moderately wet in

winters. Marine air has a moderating effect on the climate throughout much of the year. Winds from the west-

1 The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is responsible for attaining and maintaining acceptable air quality

conditions in the SFBAAB. BAAQMD implements a comprehensive program of planning, regulation, enforcement, technical

innovation, and promotion of the understanding of air quality issues to control and minimize the generation of criteria pollutants, TACs,

odors, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. BAAQMD’s clean air strategy includes preparation of plans for the attainment of ambient

air quality standards, adoption and enforcement of rules and regulations concerning sources of air pollution, and issuance of permits for

stationary sources of air pollution. BAAQMD also inspects stationary sources of air pollution and responds to citizen complaints,

monitors ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, and implements programs and regulations required by the CAA and

CCAA. BAAQMD adopted the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan, in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission

(MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). The Clean Air Plan is intended to reduce air pollution, protect public

health, and achieve compliance with the state 1-hour air quality standard for ozone as expeditiously as practicable. The Clean Air Plan

includes a comprehensive strategy to reduce air pollution from both stationary sources, such as factories and refineries, and mobile

sources, such as cars, trucks, and construction equipment.

AECOM Zephyr Estates Environmental Checklist 3.3-2 City of Suisun City

southwest are most prevalent during spring and summer afternoons. These are the breezes that travel from the

Pacific Ocean. In addition, nighttime drainage flows (i.e., wind flows back toward the ocean) typically develop.

On clear nights with light winds, inversions develop in the coastal valleys, separating the surface wind flow from

winds aloft. The drainage flow is usually light and stable, flowing towards the Carquinez Strait.

CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS

The California Air Resources Board (ARB) and US Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) focus on the

following air pollutants as indicators of ambient air quality: ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide

(NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns (PM10), particular

matter with aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), and lead. Because these are the most prevalent

air pollutants known to be deleterious to human health, and because extensive health effects criteria

documentation is available for these pollutants, they are commonly referred to as “criteria air pollutants.”2

Health-

based air quality standards have been established for these pollutants by ARB at the state level, and by USEPA at

the national level. These standards, which include a margin of safety, were established to protect the public from

adverse health impacts resulting exposure to air pollution. California also has established standards for sulfates,

visibility-reducing particles, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. The California and national ambient air quality

standards (CAAQS and NAAQS, respectively) are presented in Table 3.3-1.

Table 3.3-1 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant Averaging Time

California Standards1

National Standards2

Concentration3 Primary3,4 Secondary3,5

Ozone 1 hour 0.09 ppm (180 μg/m

3) – Same as

primary standard 8 hours 0.070 ppm (137 μg/m3) 0.075 ppm (147 μg/m

3)

Respirable particulate

matter (PM10)

24 hours 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m

3

Same as

primary standard Annual arithmetic

mean 20 μg/m

3 –

Fine particulate

matter (PM2.5)

24 hours – 35 μg/m3 Same as primary standard

Annual arithmetic

mean 12 μg/m

3 12.0 μg/m

3 f 15 μg/m

3

Carbon monoxide

8 hours 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m

3)

None 1 hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m

3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m

3)

8 hours (Lake

Tahoe) 6 ppm (7 mg/m

3) – –

Nitrogen dioxide7

Annual arithmetic

mean 0.030 ppm (57 μg/m

3) 0.053 ppm (100 μg/m

3)

Same as

primary standard

1 hour 0.18 ppm (339 μg/m3) 0.100 ppb (188 μg/m

3) None

Sulfur dioxide8

Annual Arithmetic

Mean –

0.030 ppm

(for certain areas) h –

24 hours 0.04 ppm (105 μg/m3)

0.14 ppm

(for certain areas) h –

3 hours — – 0.5 ppm (1,300 μg/m3)

2 The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes the framework for modern air pollution control. The CAA directs the USEPA to establish

ambient air standards for six pollutants: ozone, CO, lead, NO2, particulate matter, and SO2. The standards are divided into primary and

secondary standards (see Table 3.3-1). Primary standards are set to protect human health within an adequate margin of safety and

secondary standards are set to protect environmental values, such as plant and animal life. U.S. EPA develops rules and regulations to

preserve and improve air quality, as well as delegating specific responsibilities to state and local agencies.





National Standards2


1 hour 0.25 ppm (655 μg/m3) 0.075 ppm (196 μg/m

3) –

Lead9,10

30-day average 1.5 μg/m3 – –

Calendar quarter – 1.5 μg/m

3

(for certain areas) j

Same as

primary standard Rolling 3-month

average – 0.15 μg/m

3

Visibility-reducing

particles11 8 hours See footnote

11

No national standards Sulfates 24 hours 25 μg/m3

Hydrogen sulfide 1 hour 0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3)

Vinyl chloride11

24 hours 0.01 ppm (26 μg/m3)

Notes: mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less;

PM10 = respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less; ppb = parts per billion;

ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter

1 California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1- and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility-reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.

2 National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over 3 years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 µg/m3 is equal to or less than 1. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98% of the daily concentrations, averaged over 3 years, are equal to or less than the standards. Contact USEPA for further clarification and current national policies.

3 Concentration expressed first in the units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25 degrees Celsius (°C) and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and reference pressure of 760 torr; parts per million (ppm) in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.

4 National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health.

5 National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.

6 On January 15, 2013, USEPA announced it would revise the national annual PM2.5 standard to 12.0 µg/m3 to provide increased protection against health risks.

7 To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 ppb. Note the national 1-hour standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of ppm. To directly compare the national 1-hour standard to the California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 100 ppb is identical to 0.100 ppm.

8 On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until 1 year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved.

Note that the 1-hour SO2 national standard is in units of ppb. California standards are in units of ppm. To directly compare the 1-hour national standard to the California standard, the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical of 0.075 ppm.

9 The California Air Resources Board (ARB) has identified lead and vinyl chloride as toxic air contaminants with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.

10 The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008, to a rolling 3-month average. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 µg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until 1 year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standards are approved.

11 In 1989, ARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are “extinction of 0.23 per kilometer” and the “extinction of 0.07 per kilometer” for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively.





National Standards2


Source: ARB 2013

LOCAL AIR QUALITY CONDITIONS

The determination of whether a region’s air quality is healthful or unhealthful is made by comparing contaminant

levels in ambient air samples to the CAAQS and NAAQS. Both the ARB and the U.S. EPA monitor ambient air

concentrations at various regions throughout the SFBAAB to designate an area’s attainment status with respect to

the CAAQS and NAAQS, respectively, for criteria air pollutants. The purpose of these designations is to identify

areas with air quality problems and thereby initiate planning efforts for improvement. The three basic designation

categories are “nonattainment,” “attainment,” and “unclassified.” The “unclassified” designation is used in an area

that cannot be classified on the basis of available information as meeting or not meeting the standards. The most

recent attainment designations with respect to the SFBAAB are shown in Table 3.3-2. With respect to the

CAAQS, the SFBAAB is designated as a nonattainment area for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, and as an attainment or

unclassified area for all other pollutants. With respect to the NAAQS, the SFBAAB is designated as a

nonattainment area for ozone and PM2.5, and as an attainment or unclassified area for all other pollutants.

Table 3.3-2 California and National Attainment Status for the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin

Pollutant Designation/Classification

California National

Ozone (1-Hour) Nonattainment -

Ozone (8-Hour) Nonattainment Nonattainment

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment Attainment

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Attainment Attainment/Unclassifiable

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Attainment Attainment

Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) Nonattainment Unclassified

Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Nonattainment Nonattainment1

Lead Attainment Attainment

Sulfates Attainment

No National Standards Hydrogen Sulfide Unclassified

Vinyl Chloride See footnote2

Visibility Reducing Particles Unclassified

Notes: 1 USEPA lowered the 24-hour PM2.5 standard from 65 µg/m

3 to 35 µg/m

3 in 2006. USEPA designated BAAQMD as nonattainment of the

PM2.5 standard on October 8, 2009. The effective date of the designation is December 14, 2009 and BAAQMD has three years to develop a

SIP that demonstrates how the region will achieve the revised standard by December 14, 2014. BAAQMD is designated as attainment for

the annual arithmetic mean. 2 No information is available to designate the region for vinyl chloride.

Source: BAAQMD 2013


The CAA requires states to submit a state implementation plan (SIP) for areas in nonattainment for federal

standards. The SIP, which is reviewed and approved by U.S. EPA, must demonstrate how the federal standards

will be achieved. The California Clean Air Act of 1988 (CCAA) substantially added to the authority and

responsibilities of air districts. The CCAA designates air districts as lead air quality planning agencies, requires

air districts to prepare air quality plans, and grants air districts authority to implement transportation control

measures. The CCAA focuses on attainment of the state ambient air quality standards, which are generally more

stringent than the comparable federal standards. The CCAA requires designation of attainment and nonattainment

areas with respect to CAAQS. If a region violates a CAAQS for CO, SO2, NO2, or ozone, the CCAA also

requires that local and regional air districts to expeditiously adopt and prepare an air quality attainment plan (i.e.,

clean air plan). These clean air plans are specifically designed to attain these standards and must be designed to

achieve an annual 5 percent reduction in district-wide emissions of each nonattainment pollutant or its precursors.

Where an air district is unable to achieve a 5 percent annual reduction, the adoption of “all feasible measures” on

an expeditious schedule is acceptable as an alternative strategy (Health and Safety Code Section 40914[b][2]).

TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS

Some air pollutants are identified as toxic air contaminants (TACs), because of their potential to increase the risk

of developing cancer or because of their acute or chronic health risks. Individual TACs vary greatly in the health

risk they present. For TACs that cause cancer, a unit risk factor can be developed to evaluate cancer risk (i.e.,

excess cancer cases per one million population). For noncancer health risks, a similar factor called a Hazard Index

(HI) is used to evaluate risk. The HI is the ratio of the potential exposure to the exposure level that would cause

adverse health effects. Therefore, a HI of less than one indicates no adverse health effects are expected (i.e.,

determined exposure level is less than the adverse health effect exposure level), and an HI greater than one would

indicate potential adverse health effects (OEHHA 2003).

On-road mobile sources, such as highways and freeways, are potential TAC sources. There are no highways or

freeways within 1,000 feet of the project site. Highway 12 is located approximately 1.4 miles south of the project

site and Interstate 80 is located approximately 3.4 miles west of the project site. There are no Bay Area Air

Quality Management District (BAAQMD)-permitted stationary sources within 1,800 feet of the project site. The

closest permitted stationary source is Pauli Systems, which is located approximately 1,800 feet northwest of the

project site (BAAQMD 2012c). The project site with respect to potential TAC sources is discussed in further

detail in the impact analysis using methods and tools provided by BAAQMD.

3.3.2 DISCUSSION

SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS

In addition, as stated in Appendix G, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality

management district may be relied on to make the above determinations. Thus, this analysis also evaluates the

proposed project’s air quality impacts pursuant to the BAAQMD 2010 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.3 Although

the 2010 Guidelines are under legal review, the issues in the court order are not relevant to whether or not

BAAQMD’s analysis provides substantial evidence in support of the proposed thresholds. Based on guidance

from BAAQMD, the City has elected to use the following significance thresholds.

1. Criteria Air Pollutants

a. Regional Significance Criteria

3 In 2010, BAAQMD updated the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, which, compared to the 1999 version, include new and more stringent

quantitative thresholds for operation and construction-related criteria air pollutants and precursors, TACs, odors, and GHG emissions

(BAAQMD 2010b). The Guidelines are intended to provide lead agencies, consultants, and project applicants with uniform procedures

for addressing air quality in environmental documents.


• Generate average daily construction emissions of ROG, NOX, and (exhaust) PM2.5 that would exceed

54 pounds per day (lbs/day) or PM10 exhaust emissions that would exceed 82 lbs/day, or

• Construction would not implement all of the BAAQMD’s Best Management Practices for fugitive

dust control and the Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, or

• Generate average daily operational emissions of ROG, NOX, and (exhaust) PM2.5 that would exceed

54 lbs/day or PM10 exhaust emissions that would exceed 82 lbs/day, or

• Generate annual operational emissions of ROG, NOX, and (exhaust) PM2.5 that would exceed 10 tons

per year (tpy) or PM10 exhaust emissions that would exceed 15 tpy.

b. Local CO Hotspots Screening (requires project consistency with each bullet below)

• The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the

County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways, the regional

transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans, or

• The project would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles

per hour, or

• 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).

2. Community Risk and Hazards

a. Siting a New Receptor: Project-Level Community Risk

• Non-compliance with a qualified Community Risk Reduction Plan, or

• Generate an excess cancer risk level of more than 10 in one million, or a non-cancer chronic or acute

hazard index greater than 1.0, or

• Generate an incremental increase of greater than 0.3 µg/m3 annual average PM2.5 from a single source

would be a significant cumulatively considerable contribution.

b. Siting a New Receptor: Cumulative Community Risk

• Project would be noncompliant with a qualified Community Risk Reduction Plan; or

• The cumulative community risk plus the proposed project would generate an excess cancer risk of

more than 100 in one million or chronic non-cancer hazard index greater than 10.0; or

• The cumulative community risk plus the proposed project would generate PM2.5 concentrations in

excess of 0.8 µg/m3.

c. Construction Risk

• Generate excess cancer risk levels of more than 10 in one million.


METHODOLOGY

Short-term construction and long-term operational emissions were modeled using the California Emissions

Estimator (CalEEMod) Version 2013.2.2 (CAPCOA 2013).4

To provide conservative results, this analysis assumes an aggressive phasing/construction schedule. For

operational emissions, it was anticipated that all of the proposed land uses would be completed and operational at

the earliest possible year (2016).The relatively early construction year would also have higher emission rates for

construction equipment and vehicles compared to an assumption of a longer construction period. New emissions

technology and fleet turnover reduce construction equipment emissions over time. Some construction phases were

assumed to overlap, such as building construction and asphalt paving. The proposed project’s actual construction

emissions may be somewhat lower than the emissions reported here.

Similar to construction emissions, using the earliest year of operations would result in the higher emission rates

for on-road vehicles. Mobile source emissions, which would be the largest source of operational emissions, were

modeled using trip generation data provided in the traffic study prepared for this project. See Appendix A for

detailed CalEEMod outputs.

IMPACT ANALYSIS

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)?

The most current regional air quality plan is the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan, which was developed as a multi-

pollutant plan for ozone, particulate matter, and TACs. Projects that would be consistent with the applicable

general plan or less than the applicable thresholds of significance would be anticipated to be accounted for in the

Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan’s emission projections and would, therefore, not conflict or obstruct

implementation of the regional air quality plan. In addition, projects that would be consistent with the principles,

strategies, and/or measures of the regional air quality plan and/or general plan, also would be considered to be

consistent with the air quality plan.

Projects that generate emissions that do not exceed BAAQMD thresholds of significance would avoid violating or

contributing substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. BAAQMD thresholds are also used as a

proxy for determining whether projects would have cumulatively considerable contributions to any significant

cumulative impact related to air quality. The proposed project’s construction and operational emissions with

respect to this criterion are evaluated below.

Construction

Less-than-Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Construction of the proposed project would

result in short-term and temporary criteria air pollutant emissions. Construction-related exhaust- and fugitive dust-

related emissions would be generated at varying levels depending on the type of construction activities for a

particular day. Fugitive particulate matter (PM) dust emissions are among the pollutants of greatest concern with

4 CalEEMod contains emission factors for off- and on-road vehicles and equipment and region-specific default

assumptions.


respect to construction activities. These emissions from construction activities can lead to adverse health effects

and nuisance concerns, such as reduced visibility and soiling of exposed surfaces. Site grading operations are the

primary sources of fugitive particulate matter dust emissions from the proposed project’s construction activities.

Movement of vehicles on unpaved roads also can generate fugitive particulate matter dust emissions, by kicking

up ground particulate matter dust into the atmosphere. Construction fugitive particulate matter dust emissions can

vary greatly, depending on the level of activity, the specific operations taking place, the number and types of

equipment operated, vehicle speeds, local soil conditions, weather conditions, and the amount of earth disturbance

(e.g., site grading, excavation, cut-and-fill).

Ozone precursor emissions (ROG and NOX) are primarily generated from mobile sources (i.e., delivery vehicles,

construction worker vehicles) and off-road construction equipment. These emissions vary as a function of vehicle

trips per day associated with delivery of construction materials, the amount of required soil importing and

exporting, vendor trips, and worker commute trips, and by the types and number of heavy-duty, off-road

equipment used and the intensity and frequency of their operation.

As shown in Table 3.3-3, the proposed project’s average daily construction emissions would not exceed

BAAQMD thresholds of significance. These emissions estimates represent a worst reasonable case scenario for

air quality in that they assume the entire proposed project would be built in one construction phase (i.e., most

intensive daily construction activities and emissions). Thresholds of significance are developed as allowable

emissions limits that each project can generate without interfering with the air quality goals of the region. Projects

that generate emissions that exceed applicable thresholds would be considered to generate emissions at a level that

could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Without compliance with Basic

Construction Mitigation Measures, the City has conservatively determined that the project could conflict with

attainment planning efforts or that fugitive dust emissions during construction could violate or contribute

substantially to a current or projected violation of an ambient air quality. This impact is considered potentially

significant.

Table 3.3-3 Zephyr Estates Unmitigated Construction Emissions

Emissions Category Pollutants (total tons)1,2

ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5

Year 2015 1.00 3.73 0.23 0.22

Year 2016 1.49 1.69 0.10 0.10

Total Construction Emissions (tons) 2.49 5.42 0.33 0.31

Average Daily Construction Emissions (lbs./day)3 16 34 2 2

BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance (average lbs./day)4

54 54 82 54

Exceeds Thresholds? No No No No

Notes: BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District; lbs/day = pounds per day; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = particulate matter

with aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 microns;

ROG = reactive organic gases. .

Units may not appear to add exactly due to rounding. 1 All emissions are provided in units of tons unless noted otherwise.

2 For purposes of a conservative analysis, construction activities for all proposed project components were assumed to occur within one

single construction phase, which would represent the most intensive construction schedule and highest average daily emissions. In reality,

the proposed project would be buildout in two or more phases over a longer period of time depending on market conditions. 3 Average daily PM10 and PM2.5 emissions shown represent exhaust-related construction emissions (e.g., construction equipment, haul

trucks, and construction worker vehicles) in order to compare with BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance. 4 BAAQMD thresholds of significance for PM10 and PM2.5 only apply to exhaust-related emissions.

Source: AECOM 2014


Operational

Less-than-Significant Impact. Following construction of the proposed project, long-term operational emissions

would be generated by vehicles (mobile-source emissions) coming to and leaving a project site, which include

resident, customer, employee, and delivery vehicles. Area-source emissions are those associated with consumer

products, periodic architectural coatings, and landscape maintenance activities. Energy use emissions are

associated with building electricity and natural gas usage (non-hearth).

The proposed project site is designated in the City of Suisun City’s General Plan as 6 acres of general commercial

and 2.6 acres of multi-family residential. The proposed project would require a General Plan amendment to

develop 1.5 acres of commercial and 7.1 acres of single-family residential. Since air quality plans are developed

based in part on land use change assumptions in local general plans, the project is assumed to have been included

in attainment planning efforts. The proposed uses are generally less intense from an air quality perspective

compared to what had been assumed under the General Plan. Without a General Plan amendment, daily trips

associated with development of the project site may be anticipated to be approximately 1.5 times higher compared

to the proposed project. Vehicular traffic is the primary source of ozone precursors for most development projects,

including this one.

As shown in Table 3.3-4, the proposed project’s long-term daily operational emissions would not exceed

BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance. The proposed project’s operational emissions would not be anticipated to

conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The proposed project’s operational

emissions would not contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, and this impact is

considered less than significant. Since average daily operational emissions would not exceed applicable

thresholds of significance, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to any

significant cumulative impact.

Table 3.3-4 Zephyr Estates Unmitigated Proposed Operational Emissions

Emissions Source Daily Emissions (pounds/day) 1

ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5

Proposed Project

Area Sources 5 0 2 2

Energy Sources

0 1 0 0

Mobile Sources 5 10 0 0

Total Proposed Project Emissions1

10 11 2 2

BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance 54 54 82 54

Exceeds BAAQMD Thresholds? No No No No

Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10

micrometers or less; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5 is a subset of PM10).

Values may not appear to add exactly because of rounding. 1 Emissions for the entire proposed project were modeled for operational year 2016.

Source: Data modeled by AECOM in 2014


Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Implement the BAAQMD Basic Construction Control Measures.

► All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.

► All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

► 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.

► All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour.

► 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.

► All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator.

► A publicly visible sign shall be posted at the soil transfer site within the BAAQMD, with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of Suisun City regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number also shall be visible, to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Implementation: Project applicant and construction contractor(s)

Timing: During all construction activities

Enforcement: City of Suisun City and BAAQMD

Significance after Mitigation

Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 is consistent with recommendations from the BAAQMD and, with or without this mitigation measure, the proposed project’s construction emissions would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds of significance. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the impact is considered less than significant.

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

The proposed project would generate air pollutant and TAC emissions as a result of its construction and operations that could potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The proposed project would involve the placement of sensitive receptors (i.e., dwelling units) on the project site. It is possible that existing localized air pollutant and TAC sources could affect proposed sensitive receptors. This impact analysis evaluates the proposed project’s potential construction and operational impacts to sensitive receptors, as well as the impact of existing sources relative to proposed sensitive receptors.

Construction

Less than Significant. Project construction would generate diesel particulate matter (diesel PM) emissions from the use of off-road diesel equipment required for construction activities. Diesel PM has been classified as a TAC by the ARB, and therefore even acute exposure could have health impacts. Construction emissions would occur intermittently during the approximately 2 to 3-year work period. As discussed above in the Methodology section,


regional mass emissions were estimated assuming an aggressive schedule for a conservative estimate of daily

mass emissions to compare with BAAQMD thresholds of significance. However, for localized TAC impacts, it is

more conservative to assume a longer period of potential exposure. Thus, this analysis conservatively assumes

construction activities would last for longest possible construction period. Diesel PM emissions would vary

depending on the types of construction activities occurring each day. Site preparation and grading would require

large mechanical forces, such as large diesel equipment, and diesel PM emissions would be expected to be higher

with use of this equipment compared to construction period involving building construction and architectural

coatings, which require relatively more manual labor. Following completion of the proposed project, all

construction activities and associated diesel particulate matter emissions would cease.

The dose to which receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk and is a function of

concentration and duration of exposure. According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment,

health risk assessments that determine the health risks associated with exposure of residential receptors to TAC

emissions should be based on a 70-year exposure period, and health risk assessments that address the health risk

associated with exposure of children to TAC emissions should be based on a 9-year exposure period (OEHHA

2003). TAC exposure to children is of special concern because children typically metabolize more air per unit of

body weight in comparison to adults, and they can be more sensitive to toxics during development. However,

heath risk assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the emissions activity.

For the purposes of a conservative TAC analysis, construction activities were assumed to occur for approximately

2 to 3 years total. Therefore, the total exposure time would be less than the minimum number of years

recommended for a health risk assessment and approximately 4 percent of the total exposure time for a typical

health risk assessment. As discussed, construction-related emissions would cease following buildout of the

proposed project. In addition, although residential receptors are located adjacent to the project site, the bulk of

diesel PM emissions (i.e., highest use of heavy-duty construction equipment) would occur during the site

preparation and grading phases, which are anticipated to last for approximately three months. Construction phases

following site preparation/grading would not require intensive heavy-duty construction equipment and

subsequently would generate less diesel PM emissions. For example, the building construction phase would

generate approximately 34 percent less daily diesel PM than the grading phase. Furthermore, all construction

emissions would be intermittent in nature. In other words, emissions would not be generated in a constant plume,

but rather in periodic releases that would allow more opportunities for dispersion and less direct exposure to

receptors. Therefore, considering the information above and that exposure would be intermittent, relatively short,

and temporary in combination with the dispersive properties of diesel particulate matter (Zhu et al. 2002.36:4323–

4335), it is not anticipated the proposed project would expose sensitive receptors to significant levels of diesel PM

emissions. This impact with respect to the proposed project’s construction emissions would be less than

significant.

Operation

Less than Significant. The proposed project includes residential and retail uses, which are not anticipated to

generate substantial TAC emissions. Uses more likely to generate substantial TAC emissions include industrial

uses with stationary sources and manufacturing processes. Although the retail uses would likely involve

occasional heavy-duty diesel delivery trucks coming to and from the project site, with approximately 17,000 total

square feet of retail building space in 4 buildings with a maximum square footage of 4,800 square feet, it is not

anticipated that there would be frequent daily heavy-duty truck deliveries that could generate substantial pollutant

concentrations that would adversely affect existing or proposed sensitive receptors. The bulk of emissions

associated with deliveries would be generated on regional and local roads and would not be a constant and

concentrated source of TAC emissions from the project site. In addition, any material delivery activities occurring

on the project site would be required to comply with ARB’s Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) to Limit

Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling, which would limit the idling of any commercial vehicles to five

minutes. Furthermore, as part of ARB’s Diesel Risk Reduction Program to reduce diesel PM exhaust emissions,

future diesel PM exhaust emissions are expected to decrease through more stringent standards applicable to all


new diesel-fueled engines, aggressive reductions from in-use diesel engines (e.g., retrofits, in-use compliance

programs), and use of low-sulfur fuel that would provide the quality of diesel fuel needed to utilize advanced

diesel PM exhaust control technology. Considering this information, and the low intensity of the retail use, it is

unlikely that the proposed project would generate substantial TAC emissions that would expose nearby sensitive

receptors to TAC concentrations that exceed applicable standards. Considering this information, the proposed

project’s TAC emissions would not be anticipated to expose any sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant

concentrations and this impact is considered less than significant.

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots

Less than Significant. Local mobile-source CO emissions and concentrations near roadway intersections are a

direct function of traffic volume, speed, and delay. Transport of CO is extremely limited because it disperses

rapidly with distance from the source under normal meteorological conditions. However, under specific

meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near roadways and/or intersections may reach unhealthy levels with

respect to local sensitive land uses, such as residential units, hospitals, schools, and childcare facilities.

BAAQMD has developed a screening threshold to determine if a project would cause an intersection to

potentially generate a CO hotspot. The screening thresholds have been developed with conservative assumptions

to avoid underestimating CO concentrations. Therefore, a project that would not exceed the screening thresholds

would be highly unlikely to generate a CO hotspot. According to this methodology, projects would have the

potential to generate a CO hotspot if it did not contribute a substantial volume of vehicle trips to an intersection

that exceeded 44,000 vehicles per hour. For intersections located in areas where vertical and/or horizontal mixing

is substantially limited, the screening threshold is 24,000 vehicles per hour.

The traffic study evaluated affected intersections under existing and cumulative conditions, with and without the

proposed project. For a conservative analysis, the cumulative plus project intersection volumes were used to

compare with the BAAQMD’s screening threshold. As determined by the traffic study, the highest hourly volume

of vehicles at an intersection would occur under PM peak-hour cumulative plus proposed project conditions at the

Walters Road and Air Base Parkway intersection. The maximum hourly volume at this intersection would be

6,894 vehicles per hour, which is substantially less than the 24,000 and 44,000 vehicles per-hour screening

threshold. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project is not expected to have the potential to generate CO

hotspots. This impact is considered less than significant.

On-Site Community Risk and Hazard

Less than Significant. For assessing community risks and hazards, the BAAQMD recommends the evaluation of

TAC sources within a 1,000-foot radius. Common stationary sources of TAC and PM2.5 emissions include

gasoline stations, dry cleaners, and diesel backup generators, which are subject to BAAQMD permit

requirements. The other, often more significant, common source type is on-road motor vehicles on freeways and

roads, such as trucks and cars, and off-road sources such as construction equipment, ships, and trains. Land uses

that contain permitted sources, such as a landfill or manufacturing plant, may also contain non-permitted TAC

and/or PM2.5 sources, particularly if they host a high volume of diesel truck activity. BAAQMD has developed

analysis tools to evaluate TAC emissions.

For on-road mobile sources, if the new receptor does not have a significant road source (a freeway or arterial with

greater than 10,000 vehicles per day), according to the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, then the

proposed project meets the distance requirements and no further single-source roadway-related air quality

evaluation is recommended.

Using the BAAQMD’s Stationary Source Screening Analysis Tool, it was determined that the proposed project

site is not within 1,000 feet of any highway, permitted stationary source, or gasoline dispensing facility

(BAAQMD 2012). However, the proposed project would be located adjacent to Walter Road, which, in the long

term, could have up to 39,600 vehicles per day. Because this daily volume would exceed BAAQMD’s 10,000


vehicles per day threshold, BAAQMD’s screening tables for PM2.5 concentrations and cancer risks generated from

surface streets were used to estimate PM2.5 concentrations and cancer risks from Walter Road at the nearest

proposed resident. Conservatively assuming the minimum setback distance of 10 feet from the roadway, it is

anticipated that PM2.5 concentrations and cancer risks at the nearest proposed sensitive receptor would be 0.248

µg/m3 and 5.52 cancer risks in a million, respectively, which is less than BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance

(i.e., 0.30 µg/m3 for PM2.5 concentrations and 10 in a million for cancer risk) (BAAQMD 2011). In reality, the

proposed residential units would be set back approximately 25 feet from the roadway. However, this analysis

assumes a worst-case scenario. Therefore, the proposed project’s sensitive receptors would be located sufficient

distances from all permitted stationary sources, gasoline dispensing facilities, major roadways, and highways to

avoid being exposed to significant health risks. This impact with respect to local community health risk is

considered less than significant.

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depends on numerous factors including the nature, frequency, and

intensity of the source; wind speed and direction; and the sensitivity of the receptors. Although offensive odors

rarely cause any physical harm, they can be very unpleasant, leading to considerable distress among the public

and cause citizen’s to submit complaints to local governments and regulatory agencies. Projects with the potential

to frequently expose individuals to objectionable odors are deemed to have a significant impact. Typical facilities

that generate odors include wastewater treatment facilities, sanitary landfills, composting facilities, petroleum

refineries, chemical manufacturing plants, and food processing facilities.

Construction

Less than Significant. Construction and operation of the proposed project are not anticipated to expose nearby

off-site receptors (existing or future planned) to objectionable odors. Construction activities would generate diesel

exhaust from heavy-duty trucks and off-road construction equipment, which could be considered offensive to

some individuals. Although construction activities could be fairly intensive during site preparation and grading

activities, these phases would last for approximately three months. In addition, construction equipment would

operate intermittently throughout the three months and would cease in the evening. Even at the most equipment-

intense phases, there would not be a constant source of odor emissions generated from the project site.

Following site preparation and grading phases, other construction phases would require less intensive use of

construction equipment. However, for subsequent construction phases, construction equipment use would also be

intermittent throughout the working day and cease every night. Odors associated with architectural coating- and

asphalt paving-related volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions could also be a potential source of

construction-related odors. However, it is anticipated that compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3

(Architectural Coatings) and Regulation 8, Rule 15 (Emulsified and Liquid Asphalts), which would limit the VOC

content of architectural coatings and asphalt used within BAAQMD’s jurisdiction, would minimize VOC

emissions. Thus, construction activities would not expose nearby receptors to a continuous source of diesel

particulate matter emissions throughout the construction schedule such as typical odor-generating facilities.

Rather, construction emissions would occur intermittently for a limited period of time each day. In addition, the

source of potential construction-related odor emissions (i.e., diesel PM) would decrease as construction activities

continue. Considering all these factors and the temporary nature of construction activities, the proposed project’s

construction activities are not expected to expose a substantial number of receptors to objectionable odor

emissions, and this impact would be less than significant.

Operation

Less than Significant. Operation of the proposed project would only generate a minimal amount of odor in the

form of diesel PM exhaust generated by some proposed residents and occasional material delivery trucks for the

proposed retail uses. These emissions would be dispersed throughout the regional roadway network and thus


would not be concentrated on the project site or any particular site where a receptor could be continuously

exposed.

The proposed project would include residences, which are not typically substantial odor sources. Although

dumpsters could be a potential residential-related odor source, regular trash collection would ensure that garbage

and refuse that could generate odors would be disposed of with a regular frequency and properly.

At the time of this analysis, the type of commercial development on the project site is not known. In the case that

a food service use is developed, cooking processes and the disposal of food waste could be an objectionable odor

source to nearby existing and proposed receptors. The proposed project’s compliance with industry standard

waste disposal methods and BAAQMD Regulation 7 (Odorous Substances) would limit any potential odor

exposure. In addition, similar to residential land uses, it is anticipated that any waste products from on-site

operations with the potential to emit odors (e.g., trash enclosures) would be disposed in proper containers and/or

handled in a manner that would not emit any objectionable odors. Furthermore, any proposed restaurants or other

food service uses would be designed to ensure that all kitchen exhaust ventilation systems are installed in

accordance with the California Retail Food Code (Health and Safety Code Section 114149). Any proposed food

service uses would also be required to comply with the BAAQMD’s Regulation 6 Rule 2 (Commercial Cooking

Equipment), to minimize emissions from commercial charboiler equipment. Therefore it is not expected that the

proposed project’s operational activities, regardless of the commercial use selected, would cause a significant

odor impact on a substantial number of sensitive receptors. The project’s operation will not expose a substantial

number of receptors to odor emissions. The impact is considered less than significant.

References

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 1999 (December). BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines.

Available: http://www.baaqmd.gov/pln/ceqa/index.htm. Last updated December 1999. Accessed July

2009.

———. 2010a (May). Proposed Air Quality CEQA Thresholds of Significance. Available:

http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/Summary_Table_Proposed

_BAAQMD_CEQA_Thresholds_May_3_2010.ashx?la=en. Accessed July 9, 2013.

———. 2010b. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Available: http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-

Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Updated-CEQA-Guidelines.aspx. Accessed March 5, 2013.

———. 2011. Roadway Screening Analysis Tables – Solano County. Available: <

http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/County%20Surface%20Str

eet%20Screening%20Tables%20Dec%202011.ashx?la=en>. Accessed April 30, 2014.

———. 2012a. Updated CEQA Guidelines. Available: http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-

Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Updated-CEQA-Guidelines.aspx. Accessed July 9, 2013.

———. 2012b (May). BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. Available:

http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/BAAQMD%20CEQA%20

Guidelines_Final_May%202012.ashx?la=en. Accessed July 9, 2013.

———. 2012c (May). Stationary Source Screening Analysis Tool. Available:

http://www.baaqmd.gov/Home/Divisions/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA%20GUIDELINES/Tools

%20and%20Methodology.aspx. Accessed April 12, 2014.

http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/Summary_Table_Proposed_BAAQMD_CEQA_Thresholds_May_3_2010.ashx?la=en

http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/Summary_Table_Proposed_BAAQMD_CEQA_Thresholds_May_3_2010.ashx?la=en

http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Updated-CEQA-Guidelines.aspx

http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Updated-CEQA-Guidelines.aspx

http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/BAAQMD%20CEQA%20Guidelines_Final_May%202012.ashx?la=en

http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/BAAQMD%20CEQA%20Guidelines_Final_May%202012.ashx?la=en


———. 2012d (June). Gasoline Dispensing Facility Distance Multiplier Tool. Available:


%20and%20Methodology.aspx. Accessed October 2012.

———. 2012e (June). Diesel Internal Combustion Engine Distance Multiplier Tool. Available:


%20and%20Methodology.aspx. Accessed October 2012.

———. 2013. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status. Available:

http://hank.baaqmd.gov/pln/air_quality/ambient_air_quality.htm. Accessed July 7, 2013.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2013. California Emissions Estimator Model.

Available: http://www.caleemod.com/. Accessed April 21, 2014.

California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2008. State Implementation Plan. Available:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/sip.htm. Accessed March 5, 2013.

———. 2011. Mobile Source Emission Inventory – Categories. Available:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAS-pvQ06s4. Accessed June 28, 2013.

———. 2012a. California State Implementation Plans. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/sip.htm.

Last updated November 16, 2012. Accessed March 13, 2013.———. 2012. Ambient Air Quality

Standards. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf. Accessed March 5, 2013.

———. 2013. Mobile Source Emission Inventory – Current Methods and Data. Available:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/modeling.htm. Accessed June 28, 2013.

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2003 (August). Air Toxics Hot Spots Program

Risk Assessment Guidelines. Available: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/pdf/HRAguidefinal.pdf.

Accessed March 21, 2012.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2011. California Emissions Estimator Model.

Available: http://www.caleemod.com/. Accessed June 28, 2013.

Zhu, Y., W. C. Hinds, S. Kim, and S. Shen. 2002. Study of Ultrafine Particles Near a Major Highway with

Heavy-duty Diesel Traffic. Atmospheric Environment. 36:4323–4335.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAS-pvQ06s4

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/modeling.htm

http://www.caleemod.com/


3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES


Impact




Impact No Impact

IV. Biological Resources. 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 Game or the 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, or

regulations or by the California Department of Fish

and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

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?

3.4.1 INTRODUCTION

This section describes the existing biological resources setting and potential effects from project implementation

on those resources. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based primarily on information contained in a

letter report prepared by LSA in January 2014, a Biological Study Report prepared by Ecosynthesis in February

2014, and a reconnaissance-level site survey conducted by an AECOM biologist on March 30, 2014. Additional

information was obtained from biological resource databases, including the California Department of Fish and

Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the California Native Plant Society (CNPS)

Inventory, aerial photography interpretation, the Solano County General Plan (Solano County 2008); the draft

Solano Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan (SMHCP) (Solano County Water Agency 2012); and the City of

Suisun City General Plan (City of Suisun City 1992).



The project site is located within a mostly developed area at the northeastern edge of the city of Suisun City.

Historically, the project site was used for hay production and surrounding lands were characterized by a mixture

of agriculture, rural residential properties, natural habitat, and Travis Air Force Base. Today, most of the

surrounding area is developed, but open space exists to the east between a neighboring residential development

and Travis Air Force Base. The project site was previously graded and is relatively flat with an elevation range of

45 to 60 feet above mean sea level and slopes generally to the southwest. A constructed drainage swale is present

along the western site boundary of the project site. The swale is very shallow and has an apparent topographic

break somewhere along its length and therefore drains both north and south into an underground residential drain

system.

VEGETATION

Vegetation on the project site is characterized by an association of weedy, nonnative, annual grasses and forbs

commonly found in disturbed upland habitats in the region. Characteristic species observed on site include ripgut

brome (Bromus diandrus), common wild oat (Avena fatua), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), Medusa head

(Elymus caput-medusae), yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), and bristly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca

echioides). Scattered coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) shrubs are present, but there are no trees on the site. The

constructed drainage swale along the western boundary contains turf reinforcement mats seeded with Italian

ryegrass (Festuca perennis). Coyote brush, common fiddleneck (Amsinckia intermedia), and annual willowherb

(Epilobium brachycarpum) were the only native plant species observed on the project site and many of the

dominant species present are listed as invasive by the California Invasive Plant Council or designated as noxious

weeds by the California Department of Food and Agriculture.

There is a slight topographic depression containing aggregate fill mixed with topsoil in the southern portion of the

project site. Vegetation in the depression is characterized by a similar species association as the rest of the project

site except that it includes a greater proportion of Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum), a

weedy species that is equally likely to occur in wetlands or uplands (i.e., a facultative species), compared to the

surrounding grasslands, and also contains low cover of the facultative species bird’s-foot trefoil (Lotus

corniculatus) and broad-leaf pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium). While the depression contains species that can

also occur in wetlands, dominant species in the depression are upland species and the depression does not have

hydric soil indicators or wetland hydrology. The drainage swale along the western boundary also contains a

mixture of weedy upland and facultative species, particularly Italian ryegrass, which was seeded in the swale.

Vegetation within an approximately 12-foot wide band around the perimeter of the site, which includes the

drainage swale, is treated periodically with herbicide to reduce fire risk.

WILDLIFE

Common wildlife species that are likely to be associated with the disturbed habitats present on or immediately

adjacent to the project site are species adapted to disturbed or urban environments, such as western fence lizard

(Sceloporus occidentalis), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), American crow (Corvus branchyrhychos), house

finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), California ground squirrel (Spermophilus

beechyi), black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), and raccoon (Procyon lotor). Small mammals, such as

Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis), and California

meadow vole (Microtus californicus) may also be present and provide prey for a variety of raptor species likely to

hunt in the area, including American kestrel (Falco sparverius), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), and red-

tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis).


SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Sensitive biological resources addressed in this section include those that are afforded consideration or protection

under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), California Fish and Game Code, California Endangered

Species Act (CESA), Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Porter-Cologne

Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act).

Special-status Species

Special-status species include plants and animals in the following categories:

► species officially listed by the state or Federal government as endangered, threatened, or rare;

► candidates for state or Federal listing as endangered or threatened;

► taxa (i.e., taxonomic categories or groups) that meet the criteria for listing, even if not currently included on

any list, as described in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15380 of the State CEQA Guidelines;

► species identified by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) as species of special concern;

► species listed as Fully Protected under the California Fish and Game Code;

► species afforded protection under local or regional planning documents; and

► taxa considered by CDFW to be “rare, threatened, or endangered in California” and assigned a California

Rare Plant Rank (CRPR). The CDFW system includes six rarity and endangerment ranks for categorizing

plant species of concern, which are summarized as follows:

• CRPR 1A - Plants presumed to be extinct in California;

• CRPR 1B - Plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere;

• CRPR 2A - Plants presumed to be extinct in California, but more common elsewhere;

• CRPR 2B - Plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere;

• CRPR 3 - Plants about which more information is needed (a review list); and

• CRPR 4 - Plants of limited distribution (a watch list).

All plants with a CRPR are considered “special plants” by CDFW. The term “special plants” is a broad term used

by CDFW to refer to all of the plant taxa inventoried in CDFW’s CNDDB, regardless of their legal or protection

status. Plants ranked as CRPR 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B may qualify as endangered, rare, or threatened species within

the definition of CEQA Guidelines Section 15380. CDFW recommends that potential impacts to CRPR 1 and 2

species be evaluated in CEQA documents. In general, CRPR 3 and 4 species do not meet the definition of

endangered, rare, or threatened pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15380. However, these species may be

evaluated by the lead agency on a case-by-case basis.

The term “California species of special concern” is applied by CDFW to animals not listed under the federal ESA

or CESA, but that are nonetheless declining at a rate that could result in listing, or that historically occurred in low

numbers and have known threats to their persistence.


Source: CNDDB 2014

Exhibit 3.4-1 CNDDB Occurrences within 3 Miles of the Project Site


A list of special-status species that could potentially occur on the project site or immediate vicinity, provided

suitable habitat conditions were present, was developed primarily through review of CNDDB (2014) and CNPS

Inventory (2014) records of previously documented occurrences of special-status species in the Allendale, Bird’s

Landing, Denverton, Dixon, Dozier, Elmira, Fairfield North, Fairfield South, and Mt. Vaca U.S. Geological

Survey 7.5-minute quadrangles. The project site is located on the Elmira quadrangle. Exhibit 3.4-1 shows the

location of special-status species occurrences recorded in the CNDDB that are within three miles of the project

site. The Solano County General Plan (Solano County 2008) and draft SMHCP (Solano County Water Agency

2012) were also reviewed for information about special-status species known to occur in the area.

Special-status Plants

The project site is situated within an ecologically diverse region that supports a number of rare and endemic plant

species. The CNDDB and CNPS inventories include 38 special-status plant species in the 9-quadrangle search

area. Marginally suitable habitat for pappose tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. parryi), a species considered rare

in California and elsewhere (CRPR 1B.2), is present within the moist topographic depression in the southern

portion of the project site. Suitable habitat for pappose tarplant includes seasonally moist, often alkaline sites in

valley and foothill grasslands. However, the seasonally moist depression on site does not contain species that are

indicative of alkaline soil conditions and that are typically associated with pappose tarplant (e.g., Frankenia

salina, Cressa truxelensis, and Distichlis spicata). Furthermore, this species was not observed by the LSA,

Ecosynthesis, or AECOM botanists that surveyed the site. Although the LSA and Ecosynthesis surveys were

conducted outside of the blooming period for pappose tarplant, plants of this species generally persist long past

the end of the growing season and are visually obvious (Ecosynthesis 2014). The AECOM reconnaissance survey

was conducted during the species’ blooming period and it was not found. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude

that this species is not present on the project site. The remaining 37 special-status plant species known from the

region have no potential to occur on the project site because they are restricted to particular soil types (e.g., saline,

alkaline, serpentine, or heavy clay) or other habitat types (e.g., vernal pools, marshes, meadows and seeps, tidal

mudflats, alkali flats and playas, chenopod scrub, or woodlands) that are not present and the disturbed condition

of the site make it generally unsuitable for most special-status plant species.

Special-status Wildlife

As noted previously, the project site is situated in an ecologically diverse region that supports a diverse fauna,

including a large number of rare species. The CNDDB nine-quadrangle search generated records of 29 special-

status wildlife species and several additional wildlife species are identified in the County’s General Plan and the

SMHCP as occurring in the county. Twenty three of these species were eliminated from further evaluation in this

document because they are restricted to particular habitat types (e.g., chaparral, coastal sage scrub, vernal pools,

streams and rivers, salt marsh, riparian woodland and forest) that are not present on the project site. The

remaining special-status wildlife species are evaluated further in Table 3.4-1.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is a geographic area containing features determined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS) to be essential to the conservation of a species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered

Species Act (ESA). Critical habitat does not have to be occupied by that species at the time it is designated, but it

may be considered necessary for the recovery of the species.

The project site lies within an area designated by (USFWS) as critical habitat for contra Costa goldfields, vernal

pool fairy shrimp, and vernal pool tadpole shrimp, but the site does not contain the essential habitat elements

needed for these species to complete their life processes. Specifically, the site does not contain vernal pools or

other seasonal wetland habitat necessary for the survival and reproduction of these species.


Table 3.4-1 Special-Status Wildlife with Potential to Occur in the Vicinity of the Project Site

Species Listing Status1

Habitat Potential for Occurrence2 Federal State

Birds

Golden eagle

Aquila chrysaetos

(year round)

– FP Forages in large open areas of

foothill shrub and grassland

habitats and occasionally

croplands.

Could forage on the project site, but no suitable

nesting habitat is present. Nearest known nest

locations are in Potrero Hills.

Burrowing owl

Athene cunicularia

(burrow sites)

– SC Nests and forages in grasslands,

agricultural lands, open

shrublands, and open woodlands

with existing underground rodent

burrows or friable soils, and

open, well-drained terrain.

Could occur; no ground squirrel burrows were

observed on site, but habitat is potentially

suitable and there are gopher/vole burrows.

There is a CNDDB record from the Aero Club

airport less than 1 mile to the northeast.

Swainson’s hawk

Buteo swainsoni

(nesting)

– T Forages in grasslands and

agricultural lands; nests in

riparian forests or woodlands and

isolated trees.

Could forage on the project site. Potential

nesting trees are present in surrounding areas,

but not on the project site. There are no CNDDB

nesting records within 5 miles of the project site.

Northern harrier

Circus cyaneus

(nesting)

– SC Nests and forages in grasslands,

agricultural fields, and marshes.

Nests on the ground within

patches of dense, often tall,

vegetation in undisturbed areas

(MacWhirter and Bildstein

1996).

Unlikely to occur; no suitable nesting habitat is

present. The site lacks marsh vegetation and

clump grasses and is highly disturbed. The

nearest CNDDB record of a nesting pair is

5 miles southeast in the Suisun Marsh.

White-tailed kite

Elanus leucurus

(nesting)

– FP Forages in grasslands and

agricultural fields; nests in

riparian zones, oak woodlands,

and isolated trees.

Could forage on the project site. Potential

nesting trees are present in surrounding areas,

but not on the project site. There are no CNDDB

nesting records within 5 miles of the project site.

Loggerhead shrike

Lanius ludovicianus

(nesting)

– SC Forages and nests in grasslands,

shrublands, and open woodlands.

Could occur; suitable foraging habitat and

marginally suitable nesting habitat is present.

There are no CNDDB records of this species in

the nine-quad search area; however, the species

was observed by LSA biologists approximately 1

mile away.

Note:

1 Federal

E Listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act

T Listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act

C Candidate for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act

– No designation

State

E Listed as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act

T Listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act

SC California Species of Special Concern

FP Fully protected species – may not be taken or possessed without a permit from the Fish and Game Commission

– No designation

Sources: CNDDB 2014, USFWS 2014; Data compiled by AECOM in 2014


Waters of the United States

There is a grassy drainage swale along the western boundary of the project site parallel to an existing sidewalk

along Walters Road. This swale appears to have been constructed in uplands based on its topography and the

presence of turf reinforcement mat in the channel. The swale conveys runoff from the project site into an

underground storm drain main line under Walters Road through inlet basins located at either end of the swale.

This underground drain system continues south under Walters Road past Bella Vista Drive, and then turns east

towards the Montebello subdivision. Water is eventually discharged into an agricultural field south of that

subdivision. There does not appear to be any direct hydraulic connectivity between overland flow at the project

site and any surface water body in the project vicinity. Because the swale was constructed in uplands, drains only

uplands, lacks wetland indicators, and does not have an ordinary high water mark, it would not be subject to

regulation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA).

Wetland indicators such as dominance of wetland vegetation or hydric soils are not present in the swale or in the

slight topographic depression in the southern portion of the site. Therefore, there are no wetlands or other waters

of the United States on the project site.

3.4.3 DISCUSSION

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 Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Construction of the proposed project would remove

ruderal vegetation that could serve as foraging and/or nesting habitat for four special-status bird species:

Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl, white-tailed kite, and loggerhead shrike. In addition, all raptors are protected

under Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code, and several common raptor species, including red-

tailed hawk, red-shouldered hawk, and American kestrel could nest in the vicinity of the project site.

Loss of foraging habitat for the four special-status bird species and common raptors would be a less-than-

significant impact because the amount of foraging habitat lost is minimal, and there is abundant foraging habitat

available on the large tracts of agricultural lands and open grasslands in close proximity to the project site. The

highest concentration by far of Swainson’s hawk nest sites in the county is found in the agricultural lands in the

northeastern portion of the county where alfalfa/pasture, grain and hay crops, and row and truck crops are

produced. This area of preferred habitat is approximately 5 miles away and the project site provides

comparatively low-quality habitat because of its small patch size and surrounding existing development.

Construction activities associated with project implementation have the potential to cause direct loss of active

nests or occupied burrows and/or disturbance of nesting pairs, resulting in nest abandonment and mortality of

chicks and eggs. Potential nest trees for Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, and common raptors are limited in

the surrounding area and are separated from the project site by existing development, but there is still some

potential to disturb nesting pairs. The potential loss of an active nest or mortality of chicks and eggs of any of the

four special-status bird species or common raptor species could be a significant impact.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Avoid Loss of Swainson’s Hawk and Other Raptors

To avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential impacts on Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, and other

raptors (not including burrowing owl) in the project vicinity, the project applicant shall retain a qualified

biologist to conduct preconstruction surveys and identify active nests on and within 0.25 mile of the

project site for construction activities conducted during the breeding season (March 1-August 31).

Guidelines provided in Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in

the Central Valley (Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee 2000) shall be followed for surveys


for Swainson’s hawk. Surveys for other nesting raptors shall be conducted no less than 14 days and no

more than 30 days before the beginning of construction for all project phases. If no nests are found, no

further avoidance and minimization measures will be required.

If active Swainson’s hawk or other raptor nests are found, appropriate buffers shall be established around

active nest sites, in coordination with CDFW, to provide adequate protection for nesting hawks and their

young. No project activity shall commence within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has

determined in coordination with CDFW, the young have fledged, the nest is no longer active, or reducing

the buffer would not result in nest abandonment.

Monitoring of the nest by a qualified biologist during and after construction activities will be required if

the activity has potential to adversely affect the nest.


Timing: Less than 14 days and no more than 30 days before the beginning of construction for

all project phases

Enforcement: City of Suisun City and CDFW

Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Avoid Loss of Burrowing Owl

To avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential impacts on burrowing owl, the project applicant shall retain a

qualified biologist to conduct focused breeding and nonbreeding season surveys for burrowing owls in

areas of suitable habitat on and within 1,500 feet of the project site. Surveys will be conducted prior to the

start of construction activities and in accordance with Appendix D of CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing

Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012). If no occupied burrows are found, no further avoidance and minimization

measures will be required.

If an active burrow is found during the nonbreeding season (September 1 through January 31), the project

applicant will consult with CDFW regarding protection buffers to be established around the occupied

burrow and maintained throughout construction. If occupied burrows are present that cannot be avoided

or adequately protected with a no-disturbance buffer, a burrowing owl exclusion and relocation plan will

be developed according to guidance provided in Appendix E of CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl

Mitigation (CDFW 2012). Owls will be relocated outside of the impact area using passive or active

methodologies developed in consultation with CDFW and may include active relocation to preserve areas

if approved by CDFW and the preserve managers. No burrowing owls will be excluded from occupied

burrows until the burrowing owl exclusion and relocation plan is approved by CDFW.

If an active burrow is found during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31), occupied

burrows will not be disturbed and will be provided with a 150- to 1,500-foot protective buffer unless a

qualified biologist verifies through noninvasive means that either: (1) the birds have not begun egg laying,

or (2) juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent

survival. The appropriate size of the buffer (between 150 to 1,500) will depend on the time of year and

level of disturbance as outlined in the CDFW Staff Report (2012:9).The size of the buffer may be reduced

if a qualified biologist, in consultation with CDFW, determines burrowing owls would not be adversely

affected by the proposed activities. If a smaller than recommended buffer is used, a scientifically-

rigorous monitoring program approved by the City and CDFW shall be implemented to ensure burrowing

owls are not detrimentally affected. Once the fledglings are capable of independent survival, the owls will

be relocated outside the impact area following a burrowing owl exclusion and relocation plan developed

according to guidance provided in Appendix E of CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation

(CDFW 2012) and the burrow will be destroyed to prevent owls from reoccupying it. No burrowing owls


will be excluded from occupied burrows until the burrowing owl exclusion and relocation plan is

approved by CDFW.

If active burrowing owl nests are found on the project site and these nest sites are lost as a result of

implementing the project, then the project applicant shall mitigate the loss through preservation of other

known nest sites at a ratio of 1:1, which is the current ratio identified in the draft SMHCP. Preservation

shall be provided through purchase of credits from a CDFW-approved burrowing owl conservation bank

if credits are available for the project area.

All burrowing owl mitigation lands shall be preserved in perpetuity and incompatible land uses shall be

prohibited in habitat conservation areas. Burrowing owl mitigation lands shall be located as close as

possible, based on availability of sufficient suitable habitat, to the project site.


Timing: Prior to the start of construction activities


Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Avoid Loss of Loggerhead Shrike

To the extent feasible, vegetation removal, grading, and other ground disturbing activities will be carried

out during the nonbreeding season (September 1-February 31) for migratory birds to avoid and minimize

impacts to loggerhead shrike and other migratory birds.

If project activities occur during the nesting season for loggerhead shrike (March 1 through August 31), a

focused survey to identify active shrike and other migratory bird nests shall be conducted by a qualified

biologist before commencement of activities. Surveys shall include all areas of suitable nesting habitat

within 200 feet of the project footprint. If no active nests are found, no further avoidance and

minimization measures will be required.

If active nests are found during the surveys, appropriate buffers shall be established to avoid impacts. No

project activity shall commence within the buffer area until a qualified biologist, in consultation with

CDFW, confirms that the nest is no longer active. Given the project location and proposed construction

methods, it is anticipated that CDFW would recommend a 200-foot buffer around a loggerhead shrike

nest to provide adequate protection for nesting shrikes and their young. The size of the buffers may be

reduced if a qualified biologist determines that project activity within a reduced buffer will not be likely

to adversely affect the nest. This should be confirmed with CDFW. The appropriate buffer for common

migratory bird nests is 50 feet.


Timing: If project activities occur during the nesting season for loggerhead shrike (March 1

through August 31), prior to the start of construction activities



With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3, which include guidance for the timing of

construction and survey requirements, the impact is considered less than significant.


b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

No Impact. There are no riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities on the project site. Therefore,

implementation of the proposed project would not have any adverse effects on sensitive natural communities. No

impact would occur.

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?

No Impact. There are no wetlands or other waters of the United States on the project site. Therefore,

implementation of the proposed project would not have any adverse effects on federally protected wetlands or

waters of the United States. No impact would occur.

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?

No Impact. Wildlife corridors are features that provide connections between habitat patches that would otherwise

be isolated and unusable. Based on the biological resources investigation, there are no wildlife corridors or

nursery sites present within the project site. Project development would not interfere substantially with the

movement of any native resident or migratory wildlife species because the project site does not currently provide

an important connection between any areas of natural habitat that would otherwise be isolated. Therefore,

construction of the proposed project would not interfere with the movement of wildlife or impede the use of a

wildlife nursery site. No impact would occur.

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

No Impact. There are no trees or other biological resources on the project site that are protected under local

policies or ordinances. The project area is designated for development in the City’s General Plan and does not

contain natural features identified for preservation or habitat protection. Therefore, project implementation would

not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. No impact would occur.

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. The SMHCP is being prepared by the Solano County Water Agency. Consistency with the SMHCP is

not required because the SMHCP has not been adopted and the schedule for completion is unknown. The current

draft SMHCP maps depict the project site as developed and do not identify the site as a conservation area.

Therefore, project implementation would not conflict with the current draft SMHCP and would not conflict with

the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan. No impact would occur.

References

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012 (May). Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. State of

California Natural Resources Agency. Sacramento, CA.


California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2014. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-02).

Accessed April 7, 2014. Available: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org.

California Natural Diversity Database. 2014 (March). RareFind 5(Commercial Version): An Internet Application

for the Use of the California Department of Fish and Game’s Natural Diversity Database. Biogeographic

Data Branch, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. Accessed March 21, 2014.

City of Suisun City. 1992. City of Suisun City General Plan. Available: http://www.suisun.com/wp-

content/files/CommDev-General-Plan.pdf. Accessed April 7, 2014.

Ecosynthesis Scientific and Regulatory Services. 2014 (February 26). Biological Study Report. Zephyr Estates.

Prepared for SCO Planning, Engineering, and Surveying. Grass Valley, CA. On file with City of Suisun

City.

LSA. 2014 (January 17). Letter report: Results of Reconnaissance-level Biological Survey at the Zephyr Estates

Project Site. Prepared for SCO Planning, Engineering, and Surveying. Grass Valley, CA.

Solano County. 2008 (November). Solano County General Plan. Chapter 4, Resources. Available:

http://www.solanocounty.com/depts/rm/planning/general_plan.asp. Accessed April 7, 2014.

Solano County Water Agency. 2012. Solano Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan Final Administrative Draft.

Prepared by LSA. Available: http://www.scwa2.com/Conservation_Habitat_Docs.aspx. Last updated

October, 2012. Accessed March 21, 2014.

Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee. 2000. Recommended Timing and Methodology for

Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley. Sacramento, CA.

http://www.suisun.com/wp-content/files/CommDev-General-Plan.pdf


http://www.solanocounty.com/depts/rm/planning/general_plan.asp


3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Potentially Significant

Impact




Impact No Impact

V. Cultural Resources. Would the project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the

significance of a historical resource as defined in

Section 15064.5?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the

significance of an archaeological resource pursuant

to Section 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 formal cemeteries?


The following discussion and analysis is based on the confidential archaeological survey report prepared for the

proposed project (Genesis Society 2014).

The majority of researchers indicate that native groups now referred to as the Patwin resided throughout Solano

County prior to Euroamerican contact in the late 1700s. The Patwin occupied a strip of land about 60 kilometers

wide that extended approximately 150 kilometers along the lower Sacramento River and the eastern foothills of

the North Coast Range, terminating at San Pablo and Suisun bays on the south.

Euroamerican contact with the Patwin began with Spanish missionaries and explorers in the late 1700s. By the

middle of the nineteenth century, many Patwin had been relocated to mission settlements, local ranches, or small

reservations. Euroamerican influences within Patwin territory increased dramatically in the 1850s and 1860s as

ranching and farming become the dominant economic activities in the Solano County region. Conflicts between

the Patwin and Euroamericans resulted in a substantial decline in the Patwin population. In 1972 the Bureau of

Indian Affairs listed only 11 remaining Patwin descendants.

Following the California gold rush and the subsequent growth of ranching and farming in Solano County, the

construction of two rail networks spawned further economic growth in the region. In 1868, the completion of the

California Pacific Railroad through Solano County and the establishment of the first railroad stop in the county in

Suisun City facilitated the shipment of goods to east coast markets, significantly bolstering economic

development, agricultural production, and population growth.

Solano County and Suisun City experienced further expansion in the 1960s and 1970s as the suburbs of the San

Francisco Bay Area extended outward. The project site and adjacent lands have been subjected to agricultural,

commercial, and residential development throughout the past 150 years.

The potential paleontological importance of a project site can be assessed by identifying the paleontological

importance of exposed rock units. A paleontologically important rock unit is one that has a high potential

paleontological productivity rating and is known to have produced unique, scientifically important fossils. The

potential paleontological productivity rating of a rock unit exposed at a project site refers to the abundance/


densities of fossil specimens and/or previously recorded fossil sites in exposures of the unit in and near the project

site. Exposures of a specific rock unit in a project site are most likely to yield fossil remains representing

particular species in quantities or densities similar to those previously recorded from the unit in and near the

project site.

Identifiable vertebrate marine and terrestrial fossils are generally considered scientifically important because they

are relatively rare. Marine invertebrate fossil specimens are generally common, well developed, and well

documented. They would generally not be considered a unique paleontological resource. The value or importance

of different fossil groups varies, depending on the age and depositional environment of the rock unit that contains

the fossils, their rarity, the extent to which they have already been identified and documented, and the ability to

recover similar materials under more controlled conditions, such as part of a research project.

The project site is underlain by Holocene alluvial deposits. By definition, in order to be considered a fossil, a

resource must be more than 11,700 years old. Holocene deposits contain only the remains of extant, modern taxa

(if any resources are present), which are not considered “unique” paleontological resources. Therefore, the

Holocene alluvial deposits at the project site are not considered paleontologically sensitive.

3.5.2 DISCUSSION

a), b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource or archaeological resource as defined in Section 15064.5?

Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The cultural resources investigation for the proposed

project consisted of a records search of the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical

Resources Information System (CHRIS), Native American coordination through the Native American Heritage

Commission (NAHC), and a pedestrian survey of the project site by professional archaeologists. The NCIC

records search identified no previously recorded prehistoric or historic-era cultural resources within or adjacent to

the project site. Neither the NAHC or NAHC-provided Native American contacts identified any Native American

cultural resources within or adjacent to the project site. No prehistoric or historic-era cultural resources within or

adjacent to the project site were encountered during the pedestrian survey. Nonetheless, given the extensive

prehistoric and historic-era use of the project area, it is possible that earth-disturbing project construction

activities could inadvertently damage or destroy previously unrecorded subsurface cultural resources.

Therefore, the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource or

archaeological resource is considered a potentially significant impact, requiring mitigation.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Procedures for Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources.

If an inadvertent discovery of cultural materials (e.g., unusual amounts of shell, animal bone, human

remains, bottle glass, ceramics, building remains) is made during project-related construction activities,

ground disturbances in the area of the find shall be halted and the City shall be notified immediately. The

City shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist to determine whether the resource is potentially

significant. If the resource is potentially significant and project implementation may result in potential

impacts, the City, with help from the professional archaeologist, shall develop additional appropriate

protection measures, as needed. Additional protection measures may include, but are not necessarily

limited to additional documentary research, subsurface testing, excavation, and preservation in-place.


Timing: During all earth-disturbing activities.

Enforcement: City of Suisun City



Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 would reduce the potentially significant impact resulting from

inadvertent damage or destruction of significant cultural resources a less-than-significant level because it

requires that disturbances in the area of the find shall be halted, the City shall be notified immediately, and

appropriate treatment and protection measures shall be implemented in consultation with a professional

archaeologist.

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

No Impact. The project is underlain by Holocene-age alluvial deposits. By definition, in order to be considered a

fossil, a resource must be more than 11,700 years old. Holocene deposits contain only the remains of extant,

modern taxa (if any resources are present), which are not considered “unique” paleontological resources.

Therefore, the Holocene alluvial deposits at the project site are not considered paleontologically sensitive, and

there would be no impact.

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed above, the cultural resources investigation

for the proposed project identified no prehistoric, historic-era, or Native American cultural resources within or

adjacent to the project site. Nonetheless, given the extensive prehistoric and historic-era use of the broader

vicinity of the project site, it is possible that earth-disturbing project construction activities could inadvertently

disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

Therefore, the potential to disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, is

considered a potentially significant impact, requiring mitigation.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Procedures for Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains.

In accordance with the California Health and Safety Code, if human remains are uncovered during

ground-disturbing activities, all such activities in the vicinity of the find shall be halted and the City, the

Solano County coroner and a qualified professional archaeologist shall be contacted immediately. The

coroner is required to examine all discoveries of human remains within two working days of receiving

notice of a discovery on private or state lands (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5[b]). If the coroner

determines that the remains are of Native American origin, he or she must contact the Native American

Heritage Commission by phone within 24 hours of making that determination (Health and Safety Code

Section 7050[c]). The City or its appointed representative and the professional archaeologist shall consult

with a Most Likely Descendent determined by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)

regarding the removal or preservation and avoidance of the remains and determine if additional burials

could be present within the project site.





Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2 would reduce the potentially significant impact resulting from

inadvertent disturbance to human remains to a less-than-significant level because it requires that disturbances in


the area of the find shall be halted and the discovery shall be addressed in accordance with applicable state laws

and regulations pertaining to the treatment of human remains.

References

Genesis Society. 2014. Zephyr Estates Project, Suisun City, Solano County, Archaeological Inventory Survey.

Prepared for SCO Planning and Engineering, Inc. April 17. On file at City of Suisun City, CA.


3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS


Impact




Impact No Impact

VI. Geology and Soils. Would the project:

a) 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

California Geological Survey 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 Table 18-

1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as

updated), creating substantial risks to life or

property?

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the

use of septic tanks or alternative waste water

disposal systems where sewers are not available for

the disposal of waste water?


The project site is located at the western edge of the Sacramento Valley which, together with the San Joaquin

Valley, comprises the Central Valley of California. The Central Valley is a forearc basin composed of thousands

of feet of sedimentary deposits, which has undergone alternating periods of subsidence and uplift over millions of

years. The Central Valley basin began to form during the Jurassic (approximately 206 to 145 million years ago) as

the Pacific oceanic plate moved underneath the adjacent North American continental plate. During the Jurassic

and Cretaceous periods of the Mesozoic era (approximately 144 to 66 million years ago), the Central Valley

existed in the form of an ancient ocean. By the end of the Mesozoic, the northern portion of the Central Valley

began to fill with sediment as tectonic forces caused uplift of the basin. By the time of the Miocene epoch

(approximately 24 million years ago), sediments deposited in the Sacramento Valley were mostly of terrestrial


origin. Most of the surface of the Sacramento Valley is covered with Pleistocene and Holocene alluvium

(i.e., 11,000 years before present and younger).

A review of the Geologic Map of the Sacramento Quadrangle (Wagner et al. 1987) indicates that the project site

is underlain by Holocene Alluvium, which ranges in age from 11,700 years Before Present (B.P.) to present day.

It consists of unconsolidated sand, silt, and gravel carried primarily from the Coast Range Mountains to the west

and deposited by local watercourses.

The project site is located approximately 1.75 north of the Kirby Hills Fault. This fault is active, as evidenced by

numerous microearthquakes as large as magnitude 3.7 that have been associated with the fault over the past

32 years (Myer et al. 2010). The Kirby Hills Fault is not included in a Special Studies Zone under the Alquist-

Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. However, any fault (particularly those with evidence of activity during the

Holocene epoch) may result in surface rupture. The Vaca Fault Zone is located approximately 2.25 miles east of

the project site. Based on a preliminary geotechnical investigation prepared for the Fairfield Train Station Specific

Plan (ENGEO 2009), which is located approximately 2 miles northeast of the project site, the Vaca Fault does not

show evidence of activity during the Holocene epoch (last 11,700 years) or Quaternary period (last 1.6 million

years). ENGEO (2009) reviewed the California Geological Survey (CGS) Fault Evaluation Report 136, along

with its referenced Masters Thesis, prepared by P. L. Knuepfer. ENGEO summarized that report to note that,

although geomorphic evidence in the form of offset drainages, closed depressions, and vegetation contracts are

suggestive of Holocene-age faulting, recent alluvium is not offset along the fault trace. The report concludes that

geomorphic features observed in the southern portion of the fault zone were probably caused by differential

erosion along bedrock faults, rather than by active faulting.

The Cordelia Fault is located approximately 6.8 miles west of the project site and the Green Valley Fault (which

is linked with the Concord Fault south of Suisun Bay) is located approximately 8 miles west of the project site

(U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] 1993). The Green Valley Fault is active (i.e., showing evidence of displacement

during Holocene time) and is capable of causing a projected maximum moment magnitude earthquake of 6.2 (Cao

et al. 2003). Surface rupture has occurred along the Green Valley Fault on multiple occasions in the last 2,000

years and the most recent earthquake is estimated to have occurred between 1573 and 1799 (Baldwin et al. 2008).

A magnitude 5.4 earthquake occurred along the Concord Fault in 1955 (approximately 25 miles south of the

project site), which resulted in one fatality and caused generally minor property damage (USGS 2012).

The project site has been previously graded and is nearly flat. The elevation is approximately 50 feet above mean

sea level.

Nearly the entire project site is composed of the Antioch-San Ysidro soil complex. Approximately 0.3 acres in the

northeastern portion of the project site are composed of the Altamont-San Ysidro-San Benito soil complex (U.S.

Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] 2013). A review of NRCS (2013) soil survey data indicates that

the low bearing strength and moderate to high shrink-swell potential of these soil types may present limitations

for construction of local roads and streets, homes, and small commercial buildings without proper engineering and

design. Both soil types are moderately susceptible to water and wind erosion hazards, are moderately permeable,

and are moderately well drained (NRCS 2013).

3.6.2 DISCUSSION

a) 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 California Geological Survey Special Publication 42.)


Less-than-Significant Impact. Surface ground rupture along faults is generally limited to a linear zone a few

yards wide. Since the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone map (USGS

1993), nor is the site located within or immediately adjacent to the trace of any other known fault, surface fault

rupture at the project site is unlikely. This impact is considered less than significant.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is located in a seismically active area

within the western Sacramento Valley. The Kirby Hills Fault is located approximately 1.75 miles south of the

project site, and numerous small earthquakes have been recorded from this fault over the last 30 years (Myer et al.

2010). The Cordelia Fault, located 6.8 miles west of the project site, has shown evidence of activity during the

Pleistocene epoch along the northern portion of the fault (Jennings 1994). Fault creep along the Green Valley

Fault, approximately 12 miles west of the project site, has been recorded (Bryant et al. 2007:Figure 2), and

earthquake activity on this fault has been documented within Holocene time (Baldwin et al. 2008). The Green

Valley Fault is considered to be “active” and is capable of causing an earthquake with a projected maximum

moment magnitude of 6.2 (Cao et al. 2003). In addition, the southern portion of the West Napa Fault and the

Rodgers Creek Fault are located approximately 18 and 25 miles west of the project site, respectively (Jennings

1994). The West Napa and Rodgers Creek faults are active and are each considered capable of generating

earthquakes with a projected maximum moment magnitude of 6.5 and 7.0, respectively (Cao et al. 2003).

Therefore, the potential for damage from strong seismic ground shaking is considered a potentially significant

impact, requiring mitigation.

Mitigation Measure GEO-1a: Prepare Final Geotechnical Report and Implement Recommendations.

Before building permits are issued and construction activities begin in any phase, the project applicant

shall hire a licensed geotechnical engineer to prepare a final geotechnical report, which shall be submitted

for review and approval to the Suisun City Division of Building and Public Works. The final geotechnical

engineering report shall address and make recommendations on the following topics:

► seismic design parameters;

► site preparation;

► soil bearing capacity;

► appropriate sources and types of fill;

► potential need for soil amendments;

► road, pavement, and parking areas;

► structural foundations, including retaining-wall design;

► grading practices;

► soil corrosion of concrete and steel;

► erosion/winterization;

► seismic ground shaking;

► liquefaction; and

► expansive/unstable soils.

In addition to the recommendations for the conditions listed above, the geotechnical investigation shall

include subsurface testing of soil and groundwater conditions (as appropriate), and shall determine

appropriate foundation designs that are consistent with the version of the California Building Standards

Code (CBC) that is applicable at the time of building and grading permits applications.

All recommendations contained in the final geotechnical engineering report shall be implemented. Special

recommendations contained in the geotechnical engineering report shall be noted on the grading plans and

implemented, as appropriate, before construction begins. Design and construction of all project

development shall be in accordance with the CBC. The project applicant shall provide for engineering


inspection and certification that earthwork has been performed, in conformity with recommendations

contained in the geotechnical report.


Timing: Prior to issuance of building permits


Mitigation Measure GEO-1b: Monitor Earthwork during Earthmoving Activities.

All earthwork shall be monitored by a licensed geotechnical or civil engineer retained by the project

applicant. The geotechnical or civil engineer shall provide oversight during all excavation, placement of

fill, and disposal of materials removed from and deposited on construction areas.


Timing: During all earthmoving construction activities


Implementing Mitigation Measures GEO-1a and GEO-1b would reduce the potentially significant impact of

possible damage to people and structures from strong seismic ground shaking to a less-than-significant level by

requiring that the design recommendations of a geotechnical engineer to reduce damage from seismic events be

incorporated into buildings, structures, and infrastructure as required by the CBC. The CBC is intended to allow

buildings to remain structurally intact to reduce risk of serious injury or death from structural building failure as a

result of a seismic event. This mitigation measure also reduces risk since a geotechnical or civil engineer is

required provide on-site monitoring to ensure that earthwork is performed as specified in the plans.

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Soil liquefaction occurs when ground shaking from an

earthquake causes a sediment layer saturated with groundwater to lose strength and take on the characteristics of a

fluid, thus becoming similar to quicksand. Factors determining the liquefaction potential are soil type, the level

and duration of seismic ground motions, the type and consistency of soils, and the depth to groundwater. Loose

sands, peat deposits, and unconsolidated Holocene-age sediments are susceptible to liquefaction, while clayey

silts, silty clays, and clays deposited in freshwater environments are generally stable under the influence of

seismic ground shaking.

A site-specific liquefaction analysis by a licensed geotechnical engineer is not available as of the writing of this

document. However, as discussed above, the project site is located in relatively close proximity to active seismic

sources, and the project site consists of Holocene-age sediments. Furthermore, a shallow groundwater table is

present. As discussed by KC Engineering (2014:6), groundwater was measured between 1.32 and 8.33 feet below

the ground surface in groundwater monitoring wells located approximately 0.35 miles north of the project site (at

2301Walters Road). Therefore, the potential for liquefaction at the project site is considered a potentially

significant impact, requiring mitigation.


Mitigation Measure: Implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1a (Prepare Final Geotechnical Report and Implement Recommendations).

Mitigation Measure: Implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1b (Monitor Earthwork during Earthmoving Activities).


possible damage to people and structures from liquefaction to a less-than-significant level by requiring that a

site-specific liquefaction analysis be performed and, if necessary, that the design recommendations of a

geotechnical engineer to reduce damage from liquefaction be incorporated into buildings, structures, and

infrastructure as required by the CBC.

iv) Landslides?

No Impact. The topography at the project site and immediately adjacent to the project site is nearly level. Thus,

there would be no impact related to landslides.

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A review of NRCS (2013) soil survey data indicates that

project site soils are moderately susceptible to erosion by wind and water. Project implementation would involve

grading and construction activities for infrastructure and building and road foundations. Conducting these

activities would result in the temporary disturbance of soil and would expose disturbed areas to winter storm

events. Rain of sufficient intensity could dislodge soil particles from the soil surface. If the storm is large enough

to generate runoff, localized erosion could occur. In addition, soil disturbance during the summer as a result of

construction activities could result in soil loss and loss of topsoil because of wind erosion. Therefore, impacts

associated with construction-related erosion are considered potentially significant, requiring mitigation.

Mitigation Measure GEO-2: Prepare and Implement a Grading and Erosion Control Plan.

Before grading permits are issued, the project applicant shall retain a California Registered Civil Engineer

to prepare a grading and erosion control plan. The grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted to

the Suisun City Division of Building and Public Works for review before issuance of any grading permit

for on-site work. The plan shall be consistent with Suisun City’s Grading, Erosion Control, and Creekside

Development Ordinance and the state’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, and

shall include the site-specific grading associated with development for all project phases.

The plan referenced above shall include the location, implementation schedule, and maintenance schedule

of all erosion and sediment control measures, a description of measures designed to control dust and

stabilize the construction-site road and entrance, and a description of the location and methods of storage

and disposal of construction materials.

Erosion and sediment control measures could include the use of detention basins, berms, swales, wattles,

and silt fencing, and covering or watering of stockpiled soils to reduce wind erosion. Stabilization of

construction entrances to minimize trackout (control dust) is commonly achieved by installing filter fabric

and crushed rock to a depth of approximately 1 foot. The project applicant shall ensure that the

construction contractor is responsible for securing a source of transportation and deposition of excavated

materials.


Timing: Prior to issuance of any grading permit



Implementing Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would reduce potentially significant construction-related erosion

impacts to a less-than-significant level because a grading and erosion control plan with specific erosion and

sediment control measures such as those listed above would be prepared, approved by Suisun City, and

implemented.

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 with Mitigation Incorporated. A geotechnical engineering report for the project site is

not available as of the writing of this document. However, a review of NRCS (2013) soil data indicate that the

low bearing strength and moderate to high shrink-swell potential of project site soils may present limitations for

construction of homes, commercial buildings, and local roads and streets without proper engineering and design.

Furthermore, KC Engineering (2014) noted that groundwater is present at shallow depths in the project vicinity.

Therefore, depending on the time of year, groundwater may be encountered, especially in areas where deeper

excavation is required for utilities. Shallow groundwater increases the potential for soil instability during

construction, which may result in the collapse of trenches. Therefore, this impact is considered potentially

significant, requiring mitigation.




construction in unstable soils to a less-than-significant level by requiring that the recommendations of a licensed

civil or geotechnical engineer regarding soil bearing capacity, shallow groundwater, and soil stability be

implemented during construction and into the project design, in accordance with the requirements of the CBC.

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as updated), creating substantial risks to life or property?

Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Expansive soils shrink and swell as a result of moisture

change. These volume changes can result in damage over time to building foundations, underground utilities, and

other subsurface facilities and infrastructure if they are not designed and constructed appropriately to resist the

damage associated with changing soil conditions. A review of NRCS (2013) soil survey data indicates that project

site soils are moderately to highly expansive. Soil expansion, including volume changes during seasonal

fluctuations in moisture content, could adversely affect road surfaces, interior slabs-on-grade, landscaping

hardscapes, and underground pipelines. Therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant, requiring

mitigation.



Implementing Mitigation Measures GEO-1a and GEO-1b would reduce the impact from construction in

expansive soils to a less-than-significant level by requiring that the design recommendations of a geotechnical


engineer to reduce damage from expansive soils (such as construction using post-tensioned slabs) be incorporated

into buildings, structures, and infrastructure, as required by the CBC.

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

No Impact. Sewer service for the project site would be provided through installation of a sewer collection system

and conveyance to a treatment plant. There is no impact.

References

Baldwin, J.N., R. Turner, and J.J. Lienkaemper. 2008. Earthquake Record of the Green Valley Fault Lopes

Ranch, Solano County, California: Final Technical Report. Collaborative Research Proposal, Award

Number 06HQGR0144. William Lettis Associates, Inc. and U.S. Geological Survey. Walnut Creek and

Menlo Park, CA.

Bryant, W.A., E.F. Sander, and C.J. Wills. 2007. Digital Database for the Concord and Green Valley Faults:

Final Technical Report. U.S. Geological Survey Project Award No. 05HQGR0029. California Geological

Survey, Sacramento, CA.

Cao, T., W.A. Bryant, B. Rowshandel, D. Branum, and C.J. Wills. 2003. The Revised 2002 California

Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps. Available:

http://conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/psha/fault_parameters/pdf/Documents/B_flt.pdf. Accessed February

28, 2014.

ENGEO, Incorporated. 2009 (April). Geotechnical Feasibility Report, Northeast Fairfield Station Area, Fairfield,

California. Prepared for EDAW, Inc. Rocklin, CA

Jennings, C.W. 1994. Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas. California Division of Mines and

Geology, Geologic Data Map No. 6. Sacramento, CA.

KC Engineering Company. 2014. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of Assessor’s Parcel Number0174-120-

230 East Tabor Avenue and Walters Road, Suisun City, Solano County, California. Prepared for: SCO

Planning and Engineering.

Myer, L., L. Chiaramante, T.M. Daley, D. Wilson, W. Foxall, and J.H. Beyer. 2010. Potential for Induced

Seismicity Related to the Northern California CO2 Reduction Project Pilot Test, Solano County,

California. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA.

U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2013. Web Soil Survey. Available:

http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm. Accessed March 3, 2014.

U.S. Geological Survey. 1993. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Maps. Available:

http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/WH/regulatorymaps.htm. Accessed February 28, 2014.

———. 2012. Historic Earthquakes. Concord, California. Available:

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/events/1955_10_24.php. Last Updated November 2012.

Accessed February 28, 2014.


Wagner, D.L., Jennings, C.W., Bedrossian, T.L., and E.J. Bortugno. 1987. Geologic Map of the Sacramento

Quadrangle. California Division of Mines and Geology. Regional Geologic Map Series, Map No. 1A.

Sacramento, CA.


3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Potentially Cumulatively Considerable

Impact

Less Than Cumulatively Considerable with Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than Cumulatively Considerable

Impact

No Impact

VI. Greenhouse Gases. Would the project:

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or

indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the

environment?

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation

adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of

greenhouse gases?


Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions have the potential to adversely affect the environment because such emissions

contribute, on a cumulative basis, to global climate change. Cumulative impacts are the collective impacts of one

or more past, present, and future projects that, when combined, result in adverse changes to the environment.

Global climate change has the potential to result in sea level rise (resulting in flooding of low-lying areas), affect

rainfall and snowfall (leading to changes in water supply), affect temperatures and habitats (impacting biological

resources), and to result in many other adverse effects.

The proper context for addressing this issue is within an assessment of cumulative impacts. Although the project

will not, by itself, contribute significantly to global climate change, cumulative emissions from many projects and

plans could impact global GHG concentrations and the climate system. Global climate change is a significant

cumulative impact.

Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere, classified as GHGs, play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface

temperature. A portion of the solar radiation that enters earth’s atmosphere is absorbed by the earth’s surface, and

a smaller portion of this radiation is reflected back toward space. Infrared radiation (i.e., thermal heat) is absorbed

by GHGs in the atmosphere; as a result, infrared radiation released from the earth that otherwise would have

escaped back into space is instead “trapped,” resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon, known

as the “greenhouse effect,” is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on Earth.

Global warming potential (GWP) is a concept developed to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the

atmosphere relative to CO2. The GWP of a GHG is based on several factors, including the relative effectiveness

of a gas to absorb infrared radiation and length of time (i.e., lifetime) that the gas remains in the atmosphere

(“atmospheric lifetime”). The GWP of each gas is measured relative to CO2, the most abundant GHG. GHGs with

lower emissions rates than CO2 may still contribute to climate change because they are more effective at

absorbing outgoing infrared radiation than CO2 (i.e., high GWP). The concept of CO2-equivalents (CO2e) is used

to account for the different GWP potentials of GHGs to absorb infrared radiation.

GHG emissions associated with human activities are highly likely responsible for intensifying the greenhouse

effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth’s atmosphere and oceans, with corresponding

effects on global circulation patterns and climate (IPCC 2013). Similarly, impacts of GHGs are borne globally, as

opposed to localized air quality effects of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants. The quantity of GHGs

that it takes to ultimately result in climate change is not precisely known. The quantity is enormous and no single

project would measurably contribute to a noticeable incremental change in the global average temperature, or to

changes in the global or local climate.


Based on the serious risk that climate change poses to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources,

and the environment of California, the State of California enacted legislation intended to reduce GHG emissions.

The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, also known as Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) establishes regulatory,

reporting, and market mechanisms to achieve quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions and a cap on statewide

GHG emissions. The AB 32 Scoping Plan was created as a blueprint for California to achieve its GHG reduction

targets and is undergoing an update as of the writing of this document. Executive Order S-3-05 has a goal of

reducing California’s GHG emissions to year 2000 levels by 2010, 1990 levels by 2020, and 80% below the 1990

levels by the year 2050.

3.7.2 DISCUSSION

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

According to California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15002(g) of the CEQA Guidelines, “a significant

effect on the environment is defined as a substantial adverse change in the physical conditions which exist in the

area affected by the proposed project.” As stated in CCR Section 15064(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the

significance of an activity may vary with the setting (e.g., air basin, applicable significance thresholds).

In addition, as stated in Appendix G, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality

management district may be relied on to make the above determinations. This analysis evaluates the proposed

project’s air quality impacts pursuant to the BAAQMD 2010 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Although the 2010

Guidelines are under legal review, the issues in the court order are not relevant to whether or not BAAQMD’s

analysis provides substantial evidence in support of the proposed significance thresholds. Based on guidance from

BAAQMD, the City has elected to use the following significance thresholds. Pursuant to the 2010 CEQA Air

Quality Guidelines, the proposed project would be considered significant if it would exceed the following criteria:

► Project would generate annual GHG emissions exceeding 1,100 MT CO2e;

► The project’s GHG efficiency would exceed 4.6 MT CO2e/SP/yr

ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

The proposed project’s short-term construction and long-term operational emissions were modeled using the same

models, methods, and assumptions as those described in Section 3.3, “Air Quality.” CalEEMod Version 2013.2.2

can estimate GHG emissions from construction and operational emissions. For operational emissions, in addition

to area, energy, and mobile sources, CalEEMod can also estimate GHG emissions associated with water

consumption and solid waste disposal. Please refer to Appendix A for more detailed information regarding air

quality and GHG modeling.

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

Construction

During construction of the proposed project, short-term and temporary exhaust-related GHG emissions would be

generated from a variety of sources. Construction-related GHG sources include heavy-duty construction

equipment, material delivery trucks, material haul trucks, and construction worker vehicles. Table 3.7-1 presents

the proposed project’s GHG emissions for each phase and annual average emissions over the entire construction

period.


Table 3.7-1 Zephyr Estates Unmitigated GHG Construction Emissions

Construction Phase/Emission Source Emissions

(MT CO2e/year)

Year 2015 320

Year 2016 171

Total Proposed Construction Emissions 491

Amortized Construction Emissions1

16

Notes: MT CO2e/year = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year; 1 Construction emissions are amortized over 30 years, which is the assumed lifetime of the proposed project.

Source: Compiled by AECOM in 2014

Construction-related GHG emissions are short-term and temporary emissions. However, unlike some other air

pollutant emissions, GHG emissions have a longer atmospheric lifetime and can continue to contribute to the

GHG effect for long periods of time (e.g., 100 years). Construction-related GHG emissions can be “amortized”

over the lifetime of the project and added to the annual operational emissions for a more comprehensive

evaluation. This is the approach taken here. See Table 3.7-2 for estimates of amortized construction emissions.

Operation

Operational GHG emissions would be generated from several operational activities including transportation, area

sources, energy consumption, water consumption, and solid waste generation. Transportation-related GHG

emissions include vehicles coming to and leaving from the proposed uses. Transportation is the main source of

GHG emissions for most development projects, including this one. Energy consumption-related GHG emissions

include the electricity and natural gas consumption for lighting, cooling, and heating of the proposed buildings.

Water consumption-related GHG emissions include the electricity embodied in potable water consumption at the

project site. For example, each gallon of potable water used by the proposed uses required electricity for the

treatment and conveyance from the source. Solid waste-related GHG emissions are those associated with the

decomposition of the proposed project-generated solid waste. Please refer to Table 3.7-2 for estimates of the

project’s operational emissions.

As discussed above, CalEEMod can calculate GHG emissions associated with all of these operational emission

sources. In addition, CalEEMod can account for site design features that would reduce GHG emissions. For the

proposed project, the site density (i.e., 8 dwelling units per acre), land use diversity (i.e., retail and residential),

and improved on-site pedestrian network (i.e., connectivity between the retail and residential land uses) were

selected in CalEEMod as project design features. CalEEMod estimates emissions assuming typical turnover in

vehicle fleets and increased emissions technology. ARB’s EMFAC2011 Scenario Generator (SG) was used to

calculate the emissions with the current reductions associated with emission reduction requirements (Pavley I and

LCFS).

In addition to evaluating a project’s total annual GHG emissions, it is also important to evaluate the rate at which

a project generates GHG emissions with respect to its supported land uses. In other words, although a project may

be large in size, it could provide services (e.g., residential or commercial land uses) at a more efficient rate than a

smaller project. Therefore, pursuant to BAAQMD’s guidance, this analysis also evaluates the proposed project’s

GHG efficiency, which is the amount of annual GHG emissions generated per service population. Service

population is the sum of residents and employees supported by a project.

As shown in Table 3.7-2, the proposed project’s annual mass emissions would not exceed BAAQMD’s mass

emissions (“bright line”) threshold of significance. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate GHG

emissions at a level that would directly or indirectly have a significant impact on the environment. Using

BAAQMD’s approach, if projects are less than either the “bright line” or the efficiency threshold, impacts would


be considered less than cumulatively considerable. The project would have a less than cumulatively

considerable contribution to the significant cumulative impact of global climate change.

Table 3.7-2 Zephyr Estates Unmitigated GHG Operational Emissions

Emissions Source Emissions

(MT CO2e/year)1

Area 7

Energy 294

Mobile 2

686

Waste 40

Water 18

Amortized Construction Emissions 3

16

Total Operational Mass Emissions 1,062

BAAQMD Mass Emissions Threshold 1,100

Exceeds BAAQMD Mass Emissions Threshold? No

Proposed Project Service Population 4

168

Proposed Project GHG Efficiency (MT CO2e/SP/yr) 6.3

BAAQMD GHG Efficiency Threshold (MT CO2e/SP/yr) 4.6

Exceeds BAAQMD Threshold? Yes

Notes: MT CO2e/year = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year; BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District;

MT CO2e/SP/yr = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per service population per year. 1 All emissions shown are in units of MT CO2e/year unless noted otherwise.

2 Mobile source emissions include statewide emissions reductions associated with Pavley I and Low Carbon Fuel Standard.

3 Construction emissions were amortized over 30 years, which is the assumed lifetime of the proposed project.

4 “Service population” is the sum of residents and employees. This analysis assumes an average household size of 2.5 and an average

employment density of 813 square feet per employee.

Source: Compiled by AECOM in 2014

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Less than Cumulatively Considerable. At the time of this writing, the City of Suisun City has not yet developed

and adopted a climate action plan. The State of California has adopted The California Global Warming Solutions

Act of 2006 (AB 32), but this creates a legislative mandate for the state as a whole, not for local governments,

such as the City. The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375) aligns regional

transportation planning efforts, regional GHG reduction targets, and fair-share housing allocations under state

housing law. SB 375 requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to adopt a Sustainable Communities

Strategy (SCS) or Alternative Planning Strategy (APS) to address GHG reduction targets from cars and light-duty

trucks in the context of that MPO’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The Metropolitan Transportation

Committee (MTC), which is the applicable MPO for the project area, and Association of Bay Area Governments

(ABAG) adopted the Plan Bay Area plan. Pursuant to SB 375 reduction targets determined by ARB, the Plan Bay

Area plan (i.e., MTC and ABAG) is required to achieve a 7% reduction in per capita GHG emissions from 2005

levels by 2020, and a 15% reduction in per capita emissions from 2005 levels by 2035. However, SB 375 does not

include any mandate for city or county land use policies. The only regulation that directly pertains to the City’s

action on the proposed project relates to lead agency obligations to address GHG emissions in CEQA

documentation. This document demonstrates that emissions attributable to the project would not exceed

applicable significance thresholds within the context of CEQA and the impact is considered less than

cumulatively considerable.


References

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis Working

Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Available: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf.

IPCC. See Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf


3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS


Impact




Impact No Impact

VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. 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/or 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?

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?


HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

KC Engineering Company (KC Engineering) was retained by the project applicant to prepare a Phase I

Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the project site in 2014. KC Engineering reviewed records dating back

to 1908 and, other than hay crops that may have been grown in the 1950s, the project site has consisted of vacant

land. There are no known aboveground or underground storage tanks, no utilities, no buildings, no debris, and no

evidence of any stained or odiferous soil or groundwater (KC Engineering 2014).


As part of the Phase I ESA, KC Engineering obtained a database search from Environmental Data Resources, Inc.

of 105 regulatory databases, for information that is provided by various agencies as part of California Public

Resources Code (PRC) Section 65962.5 (i.e., the “Cortese List”) and other federal requirements. Those databases

included the following (among others):

► Federal National Priorities List (NPL)

► Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System

(CERCLIS) (i.e., Superfund sites)

► Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) lists

► State and tribal NPL-equivalent lists

► State and tribal CERCLIS-equivalent lists

► State and tribal Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) lists

► Local lists of hazardous waste sites

► Records of emergency release reports

► Local Brownfield lists

► Local lists of landfills/solid waste disposal sites

The results of these database searches indicate there are no known areas of contaminated soil or groundwater at

the project site. Based on a site visit, interviews, and records searches, KC Engineering (2014) determined that the

project site does not contain any recognized environmental conditions.

There is one open, active case of off-site hazardous materials contamination within 0.25 miles of the project site.

This is a contaminated groundwater plume at Travis Air Force Base (KC Engineering 2014). The potential hazard

from this contaminated groundwater plume is evaluated in Section 3.9, “Hydrology and Water Quality.”

SCHOOLS IN THE PROJECT VICINITY

There are no K-12 schools within 0.25 miles of the project site. The closest K-12 school is Tolenas Elementary,

located at 4500 Tolenas Road in Fairfield, approximately 0.5 miles west of the project site.

AIRPORT SAFETY

The project site is located approximately 2 miles northwest of the nearest runway at Travis Air Force Base (AFB).

The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for Travis AFB was adopted in 2002 by the Solano County

Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The intent of land use safety compatibility criteria in the ALUCP is to

minimize the risks associated with an off-airport aircraft accident or emergency landing, and to minimize safety

risks to aircraft from tall objects, glare, and disruption of communications. Safety policies in the ALUCP focus on

prevention and reducing the potential consequences of such events when they occur. Risks to both people and

property in the vicinity of the airport and to people on board the aircraft are considered in the ALUCP (ALUC

2002). The project site is located in Zone D of the Travis Compatibility Zones depicted in Figure 2A of the

ALUCP. Limitations on the height of structures are the only compatibility factors within this zone. Airspace

review is required for proposed structures greater than 200 feet in height. A footnote in the table outlining

Compatibility Policies also indicates that hazards to flight are prohibited. Examples include uses that attract birds.


The project site is located approximately 3,100 feet southwest of the former Travis Aero Club. In 2006, the Aero

Club was provided with funding from K. Hovnanian to relocate its operations to the Rio Vista Municipal Airport.

WILDLAND FIRE HAZARDS

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE) has developed fire hazard severity zones

as a way to predict fire damage. The zones depicted on CALFIRE maps take into account the potential fire

intensity and speed, production and spread of embers, fuel loading, topography, and climate (e.g., temperature and

the potential for strong winds). The project site is located within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA), and that

LRA is designated as a moderate fire hazard severity zone (CALFIRE 2007).

3.8.2 DISCUSSION

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

Less-than-Significant Impact. Project development with residential uses would involve the storage, use, and

transport of hazardous materials (e.g., asphalt, fuel, lubricants, paint) during construction activities.

Transportation of hazardous materials on area roadways is regulated by the California Highway Patrol and the

California Department of Transportation, and use of these materials is regulated by the California Department of

Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), as outlined in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. The project

applicant, builders, contractors, and future residents would be required to use, store, and transport hazardous

materials in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations during project construction and

operation.

Construction contractors would be required to comply with Cal/EPA’s Unified Program. Regulated activities

would be managed by the Solano County Department of Resource Management, Environmental Health Services

Division, the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA), in accordance with the regulations included in the

Unified Program (e.g., hazardous materials release response plans and inventories, and California Uniform Fire

Code hazardous material management plans and inventories). Such compliance would reduce the potential for

accidental release of hazardous materials during construction of the proposed project.

Because the project would be required to implement and comply with existing hazardous material regulations, and

because each of these regulations is specifically designed to protect the public health through improved

procedures for the handling of hazardous materials, better technology in the equipment used to transport these

materials, and a more coordinated quicker response to emergencies, impacts related to the creation of significant

hazards to the public through routine, transport, use, disposal, and risk of upset are considered less than

significant.

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and/or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

Less-than-Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Based on a search of hazardous waste databases

performed for the Phase I ESA (KC Engineering 2014), there are no known existing hazardous conditions at the

project site. However, there is a potential for accidental spills from fuels, oils, solvents, paints, and other materials

that would be used during the construction process. Accidental spills of these hazardous materials could result in

soil, groundwater, or surface water contamination. Therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Implement Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1 (Prepare and Implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and Associated Best Management Practices).


Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would reduce the potentially significant temporary, short-term

construction-related impacts associated with potential spills of hazardous materials to a less-than-significant

level by requiring the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan with

appropriate best management practices, such as spill prevention and contingency measures to reduce the potential

for accidental spills and implementation of appropriate and timely cleanup activities if spills do occur.

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. There are no existing or proposed K-12 schools within 0.25 miles of the project site. There is no

impact.

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

No Impact. Based on a search of hazardous waste databases performed for the Phase I ESA (KC Engineering

2014), the project site is not included on the Cortese List. There is no impact.

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?

Less-than-Significant Impact. There are no public or private airports within 2 miles of the project site. However,

the project site is located approximately 2 miles northwest of the main runways at Travis AFB. The project site is

located within ALUCP land use compatibility Zone D (Solano County ALUC 2002:Figure 2A). There are no

limits to the numbers of dwelling units or people per acre for new development within Zone D. However, ALUC

review, and Federal Aviation Administration review in accordance with the provisions of Federal Aviation

Regulation (FAR) Part 77, are required for any proposed object taller than 200 feet within Zone D. Furthermore,

land uses that may cause visual, electronic, or bird strike hazards to aircraft in flight are not permitted within

12,500 feet of the Travis AFB runways.

None of the proposed on-site land uses would exceed 200 feet in height. The proposed 1.5 acres of commercial

uses and 7.1 acres of residential uses would not introduce substantial new sources of glare or the types of

electronic communications that would interfere with aircraft flight. The two proposed on-site bioretention areas in

the northwest and southwest portions of the project site would encompass a total of 2,203 square feet, and

therefore are not expected to result in substantial new habitat for waterfowl. This is particularly true given the

proximity of the project site to the unnamed tributary to McCoy Creek, approximately 1,165 feet west of the

project site, which provides substantially better habitat for waterfowl as compared to the two proposed on-site

bioretention areas. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to result in aircraft safety hazards or hazards

for people on the ground, and this impact is considered less than significant.

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 within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Thus, there would be no

impact.

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

Less-than-Significant Impact. The 8.6-acre project site is undeveloped and construction materials, equipment,

and personnel would be staged on site. The project site is accessible by emergency vehicles from the west, north,


northeast, and southeast sides via existing roadways. The relatively limited amount of proposed development and

the limited amount of associated construction would result in only minor increases in short-term, temporary,

construction-related traffic on local roadways. Therefore, project-related construction activities would not

substantially impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation

plan. This impact is considered less than significant.

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 surrounding area is characterized by residential, agricultural, commercial,

and public land uses. There are existing residences on adjacent properties to the east, southwest, and northwest of

the project site. Fallow agricultural land and a cocktail lounge are located to the west of the project site, across

Walters Road. A church is located to the north of the project site, across East Tabor Avenue. The project site has

been previously graded and is covered with annual grasses.

In LRAs, CALFIRE is required to delineate three hazard ranges: moderate, high, and very high fire hazard

severity zones. The project site and the surrounding area are located within a LRA designated as a moderate fire

hazard severity zone (CALFIRE 2007). Within a LRA, the financial responsibility of preventing and suppressing

fires falls primarily on local fire districts maintained by cities and counties. Fire suppression services to the

project site would be provided by the Suisun City Fire Department. The Fire Department provides fire protection

services within the incorporated area of the City from one fire station located at 621 Pintail Drive approximately

1.5 miles southwest of the project site.

Because the project site is not located in or near an area of high fire hazard severity, and because adequate fire

protection services would be provided by a local fire protection district, this impact would be less than

significant.

References

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2007 (October). Solano County Fire Hazard Severity

Zones in Local Responsibility Area. Available:

http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps_solano.php. Accessed May 6, 2014.

KC Engineering Company. 2014 (January). Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of Assessor's Parcel Number

0174-120-230, East Tabor Avenue and Walters Road, Suisun City, Solano County, CA. Prepared for:

SCO Planning & Engineering. Project No. VV3594. Vacaville, CA.

Solano County Airport Land Use Commission. 2002 (June). Travis Air Force Base Land Use Compatibility Plan.

Prepared by: Shutt Moen Associates. Santa Rosa, CA. Available:

http://www.co.solano.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=3929. Accessed May 6, 2014.


3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY


Impact


with Mitigation Incorporated


Impact No Impact

IX. Hydrology and Water Quality. 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 that 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 on- or off-site erosion or

siltation?

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 on- or off-site flooding?

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?

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures

that 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) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?


SURFACE WATER

Drainage and Watersheds

The project area lies within the San Francisco Bay Drainage Province. The project site straddles the border

between two watersheds: the north/northwestern half of the project site is located in the Laurel Creek-Frontal


Suisun Bay Watershed, while the south/southeastern half is located in the Union Creek-Frontal Suisun Bay

Estuaries Watershed.

The primary surface waters in the Laurel Creek-Frontal Suisun Bay Watershed are Laurel Creek and Dan Wilson

Creek, both of which flow southward into Suisun Marsh and Suisun Bay. McCoy Creek, a tributary to Laurel

Creek, is located approximately 1.3 miles southwest of the project site. An unnamed tributary to McCoy Creek is

located approximately 0.2 miles directly west of the project site. This tributary flows underneath East Tabor

Avenue in a southwesterly direction, where it eventually flows into McCoy Creek and thence into Laurel Creek

and thence into Suisun Marsh.

The primary surface water in the Union Creek-Frontal Suisan Bay Estuaries Watershed is Union Creek. Union

Creek originates to the north of Travis Air Force Base (AFB). It flows in a southwesterly direction through the

AFB and discharges into Suisun Marsh. An unnamed creek flows through the western portion of the AFB and

along the eastern edge of the housing development that adjoins the eastern portion of project site. This creek is

located approximately 0.2 miles directly east of the project site. It flows southward for another approximately

0.65 miles before disappearing underneath the Montebello housing development.

The project site has been previously graded and is nearly flat. The elevation is approximately 50 feet above mean

sea level. Sheet flow from the project site drains westward into an existing on-site swale, where it eventually

enters one of two storm drain inlets in the northern (adjacent to East Tabor Avenue) and southern (adjacent to

Walters Road) portions of the project site. The underground storm drain system in Walters Road continues south

past Bella Vista Drive, and then turns east towards the Montebello housing development. Water is eventually

discharged into an agricultural field south of that housing development. There does not appear to be any direct

hydraulic connectivity between overland flow at the project site and any surface water body in the project vicinity.

Hydraulics

Floodplain designations are important hydraulic engineering considerations when constructing buildings, roads,

and bridges. The most recent Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Study (FIS)

Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), revised January 2013, identifies the project site as being located in the

unshaded Zone X classification (see Exhibit 3.9-1). Unshaded Zone X is an area of minimal flood hazard, located

outside the 500-year floodplain and protected from the 100-year flood.

Erosion Potential

Nearly the entire project site is composed of the Antioch-San Ysidro soil complex. Approximately 0.3 acres in the

northeastern portion of the project site are composed of the Altamont-San Ysidro-San Benito soil complex (NRCS

2013). Most soils can be categorized into hydrologic soil groups (which apply only to surface soil layers) based

on runoff-producing characteristics. Hydrologic soil groups are factored into calculations of erosion potential

when drainage plans are prepared. Both soil types on the project site are classified by the Natural Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS) as Group D—soils that have a very slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. The

Group D soils on the project site have a high clay content that results in a very slow rate of water transmission,

and therefore a very high runoff potential.


Source: FEMA 2013

Exhibit 3.9-1 Floodplain Mapping


Water Quality

As previously indicated, there does not appear to be any direct hydraulic connectivity between overland flow at

the project site and any surface water body in the project vicinity. The existing storm drain system, which the

proposed project would tie into, appears to eventually discharge into an agricultural field in the vicinity of

Peterson Road. Overland flow in the Peterson Road area is to the south, and eventually into Suisun Marsh, which

is listed as impaired on the California 303(d) list issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)

for the following pollutants and sources (SWRCB 2010):

► mercury from urban runoff, storm sewers, and hydromodification;

► nutrients from urban runoff, storm sewers, and hydromodification;

► organic enrichment/low dissolved oxygen from urban runoff, storm sewers, and hydromodification; and

► salinity, total dissolved solids, and chlorides from urban runoff, storm sewers, and hydromodification.

GROUNDWATER

Groundwater Hydrology

The project site is located in the San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region, within the Suisun-Fairfield Valley

groundwater basin (Basin 2-3). This basin is bounded by the Coast Ranges to the west and north, the Sacramento

groundwater basin (Solano Subbasin) to the east, and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Suisun Bay to the

south. Bulletin 118 (California Department of Water Resources [DWR] 1975:36) indicates that the Suisun-

Fairfield Valley groundwater basin encompasses 260 square miles and is drained primarily by Green Valley,

Suisun, Ledgewood, and Laurel Creeks. This groundwater basin consists of younger and older alluvium along

with older volcanics and sediments. The depth to water-bearing formations reportedly ranged from 10-200 feet,

and the total storage capacity of the basin was reported to be 225,000 square feet (DWR 1975:36). A current

description of the Suisun-Fairfield Valley groundwater basin has not yet been completed by DWR (DWR 2014).

Groundwater Quality

The depth to groundwater at the project site is unknown. However, it was measured as 1.32 to 8.33 feet below the

ground surface in groundwater monitoring wells located approximately 0.35 mile north of the property at 2301

Walters Road. Groundwater flow direction was reported to the southwest in these wells (KC Engineering 2014).

In the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the project, KC Engineering (2014) indicated that the

western limit of the Travis AFB groundwater contamination plume is located approximately 0.2 miles east of the

project site. Travis AFB is identified on several databases including the National Priority List (NPL). Travis AFB

covers over 5,025 acres in Solano County, and is identified on numerous databases as having contaminated soil

and groundwater. Contaminants identified in the groundwater and storm sewers consist of benzene,

chlorobenzene, dichloroethane, dichloroethylene, trichloroethane, tetrachloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and

endrin. Chlorobenzene was detected in Union Creek, which flows across Travis AFB. Travis AFB contains

approximately 137 underground storage tanks. Based on KC Engineering’s review of the NPL delineation of the

contaminated groundwater plume from Travis AFB, the project site is not located within the contamination

plume. According to the databases reviewed by KC Engineering, groundwater contamination from Travis AFB

does not affect Suisun City's water supply.

3.9.2 DISCUSSION

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?


Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Implementing the proposed project would entail

earthmoving activities on approximately 8.6 acres of land. Construction activities associated with the project,

including vegetation removal, grading, staging, trenching, and foundation excavation, would expose soils to

erosive forces and could transport sediment into local drainages, thereby increasing turbidity, degrading water

quality, and resulting in siltation to local waterways. Intense rainfall and associated stormwater runoff could result

in short periods of sheet erosion within areas of exposed or stockpiled soils. If uncontrolled, these soil materials

could cause sedimentation and blockage of drainage channels.

Non-stormwater discharges could result from activities such as construction dewatering procedures, or discharge

or accidental spills of hazardous substances such as fuels, oils, petroleum hydrocarbons, concrete, paints, solvents,

cleaners, or other construction materials. This contaminated runoff could enter the storm drain system and

ultimately be washed into Suisun Bay via overland or sheet flow from the point of discharge. Erosion and

construction-related wastes have the potential to temporarily degrade existing water quality and beneficial uses by

altering the dissolved oxygen content, temperature, pH, suspended sediment and turbidity levels, or nutrient

content, or by causing toxic effects in the aquatic environment.

Therefore, if uncontrolled, project-related construction activities could violate water quality standards or cause

direct harm to aquatic organisms. This impact is considered significant, requiring mitigation.

Mitigation Measure: Implement Mitigation Measure GEO-2 (Prepare and Implement a Grading and Erosion Control Plan).

Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1: Prepare and Implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and Associated Best Management Practices.

Prior to the start of earth-moving activities, the project applicant shall obtain coverage under the San

Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (Order R2-2009-0074) (San

Francisco Bay RWQCB 2009), including preparation and submittal of a project-specific storm water

pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) at the time the Notice of Intent to discharge is filed. The project

applicant shall also prepare and submit erosion and sediment control and engineering plans and

specifications for pollution prevention and control to the Suisun City Building and Public Works

Department. The SWPPP shall identify and specify:

► the use of an effective combination of robust erosion and sediment control Best Management

Practices (BMPs) and construction techniques accepted by Suisun City for use in the project area at

the time of construction, that would reduce the potential for runoff and the release, mobilization, and

exposure of pollutants, including legacy sources of mercury from project-related construction sites.

These may include but would not be limited to temporary erosion control and soil stabilization

measures, sedimentation ponds, inlet protection, perforated riser pipes, check dams, and silt fences as

discussed and described in the Fairfield-Suisun Urban Runoff Management Program (Cities of

Fairfield and Suisun City 2006);

► the implementation of approved local plans, non-stormwater management controls, permanent post-

construction BMPs, and inspection and maintenance responsibilities;

► the pollutants that are likely to be used during construction that could be present in stormwater

drainage and nonstormwater discharges, including fuels, lubricants, and other types of materials used

for equipment operation;

► the means of waste disposal;


► spill prevention and contingency measures, including measures to prevent or clean up spills of

hazardous waste and of hazardous materials used for equipment operation, and emergency procedures

for responding to spills;

► personnel training requirements and procedures that would be used to ensure that workers are aware

of permit requirements and proper installation methods for BMPs specified in the SWPPP; and

► the appropriate personnel responsible for supervisory duties related to implementation of the SWPPP.

Where applicable, BMPs identified in the SWPPP shall be in place throughout all site work and

construction activities and shall be used in all subsequent site development activities. BMPs may include,

but are not limited to:

► Implementing temporary erosion and sediment control measures in disturbed areas to minimize

discharge of sediment into nearby drainage conveyances, in compliance with state and local standards

in effect at the time of construction. These measures may include, but are not limited to, silt fences,

staked straw bales or wattles, sediment/silt basins and traps, geofabric, sandbag dikes, and temporary

vegetation.

► Establishing permanent vegetative cover to reduce erosion in areas disturbed by construction by

slowing runoff velocities, trapping sediment, and enhancing filtration and transpiration.

► Using drainage swales, ditches, and earth dikes to control erosion and runoff by conveying surface

runoff down sloping land, intercepting and diverting runoff to a watercourse or channel, preventing

sheet flow over sloped surfaces, preventing runoff accumulation at the base of a grade, and avoiding

flood damage along roadways and facility infrastructure.

A copy of the approved SWPPP shall be maintained and available at all times on the construction site.

Implementation: Project applicant and contractor(s)

Timing: Prior to the issuance of any grading permit

Enforcement: City of Suisun City and San Francisco Bay RWQCB

Implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-2 and HYDRO-1 would reduce the significant impact from

potential violation of water quality standards to a less-than-significant level because a grading and erosion

control plan and a SWPPP, both containing BMPs specifically designed to prevent erosion and protect water

quality, would be prepared, approved by Suisun City, and implemented. These plans are required by law to

specify and implement water quality control measures pursuant to the San Francisco Bay RWQCB NPDES permit

for construction activity (Order R2-2009-0074) (San Francisco Bay RWQCB 2009); the Fairfield-Suisun Urban

Runoff Management Program (Cities of Fairfield and Suisun City 2006); and the Suisun City Grading, Erosion

Control, and Creekside Development Ordinance (Chapter 15.12 of the Suisun City Code of Ordinances).

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 preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

Less-than-Significant Impact. The project would entail construction of 59 residential homes along with 1.5

acres of commercial uses, and new streets and sidewalks. Some of the project site would be used for commercial


and residential landscaping, along with vegetated drainage swales and two bioretention areas, where groundwater

recharge would still occur after project implementation. In addition, five of the proposed residential units along

Carswell Lane would have pervious areas designated for water quality treatment where groundwater infiltration

would occur. Proposed changes to the 8.6-acre project site would not be anticipated to substantially interfere with

groundwater recharge. Finally, potable water and water for landscape irrigation for the project would be provided

by Suisun City rather than from on-site groundwater, and therefore project implementation would not affect the

local groundwater table. This impact 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 on- or off-site erosion or siltation?

Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Construction of the proposed residences, streets, and

commercial uses would substantially alter the on-site drainage pattern. A storm drain system would be installed

underneath the proposed on-site street network that would convey runoff to the existing storm drain main line

underneath Walters Road. The proposed project also includes on-site drainage improvements including

installation of vegetated swales, bioretention water quality basins, and permeable areas for water quality treatment

associated with residences located along Carswell Lane. However, a drainage plan showing final designs and

specifications, including measures designed to protect long-term water quality, as required by the Suisun City

Engineering Standards and Specifications, the Fairfield-Suisun Urban Runoff Management Program (Cities of

Fairfield and Suisun City 2006), and the Hydromodification Management Plan for the Fairfield-Suisun Urban

Runoff Management Program (Balance Hydrologics and GeoSyntec Consultants 2009) has not yet been prepared

or submitted to Suisun City for review. Therefore, this impact is considered significant, requiring mitigation.

Mitigation Measure HYDRO-2: Prepare and Submit Final Drainage Plans and Implement Requirements Contained in Those Plans.

Before the approval of grading plans and building permits, the project applicant shall submit final

drainage plans to the Suisun City Building and Public Works Department demonstrating that off-site

upstream runoff would be appropriately conveyed through the project site, and that project-related on-site

runoff would be appropriately contained in detention basins or managed with through other improvements

(e.g., source controls) to reduce flooding, erosion, and water quality impacts.

The plans shall include, but are not limited to, the following items:

► an accurate calculation of pre-project and post-project runoff scenarios, obtained using appropriate

engineering methods consist with the Suisun City Engineering Standards and Specifications, that

accurately evaluates potential changes to runoff, including increased surface runoff;

► runoff calculations for the 10-year and 100-year (0.01 AEP) storm events (and other, smaller storm

events as required) shall be performed and the trunk drainage pipeline sizes confirmed based on

alignments and detention facility locations finalized in the design phase;

► a description of the proposed maintenance program for the on-site drainage system;

► project-specific standards for installing drainage systems;

► a description of on-site features designed to treat storm water and maintain storm water quality before

it is discharged from the project site (e.g., vegetated swales, infiltration trenches, and constructed

wetland filter strips);

► pre-development and post-development calculations demonstrating that the proposed water quality

BMPs meet or exceed requirements established by Suisun City and including details regarding the


size, geometry, and functional timing of storage and release pursuant to the Suisun City Engineering

Standards and Specifications; and

► source control programs to control water quality pollutants on the project site, which may include but

are not limited to recycling, street sweeping, storm drain cleaning, household hazardous waste

collection, waste minimization, prevention of spills and illegal dumping, and effective management of

public trash collection areas.


Timing: Before the approval of grading plans and building permits


Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYDRO-2 would reduce the significant impact associated with erosion

and siltation from alteration of on-site drainages to a less-than-significant level because final drainage plans that

are consistent Suisun City Engineering Standards and Specifications, the Fairfield-Suisun Urban Runoff

Management Program (Cities of Fairfield and Suisun City 2006), and the Hydromodification Management Plan

for the Fairfield-Suisun Urban Runoff Management Program (Balance Hydrologics and GeoSyntec Consultants

2009) would be prepared, submitted to Suisun City for review, and implemented. These programs are designed to

reduce erosion and siltation.

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 on- or off-site flooding?

Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Construction of the proposed residences, streets, and

commercial uses would substantially alter the on-site drainage pattern. A storm drain system would be installed

underneath the proposed on-site street network that would convey runoff to the existing storm drain main line

underneath Walters Road. However, a drainage plan showing final designs and specifications, including

calculations showing that the proposed on-site drainage system would appropriately prevent on-site or

downstream off-site flooding from project development, as required by the Suisun City Engineering Standards

and Specifications, has not yet been prepared or submitted to Suisun City for review. Therefore, this impact is

considered significant, requiring mitigation.

Mitigation Measure: Implement Mitigation Measure HYDRO-2 (Prepare and Submit Final Drainage Plans and Implement Requirements Contained in Those Plans).

Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYDRO-2 would reduce the significant impact associated with

downstream off-site flooding from alteration of on-site drainages to a less-than-significant level because final

drainage plans that are consistent Suisun City Engineering Standards and Specifications related to flooding would

be prepared, submitted to Suisun City for review, and implemented. The Standards and Specifications are

designed to prevent on-site and downstream off-site flooding.

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 with Mitigation Incorporated. As described in c) above, an on-site storm drain system

would be installed underneath the proposed street network that would convey runoff to the existing storm drain

main line underneath Walters Road. Project development would introduce new sources of water pollutants,

thereby producing “urban runoff.” Pollutants contained within urban runoff may include but are not limited to


sediment, oxygen-demanding substances (e.g., organic matter), nutrients (primarily nitrogen and phosphorus),

heavy metals, bacteria, oil and grease, and toxic chemicals, all of which can degrade receiving water quality. In

addition to the proposed underground storm drainage network, the proposed project also includes on-site drainage

improvements consisting of vegetated swales, bioretention water quality basins, and permeable areas for water

quality treatment associated with residences located along Carswell Lane. All of these features would help to treat

pollutants that may be contained in project-related storm water runoff.

A drainage plan showing final designs and specifications, including calculations showing that the proposed on-

site drainage system would be appropriately sized to convey stormwater runoff along with a listing of appropriate

BMPs designed to provide permanent stormwater quality treatment, as required by the Suisun City Engineering

Standards and Specifications and the Fairfield-Suisun Urban Runoff Management Program (Cities of Fairfield

and Suisun City 2006), have not yet been prepared or submitted to Suisun City for review. Therefore, this impact

is considered significant, requiring mitigation.

Mitigation Measure: Implement Mitigation Measure HYDRO-2 (Prepare and Submit Final Drainage Plans and Implement Requirements Contained in Those Plans).

Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYDRO-2 would reduce the significant impacts associated with sizing of

the proposed drainage system and treatment of pollutants in stormwater runoff to a less-than-significant level

because final drainage plans that are consistent Suisun City Engineering Standards and Specifications and the

Fairfield-Suisun Urban Runoff Management Program (Cities of Fairfield and Suisun City 2006) would be

prepared, submitted to Suisun City for review, and implemented. The Standards and Specifications and Program

are designed to protect water quality and ensure adequate stormwater facilities.

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed previously, KC Engineering (2014) prepared

a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the project, and they indicated that the western limit of the Travis

AFB contaminated groundwater plume is approximately 0.2 miles (1,050 feet) east of the project site. Therefore,

the project site is not located within the contaminant plume. As indicated by KC Engineering, groundwater

contamination from Travis AFB does not affect Suisun City's water supply. Because the project would not include

installation of on-site groundwater wells and the contaminant plume is not located underneath the project site, and

because the contaminant plume has not affected the quality of Suisun City water (which would be used to supply

the proposed project), the project would have no effect on, nor would it be affected by, the Travis AFB

groundwater contaminant plume.

Groundwater has been measured at levels that are approximately 1 to 8 feet below the ground surface (KC

Engineering 2014). Shallow groundwater conditions could adversely affect excavation stability and result in

unstable working conditions, resulting in the need for dewatering during excavation activities. Sediments and

contaminants could enter the groundwater directly from construction activities where the groundwater table is

intercepted. Therefore, this impact is considered significant, requiring mitigation.

Mitigation Measure HYDRO-3: Prepare and Implement a Construction Dewatering Plan.

The project applicant shall prepare a Dewatering Plan prior to commencing dewatering activities. All

dewatering activities shall comply with applicable waste discharge requirements issued by the San

Francisco Bay RWQCB. The Dewatering Plan shall specify measures to prevent/minimize sediment and

contaminant releases into groundwater during excavation activities and methods to clean up releases.

These methods may include, but are not limited to, using temporary berms or dikes to isolate construction

activities; using vacuum trucks to capture contaminant releases; and maintaining absorbent pads and other

containment and cleanup materials on-site to allow an immediate response to contaminant releases if they

occur.





Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYDRO-3 would reduce the significant water quality impact associated

with potential groundwater contamination from dewatering activities to a less-than-significant level because a

Dewatering Plan with measures designed to protect groundwater quality would be prepared, consistent with

applicable waste discharge requirements developed by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB, and submitted to Suisun

City for review, and implemented. These waste discharge requirements are designed to avoid adverse effects to

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?

No Impact. As shown in Exhibit 3.9-1, the proposed project would not entail development within a 100-year

flood hazard area. Thus, there would be no impact.

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows?

No Impact. As shown in Exhibit 3.9-1, the proposed project would not entail the placement of any structures

within a 100-year flood hazard area. Thus, there would be 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. The proposed project would include small stormwater bioretention ponds that would have a broad,

flat slope and would not fall under Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) jurisdiction. The project site is not in an

area protected by dams and no new levees or dams are proposed as part of the project that would fall under DSOD

jurisdiction for dam safety. Thus, there would be no impact.

j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

No Impact. Earthquakes may affect open bodies of water by creating seismic sea waves and seiches. Seismic sea

waves (often called “tidal waves”) are caused by abrupt ground movements (usually vertical) on the ocean floor in

connection with a major earthquake. Because the project site is far from the Pacific Ocean, seismic sea waves

would not represent a hazard. A seiche is a sloshing of water in an enclosed or restricted water body, such as a

basin, river, or lake, which is caused by earthquake motion; the sloshing can occur for a few minutes or several

hours. Because the project site is located approximately 8.6 miles north of Suisun Bay, seismic seiches would not

represent a hazard. Thus, there would be no impact.

References

Balance Hydrologics, Inc. and GeoSyntec Consultants. 2009 (February). Hydromodification Management Plan

for the Fairfield-Suisun Urban Runoff Management Program. Available:

http://www.balancehydro.com/pdf/hydromodfairfiel.pdf. Accessed March 28, 2014.


California Department of Water Resources. 1975. California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118. Available:

http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/groundwater/bulletin_118/california's_ground_water__bulletin_118-

75_/b118-1975.pdf. Accessed March 31, 2014.

———. 2014. Basins and Subbasins of the San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region. Available:

http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/bulletin118/san_francisco_bay.cfm. Accessed March 31, 2014.

Cities of Fairfield and Suisun City. 2006 (May). Fairfield-Suisun Urban Runoff Management Program. Storm

Water Requirements For Development Projects—Packet for Project Applicants. Available:

http://www.suisun.com/wp-content/files/Stormwater-Project-Applicant-Packet-All.pdf. Accessed March

28, 2014.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2013 (January 16). The National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) GIS

dataset. Available: http://www.msc.fema.gov. Accessed March 13, 2014.

K.C. Engineering Company. 2014 (January). Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of Assessor’s Parcel

Number 0174-120-230, East Tabor Avenue and Walters Road, Suisun City, Solano County, CA. Prepared

for SCO Planning and Engineering. Vacaville, CA. On File with City of Suisun City.

San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2009 (October). Municipal Regional Stormwater

NPDES Permit. Order R2-2009-0074. NPDES Permit No. CAS612008. Available:

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb2/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2009/R2-2009-0074.pdf. Accessed

March 28, 2014.

State Water Resources Control Board. 2010. The 2010 Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d)

List/305(b) Report). Categories 4a, 4b, and 5. Available:

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2010.shtml. Accessed March 27,

2014.

http://www.msc.fema.gov/

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2010state_ir_reports/category5_report.shtml


3.10 Land Use And Planning



3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING

Issue Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-Than-

Significant

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?

3.10.1 Existing Conditions

The current General Plan designation and zoning classification for the property is 6 acres of General Commercial

and 2.6 acres of Residential High-Density (RH). Both a General Plan Amendment and Rezoning application have

been applied for by the applicant. In addition, the applicant has applied for a Planned Unit Development

requesting deviations from the current zoning regulations.

Immediately south and east of the project site is the Peterson Ranch residential subdivision that consists of over

500 housing units. North of the project site is a Jehovah’s Witness conference facility and west is vacant land

located in the City of Fairfield.

3.10.2 Regulatory Framework

Suisun City 1992 General Plan

The City of Suisun City General Plan, adopted by the Suisun City Council in 1992, is a comprehensive long-range

planning document that sets the overall land use and planning policy affecting development in the City, including

this property. Subsequently, the City of Suisun City adopted a Housing Element in 2009.

Land Use Element

The Peterson Ranch area is described in the Land Use Element of the General Plan under Policy 11:

Policy 7: Planned Unit Development (PUD) agreements or specific plans will be required which involve special

design considerations, infill projects which require sensitivity to surrounding land uses , developments which

propose densities that are substantially higher than surrounding developments in the same land use classification.

Policy 11: Because of the unique characteristics of the Peterson Ranch property and its strategic importance to the

City to fulfill several critical needs specified in this General Plan, the Peterson Ranch shall be developed under





the Planned Unit Development process. Further, a development agreement shall be required to ensure that critical

land use, housing, and public facilities objectives are met. (See also Chapter III Community Character Element,

Policies 6 and 16; and Chapter VII, Community Facilities Element, Policies 6 and 7.)

Discussion: The Peterson Ranch has several unique characteristics that make it especially crucial that

this property is carefully developed and warrants the above restrictions:

It is located on one of the key entry corridors into the city, as identified by the Community

Character Element;

Policy 12.C: Medium Density. The purpose of this classification is to promote ownership housing that is

affordable to middle-income households, to others who desire ownership opportunities with less property to

maintain, and to allow for rental housing at densities that are intermediate between single-family neighborhoods

and high-density or commercial districts. Areas developed at medium density should be located in or near the Old

Town area (in accordance with Specific Plan), along arterial streets, adjacent to commercial land uses and public

facilities, and as transitional areas between single-family neighborhoods and high density residential or

commercial land uses. Standards for building coverage will be established by the City’s Development Guidelines .

Buildings should not exceed two to three stories in height. (See also infill Policy 9 of Chapter II.)

Medium Density residential uses adjacent to single family uses should be designed to protect the privacy of, and

to reduce noise and visual impacts to, neighboring single family homes. The maximum density should be fifteen

dwelling units per acre, although the average density would be ten to twelve dwelling units per acre (gross).

Development at the maximum density would accommodate 45 persons per acre, assuming an average household

size of three persons. Building coverage should not exceed fifty percent of the land area.

Policy 13: Suisun City’s Commercial Needs. The City seeks to attract a variety of non-residential land uses. The

City’s commercial needs will be of three general types, and the General Plan established land use classifications

accordingly (see Policies C-1.2. C1.3, and C1.4). These three general types of commercial land uses are shown

below. The purpose of these categories is to segregate commercial uses based on function and the level of impact,

with those commercial land uses most compatible with residential development and providing goods and services

to residences being located adjacent to residential neighborhoods. Other commercial uses are designated for areas

which can be isolated from residential neighborhoods by location and site design. The three commercial

categories are:

Retail and service commercial centers serving the several neighborhoods in Suisun City.

Regional serving commercial land uses oriented to access along arterial streets or Highway 12.

Business parks containing a mixture of land uses involving light manufacturing, assembly of

components for finished products, sales/business offices, storage, and distribution.

The City’s Zoning Ordinance will be primary means of implementing the population density and building

intensity standards in this section of the General Plan.

Policy 14: General Community Commercial. The purpose of this designation is to allow multi-acre planned

commercial developments that contain retail, personal and business services, and/or office uses intended to serve

the entire City. The location of such uses is generally dependent on access to arterial streets. General commercial

land uses located adjacent to residential uses should have proper screening and site design to minimize noise and

other land use conflicts. The site and building design of these uses should enhance the character of Suisun City

(See Chapter II, Goal B regarding community character).

Buildings in the General Commercial classification should be a maximum of three stories. The maximum

coverage of buildings and paved surfaces (including parking) should be no more than 80 percent of the land area,





and the maximum floor area ration should be 1.0. The average FAR is more likely to be 0.35 when parking and

landscaping requirements are considered. At this building intensity, the maximum worker density should range

from 40 to 175 persons per acre, depending on the types of land uses, with the average worker density ranging

from 15 to 60 workers per acre. The maximum building intensity could only be achieved with a three story

building and underground or multi-story parking.

Suisun City Zoning Ordinance

Section 18.10.010 “Purpose” of the Suisun City Zoning Ordinance states “The R-M district is designated in

certain areas primarily for medium-density residential uses of a multiple dwelling nature and the community

services appurtenant thereto. The regulations for this district are designated to stabilize and protect the essential

characteristics of the district, to promote and encourage, insofar as they are compatible with the intensity of land

use, a suitable environment for family life.”

Section 18.28.010 “Purpose” of Suisun City Zoning Ordinance states “The general commercial district is

established to allow for the provision of community-wide retail, office, institutional and service uses which are

dependent upon location at or near major arterial street intersections, especially along Highway 12 and Sunset

Avenue.”

The applicant has submitted a Planned Unit Development application in order to request some flexibility from the

Residential Medium-Density zoning regulations which is allowed for the in the Zoning Ordinance. The PUD is

intended to allow a flexible approach to site design that may deviate from some minimum standards applicable to

the zoning district, but which on the whole is in conformance with the comprehensive land use development

scheme outlines in the General Plan. and which may result in a better community environment than would occur

with strict adherence to all of the zoning regulations pertaining to the district.

a) No Impact – The project site is currently vacant and located adjacent to residential development. The

proposed subdivision project can be characterized as infill and would not divide an established community.

b) No Impact – The project site is designated as General Commercial and Residential High-Density in the City

of Suisun City General Plan. Although the proposed project is not consistent with the current designation, the

applicant has submitted an application for a General Plan Amendment for a reduction in acreage for General

Commercial and inclusion of a Residential Medium-Density designation which the General Plan states can

have a maximum density of 15 units/acre. The proposed project would fall below this density.

Assuming approval of the requested General Plan Amendment, rezoning, and PUD, the proposed project

would not result in any significant impacts related to conflicts with the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance.

c) No Impact. The proposed Solano Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (Solano MSHCP) is intended to

promote the conservation of biologically significant areas while simultaneously allowing urban development

and the continuation of ongoing land use activities, such as agriculture. The Solano MSHCP has not been

formally adopted, but is expected to come forward soon. As proposed, the Solano MSHCP is a 50-year plan

designed to create a reserve of connected natural habitats throughout Solano County and a portion of Yolo

County. The timeframe for completing the Solano MSHCP and subsequent agency approval and authorization

of its take and conservation provisions is unknown. Since the Solano MSHCP has not been adopted, the

proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of any other approved local, regional, or state habitat

conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.





References


content/files/CommDev-General-Plan.pdf. Accessed April 21, 2014.

City of Suisun City, 2014. City of Suisun City Municipal Code Title 18 Zoning. Available:

https://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=16647.Accessed April 21, 2014



https://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=16647.Accessed


3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES


Impact




Impact No Impact

XI. Mineral Resources. 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?


Under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA), the State Mining and Geology Board may designate

certain mineral deposits as being regionally significant to satisfy future needs. The Board’s decision to designate

an area is based on a classification report prepared by the California Geological Survey (CGS) and on input from

agencies and the public. In compliance with SMARA, CGS has established the classification system shown in

Table 3.11-1 to denote both the location and significance of key extractive resources.

Table 3.11-1 California Geological Survey Mineral Land Classification System

Classification Description

MRZ-1 Areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present or where it is

judged that little likelihood exists for their presence

MRZ-2 Areas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present or where it is

judged that a high likelihood for their presence exists

MRZ-3 Areas containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated from existing data

MRZ-4 Areas where available data are inadequate for placement in any other mineral resource zone

Note: MRZ = Mineral Resource Zone

Source: Dupras 1988:7

The project site is located within the designated Sacramento-Fairfield Production-Consumption Region for

Portland cement concrete aggregate, which includes all designated lands within the marketing area of the active

aggregate operations supplying the Sacramento-Fairfield urban center (Dupras 1988:2). The western half of the

project site is located within an area classified by CGS as MRZ-1 (no significant mineral deposits are present),

and the eastern half is classified as MRZ-4 (available data are inadequate for placement in any other mineral

resource zone) (Dupras 1988:Plate 32).

The project site does not lie within an area designated by the Suisun City General Plan or any other plan as a

locally important mineral resource recovery site (Solano County 2008: Chapter 4).


3.11.2 DISCUSSION

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 project site is located within areas classified by CGS as MRZ-1 and MRZ-4 – areas where no

significant mineral deposits are present or where available data are inadequate for placement in any other mineral

resource zone (Dupras 1988:Plate 32). Therefore, project implementation would not result in the loss of

availability of known mineral resources of statewide importance, and there would be 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. The project site does not lie within an area designated by the Suisun City General Plan or the Solano

County General Plan as a locally important mineral resource recovery site (City of Suisun City 1992; Solano

County 2008:Chapter 4). Thus, there would be no impact.

References


content/files/CommDev-General-Plan.pdf. Accessed March 4, 2014.

Dupras, D.L. 1988. Mineral Land Classification: Portland Cement Concrete-Grade Aggregate in the

Sacramento-Fairfield Production-Consumption Region. Special Report 156. California Division of Mines

and Geology. Sacramento, CA.

Solano County. 2008. Solano County General Plan. Chapter 4: Resources. Prepared by: EDAW, Inc. [now

AECOM]. Available: http://www.co.solano.ca.us/depts/rm/planning/general_plan.asp. Accessed March 4,

2014.


3.12 NOISE


Impact




Impact No Impact

XII. Noise. Would the project result in:

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise

levels in excess of standards established in the

local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other

applicable local, state, or federal standards?

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive

groundborne vibration or groundborne noise

levels?

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise

levels in the project vicinity above levels existing

without the project?

d) 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?


Noise-sensitive land uses generally include those uses where exposure to noise would result in adverse effects, as

well as uses where quiet is an essential element of their intended purpose.1 Noise-sensitive land uses in the

vicinity of the project site include residences on adjacent properties to the south and east of the project site, as

well as residences at a greater distance from the project site west of Walters Road – both north and south of the

project site. A church is located north of the project site north of East Tabor Avenue.

Primary noise sources in the vicinity of the project site include vehicular traffic and overflights associated with

Travis Air Force Base (AFB).

Ambient noise level measurements were taken to in the vicinity of the proposed project on Wednesday and

Thursday, April 16 and 17, 2014, between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. One long-term ambient noise measurement

was conducted at a residential backyard (1712 Carswell Lane). Short-term ambient noise level measurements

were conducted at four locations. These locations were specifically selected to characterize existing noise

conditions around the project site and to provide a baseline against to which potential noise increases related to

the proposed project. One of the short-term noise level measurements (ST-03) was completed to determine

1 Residences are of primary concern because of the potential for increased and prolonged exposure of individuals to both interior and

exterior noise levels. Other noise-sensitive land uses include hospitals, convalescent facilities, parks, hotels, churches, libraries, and

other uses where low noise levels are essential.


existing traffic noise exposure and for the purpose of assessing the accuracy of the traffic noise modeling efforts.

During this measurement, concurrent traffic counts were collected, traffic speeds were assessed, and site

conditions such as roadway grade and condition were reported for the purpose of “calibrating” the Federal

Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model (RD-177-108), which was used to predict

traffic noise levels in the project vicinity.

Results of these noise level measurements are summarized in Table 3.12-1, and the measurement locations are

shown in Figure 3.12-1. The existing ambient noise environment is compatible with noise-sensitive land uses,

such as the proposed and surrounding residential development. The existing noise environment in the project area

was dominated by local and distant traffic, distant aircraft operations, residential activities, and natural sources.

Table 3.12-1 Noise Monitoring Locations

Site Location Time

Measured Sound Level, dB

Leq Lmax Ldn

1 Church Site (Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses) 4:32 p.m. 52 71 --

2 East of East Intersection of Tabor Avenue and Charleston Street 1:53 p.m. 55 66 --

3 East of Walters Road, On-site, just north of residential back yard 2:20 p.m. 67 78 --

4 Behind residential units, South of East Tabor Avenue, east of Walters Road 2:49 p.m. 52 63 --

LT Long-term (24 hour) measurement at the backyard of 1721 Carswell Lane 4:00 p.m.

to 3:00 p.m. 52 68 60

Notes: dB = decibels; Leq = equivalent sound level (average sound energy occurring over a specified time period); Lmax = maximum sound

level (the maximum instantaneous sound level measured during a measurement period); Ldn = day-night level (energy-average of the

A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 10 dB added to the A-weighted sound levels occurring during the period from

10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. [nighttime]). Noise level measurements were completed using a Larson Davis Laboratories (LDL) Model 824

precision integrating sound level meter. The meter was calibrated prior to the measurements using an LDL Model CAL200 acoustical

calibrator. The meter was programmed to recorded A-weighted sound levels using a “slow” response. The equipment used complies with all

pertinent requirements of the American National Standards Institute for Class 1 sound level meters (ANSI S1.4).

Source: Data compiled by AECOM in 2014

Existing traffic noise levels were evaluated using the FHWA model and traffic analysis prepared to support this

Initial Study.2 Table 3.12-2 presents the estimated traffic noise exposure in terms of the Ldn at a distance of 50 feet

from the centerline of the studied roadway segments. Additionally, Table 3.12-2 summarizes the 60, 65, and 70

dB Ldn traffic noise contour locations relative to the roadway segment centerlines.3

2 Additional modeling input data included the day/night distribution of traffic, vehicle speeds, vehicle fleet distribution (i.e., percent of

automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks), and ground attenuation factors.

3 The sound pressure level is the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness of a sound level. The decibel (dB) scale is

used to quantify sound intensity. Because sound pressure can vary enormously within the range of human hearing, the logarithmic

decibel scale is used to keep sound intensity numbers within a convenient and manageable range. The human ear is not equally

sensitive to all frequencies within the entire sound spectrum, so noise measurements are weighted more heavily for frequencies to

which humans are sensitive; this specific ”filtering” of sound is called “A-weighting.” Because humans are less sensitive to low

frequency sound than to high frequency sound, A-weighted sound levels de-emphasize low frequency sound energy to better represent

how humans hear. Different sound level measurement descriptors are used to characterize the time-varying nature of sound. These

measurements include the equivalent sound level (Leq), the minimum and maximum sound levels (Lmin and Lmax), percentile-

exceeded sound levels (Ln), the day-night sound level (Ldn), and the community noise equivalent level (CNEL). Ldn and CNEL

values rarely differ by more than 1 dB.



Figure 3.12-1 Noise Measurement Locations


Table 3.12-2 Existing Traffic Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity (Ldn)

Roadway Name Segments Existing No

Project @ 50 feet

Contour Distances (feet)

From To 70 dB 65 dB 60 dB

Air Base Parkway Walters Road Peabody Road 73 81 175 377

Air Base Parkway Walters Road Clay Bank Road 72 72 155 334

Walters Road Air Base Parkway Huntington Court 61 13 28 59

Walters Road Air Base Parkway East Tabor Avenue 68 34 74 159

Walters Road East Tabor Avenue Gunter Drive 66 29 62 134

Walters Road Gunter Drive State Route 12 66 29 62 134

Walters Road State Route 12 Rio Vista Road 57 7 15 33

East Tabor Avenue Walters Road Charleston Street 59 9 19 41

East Tabor Avenue Walters Road Solano Road 63 16 35 76

Charleston Street East Tabor Avenue Gunter Drive 56 6 13 29

Gunter Drive Walters Road Charleston Street 45 1 2 5

Notes: dB = decibels; Ldn = day-night level (energy-average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 10 dB

added to the A-weighted sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. [nighttime]).


EXISTING VIBRATION

The existing vibration environment, similar to that of the noise environment, is dominated by transportation-

related vibration from roadways in the vicinity of the project site. Heavy truck traffic can generate groundborne

vibration, which varies considerably depending on vehicle type, weight, and pavement conditions. However,

groundborne vibration levels generated from vehicular traffic are not typically perceptible outside of the road

right-of-way.

3.12.2 DISCUSSION

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal standards?

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

CONSTRUCTION NOISE

Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Consistent with the City’s Municipal Code,

outdoor construction activities are required to be limited to the hours between 7:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M. on

weekdays and Saturdays and between 8:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M. on Sundays. Construction noise would be short-

term and temporary, and operation of heavy-duty construction equipment would be intermittent throughout the

day during construction.

Project construction would result in additional vehicle trips on the local roadway network from worker

commuting and the transport of equipment and materials. The exact number of daily trips required for project


construction is not known. However, construction trips associated with this project will not approach 500 daily

one-way trips (ADT). Assuming construction-related traffic volume of 500 ADT, project-related construction

traffic noise level increases along any of the studied roadways would be no more than 0.7 dB. In general, a 1-dB

increase in noise level is imperceptible, a 3-dB increase is barely perceptible, and a 6-dB increase is clearly

noticeable. This impact is considered less than significant.

Construction activities associated with the proposed project would temporarily increase noise in the project

vicinity. Noise would be generated by equipment such as graders, backhoes, skip loaders, water trucks, and other

miscellaneous equipment.

During construction, worst-case noise impacts on residents in the project vicinity would include site grading,

clearing, and excavation associated with the site preparation phase. Assuming a worst case scenario, two graders

and one water truck would be used in the primary site grading activity directly adjacent to existing residents living

south and southeast of the project site. A conservative but reasonable assumption is that this equipment would

operate simultaneously and continuously over at least a 1-hour period in the vicinity of the closest existing

residents, but would spend no more than 10 percent of that time directly adjacent to any one residence. For noise

exposure modeling purposes, the graders and water truck were assumed to operate up to 6 minutes in the

proximity of each sensitive use (homes adjacent to the project site) during any given hour. The resulting hourly

noise exposure was calculated to be 80 dB Leq (83 dB L10) at a distance of 50 feet from the equipment, or at the

closest noise-sensitive receptor locations. This level of noise would be is more than 10 dB Leq above the existing

ambient noise level and is considered potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Implement Best Management Practices to Control Construction Noise.

► Fixed/stationary equipment (e.g., generators, compressors, cement mixers) shall be operated in

locations that are as far as possible from existing noise-sensitive receptors. All impact tools shall be

shrouded or shielded, and all intake and exhaust ports on powered construction equipment shall be

muffled or shielded.

► All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and equipped with noise-reduction intake

and exhaust mufflers and engine shrouds, in accordance with manufacturers’ recommendations.

► Equipment engine shrouds will be closed during equipment operation.

► All motorized construction equipment shall be shut down when not in use.

► Written notification of heavy construction activities (heavy earth-moving) shall be provided to all

noise-sensitive receptor properties located within 500 feet of the project site. Notification shall

include anticipated dates and hours during which construction activities are anticipated to occur and

contact information, including a daytime telephone number, for the project representative to be

contacted in the event that noise levels are deemed excessive. Recommendations to assist noise-

sensitive land uses in reducing interior noise levels (e.g., closing windows and doors) will be included

in the notification.

► Temporary property line barriers (e.g., sound blankets) shall be installed to reduce construction-

generated noise levels at affected noise-sensitive land uses. The barriers will be designed to obstruct

the line of sight between the noise-sensitive land use (adjacent, ground level backyards receptors) and

on-site construction equipment within 100 feet of the property line.

► Site preparation construction activities (grading and any other heavy earth moving) shall be limited to

the hours between 7:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. on weekdays and 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. on Saturdays.

No such activities shall occur on Sundays or federal holidays.



Timing: During all phases of construction



Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would reduce project-related construction below 70 dB Leq for

receivers directly adjacent to the project site. During construction, worst-case noise impacts on residents in the

project vicinity would include site grading, clearing, and excavation associated with the site preparation phase.

Worst-case noise exposure could occur for roughly 6 minutes in the proximity of each sensitive use during any

given hour. The worst-case noise exposure construction sub phase is limited to less noise-sensitive times of the

day. With implementation of this mitigation, the impact is considered less than significant.

TRAFFIC NOISE

Less-than-Significant Impact. Project-related traffic noise on off-site roadways was assessed at existing noise-

sensitive uses to determine the effect of permanent traffic noise level increases relative to the ambient (without

project) conditions.

Table 3.12-3 summarizes modeled CNEL/Ldn at 50 feet from the roadway centerline for affected roadway segments

under existing conditions and with Project implementation. The estimated distances to the 70 dB Ldn, 65 dB Ldn,

and 60 dB Ldn traffic noise contours with implementation of the project are also summarized in Table 3.12-3. As

shown, project-related traffic noise level increases range between 0.0 dB to 1.0 dB. This noise level increase is

not noticeable.4

To satisfy land use/noise compatibility criteria at proposed and existing noise-sensitive uses, it was assumed that

exterior noise exposure should not exceed 60 dB Ldn at residential uses. As shown in Table 3.12-3, predicted

traffic noise levels already exceed 60 dB Ldn under existing conditions. As shown, the theoretical noise level along

existing roadways would not increase substantially as a result of project traffic. Implementation of the proposed

project is estimated to result in changes in traffic noise levels ranging from +0.0 dB to +1.0 dB, relative to existing

noise levels. In general, a 1-dB increase in noise level is imperceptible, a 3-dB increase is barely perceptible, and a

6-dB increase is clearly noticeable. The applicant’s proposed site plan indicates that an 8-foot sound wall is

planned along the western portion of the project site between proposed homes and Walters Road. The amount of

noise level reduction or “shielding” provided by a barrier primarily depends on the size of the barrier, the location

of the barrier in relation to the source and receivers, and the frequency content of the noise source. The

effectiveness of a barrier depends on the ability to block the line of sight between the source and receiver.

Effectiveness is improved when sound must travel a longer distance to pass over the barrier than if it were

traveling in a straight line from source to receiver. In general, barriers are most effective when placed close to

either the receiver or the source. In this case, the applicant has placed the barrier close to the outdoor gathering

4 Modeled roadway noise levels assume no natural or artificial shielding and, therefore, these estimates should be considered

conservative (potentially overestimating impacts). Actual traffic noise exposure levels in the vicinity of the project site would vary

depending on a combination of factors, such as variations in daily traffic volumes, shielding provided by existing and proposed

structures, and meteorological conditions. For a stationary point source of sound, sound attenuates at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of

distance. For a line source of sound such as free flowing traffic on a freeway, sound attenuates at a rate of approximately 3 dB per

doubling of distance. Atmospheric conditions including wind, temperature gradients, and humidity can change how sound propagates

over distance and can affect the level of sound received at a given location. The degree to which the ground surface absorbs acoustical

energy also affects sound propagation. Sound that travels over an acoustically absorptive surface such as grass attenuates at a greater

rate than sound that travel over a hard surface such as pavement. The increased attenuation due to ground absorption is typically in the

range of 1 to 2 dB per doubling of distance. Barriers such as building and topography that block the line of site between a source and

receiver also increase the attenuation of sound over distance. Auditory and non-auditory effects on people can result from excessive or

chronic exposure to elevated noise levels. Auditory effects of noise on people can include temporary or permanent hearing loss. Non-

auditory effects of exposure to elevated noise levels include sleep disturbance, speech interference, and physiological effects, such as

annoyance. Land use compatibility standards for noise are typically based on research related to these auditory effects.


spaces (backyards) associated with the proposed noise-sensitive use. This impact is considered less than

significant.

Table 3.12-3 Traffic Noise Levels (Ldn)

Roadway Roadway Segments

Existing No Project

dB, Ldn at 50 feet

Existing with Project

Incr

ease

fro

m P

roje

ct

Ldn dB at 50 feet

Contour Distances (feet)

From To 70 dB 65 dB 60 dB

Air Base Parkway Walters Road Peabody Road 73.2 73.2 82 176 380 0

Air Base Parkway Walters Road Clay Bank Road 72.4 72.5 73 157 338 0.1

Walters Road Air Base Parkway Huntington Court 61.1 61.1 13 28 59 0.0

Walters Road Air Base Parkway East Tabor Avenue 67.5 67.7 35 76 164 0.2

Walters Road East Tabor Avenue Gunter Drive 66.4 66.6 29 64 137 0.2

Walters Road Gunter Drive State Route 12 66.4 66.5 29 63 135 0.1

Walters Road State Route 12 Rio Vista Road 57.2 57.2 7 15 33 0.0

East Tabor Avenue Walters Road Charleston Street 58.8 59.8 10 22 48 1.0

East Tabor Avenue Walters Road Solano Road 62.7 62.8 16 35 76 0.1

Charleston Street East Tabor Avenue Gunter Drive 56.4 56.5 6 14 29 0.1

Gunter Drive Walters Road Charleston Street 45.1 45.6 1 3 6 0.5

Walters Road East Tabor Avenue Project Driveway 66.4 66.6 29 64 137 0.2

Walters Road Project Driveway Gunter Drive 66.4 66.5 29 63 135 0.1

East Tabor Avenue Walters Road Project Driveway 58.8 59.8 10 22 48 1.0

East Tabor Avenue Project Driveway Charleston Street 58.8 58.8 9 19 42 0.0

Charleston Street East Tabor Avenue Project Driveway 56.4 56.5 6 14 29 0.1

Charleston Street Project Driveway Gunter Drive 56.4 54.5 5 10 21 -1.9

Notes: dB = decibels; Ldn = day-night level (energy-average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 10 dB

added to the A-weighted sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. [nighttime])

Noise levels in exceedance of 60 dB Ldn are shown as bold.

Actual traffic noise levels were calculated by subtracting the offsets due to setback distance and due to shielding from the predicted noise

levels at 50 feet from roadway centerline.


b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

Less-than-Significant Impact. Evaluation of construction vibration impacts associated with the proposed project

is based on the methodology developed by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) (FTA, 2006). Construction

activities on the project site may result in varying degrees of temporary ground vibration, depending on the

specific construction equipment used and operations involved (USEPA 1971). Groundborne vibration levels

caused by various types of construction equipment are summarized in Table 3.12-4. Based on the representative

vibration levels identified for various construction equipment types, sensitive receptors located near construction

activities could be exposed to groundborne vibration levels exceeding the recommended FTA threshold of 80

vibration decibels (VdB).


Table 3.12-4 Representative Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment

Equipment PPV at 25 feet

(in/sec) PPV at 50 feet

(in/sec) Approximate

Lv (VdB) at 25 feet Approximate

Lv (VdB) at 50 feet

Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.031 87 78

Jackhammer 0.035 0.012 79 70

Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 58 Not perceivable

Trucks 0.076 0.027 86 77

Notes: in/sec = inches per second; Lv = the root mean square velocity expressed in vibration decibels (VdB) re 1 microinch per second,

assuming a crest factor of 4; PPV = peak particle velocity

Source: FTA 2006

The vibration threshold for human perception is approximately 65 VdB. Vibration levels in the range of 70 to

75 VdB are often noticeable but acceptable. Beyond 80 VdB, vibration levels are often considered unacceptable

by building occupants (FTA, 2006:7-5). Based on the highest reference vibration levels presented in Table 3.12-4

(i.e., large bulldozer, similar to other large earth moving equipment), groundborne vibration-sensitive receptors

would need to be located within 40 feet of vibration-producing construction activities to perceive unacceptable

groundborne vibration levels (greater than 80 VdB). Based on the applicant’s proposed site plan, it is possible that

heavy earthmoving construction equipment could operate for short periods of time within 40 feet of existing,

acoustically sensitive uses. The impact is considered potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure NOI-2: Implement Construction Vibration Measures.

► Operate earthmoving equipment on the construction lot as far away from vibration-sensitive sites as

possible.

► Phase earthmoving and ground-impacting operations so as not to occur in the same time period.

► Large bulldozers and other construction equipment that would produce vibration levels at or above 86

VdB shall not be operated within 50 feet of adjacent, occupied residences. Small bulldozers shall be

used instead of large bulldozers in these areas, if construction activities are required. For any other

equipment types that would produce vibration levels at or above 86 VdB, smaller versions or different

types of equipment shall be substituted for construction areas within 50 feet of adjacent, occupied

residences.





Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would reduce vibration levels to acceptable levels by requiring

distance between vibration-generating equipment and sensitive uses and requiring smaller types of equipment that

do not generate as much vibration to be used on parts of the project site that are adjacent to sensitive uses. With

the implementation of this mitigation, the impact is considered less than significant.

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?

Less-than-Significant Impact. Travis Air Force Base (AFB) is located approximately 2 miles from the closest

portion of the project site. The project site is not located within 60 dB CNEL contour line of Travis Air Force

Base (AFB). Typical residential construction would be expected to provide an exterior-to-interior noise level

reduction of no less than 25 dB with exterior doors and windows closed. The project site is located approximately

3,100 feet southwest of the former Travis Aero Club, which was relocated to the Rio Vista Municipal Airport.

The impact is considered less than significant.

References

California Department of Transportation. 2009. Technical noise supplement, a technical supplement to the traffic

noise analysis protocol. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2004. Transportation and Construction-Induced Vibration

Guidance Manual. Sacramento, CA.

Caltrans. See California Department of Transportation.

AECOM. 2014. Existing and Future Conditions traffic volumes.

Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Washington, D.C.

FHWA, RCNM User’s Guide, 2006.

FTA. See Federal Transit Administration.

Interim Construction Noise Guideline prepared by Australia’s Department of Environment & Climate Change

NSW (2009).

Suisun City. 1992. General Plan Noise Element.

Toth W. J. 1979. Noise abatement techniques for construction equipment. U.S. Department of Transportation,

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974 (March). Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to

Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. Washington, DC.


3.13 Population And Housing



3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING

Issue Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-Than-

Significant

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?


The project site is located in the northeastern portion of Suisun City, adjacent to and east of Walters Road and

directly south of East Tabor Avenue. The General Plan designation of the project site is General Commercial and

Residential High-Density. The proposed Zephyr Estates subdivision would result in the creation of 59 residential

lots and a single 1.5 acre commercial lot. The residential lots would be used for single-family and residential

development. Most of the lots would range in size from 3,000 to 4,000 square feet; All residential lots are

proposed to have a 5-foot minimum setback on each side. “The Planned Unit Development designation has been

sought in part to allow this type of lot development with these lot sizes.


a) Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed project would develop the site with 59 residential units and a

1.5 acre commercial lot. Suisun City has an average household population of 3.15 according to the 2010 US

Census. The proposed project would increase the net population of the site by approximately 186 persons (59

x 3.15 = 185.5). The additional 186 residents represent less than 1 percent of Suisun City’s existing

population, which was 28,111 in 2010 according to the U.S. Census. This estimated population growth would

be consistent with the projections in the City’s General Plan and with ABAG projections and is therefore

considered a less than significant impact.

b) No Impact – The project site is entirely vacant. There are no residences currently on the site. Therefore, the

project would not result in the loss of housing or the displacement of people.

c) No Impact – As discussed in b) above, the project would not involve the removal or relocation of any

housing. The project would not displace any people or necessitate the construction of any replacement

housing.


3.13 Population And Housing

May 2014 City of Suisun City


References

US Census Bureau. 2010.American Factfinder, Suisun City, CA.

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_DP_DPDP1.

Accessed May 1, 2014.

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_DP_DPDP1


3.14 Public Services



3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES

Issue Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No Impact

a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical

impacts associated with the provision of new or physically

altered government facilities, need for new or physically

altered governmental facilities, the construction of which

could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to

maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other

performance objectives for any of the public services:

i) Fire protection?

ii) Police protection?

iii) Schools?

iv) Parks?

v) Other public facilities?


The proposed project would be located on a suburban infill site that is already served by public service systems.

The Suisun City Fire Department provides fire protection. The Suisun City Police Department provides law

enforcement services. Future K-12 students would be within the boundaries of Fairfield-Suisun Unified School

District school system. Park space can be found in the nearby vicinity. Police, Fire, Paramedic, public landscape

maintenance, and storm drain maintenance will be ultimately funded by the project through a Community

Facilities District.

3.14.2 Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation

i. Less Than Significant Impact – The Suisun City Fire Department would provide fire protection services to

the project site. The nearest station is located at 621 Pintail Drive, approximately 1.5 miles south of the

project area. The City maintains mutual aid agreements with neighboring jurisdictions that would enable the

combined fire departments to provide adequate fire protection and emergency medical response services in

situations where multiple calls for service were received simultaneously. While the project includes the

construction of 59 residential units and 1.5 acres of commercial which would create additional demand for

fire services, it is anticipated that existing facilities would be adequate to serve the proposed project. The

project is not expected to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of fire

services or necessitate the need for new or physically altered facilities in order to maintain response times or

other performance objectives. Impacts are considered less than significant.

ii. Less Than Significant Impact – The Suisun City Police Department would provide law enforcement services

to the project site. The police department currently has its main station on Civic Center Boulevard, and a

substation in the Peterson Ranch development south of the project site. While the project includes the

construction of 59 residential units and 1.5 acres of commercial which would create additional demand for


3.14 Public Services

December 2013 City of San Ramon

3.14-2 Faria Preserve Community

police services, it is anticipated that existing facilities would be adequate to serve the proposed project. The

project is not expected to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of police

services or necessitate the need for new or physically altered facilities in order to maintain response times or

other performance objectives. Impacts are considered less than significant.

iii. Less Than Significant Impact – The project site is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Fairfield-Suisun

Unified School District. According to the Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District 2010 Facility Master Plan,

the yield rate per residential dwelling is 0.584. Based on the proposed 59 residential units, the project would

generate approximately 35 students. Schools in which future students would attend include:

Tolenas Elementary School, 757 students

Grange Middle School, 904 students

Fairfield High School, 1567 students

The School District imposes a development impact fee on new residential development within District

boundaries. Under provisions of the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act (SB 50), payment of statutory

school impact fees is considered adequate mitigation for CEQA purposes.

The number of students generated from this project would be less than significant.

iv. Less Than Significant Impact – The project would potentially generate additional demand on City parks, as

more residents would be added and no new parks would be constructed on the project site. The project

applicant would be required to pay in-lieu park fees, in accordance with Suisun City Code Chapter 3.20.

Payment of the required fees would contribute to a reduction of impacts on parklands by providing additional

funding for maintenance of existing facilities and construction of planned new parks. Please also refer to the

Recreation section of this document.

v. No Impact – The project is not anticipated to have significant impacts on other governmental facilities.

References

Pacific Municipal Consultants, 2005 (April), Municipal Services Review Comprehensive Annexation Plan.

Prepared for City of Suisun City, Suisun City, CA

SchoolWorks, Inc., 2011 (February), Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District 2010 Facility Master Plan.

Prepared for Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District, Fairfield, CA.


3.15 Recreation



3.15 RECREATION

Issue Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact No Impact

a) Would the project increase the use of existing

neighborhood or 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 that

might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?


The proposed project does not include construction of any parks on-site. There are approximately five parks

located within approximately 1 mile from the project site, the closest of which are and Independence and Patriot

Parks. The City of Suisun’s Park and Recreation standards call for 3.0 acres of neighborhood parks and 1.5 acres

of community parks for every 1,000 residents. Additionally, neighborhood parks should be located with 0.25

(children’s play area) to 0.5 mile walk of most users. The City of Suisun City requires all new housing

developments to either provide park facilities or pay park and recreation fees proportionate to the impacts that

would be generated by the development.


a) Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed subdivision would add more residents. Since the project does

not propose to construct any parks on the project site, this would generate an increased demand on the City’s

park facilities. As noted above, the project would be required to pay in-lieu park fees to the City. The fees

would be used to support improvements to existing park and recreational facilities, or the construction of new

facilities.

b) Less Than Significant Impact – The project does not propose the construction of recreational facilities.

Therefore, no environmental impact from construction and operation of such facilities would occur. As noted

in a) above, the project may lead to an increase in demand on existing parks and recreational facilities in the

area. However, the payment of required in-lieu fees would offset any impacts.

AECOM Zephyr Estates Initial Study Environmental Checklist 3.16-5 City of Suisun City

3.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC


Impact




Impact No Impact

XVI. Transportation/Traffic. 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?


The project site is south of East Tabor Avenue, east of Walters Road, and west of Charleston Street within the city

of Suisun City. The applicant proposes access to the project site from Walters Road, East Tabor Lane, Charleston

Street, and Carswell Lane. The Walters Drive is proposed as a right in, right out only access point. Based on the

location and access, the traffic analysis prepared to support this Initial Study examined the intersections of Air

Base Parkway and Walters Road, East Tabor Avenue and Walters Road, East Tabor Avenue and Charleston

Street, Gunter Drive and Walters Road, Highway 12 and Walters Road/Lawler Ranch Parkway. Please refer to

the traffic study completed by AECOM for more detail on the traffic analysis.

Fairfield and Suisun Transit (FAST) operates four local and one intercity route through Suisun City. Route 2

operates closest to the project site. Bus stops are located at the northeast corner of the Walters Road / East Tabor

Avenue intersection and at the southeast corner of the Walters Road / Granada Drive intersection. Route 2

operates Monday through Saturday with 30-minute headways during the peak commute periods.

Bicycle facilities are classified as Class I, II, or III. Bike paths (Class I) provide a completely separate right-of

way and are designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians. Bike lanes (Class II) provide a restricted

Zephyr Estates Initial Study AECOM City of Suisun City 3.16-4 Environmental Checklist

right-of-way, and are designated for the use of bicycles with a striped lane on a street or highway. Bike routes

(Class III) provide for a right-of-way designated bike signs or pavement markers for shared use with pedestrians

or motor vehicles.

Class I bike paths include the Central County Bikeway that runs along the north side of SR 12 between Walters

Road and the Capitol Corridor train station. There are Class II bicycle facilities (bike lanes) along Walters Road,

Charleston Street, Gunter Drive, Air Base Parkway, and Tabor Avenue.

Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals. Sidewalks are provided on both sides

of the street in many portions of the study area. Crosswalks and pedestrian signals are provided at most

intersections within the study area.

The existing traffic volume levels in the vicinity of the project site were determined by collecting weekday AM

peak period (7:00 AM – 9:00 AM) and PM peak period (4:00 PM – 6:00 PM) turning movement counts at the

study intersections. The traffic counts were collected on Tuesday, February 25, 2014, while area schools were in

session. Table 3.16-1 summarizes existing level of service (LOS) for study intersections.1

Table 3.16-1 Existing Vehicular Level of Service

Intersection Vehicular Level of Service / Delay

Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour

Air Base Parkway / Walters Road D / 49.9 C / 34.8

East Tabor Avenue / Walters Road B / 18.8 C / 20.5

East Tabor Avenue / Charleston Street A / 9.3 A / 8.7

Gunter Drive / Walters Road B / 11.5 B / 10.3

State Route (SR) 12 / Walters Road B / 17.4 C / 27.5

Notes: Delay presented in seconds per vehicle. For unsignalized intersections, average delay represents the worst approach (one-way stop-

control). For signalized intersections, average delay represents the average of all approaches.

Source: AECOM, 2014.

3.16.2 DISCUSSION

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?

Less-than-Significant with Mitigation. Based on the proposed land uses and amount of development, trip

generation estimates were prepared for the proposed project. Trip generation estimates take into account

1

Level of Service is a qualitative indication of the level of delay and congestion experienced by motorists. Levels of Service are

designated by the letters A through F, with A corresponding to the lowest levels of congestion and F corresponding to the highest level

of congestion.


“internal” trips from proposed residences to proposed commercial land uses and “pass-by trips” to proposed

commercial uses that are not necessarily planned, but occur as motorists pass by, as a matter of convenience. The

proposed project is projected to generate a total of 1,165 new daily trips, 144 of which would occur during the

weekday AM peak hour and 81 of which would occur during the weekday PM peak hour. These trips were

distributed onto the roadway network in the vicinity of the project site based on anticipated geographic patterns of

travel.

Project-generated traffic volumes were added to existing traffic volumes to obtain the existing + project traffic

volumes. All of the study intersections and access point driveways would continue to operate acceptably, using

relevant LOS standards, for each intersection. The project would have a very minor effect on the average/worst-

case delay for motorists, even during peak demand periods.

Table 3.16-2 Vehicular Level of Service: Existing and Existing + Project

Intersection

Existing Existing + Project

Weekday AM Peak Hour

Weekday PM Peak Hour

Weekday AM Peak Hour

Weekday PM Peak Hour

Air Base Parkway / Walters Road D / 49.9 C / 34.8 D / 54.3 D / 35.3

East Tabor Avenue / Walters Road

B / 18.8 C / 20.5 B / 19.8 C / 22.0

Gunter Drive / Walters Road B / 11.5 B / 10.3 B / 11.7 B / 10.4

SR 12 / Walters Road

B / 17.4 C / 27.5 B / 17.6 C / 27.6

East Tabor Avenue / Charleston Street A / 9.3 A / 8.7 A / 9.3 A / 8.7

Notes: Delay presented in seconds per vehicle. For unsignalized intersections, average delay represents the worst approach (one-way stop-

control). For signalized intersections, average delay represents the average of all approaches.

Source: AECOM, 2014.

Project access points at Walters Road, East Tabor Avenue, and Charleston Street would operate at LOS A and B,

with implementation of the proposed project. Analysis of project travel demand impacts shows that none of the

unsignalized intersections affected by project traffic would meet peak-hour signal warrants. The project does not

conflict with any relevant performance measures related to transportation in a way that would create a potentially

significant impact. The impact is considered less than significant.

The City also examined transportation-related effects in the context of long-term, regional growth. “Cumulative”

conditions include forecast traffic associated with development in the region through the year 2030. The same

intersections examined for direct project impacts were also evaluated using the cumulative 2030 scenario. None of

the unsignalized intersections affected by project traffic would meet peak-hour signal warrants under cumulative

conditions. All intersections would operate with acceptable LOS under cumulative conditions with

implementation of the project with the exception of the intersection of Air Base Parkway and Walters Road.

The intersection of Air Base Parkway and Walters Road would operate at LOS F both with and without the

project, with more than 80 seconds of delay per vehicle in both the AM and PM peak hour. This intersection is

located in the City of Fairfield. The City of Fairfield examined long-term congestion for this intersection as a part

of the Train Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), taking into account buildout of the

Specific Plan, as well as approved projects and regional growth (City of Fairfield 2011). In 2030, with buildout of

the Specific Plan, the City of Fairfield also found that the intersection of Air Base Parkway and Walters Road

would operate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours, with more than 80 seconds of delay per vehicle.

The Specific Plan EIR identifies mitigation for this intersection to address LOS F conditions. Mitigation includes:

adding a second left-turn pocket on the eastbound and northbound approaches; providing a channelized, free-right

turn lane on the northbound approach; and optimizing signal timings. The City of Fairfield’s analysis shows that

Zephyr Estates Initial Study AECOM City of Suisun City 3.16-4 Environmental Checklist

these improvements would provide LOS D (54.6 seconds delay) in the PM peak hour and LOS D (42.4 seconds

delay) in the AM peak hour. LOS D is used as the LOS standard in the City’s Specific Plan EIR for the evaluation

of this intersection. Project-related traffic could increase intersection delay by five or more seconds. This is a

significant cumulative impact and the project’s contribution is cumulatively considerable.

The City of Fairfield’s Citywide Transportation Impact Fee and Park Impact Fee Update (March 2013) identifies

costs of $1,036,000 for the intersection of Air Base Parkway and Walters Road to address congestion. The City

determined that 63% of this improvement ($652,680) is allocated to new development. For cumulative conditions,

the project would represent approximately 3.83% of new cumulative traffic at this intersection in the AM peak

hour and 1.54% in the PM peak hour. Consider both peak periods together, the project’s share of new traffic

would be 2.49%. Multiplying the project’s share for both peak hours by the amount identified as the responsibility

of new development ($652,680) for this intersection yields $16,259.71.

Mitigation Measure TRAF-1:

The project applicant shall contribute fair-share funding to the City of Fairfield for improvements planned

for the intersection of Air Base Parkway and Walters Road to address cumulative congestion. The fair-

share of such improvements at this time is estimated to be $16,259.71.

Implementation: Project applicant


Enforcement: City of Suisun City and City of Fairfield


With this measure, the analysis prepared to support this Initial Study and the City of Fairfield’s Train Station

Specific Plan EIR show that with planned improvements, the intersection of Air Base Parkway and Walters Road

would operate at LOS D during peak periods, which is an acceptable LOS for this location. The City of Fairfield

has an impact fee program in place and a history of funding improvements with impact fees. With the

implementation of the above described mitigation measure, the impact is less than cumulatively considerable.

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 project would not create additional airplane traffic or alter existing air traffic patterns. There are

no public or private airports within 2 miles of the project site. The project site is located approximately 2 miles

northwest of the main runways at Travis AFB. The project site is located within ALUCP land use compatibility

Zone D (Solano County ALUC 2002:Figure 2A). There are no limits to the numbers of dwelling units or people

per acre for new development within Zone D. However, ALUC review, and Federal Aviation Administration

review in accordance with the provisions of Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, are required for any

proposed object taller than 200 feet within Zone D. Furthermore, land uses that may cause visual, electronic, or

bird strike hazards to aircraft in flight are not permitted within 12,500 feet of the Travis AFB runways. None of

the proposed on-site land uses would exceed 200 feet in height. There is no impact.

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. The project proposes access to both the residential and commercial development

areas via Walters Road, East Tabor Lane, Charleston Street, and Carswell Lane. New roadways and public

roadways will be required to adhere to roadway design standards set forth by Suisun City, which are developed, in


part, to ensure against any hazardous design feature. There are no unusual angles or other hazardous design

elements of the proposed circulation and access. This impact is considered less than significant.

e) Result in inadequate emergency access?

Less-than-Significant Impact. The vehicular circulation system also serves to provide adequate emergency

access by providing multiple access points to both the residential and commercial development areas. Each home

or the commercial land use can be accessed by at least two access points. If one access point is blocked, the other

access point could be used by emergency vehicles to reach any residential home or the commercial development.

In addition, the width of the access points and internal roadways will be required to conform to the design

standards set forth by the City, which are developed, in part, to ensure adequate emergency access. This impact is

considered less than significant.

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?

Less-than-Significant Impact. The project would not eliminate or reduce existing bicycle, pedestrian, or transit

facilities on Walters Road, East Tabor Avenue, or Charleston Street. Sidewalks are proposed along the local

streets within the residential development. This will promote a safety and convenience for pedestrians. The impact

is considered less than significant.

References

City of Fairfield. 2011 (July). Final Environmental Impact Report for the Fairfield Train Station Specific Plan.

City of Fairfield. 2013 (March 28th). Citywide Transportation Impact Fee and Park Impact Fee Update.

AECOM.Zephyr. 2014 (May 12). Zephyr Estates Draft Transportation Impact Analysis. Prepared for the City of

Suisun City. On File with City of Suisun City.


3.17 Utilities and Service Systems



3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

Issue Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact No Impact

Would the project:

a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the

applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

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 storm water

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 that 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?

h) Create demand for electricity or natural gas service that

would require facility improvements or additional energy

infrastructure, the construction or operation of which

would cause significant environmental impacts.*

i) Encourage activities that would result in large amounts of

fuel, water, or energy use, or use of these in a wasteful

manner.*

j) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation

adopted for the purpose of reducing energy use,

particularly non-renewable energy use (often referred to as

energy efficiency standards and can be applicable to

projects, buildings, appliances, etc.)*

* Environmental questions from CEQA Appendix F, rather than CEQA Appendix G.





3.17.1 Existing Conditions

The proposed project would be located on a suburban infill site that is already served by utilities and public

service systems. Proposed uses on the site would include 59 residences and 1.5 acres of commercial. The level of

public services required for the site would be substantially greater than the level currently demanded.

Construction of the Zephyr Estates subdivision would require on-site infrastructure improvements. This

infrastructure system would be tied into the existing sewer mainlines and would not require the construction of

new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities.

3.17.2 Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation

a) Less Than Significant Impact – The Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District would collect wastewater from the

project site and treat it at its treatment plant on Chadbourne Road. Recent improvements to this treatment

plant have increased the treatment capacity from 17.5 million gallons per day (mgd) to 22 mgd, with an

ultimate capacity of 27 mgd by 2020. The project is requiredto conform with the requirements of the regional

board. The project would not result in the exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements set for the plant.

b) Less Than Significant Impact – The project proposes a water system that would be connecting to existing

stubs on Charleston Street and Carswell Lane. The project is required to tie into the sewer collection system

on East Tabor Avenue. Storm drainage would be collected and sent to the south along Walters Road through

the existing system. It will then go through the Montebello Vista Subdivision and under Highway 12 for

discharge. The storm drainage will exit at an off-site outfall east of Lawler Ranch subdivision. The project

would be required to annex into a Community Facilities District which could be used for maintenance of the

storm drainage system.

The Cement Hill Water Treatment Plant treats water from the SID’s Solano Project water supply, and is

operated by SID on behalf of the City and other customers. The General Plan states that eventual plant

capacity will serve a City population of 35,000. This is above both current General Plan and ABAG

projections. Therefore, the project would not require the expansion of this treatment plant.

The Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District is responsible for wastewater collection and treatment within its service

area of Fairfield, Suisun City and parts of Solano County. The District’s service area includes Travis Air

Force Base. The District serves approximately 135,000 residential, commercial and industrial customers and

governmental agencies.

The District’s collection system includes 13 wastewater pump stations and approximately 70 miles of gravity

sewers ranging in size from 12-inches to 48-inches in diameter. The City of Fairfield and the City of Suisun

City own and operate sewers 10-inches and smaller in diameter. Travis Air Force Base owns all on-site

sewers. Service laterals from individual homes and businesses to the sewer main are the responsibility of the

property owner.

Wastewater flows by gravity or is pumped by smaller stations to four major pump stations which pump

wastewater to the treatment plant. The major pump stations are the Suisun Pump Station, Central Pump

Station, Cordelia Pump Station and Inlet Pump Station. Suisun City is served by Suisun Pump Station and

three smaller stations: Lawer I Pump Station, Lawer II Pump Station and Crystal Street Pump Station.

The Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District recently completed a treatment plant expansion which increased the

average dry weather capacity to 23.7 million gallons per day (mgd) and peak flow capacity to 52.3 mgd. The

wastewater treatment processes includes screening, primary treatment, intermediate treatment by oxidation

towers and intermediate clarifiers, secondary treatment with aeration basins and secondary clarifiers and

tertiary treatment via filtration and disinfection. Waste solids are thickened and treated in anaerobic digesters





then solids are further concentrated before being disposed at the Potrero Hills Landfill.

c) Less Than Significant Impact – The project would require the construction of onsite stormwater drainage

facilities. These impacts have been studies elsewhere through construction related impacts. The applicant will

need to comply with the City’s regional storm water permit.

d) Less Than Significant Impact – Water would be supplied to the project by the Suisun-Solano Water

Authority (SSWA), a joint powers authority between the City of Suisun City and Solano Irrigation District.

Suisun City has entitlement to the Federal Solano Project and state water project’s North Bay Aqueduct with

the storage of Solano Project water at Lake Berryessa. The proposed project is below the threshold of

requiring a Water Supply Assessment. The Municipal Services Review for the City of Suisun City anticipates

an increase in water delivery between 2005 and 2020, but due to water entitlement and storage there is

sufficient water supplies to meet the proposed project’s needs.

e) Less Than Significant Impact – As noted in a) above, the wastewater treatment plant can accommodate the

anticipated wastewater generated by the project.

f) Less Than Significant Impact – Solano Garbage Company would provide solid waste collection services for

the project site. Recyclable material is processed at a facility in Fairfield, while other solid waste is taken to

the Potrero Hills Landfill southeast of the City. Solano Garbage Company (SGC) is the franchise that

provides weekly solid waste collection and disposal services to residents and businesses in Suisun City. SGC

service area covers the Cities of Suisun City and Fairfield as well as unincorporated areas of central Solano

County.

In 2009, the City of Suisun City generated 12,515 tons of garbage, 1,860 tons of recyclables, and 3,036 tons

of green waste. SGC meets applicable federal, state and local laws related to handling and disposal of solid

waste.

SGC full capacity for residential waste, recycling, and green waste ranges from between 27 to 31 yards per

collection truck. SGC has 4 side-loading trucks that each holds 32 cubic-yards of waste and 1 front-loading

truck that holds 42 yards of waste. Additionally, commercial/industrial locations are accommodated with roll-

off trucks as necessary.

g) Less Than Significant Impact – Solid waste collection and disposal within California is subject to the

provisions of the California Integrated Waste Management Act. This legislation mandates a 50 percent

reduction in the solid waste stream going to landfills by 2000. Typically, this is accomplished by

implementing a recycling program that removes recyclable materials from the collected solid waste. Future

development would potentially generate more recyclable items, albeit a small amount. However, a recycling

program operated by Solano Garbage Company can accommodate the additional volume, while having little

impact on diversion percentages.

h) Less Than Significant Impact - Implementation of the proposed project would increase demand for

electricity and electrical infrastructure. PG&E would be able to provide electricity to the project site. Because

the proposed electrical utility improvements would be required to comply with all existing City, PG&E, and

CPUC requirements, and applicable Uniform Building Code requirements, it is anticipated that the proposed

electrical utility improvements would be sufficient to serve the proposed project.

i) Less Than Significant Impact – The project proposes 59 single-family residences and 1.5 acres of General

Commercial land. Nothing in the proposal suggests activities that would use large amounts of fuel, water, or

energy.





j) Less Than Significant Impact – The applicant is required to comply with all applicable plans, policies and

regulations that were adopted for the purpose of reducing energy use.


3.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance

City of Suisun City May 2014


3.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

Issue Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-Than-

Significant

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 that

would cause substantial adverse effects on human

beings, either directly or indirectly?

Answers to Checklist Questions

QUESTION A

The project would not result in elimination of sensitive habitats or the loss of wildlife. There are no identified

cultural or historic resources on the project site. The proposed project would construct a driveway from the

project site to Walters Road and a driveway from the project site to East Tabor Avenue. If previously unidentified

cultural or historic resources are discovered on the project site during construction, proposed mitigation measures

CUL-1 and CUL-2 would ensure that discovery of unknown resources during project development would be

identified and appropriate steps taken regarding treatment. Thus, this potential impact would be less than

significant.

QUESTION B

The proposed project when considering the proposed Planned Unit Development permit would be consistent with

the general plan and zoning land use designations for the project site. The development proposed would

contribute to cumulative effects that have been identified and will be evaluated in the 2035 General Plan Update

EIR. Appropriate mitigations have been developed as part of the initial study. No additional significant effects

have been identified for the project.


3.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance



QUESTION C

The proposed project would develop the project site with commercial and residential uses including 59 single-

family homes and 1.5 acres of commercial space. None of the activities proposed would adversely affect human

beings. Project impacts and appropriate mitigation measures have been considered and developed in the initial

study. No significant adverse effects on human beings have been identified.

MITIGATION MEASURES

None required.

FINDINGS

The project would have no additional project-specific environmental effects relating to Mandatory Findings of

Significance.

Chapter 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Draft IS/MND


Zephyr Estates 1

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Aesthetics

Mitigation Measure AE-1: Final design plans shall be presented to the Architectural Design

Review Board for conformance with the City’s Development Guidelines for Site Planning and

Architecture.



Mitigation Measure AE-2: Prior to construction, the City of Suisun City shall review and

approve the landscape plan that would be incorporated into the final design of the Zephyr

Estates project. The landscape plan shall incorporate the following components, as feasible:

Drought-resistant plants consistent with the General Plan’s plant palette.

Xeric (adapted to arid conditions) landscaping techniques.

An irrigation design that conforms to water conservation measures established in AB1881 the

Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (effective as of January 1, 2010).

Attractive walls and other visually pleasing hardscape into the final design of the project to

enhance the limited open space that would serve the project residents and the travelers using East

Tabor and Walters Road.

Trees and shrubs to break the visual monotony and soften the appearance of walls and vines to

deter graffiti to the maximum extent feasible.



Mitigation Measure AE-3: New trees shall be incorporated into the landscape plans for the

Zephyr Estates subdivision that meet the City’s standard for trees within new developments.



Mitigation Measure AE-4: All outdoor lighting associated with the proposed development shall

be:

Designed and located to minimize ambient light levels for any given application, consistent with

public safety standards.

Placed in areas of pedestrian activity, at building entrances, and along roadways.

Shielded with non-glare hoods and focused within the project. Lighting shall minimize glare on

adjacent properties and into the night sky.

Draft IS/MND Chapter 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program


2 Zephyr Estates

Ornamental, pedestrian scale lighting fixtures shall be utilized to the degree possible.

Area lighting shall be directed downward with no splay of lighting directed offsite. No lighting

shall blink, flash or be of unusually high intensity or brightness.



Air Quality

Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Implement the BAAQMD Basic Construction Control Measures.

► All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access

roads) shall be watered two times per day.

► All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

► 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.

► All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour.

► 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.

► All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s

specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator.

► A publicly visible sign shall be posted at the soil transfer site within the BAAQMD, with the

telephone number and person to contact at the City of Walnut Creek regarding dust complaints. This

person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number also

shall be visible, to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.


Timing: During all construction activities

Enforcement: City of Suisun City and BAAQMD

Biological Resources

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Avoid Loss of Swainson’s Hawk and Other Raptors

To avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential impacts on Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, and other

raptors (not including burrowing owl) in the project vicinity, the project applicant shall retain a qualified

biologist to conduct preconstruction surveys and identify active nests on and within 0.25 mile of the

project site for construction activities conducted during the breeding season (March 1-August 31).

Guidelines provided in Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in

the Central Valley (Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee 2000) shall be followed for surveys



Zephyr Estates 3

for Swainson’s hawk. Surveys for other nesting raptors shall be conducted no less than 14 days and no

more than 30 days before the beginning of construction for all project phases. If no nests are found, no

further avoidance and minimization measures will be required.

If active Swainson’s hawk or other raptor nests are found, appropriate buffers shall be established around

active nest sites, in coordination with CDFW, to provide adequate protection for nesting hawks and their

young. No project activity shall commence within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has

determined in coordination with CDFW, the young have fledged, the nest is no longer active, or reducing

the buffer would not result in nest abandonment.

Monitoring of the nest by a qualified biologist during and after construction activities will be required if

the activity has potential to adversely affect the nest.


Timing: Less than 14 days and no more than 30 days before the beginning of construction for

all project phases


Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Avoid Loss of Burrowing Owl

To avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential impacts on burrowing owl, the project applicant shall retain a

qualified biologist to conduct focused breeding and nonbreeding season surveys for burrowing owls in

areas of suitable habitat on and within 1,500 feet of the project site. Surveys will be conducted prior to the

start of construction activities and in accordance with Appendix D of CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing

Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012). If no occupied burrows are found, no further avoidance and minimization

measures will be required.

If an active burrow is found during the nonbreeding season (September 1 through January 31), the project

applicant will consult with CDFW regarding protection buffers to be established around the occupied

burrow and maintained throughout construction. If occupied burrows are present that cannot be avoided

or adequately protected with a no-disturbance buffer, a burrowing owl exclusion and relocation plan will

be developed according to guidance provided in Appendix E of CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl

Mitigation (CDFW 2012). Owls will be relocated outside of the impact area using passive or active

methodologies developed in consultation with CDFW and may include active relocation to preserve areas

if approved by CDFW and the preserve managers. No burrowing owls will be excluded from occupied

burrows until the burrowing owl exclusion and relocation plan is approved by CDFW.

If an active burrow is found during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31), occupied

burrows will not be disturbed and will be provided with a 150- to 1,500-foot protective buffer unless a

qualified biologist verifies through noninvasive means that either: (1) the birds have not begun egg laying,

or (2) juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent

survival. The appropriate size of the buffer (between 150 to 1,500) will depend on the time of year and

level of disturbance as outlined in the CDFW Staff Report (2012:9).The size of the buffer may be reduced

if a qualified biologist, in consultation with CDFW, determines burrowing owls would not be adversely

affected by the proposed activities. If a smaller than recommended buffer is used, a scientifically-

rigorous monitoring program approved by the City and CDFW shall be implemented to ensure burrowing

owls are not detrimentally affected. Once the fledglings are capable of independent survival, the owls will

be relocated outside the impact area following a burrowing owl exclusion and relocation plan developed

according to guidance provided in Appendix E of CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation

(CDFW 2012) and the burrow will be destroyed to prevent owls from reoccupying it. No burrowing owls



4 Zephyr Estates

will be excluded from occupied burrows until the burrowing owl exclusion and relocation plan is

approved by CDFW.

If active burrowing owl nests are found on the project site and these nest sites are lost as a result of

implementing the project, then the project applicant shall mitigate the loss through preservation of other

known nest sites at a ratio of 1:1, which is the current ratio identified in the draft SMHCP. Preservation

shall be provided through purchase of credits from a CDFW-approved burrowing owl conservation bank

if credits are available for the project area.

All burrowing owl mitigation lands shall be preserved in perpetuity and incompatible land uses shall be

prohibited in habitat conservation areas. Burrowing owl mitigation lands shall be located as close as

possible, based on availability of sufficient suitable habitat, to the project site.


Timing: Prior to the start of construction activities


Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Avoid Loss of Loggerhead Shrike

To the extent feasible, vegetation removal, grading, and other ground disturbing activities will be carried

out during the nonbreeding season (September 1-February 31) for migratory birds to avoid and minimize

impacts to loggerhead shrike and other migratory birds.

If project activities occur during the nesting season for loggerhead shrike (March 1 through August 31), a

focused survey to identify active shrike and other migratory bird nests shall be conducted by a qualified

biologist before commencement of activities. Surveys shall include all areas of suitable nesting habitat

within 200 feet of the project footprint. If no active nests are found, no further avoidance and

minimization measures will be required.

If active nests are found during the surveys, appropriate buffers shall be established to avoid impacts. No

project activity shall commence within the buffer area until a qualified biologist, in consultation with

CDFW, confirms that the nest is no longer active. Given the project location and proposed construction

methods, it is anticipated that CDFW would recommend a 200-foot buffer around a loggerhead shrike

nest to provide adequate protection for nesting shrikes and their young. The size of the buffers may be

reduced if a qualified biologist determines that project activity within a reduced buffer will not be likely

to adversely affect the nest. This should be confirmed with CDFW. The appropriate buffer for common

migratory bird nests is 50 feet.


Timing: If project activities occur during the nesting season for loggerhead shrike (March 1

through August 31), prior to the start of construction activities




Zephyr Estates 5

Cultural Resources

Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Procedures for Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources.

If an inadvertent discovery of cultural materials (e.g., unusual amounts of shell, animal bone, human

remains, bottle glass, ceramics, building remains) is made during project-related construction activities,

ground disturbances in the area of the find shall be halted and the City shall be notified immediately. The

City shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist to determine whether the resource is potentially

significant. If the resource is potentially significant and project implementation may result in potential

impacts, the City, with help from the professional archaeologist, shall develop additional appropriate

protection measures, as needed. Additional protection measures may include, but are not necessarily

limited to additional documentary research, subsurface testing, excavation, and preservation in-place.




Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Procedures for Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains.

In accordance with the California Health and Safety Code, if human remains are uncovered during

ground-disturbing activities, all such activities in the vicinity of the find shall be halted and the City, the

Solano County coroner and a qualified professional archaeologist shall be contacted immediately. The

coroner is required to examine all discoveries of human remains within two working days of receiving

notice of a discovery on private or state lands (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5[b]). If the coroner

determines that the remains are of Native American origin, he or she must contact the Native American

Heritage Commission by phone within 24 hours of making that determination (Health and Safety Code

Section 7050[c]). The City or its appointed representative and the professional archaeologist shall consult

with a Most Likely Descendent determined by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)

regarding the removal or preservation and avoidance of the remains and determine if additional burials

could be present within the project site.




Geology and Soils

Mitigation Measure GEO-1a: Prepare Final Geotechnical Report and Implement

Recommendations.

Before building permits are issued and construction activities begin in any phase, the project applicant

shall hire a licensed geotechnical engineer to prepare a final geotechnical report, which shall be submitted

for review and approval to the Suisun City Division of Building and Public Works. The final geotechnical

engineering report shall address and make recommendations on the following topics:

► seismic design parameters;

► site preparation;

► soil bearing capacity;



6 Zephyr Estates

► appropriate sources and types of fill;

► potential need for soil amendments;

► road, pavement, and parking areas;

► structural foundations, including retaining-wall design;

► grading practices;

► soil corrosion of concrete and steel;

► erosion/winterization;

► seismic ground shaking;

► liquefaction; and

► expansive/unstable soils.

In addition to the recommendations for the conditions listed above, the geotechnical investigation shall

include subsurface testing of soil and groundwater conditions (as appropriate), and shall determine

appropriate foundation designs that are consistent with the version of the California Building Standards

Code (CBC) that is applicable at the time of building and grading permits applications.

All recommendations contained in the final geotechnical engineering report shall be implemented. Special

recommendations contained in the geotechnical engineering report shall be noted on the grading plans and

implemented, as appropriate, before construction begins. Design and construction of all project

development shall be in accordance with the CBC. The project applicant shall provide for engineering

inspection and certification that earthwork has been performed, in conformity with recommendations

contained in the geotechnical report.




Mitigation Measure GEO-1b: Monitor Earthwork during Earthmoving Activities.

All earthwork shall be monitored by a licensed geotechnical or civil engineer retained by the project

applicant. The geotechnical or civil engineer shall provide oversight during all excavation, placement of

fill, and disposal of materials removed from and deposited on construction areas.


Timing: During all earthmoving construction activities


Mitigation Measure GEO-2: Prepare and Implement a Grading and Erosion Control Plan.

Before grading permits are issued, the project applicant shall retain a California Registered Civil Engineer

to prepare a grading and erosion control plan. The grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted to

the Suisun City Division of Building and Public Works for review before issuance of any grading permit

for on-site work. The plan shall be consistent with Suisun City’s Grading, Erosion Control, and Creekside

Development Ordinance and the state’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, and

shall include the site-specific grading associated with development for all project phases.

The plan referenced above shall include the location, implementation schedule, and maintenance schedule

of all erosion and sediment control measures, a description of measures designed to control dust and



Zephyr Estates 7

stabilize the construction-site road and entrance, and a description of the location and methods of storage

and disposal of construction materials.

Erosion and sediment control measures could include the use of detention basins, berms, swales, wattles,

and silt fencing, and covering or watering of stockpiled soils to reduce wind erosion. Stabilization of

construction entrances to minimize trackout (control dust) is commonly achieved by installing filter fabric

and crushed rock to a depth of approximately 1 foot. The project applicant shall ensure that the

construction contractor is responsible for securing a source of transportation and deposition of excavated

materials.


Timing: Prior to issuance of any grading permit


Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Implement Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1 (Prepare and Implement a

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and Associated Best Management Practices).

Hydrology

Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1: Prepare and Implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

and Associated Best Management Practices.

Prior to the start of earth-moving activities, the project applicant shall obtain coverage under the San

Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (Order R2-2009-0074) (San

Francisco Bay RWQCB 2009), including preparation and submittal of a project-specific storm water

pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) at the time the Notice of Intent to discharge is filed. The project

applicant shall also prepare and submit erosion and sediment control and engineering plans and

specifications for pollution prevention and control to the Suisun City Building and Public Works

Department. The SWPPP shall identify and specify:

► the use of an effective combination of robust erosion and sediment control Best Management

Practices (BMPs) and construction techniques accepted by Suisun City for use in the project area at

the time of construction, that would reduce the potential for runoff and the release, mobilization, and

exposure of pollutants, including legacy sources of mercury from project-related construction sites.

These may include but would not be limited to temporary erosion control and soil stabilization

measures, sedimentation ponds, inlet protection, perforated riser pipes, check dams, and silt fences as

discussed and described in the Fairfield-Suisun Urban Runoff Management Program (Cities of

Fairfield and Suisun City 2006);

► the implementation of approved local plans, non-stormwater management controls, permanent post-

construction BMPs, and inspection and maintenance responsibilities;

► the pollutants that are likely to be used during construction that could be present in stormwater

drainage and nonstormwater discharges, including fuels, lubricants, and other types of materials used

for equipment operation;

► the means of waste disposal;



8 Zephyr Estates

► spill prevention and contingency measures, including measures to prevent or clean up spills of

hazardous waste and of hazardous materials used for equipment operation, and emergency procedures

for responding to spills;

► personnel training requirements and procedures that would be used to ensure that workers are aware

of permit requirements and proper installation methods for BMPs specified in the SWPPP; and

► the appropriate personnel responsible for supervisory duties related to implementation of the SWPPP.

Where applicable, BMPs identified in the SWPPP shall be in place throughout all site work and

construction activities and shall be used in all subsequent site development activities. BMPs may include,

but are not limited to:

► Implementing temporary erosion and sediment control measures in disturbed areas to minimize

discharge of sediment into nearby drainage conveyances, in compliance with state and local standards

in effect at the time of construction. These measures may include, but are not limited to, silt fences,

staked straw bales or wattles, sediment/silt basins and traps, geofabric, sandbag dikes, and temporary

vegetation.

► Establishing permanent vegetative cover to reduce erosion in areas disturbed by construction by

slowing runoff velocities, trapping sediment, and enhancing filtration and transpiration.

► Using drainage swales, ditches, and earth dikes to control erosion and runoff by conveying surface

runoff down sloping land, intercepting and diverting runoff to a watercourse or channel, preventing

sheet flow over sloped surfaces, preventing runoff accumulation at the base of a grade, and avoiding

flood damage along roadways and facility infrastructure.

A copy of the approved SWPPP shall be maintained and available at all times on the construction site.




Mitigation Measure HYDRO-2: Prepare and Submit Final Drainage Plans and Implement

Requirements Contained in Those Plans.

Before the approval of grading plans and building permits, the project applicant shall submit final

drainage plans to the Suisun City Building and Public Works Department demonstrating that off-site

upstream runoff would be appropriately conveyed through the project site, and that project-related on-site

runoff would be appropriately contained in detention basins or managed with through other improvements

(e.g., source controls) to reduce flooding, erosion, and water quality impacts.

The plans shall include, but are not limited to, the following items:

► an accurate calculation of pre-project and post-project runoff scenarios, obtained using appropriate

engineering methods consist with the Suisun City Engineering Standards and Specifications, that

accurately evaluates potential changes to runoff, including increased surface runoff;



Zephyr Estates 9

► runoff calculations for the 10-year and 100-year (0.01 AEP) storm events (and other, smaller storm

events as required) shall be performed and the trunk drainage pipeline sizes confirmed based on

alignments and detention facility locations finalized in the design phase;

► a description of the proposed maintenance program for the on-site drainage system;

► project-specific standards for installing drainage systems;

► a description of on-site features designed to treat storm water and maintain storm water quality before

it is discharged from the project site (e.g., vegetated swales, infiltration trenches, and constructed

wetland filter strips);

► pre-development and post-development calculations demonstrating that the proposed water quality

BMPs meet or exceed requirements established by Suisun City and including details regarding the

size, geometry, and functional timing of storage and release pursuant to the Suisun City Engineering

Standards and Specifications; and

► source control programs to control water quality pollutants on the project site, which may include but

are not limited to recycling, street sweeping, storm drain cleaning, household hazardous waste

collection, waste minimization, prevention of spills and illegal dumping, and effective management of

public trash collection areas.


Timing: Before the approval of grading plans and building permits


Mitigation Measure HYDRO-3: Prepare and Implement a Construction Dewatering Plan.

The project applicant shall prepare a Dewatering Plan prior to commencing dewatering activities. All

dewatering activities shall comply with applicable waste discharge requirements issued by the San

Francisco Bay RWQCB. The Dewatering Plan shall specify measures to prevent/minimize sediment and

contaminant releases into groundwater during excavation activities and methods to clean up releases.

These methods may include, but are not limited to, using temporary berms or dikes to isolate construction

activities; using vacuum trucks to capture contaminant releases; and maintaining absorbent pads and other

containment and cleanup materials on-site to allow an immediate response to contaminant releases if they

occur.




Noise

Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Implement Best Management Practices to Control Construction Noise.

► Fixed/stationary equipment (e.g., generators, compressors, cement mixers) shall be operated in

locations that are as far as possible from existing noise-sensitive receptors. All impact tools shall be



10 Zephyr Estates

shrouded or shielded, and all intake and exhaust ports on powered construction equipment shall be

muffled or shielded.

► All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and equipped with noise-reduction intake

and exhaust mufflers and engine shrouds, in accordance with manufacturers’ recommendations.

► Equipment engine shrouds will be closed during equipment operation.

► All motorized construction equipment shall be shut down when not in use.

► Written notification of heavy construction activities (heavy earth-moving) shall be provided to all

noise-sensitive receptor properties located within 500 feet of the project site. Notification shall

include anticipated dates and hours during which construction activities are anticipated to occur and

contact information, including a daytime telephone number, for the project representative to be

contacted in the event that noise levels are deemed excessive. Recommendations to assist noise-

sensitive land uses in reducing interior noise levels (e.g., closing windows and doors) will be included

in the notification.

► Temporary property line barriers (e.g., sound blankets) shall be installed to reduce construction-

generated noise levels at affected noise-sensitive land uses. The barriers will be designed to obstruct

the line of sight between the noise-sensitive land use (adjacent, ground level backyards receptors) and

on-site construction equipment within 100 feet of the property line.

► Site preparation construction activities (grading and any other heavy earth moving) shall be limited to

the hours between 7:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. on weekdays and 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. on Saturdays.

No such activities shall occur on Sundays or federal holidays.




Mitigation Measure NOI-2: Implement Construction Vibration Measures.

► Operate earthmoving equipment on the construction lot as far away from vibration-sensitive sites as

possible.

► Phase earthmoving and ground-impacting operations so as not to occur in the same time period.

► Large bulldozers and other construction equipment that would produce vibration levels at or above 86

VdB shall not be operated within 50 feet of adjacent, occupied residences. Small bulldozers shall be

used instead of large bulldozers in these areas, if construction activities are required. For any other

equipment types that would produce vibration levels at or above 86 VdB, smaller versions or different

types of equipment shall be substituted for construction areas within 50 feet of adjacent, occupied

residences.






Zephyr Estates 11

Traffic

Mitigation Measure TRAF-1:

The project applicant shall contribute fair-share funding to the City of Fairfield for improvements planned

for the intersection of Air Base Parkway and Walters Road to address cumulative congestion. The fair-

share of such improvements at this time is estimated to be $16,259.71.

Implementation: Project applicant


Enforcement: City of Suisun City and City of Fairfield



12 Zephyr Estates

Project Characteristics -

Land Use - Acreages from PD

Mobile Land Use Mitigation -

Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation

Solano-San Francisco County, Winter

Zephyr Estates

1.1 Land Usage

Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population

Single Family Housing 59.00 Dwelling Unit 7.10 106,200.00 169

Strip Mall 17.00 1000sqft 1.50 17,000.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics

Urbanization

Climate Zone

Urban

4

Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 56

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics

Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company

2016Operational Year

CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr)

641.35 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr)

0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr)

Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value

tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 150.00 250.00

tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 100.00 250.00

tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Exterior 150.00 250.00

tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Interior 100.00 250.00

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/27/2014 2:51 AMPage 1 of 27

tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2












tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 175.00




tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 4/29/2016 6/17/2016


tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 8/29/2015 10/19/2015




tblFireplaces NumberWood 26.55 0.00

tblGrading AcresOfGrading 6.50 8.60

tblLandUse LotAcreage 19.16 7.10


tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 162.00 157.00



2.0 Emissions Summary










tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 2.00


tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2016

tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 5.00

tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 10.08 8.25


tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 8.77 8.25


tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.57 8.25



2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Year lb/day lb/day

2015 25.0147 48.7843 33.1781 0.0471 6.7708 3.2729 9.0500 3.3985 3.0541 5.4953 0.0000 4,719.5337

4,719.5337

1.1238 0.0000 4,743.1343

2016 24.7243 27.9493 20.6419 0.0320 0.3614 1.6967 2.0581 0.0970 1.6151 1.7122 0.0000 3,094.8755

3,094.8755

0.6048 0.0000 3,107.5768

Total 49.7390 76.7336 53.8200 0.0790 7.1322 4.9696 11.1081 3.4955 4.6692 7.2075 0.0000 7,814.4092

7,814.4092

1.7287 0.0000 7,850.7111

Unmitigated Construction


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Year lb/day lb/day

2015 25.0147 48.7843 33.1781 0.0471 3.0728 3.2729 5.3519 1.5362 3.0541 3.6330 0.0000 4,719.5337

4,719.5337

1.1238 0.0000 4,743.1343

2016 24.7243 27.9493 20.6419 0.0320 0.3614 1.6967 2.0581 0.0970 1.6151 1.7122 0.0000 3,094.8755

3,094.8755

0.6048 0.0000 3,107.5768

Total 49.7390 76.7336 53.8200 0.0790 3.4342 4.9696 7.4101 1.6332 4.6692 5.3452 0.0000 7,814.4092

7,814.4092

1.7287 0.0000 7,850.7111

Mitigated Construction


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e

Percent Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 51.85 0.00 33.29 53.28 0.00 25.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


2.2 Overall Operational


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Category lb/day lb/day

Area 4.7601 0.2706 17.9848 0.0428 2.2052 2.2052 2.2047 2.2047 314.0676 810.4742 1,124.5418

1.4925 0.0147 1,160.4409

Energy 0.0628 0.5370 0.2332 3.4200e-003

0.0434 0.0434 0.0434 0.0434 684.6171 684.6171 0.0131 0.0126 688.7836

Mobile 4.8265 10.1901 48.6727 0.0659 4.5241 0.1131 4.6372 1.2093 0.1039 1.3132 5,789.7794

5,789.7794

0.2511 5,795.0516

Total 9.6493 10.9976 66.8907 0.1122 4.5241 2.3617 6.8858 1.2093 2.3520 3.5612 314.0676 7,284.8707

7,598.9383

1.7567 0.0273 7,644.2760

Unmitigated Operational


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Area 4.7601 0.2706 17.9848 0.0428 2.2052 2.2052 2.2047 2.2047 314.0676 810.4742 1,124.5418

1.4925 0.0147 1,160.4409

Energy 0.0628 0.5370 0.2332 3.4200e-003

0.0434 0.0434 0.0434 0.0434 684.6171 684.6171 0.0131 0.0126 688.7836

Mobile 4.7614 9.7184 47.3136 0.0622 4.2549 0.1071 4.3620 1.1373 0.0983 1.2356 5,461.0123

5,461.0123

0.2387 5,466.0259

Total 9.5843 10.5259 65.5316 0.1085 4.2549 2.3557 6.6106 1.1373 2.3464 3.4837 314.0676 6,956.1036

7,270.1712

1.7444 0.0273 7,315.2504

Mitigated Operational


3.0 Construction Detail

Construction Phase

Phase Number

Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week

Num Days Phase Description

1 Grading Grading 4/1/2015 4/17/2015 5 13

2 Infrastructure Trenching 4/20/2015 6/12/2015 5 40

3 Building Construction Building Construction 6/15/2015 6/17/2016 5 265

4 Paving Paving 6/15/2015 8/28/2015 5 55

5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 10/19/2015 6/17/2016 5 175

OffRoad Equipment


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Percent Reduction

0.67 4.29 2.03 3.32 5.95 0.26 4.00 5.95 0.24 2.18 0.00 4.51 4.33 0.70 0.00 4.30

Residential Indoor: 215,055; Residential Outdoor: 71,685; Non-Residential Indoor: 25,500; Non-Residential Outdoor: 8,500 (Architectural Coating – sqft)

Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0

Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 8.6

Acres of Paving: 0


Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor

Grading Excavators 1 8.00 157 0.38

Grading Graders 1 8.00 162 0.41

Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 255 0.40

Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37

Infrastructure Excavators 1 8.00 157 0.38

Infrastructure Graders 1 8.00 162 0.41

Infrastructure Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 358 0.40

Infrastructure Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 75 0.37

Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 226 0.29

Building Construction Forklifts 2 8.00 149 0.20

Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74

Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 75 0.37

Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45

Paving Pavers 2 8.00 89 0.42

Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 82 0.36

Paving Rollers 2 8.00 84 0.38

Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48

Trips and VMT

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count

Worker Trip Number

Vendor Trip Number

Hauling Trip Number

Worker Trip Length

Vendor Trip Length

Hauling Trip Length

Worker Vehicle Class

Vendor Vehicle Class

Hauling Vehicle Class

Grading 6 5.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Infrastructure 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Building Construction 7 27.00 9.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Architectural Coating 1 5.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT


3.2 Grading - 2015


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Fugitive Dust 6.7237 0.0000 6.7237 3.3860 0.0000 3.3860 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 3.7466 39.5164 26.2235 0.0292 2.2788 2.2788 2.0965 2.0965 3,066.5541

3,066.5541

0.9155 3,085.7795

Total 3.7466 39.5164 26.2235 0.0292 6.7237 2.2788 9.0024 3.3860 2.0965 5.4825 3,066.5541

3,066.5541

0.9155 3,085.7795

Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction

Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment

Water Exposed Area

Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads

Clean Paved Roads


3.2 Grading - 2015


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



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 0.0221 0.0331 0.2997 5.4000e-004

0.0472 3.5000e-004

0.0475 0.0125 3.2000e-004

0.0128 46.4543 46.4543 2.6100e-003

46.5091

Total 0.0221 0.0331 0.2997 5.4000e-004

0.0472 3.5000e-004

0.0475 0.0125 3.2000e-004

0.0128 46.4543 46.4543 2.6100e-003

46.5091

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Fugitive Dust 3.0256 0.0000 3.0256 1.5237 0.0000 1.5237 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 3.7466 39.5164 26.2235 0.0292 2.2788 2.2788 2.0965 2.0965 0.0000 3,066.5541

3,066.5541

0.9155 3,085.7795

Total 3.7466 39.5164 26.2235 0.0292 3.0256 2.2788 5.3044 1.5237 2.0965 3.6202 0.0000 3,066.5541

3,066.5541

0.9155 3,085.7795

Mitigated Construction On-Site


3.2 Grading - 2015


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



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 0.0221 0.0331 0.2997 5.4000e-004

0.0472 3.5000e-004

0.0475 0.0125 3.2000e-004

0.0128 46.4543 46.4543 2.6100e-003

46.5091

Total 0.0221 0.0331 0.2997 5.4000e-004

0.0472 3.5000e-004

0.0475 0.0125 3.2000e-004

0.0128 46.4543 46.4543 2.6100e-003

46.5091

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Infrastructure - 2015


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Off-Road 4.0156 42.9924 29.0067 0.0307 2.3671 2.3671 2.1778 2.1778 3,220.9624

3,220.9624

0.9616 3,241.1559

Total 4.0156 42.9924 29.0067 0.0307 2.3671 2.3671 2.1778 2.1778 3,220.9624

3,220.9624

0.9616 3,241.1559





Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



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 0.0664 0.0994 0.8990 1.6200e-003

0.1415 1.0600e-003

0.1425 0.0375 9.7000e-004

0.0385 139.3630 139.3630 7.8200e-003

139.5272

Total 0.0664 0.0994 0.8990 1.6200e-003

0.1415 1.0600e-003

0.1425 0.0375 9.7000e-004

0.0385 139.3630 139.3630 7.8200e-003

139.5272



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Off-Road 4.0156 42.9924 29.0067 0.0307 2.3671 2.3671 2.1778 2.1778 0.0000 3,220.9624

3,220.9624

0.9616 3,241.1559

Total 4.0156 42.9924 29.0067 0.0307 2.3671 2.3671 2.1778 2.1778 0.0000 3,220.9624

3,220.9624

0.9616 3,241.1559





Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



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 0.0664 0.0994 0.8990 1.6200e-003

0.1415 1.0600e-003

0.1425 0.0375 9.7000e-004

0.0385 139.3630 139.3630 7.8200e-003

139.5272

Total 0.0664 0.0994 0.8990 1.6200e-003

0.1415 1.0600e-003

0.1425 0.0375 9.7000e-004

0.0385 139.3630 139.3630 7.8200e-003

139.5272


3.4 Building Construction - 2015


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Off-Road 3.0716 25.8964 15.5322 0.0234 1.6048 1.6048 1.5194 1.5194 2,329.5592

2,329.5592

0.5673 2,341.4733

Total 3.0716 25.8964 15.5322 0.0234 1.6048 1.6048 1.5194 1.5194 2,329.5592

2,329.5592

0.5673 2,341.4733





Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



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 0.1574 1.0527 1.8536 2.1400e-003

0.0597 0.0167 0.0764 0.0170 0.0154 0.0324 215.5912 215.5912 1.9600e-003

215.6324

Worker 0.1195 0.1790 1.6182 2.9100e-003

0.2546 1.9100e-003

0.2565 0.0675 1.7500e-003

0.0693 250.8534 250.8534 0.0141 251.1489

Total 0.2769 1.2317 3.4718 5.0500e-003

0.3143 0.0186 0.3329 0.0845 0.0171 0.1017 466.4446 466.4446 0.0160 466.7813



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Off-Road 3.0716 25.8964 15.5322 0.0234 1.6048 1.6048 1.5194 1.5194 0.0000 2,329.5592

2,329.5592

0.5673 2,341.4733

Total 3.0716 25.8964 15.5322 0.0234 1.6048 1.6048 1.5194 1.5194 0.0000 2,329.5592

2,329.5592

0.5673 2,341.4733





Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



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 0.1574 1.0527 1.8536 2.1400e-003

0.0597 0.0167 0.0764 0.0170 0.0154 0.0324 215.5912 215.5912 1.9600e-003

215.6324

Worker 0.1195 0.1790 1.6182 2.9100e-003

0.2546 1.9100e-003

0.2565 0.0675 1.7500e-003

0.0693 250.8534 250.8534 0.0141 251.1489

Total 0.2769 1.2317 3.4718 5.0500e-003

0.3143 0.0186 0.3329 0.0845 0.0171 0.1017 466.4446 466.4446 0.0160 466.7813




Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Off-Road 2.8492 24.4713 15.2992 0.0234 1.4846 1.4846 1.4043 1.4043 2,313.5353

2,313.5353

0.5547 2,325.1845

Total 2.8492 24.4713 15.2992 0.0234 1.4846 1.4846 1.4043 1.4043 2,313.5353

2,313.5353

0.5547 2,325.1845





Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



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 0.1432 0.9160 1.7611 2.1400e-003

0.0597 0.0134 0.0730 0.0170 0.0123 0.0293 213.1278 213.1278 1.7300e-003

213.1643

Worker 0.1062 0.1601 1.4324 2.9100e-003

0.2546 1.8100e-003

0.2564 0.0675 1.6600e-003

0.0692 241.9574 241.9574 0.0128 242.2265

Total 0.2493 1.0761 3.1935 5.0500e-003

0.3143 0.0152 0.3295 0.0845 0.0140 0.0985 455.0852 455.0852 0.0145 455.3908



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Off-Road 2.8492 24.4713 15.2992 0.0234 1.4846 1.4846 1.4043 1.4043 0.0000 2,313.5353

2,313.5353

0.5547 2,325.1844

Total 2.8492 24.4713 15.2992 0.0234 1.4846 1.4846 1.4043 1.4043 0.0000 2,313.5353

2,313.5353

0.5547 2,325.1844





Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



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 0.1432 0.9160 1.7611 2.1400e-003

0.0597 0.0134 0.0730 0.0170 0.0123 0.0293 213.1278 213.1278 1.7300e-003

213.1643

Worker 0.1062 0.1601 1.4324 2.9100e-003

0.2546 1.8100e-003

0.2564 0.0675 1.6600e-003

0.0692 241.9574 241.9574 0.0128 242.2265

Total 0.2493 1.0761 3.1935 5.0500e-003

0.3143 0.0152 0.3295 0.0845 0.0140 0.0985 455.0852 455.0852 0.0145 455.3908


3.5 Paving - 2015


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Off-Road 2.3542 21.5568 13.2752 0.0170 1.6485 1.6485 1.5166 1.5166 1,784.1668

1,784.1668

0.5327 1,795.3525

Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 2.3542 21.5568 13.2752 0.0170 1.6485 1.6485 1.5166 1.5166 1,784.1668

1,784.1668

0.5327 1,795.3525



3.5 Paving - 2015


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



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 0.0664 0.0994 0.8990 1.6200e-003

0.1415 1.0600e-003

0.1425 0.0375 9.7000e-004

0.0385 139.3630 139.3630 7.8200e-003

139.5272

Total 0.0664 0.0994 0.8990 1.6200e-003

0.1415 1.0600e-003

0.1425 0.0375 9.7000e-004

0.0385 139.3630 139.3630 7.8200e-003

139.5272



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Off-Road 2.3542 21.5568 13.2752 0.0170 1.6485 1.6485 1.5166 1.5166 0.0000 1,784.1668

1,784.1668

0.5327 1,795.3524

Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 2.3542 21.5568 13.2752 0.0170 1.6485 1.6485 1.5166 1.5166 0.0000 1,784.1668

1,784.1668

0.5327 1,795.3524



3.5 Paving - 2015


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



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 0.0664 0.0994 0.8990 1.6200e-003

0.1415 1.0600e-003

0.1425 0.0375 9.7000e-004

0.0385 139.3630 139.3630 7.8200e-003

139.5272

Total 0.0664 0.0994 0.8990 1.6200e-003

0.1415 1.0600e-003

0.1425 0.0375 9.7000e-004

0.0385 139.3630 139.3630 7.8200e-003

139.5272


3.6 Architectural Coating - 2015


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Archit. Coating 21.2376 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 0.4066 2.5703 1.9018 2.9700e-003

0.2209 0.2209 0.2209 0.2209 281.4481 281.4481 0.0367 282.2177

Total 21.6442 2.5703 1.9018 2.9700e-003

0.2209 0.2209 0.2209 0.2209 281.4481 281.4481 0.0367 282.2177





Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



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 0.0221 0.0331 0.2997 5.4000e-004

0.0472 3.5000e-004

0.0475 0.0125 3.2000e-004

0.0128 46.4543 46.4543 2.6100e-003

46.5091

Total 0.0221 0.0331 0.2997 5.4000e-004

0.0472 3.5000e-004

0.0475 0.0125 3.2000e-004

0.0128 46.4543 46.4543 2.6100e-003

46.5091



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Archit. Coating 21.2376 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 0.4066 2.5703 1.9018 2.9700e-003

0.2209 0.2209 0.2209 0.2209 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0367 282.2177

Total 21.6442 2.5703 1.9018 2.9700e-003

0.2209 0.2209 0.2209 0.2209 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0367 282.2177





Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



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 0.0221 0.0331 0.2997 5.4000e-004

0.0472 3.5000e-004

0.0475 0.0125 3.2000e-004

0.0128 46.4543 46.4543 2.6100e-003

46.5091

Total 0.0221 0.0331 0.2997 5.4000e-004

0.0472 3.5000e-004

0.0475 0.0125 3.2000e-004

0.0128 46.4543 46.4543 2.6100e-003

46.5091




Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Archit. Coating 21.2376 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 0.3685 2.3722 1.8839 2.9700e-003

0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 281.4481 281.4481 0.0332 282.1449

Total 21.6060 2.3722 1.8839 2.9700e-003

0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 281.4481 281.4481 0.0332 282.1449





Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



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 0.0197 0.0297 0.2653 5.4000e-004

0.0472 3.4000e-004

0.0475 0.0125 3.1000e-004

0.0128 44.8069 44.8069 2.3700e-003

44.8568

Total 0.0197 0.0297 0.2653 5.4000e-004

0.0472 3.4000e-004

0.0475 0.0125 3.1000e-004

0.0128 44.8069 44.8069 2.3700e-003

44.8568



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Archit. Coating 21.2376 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 0.3685 2.3722 1.8839 2.9700e-003

0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0332 282.1449

Total 21.6060 2.3722 1.8839 2.9700e-003

0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0332 282.1449



4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

Increase Density

Increase Diversity

Improve Pedestrian Network



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



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 0.0197 0.0297 0.2653 5.4000e-004

0.0472 3.4000e-004

0.0475 0.0125 3.1000e-004

0.0128 44.8069 44.8069 2.3700e-003

44.8568

Total 0.0197 0.0297 0.2653 5.4000e-004

0.0472 3.4000e-004

0.0475 0.0125 3.1000e-004

0.0128 44.8069 44.8069 2.3700e-003

44.8568




Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Mitigated 4.7614 9.7184 47.3136 0.0622 4.2549 0.1071 4.3620 1.1373 0.0983 1.2356 5,461.0123

5,461.0123

0.2387 5,466.0259

Unmitigated 4.8265 10.1901 48.6727 0.0659 4.5241 0.1131 4.6372 1.2093 0.1039 1.3132 5,789.7794

5,789.7794

0.2511 5,795.0516

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information

Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated

Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT

Single Family Housing 486.75 486.75 486.75 1,086,604 1,021,951

Strip Mall 676.60 677.96 677.96 1,042,585 980,551

Total 1,163.35 1,164.71 1,164.71 2,129,189 2,002,502

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-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by

Single Family Housing 12.40 4.30 5.40 26.10 29.10 44.80 86 11 3

Strip Mall 9.50 7.30 7.30 16.60 64.40 19.00 45 40 15

5.0 Energy Detail4.4 Fleet Mix

LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH

0.522085 0.064887 0.165672 0.136634 0.038355 0.005456 0.012406 0.037489 0.004454 0.002641 0.006732 0.000682 0.002505

Historical Energy Use: N



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



NaturalGas Mitigated

0.0628 0.5370 0.2332 3.4200e-003

0.0434 0.0434 0.0434 0.0434 684.6171 684.6171 0.0131 0.0126 688.7836

NaturalGas Unmitigated

0.0628 0.5370 0.2332 3.4200e-003

0.0434 0.0434 0.0434 0.0434 684.6171 684.6171 0.0131 0.0126 688.7836

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas

NaturalGas Use


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day

Single Family Housing

5703.27 0.0615 0.5256 0.2237 3.3500e-003

0.0425 0.0425 0.0425 0.0425 670.9733 670.9733 0.0129 0.0123 675.0567

Strip Mall 115.973 1.2500e-003

0.0114 9.5500e-003

7.0000e-005

8.6000e-004

8.6000e-004

8.6000e-004

8.6000e-004

13.6438 13.6438 2.6000e-004

2.5000e-004

13.7269

Total 0.0628 0.5370 0.2332 3.4200e-003

0.0434 0.0434 0.0434 0.0434 684.6171 684.6171 0.0131 0.0126 688.7836

Unmitigated

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy


6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Mitigated 4.7601 0.2706 17.9848 0.0428 2.2052 2.2052 2.2047 2.2047 314.0676 810.4742 1,124.5418

1.4925 0.0147 1,160.4409

Unmitigated 4.7601 0.2706 17.9848 0.0428 2.2052 2.2052 2.2047 2.2047 314.0676 810.4742 1,124.5418

1.4925 0.0147 1,160.4409


NaturalGas Use


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day


5.70327 0.0615 0.5256 0.2237 3.3500e-003

0.0425 0.0425 0.0425 0.0425 670.9733 670.9733 0.0129 0.0123 675.0567

Strip Mall 0.115973 1.2500e-003

0.0114 9.5500e-003

7.0000e-005

8.6000e-004

8.6000e-004

8.6000e-004

8.6000e-004

13.6438 13.6438 2.6000e-004

2.5000e-004

13.7269

Total 0.0628 0.5370 0.2332 3.4200e-003

0.0434 0.0434 0.0434 0.0434 684.6171 684.6171 0.0131 0.0126 688.7836

Mitigated


6.2 Area by SubCategory


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


SubCategory lb/day lb/day

Architectural Coating

0.4582 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Consumer Products

2.6365 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Hearth 1.5098 0.2128 13.0476 0.0426 2.1786 2.1786 2.1781 2.1781 314.0676 801.7059 1,115.7735

1.4836 0.0147 1,151.4848

Landscaping 0.1556 0.0578 4.9372 2.6000e-004

0.0266 0.0266 0.0266 0.0266 8.7683 8.7683 8.9400e-003

8.9561

Total 4.7601 0.2706 17.9848 0.0428 2.2052 2.2052 2.2047 2.2047 314.0676 810.4742 1,124.5418

1.4925 0.0147 1,160.4409

Unmitigated


8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

8.0 Waste Detail

10.0 Vegetation



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


SubCategory lb/day lb/day


0.4582 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Consumer Products

2.6365 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Hearth 1.5098 0.2128 13.0476 0.0426 2.1786 2.1786 2.1781 2.1781 314.0676 801.7059 1,115.7735

1.4836 0.0147 1,151.4848

Landscaping 0.1556 0.0578 4.9372 2.6000e-004

0.0266 0.0266 0.0266 0.0266 8.7683 8.7683 8.9400e-003

8.9561

Total 4.7601 0.2706 17.9848 0.0428 2.2052 2.2052 2.2047 2.2047 314.0676 810.4742 1,124.5418

1.4925 0.0147 1,160.4409

Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad

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


Project Characteristics -

Land Use - Acreages from PD

Mobile Land Use Mitigation -

Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation

Solano-San Francisco County, Annual

Zephyr Estates

1.1 Land Usage

Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population

Single Family Housing 59.00 Dwelling Unit 7.10 106,200.00 169

Strip Mall 17.00 1000sqft 1.50 17,000.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics

Urbanization

Climate Zone

Urban

4

Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 56

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics

Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company

2016Operational Year

CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr)

641.35 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr)

0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr)

Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value

tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 150.00 250.00

tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 100.00 250.00

tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Exterior 150.00 250.00

tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Interior 100.00 250.00
























tblFireplaces NumberWood 26.55 0.00

tblGrading AcresOfGrading 6.50 8.60






2.0 Emissions Summary












tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2016

tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 5.00








2.1 Overall Construction


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Year tons/yr MT/yr

2015 0.9963 3.7349 2.5470 3.5000e-003

0.0736 0.2304 0.3040 0.0301 0.2155 0.2456 0.0000 318.3683 318.3683 0.0756 0.0000 319.9549

2016 1.4940 1.6889 1.2181 1.9400e-003

0.0212 0.1026 0.1238 5.7000e-003

0.0977 0.1034 0.0000 170.1347 170.1347 0.0332 0.0000 170.8318

Total 2.4903 5.4239 3.7651 5.4400e-003

0.0948 0.3330 0.4278 0.0358 0.3132 0.3490 0.0000 488.5030 488.5030 0.1087 0.0000 490.7867

Unmitigated Construction


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Year tons/yr MT/yr

2015 0.9963 3.7349 2.5470 3.5000e-003

0.0496 0.2304 0.2800 0.0179 0.2155 0.2335 0.0000 318.3680 318.3680 0.0756 0.0000 319.9545

2016 1.4940 1.6889 1.2181 1.9400e-003

0.0212 0.1026 0.1238 5.7000e-003

0.0977 0.1034 0.0000 170.1346 170.1346 0.0332 0.0000 170.8316

Total 2.4903 5.4239 3.7651 5.4400e-003

0.0707 0.3330 0.4038 0.0236 0.3132 0.3369 0.0000 488.5025 488.5025 0.1087 0.0000 490.7862

Mitigated Construction


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Percent Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.36 0.00 5.62 33.87 0.00 3.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00




Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Category tons/yr MT/yr

Area 0.5979 7.9900e-003

0.6155 5.8000e-004

0.0305 0.0305 0.0305 0.0305 3.7381 3.0033 6.7414 0.0183 4.0000e-005

7.1376

Energy 0.0115 0.0980 0.0426 6.2000e-004

7.9100e-003

7.9100e-003

7.9100e-003

7.9100e-003

0.0000 292.5572 292.5572 0.0103 3.7500e-003

293.9370

Mobile 0.8005 1.7702 7.5732 0.0121 0.7958 0.0205 0.8163 0.2133 0.0188 0.2321 0.0000 964.4857 964.4857 0.0413 0.0000 965.3538

Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 18.0317 0.0000 18.0317 1.0656 0.0000 40.4102

Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.6191 11.2866 12.9057 0.1668 4.0300e-003

17.6585

Total 1.4098 1.8762 8.2313 0.0133 0.7958 0.0588 0.8547 0.2133 0.0572 0.2705 23.3889 1,271.3328

1,294.7217

1.3023 7.8200e-003

1,324.4970

Unmitigated Operational




Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Area 0.5979 7.9900e-003

0.6155 5.8000e-004

0.0305 0.0305 0.0305 0.0305 3.7381 3.0033 6.7414 0.0183 4.0000e-005

7.1376

Energy 0.0115 0.0980 0.0426 6.2000e-004

7.9100e-003

7.9100e-003

7.9100e-003

7.9100e-003

0.0000 292.5572 292.5572 0.0103 3.7500e-003

293.9370

Mobile 0.7889 1.6884 7.3327 0.0114 0.7485 0.0194 0.7678 0.2006 0.0178 0.2184 0.0000 909.7553 909.7553 0.0393 0.0000 910.5808

Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 18.0317 0.0000 18.0317 1.0656 0.0000 40.4102

Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.6191 11.2866 12.9057 0.1668 4.0300e-003

17.6559

Total 1.3982 1.7944 7.9907 0.0126 0.7485 0.0577 0.8062 0.2006 0.0562 0.2568 23.3889 1,216.6024

1,239.9913

1.3003 7.8200e-003

1,269.7214

Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail

Construction Phase


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Percent Reduction

0.82 4.36 2.92 5.12 5.95 1.87 5.67 5.95 1.77 5.07 0.00 4.30 4.23 0.16 0.00 4.14


Phase Number

Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week

Num Days Phase Description

1 Grading Grading 4/1/2015 4/17/2015 5 13

2 Infrastructure Trenching 4/20/2015 6/12/2015 5 40

3 Building Construction Building Construction 6/15/2015 6/17/2016 5 265

4 Paving Paving 6/15/2015 8/28/2015 5 55

5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 10/19/2015 6/17/2016 5 175

OffRoad Equipment

Residential Indoor: 215,055; Residential Outdoor: 71,685; Non-Residential Indoor: 25,500; Non-Residential Outdoor: 8,500 (Architectural Coating – sqft)

Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0

Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 8.6

Acres of Paving: 0


Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor

Grading Excavators 1 8.00 157 0.38

Grading Graders 1 8.00 162 0.41

Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 255 0.40

Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37

Infrastructure Excavators 1 8.00 157 0.38

Infrastructure Graders 1 8.00 162 0.41

Infrastructure Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 358 0.40

Infrastructure Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 75 0.37

Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 226 0.29

Building Construction Forklifts 2 8.00 149 0.20

Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74

Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 75 0.37

Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45

Paving Pavers 2 8.00 89 0.42

Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 82 0.36

Paving Rollers 2 8.00 84 0.38

Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48

Trips and VMT

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count

Worker Trip Number

Vendor Trip Number

Hauling Trip Number

Worker Trip Length

Vendor Trip Length

Hauling Trip Length

Worker Vehicle Class

Vendor Vehicle Class

Hauling Vehicle Class

Grading 6 5.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Infrastructure 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Building Construction 7 27.00 9.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Architectural Coating 1 5.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT


3.2 Grading - 2015


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Fugitive Dust 0.0437 0.0000 0.0437 0.0220 0.0000 0.0220 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 0.0244 0.2569 0.1705 1.9000e-004

0.0148 0.0148 0.0136 0.0136 0.0000 18.0826 18.0826 5.4000e-003

0.0000 18.1959

Total 0.0244 0.2569 0.1705 1.9000e-004

0.0437 0.0148 0.0585 0.0220 0.0136 0.0356 0.0000 18.0826 18.0826 5.4000e-003

0.0000 18.1959


3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction

Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment

Water Exposed Area

Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads

Clean Paved Roads


3.2 Grading - 2015


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



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 1.3000e-004

1.9000e-004

1.8200e-003

0.0000 3.0000e-004

0.0000 3.0000e-004

8.0000e-005

0.0000 8.0000e-005

0.0000 0.2778 0.2778 2.0000e-005

0.0000 0.2781

Total 1.3000e-004

1.9000e-004

1.8200e-003

0.0000 3.0000e-004

0.0000 3.0000e-004

8.0000e-005

0.0000 8.0000e-005

0.0000 0.2778 0.2778 2.0000e-005

0.0000 0.2781



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Fugitive Dust 0.0197 0.0000 0.0197 9.9000e-003

0.0000 9.9000e-003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 0.0244 0.2569 0.1705 1.9000e-004

0.0148 0.0148 0.0136 0.0136 0.0000 18.0825 18.0825 5.4000e-003

0.0000 18.1959

Total 0.0244 0.2569 0.1705 1.9000e-004

0.0197 0.0148 0.0345 9.9000e-003

0.0136 0.0235 0.0000 18.0825 18.0825 5.4000e-003

0.0000 18.1959



3.2 Grading - 2015


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



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 1.3000e-004

1.9000e-004

1.8200e-003

0.0000 3.0000e-004

0.0000 3.0000e-004

8.0000e-005

0.0000 8.0000e-005

0.0000 0.2778 0.2778 2.0000e-005

0.0000 0.2781

Total 1.3000e-004

1.9000e-004

1.8200e-003

0.0000 3.0000e-004

0.0000 3.0000e-004

8.0000e-005

0.0000 8.0000e-005

0.0000 0.2778 0.2778 2.0000e-005

0.0000 0.2781




Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Off-Road 0.0803 0.8599 0.5801 6.1000e-004

0.0473 0.0473 0.0436 0.0436 0.0000 58.4402 58.4402 0.0175 0.0000 58.8065

Total 0.0803 0.8599 0.5801 6.1000e-004

0.0473 0.0473 0.0436 0.0436 0.0000 58.4402 58.4402 0.0175 0.0000 58.8065





Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



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 1.2300e-003

1.7800e-003

0.0169 3.0000e-005

2.7300e-003

2.0000e-005

2.7600e-003

7.3000e-004

2.0000e-005

7.5000e-004

0.0000 2.5640 2.5640 1.4000e-004

0.0000 2.5670

Total 1.2300e-003

1.7800e-003

0.0169 3.0000e-005

2.7300e-003

2.0000e-005

2.7600e-003

7.3000e-004

2.0000e-005

7.5000e-004

0.0000 2.5640 2.5640 1.4000e-004

0.0000 2.5670



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Off-Road 0.0803 0.8599 0.5801 6.1000e-004

0.0473 0.0473 0.0436 0.0436 0.0000 58.4401 58.4401 0.0175 0.0000 58.8065

Total 0.0803 0.8599 0.5801 6.1000e-004

0.0473 0.0473 0.0436 0.0436 0.0000 58.4401 58.4401 0.0175 0.0000 58.8065





Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



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 1.2300e-003

1.7800e-003

0.0169 3.0000e-005

2.7300e-003

2.0000e-005

2.7600e-003

7.3000e-004

2.0000e-005

7.5000e-004

0.0000 2.5640 2.5640 1.4000e-004

0.0000 2.5670

Total 1.2300e-003

1.7800e-003

0.0169 3.0000e-005

2.7300e-003

2.0000e-005

2.7600e-003

7.3000e-004

2.0000e-005

7.5000e-004

0.0000 2.5640 2.5640 1.4000e-004

0.0000 2.5670




Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Off-Road 0.2212 1.8645 1.1183 1.6800e-003

0.1155 0.1155 0.1094 0.1094 0.0000 152.1605 152.1605 0.0371 0.0000 152.9387

Total 0.2212 1.8645 1.1183 1.6800e-003

0.1155 0.1155 0.1094 0.1094 0.0000 152.1605 152.1605 0.0371 0.0000 152.9387





Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



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 9.6900e-003

0.0747 0.1031 1.5000e-004

4.1700e-003

1.2000e-003

5.3700e-003

1.1900e-003

1.1000e-003

2.2900e-003

0.0000 14.1446 14.1446 1.3000e-004

0.0000 14.1472

Worker 7.9900e-003

0.0116 0.1092 2.1000e-004

0.0177 1.4000e-004

0.0179 4.7100e-003

1.3000e-004

4.8400e-003

0.0000 16.6149 16.6149 9.2000e-004

0.0000 16.6342

Total 0.0177 0.0862 0.2123 3.6000e-004

0.0219 1.3400e-003

0.0232 5.9000e-003

1.2300e-003

7.1300e-003

0.0000 30.7595 30.7595 1.0500e-003

0.0000 30.7815



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Off-Road 0.2212 1.8645 1.1183 1.6800e-003

0.1155 0.1155 0.1094 0.1094 0.0000 152.1603 152.1603 0.0371 0.0000 152.9385

Total 0.2212 1.8645 1.1183 1.6800e-003

0.1155 0.1155 0.1094 0.1094 0.0000 152.1603 152.1603 0.0371 0.0000 152.9385





Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



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 9.6900e-003

0.0747 0.1031 1.5000e-004

4.1700e-003

1.2000e-003

5.3700e-003

1.1900e-003

1.1000e-003

2.2900e-003

0.0000 14.1446 14.1446 1.3000e-004

0.0000 14.1472

Worker 7.9900e-003

0.0116 0.1092 2.1000e-004

0.0177 1.4000e-004

0.0179 4.7100e-003

1.3000e-004

4.8400e-003

0.0000 16.6149 16.6149 9.2000e-004

0.0000 16.6342

Total 0.0177 0.0862 0.2123 3.6000e-004

0.0219 1.3400e-003

0.0232 5.9000e-003

1.2300e-003

7.1300e-003

0.0000 30.7595 30.7595 1.0500e-003

0.0000 30.7815




Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Off-Road 0.1724 1.4805 0.9256 1.4200e-003

0.0898 0.0898 0.0850 0.0850 0.0000 126.9776 126.9776 0.0305 0.0000 127.6170

Total 0.1724 1.4805 0.9256 1.4200e-003

0.0898 0.0898 0.0850 0.0850 0.0000 126.9776 126.9776 0.0305 0.0000 127.6170





Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



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 7.4000e-003

0.0546 0.0819 1.3000e-004

3.5100e-003

8.0000e-004

4.3100e-003

1.0000e-003

7.4000e-004

1.7400e-003

0.0000 11.7499 11.7499 9.0000e-005

0.0000 11.7518

Worker 5.9900e-003

8.6800e-003

0.0815 1.8000e-004

0.0149 1.1000e-004

0.0150 3.9600e-003

1.0000e-004

4.0600e-003

0.0000 13.4663 13.4663 7.0000e-004

0.0000 13.4811

Total 0.0134 0.0633 0.1634 3.1000e-004

0.0184 9.1000e-004

0.0193 4.9600e-003

8.4000e-004

5.8000e-003

0.0000 25.2162 25.2162 7.9000e-004

0.0000 25.2329



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Off-Road 0.1724 1.4805 0.9256 1.4200e-003

0.0898 0.0898 0.0850 0.0850 0.0000 126.9775 126.9775 0.0305 0.0000 127.6169

Total 0.1724 1.4805 0.9256 1.4200e-003

0.0898 0.0898 0.0850 0.0850 0.0000 126.9775 126.9775 0.0305 0.0000 127.6169





Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



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 7.4000e-003

0.0546 0.0819 1.3000e-004

3.5100e-003

8.0000e-004

4.3100e-003

1.0000e-003

7.4000e-004

1.7400e-003

0.0000 11.7499 11.7499 9.0000e-005

0.0000 11.7518

Worker 5.9900e-003

8.6800e-003

0.0815 1.8000e-004

0.0149 1.1000e-004

0.0150 3.9600e-003

1.0000e-004

4.0600e-003

0.0000 13.4663 13.4663 7.0000e-004

0.0000 13.4811

Total 0.0134 0.0633 0.1634 3.1000e-004

0.0184 9.1000e-004

0.0193 4.9600e-003

8.4000e-004

5.8000e-003

0.0000 25.2162 25.2162 7.9000e-004

0.0000 25.2329


3.5 Paving - 2015


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Off-Road 0.0647 0.5928 0.3651 4.7000e-004

0.0453 0.0453 0.0417 0.0417 0.0000 44.5107 44.5107 0.0133 0.0000 44.7897

Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.0647 0.5928 0.3651 4.7000e-004

0.0453 0.0453 0.0417 0.0417 0.0000 44.5107 44.5107 0.0133 0.0000 44.7897



3.5 Paving - 2015


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



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 1.7000e-003

2.4500e-003

0.0232 5.0000e-005

3.7600e-003

3.0000e-005

3.7900e-003

1.0000e-003

3.0000e-005

1.0300e-003

0.0000 3.5255 3.5255 2.0000e-004

0.0000 3.5296

Total 1.7000e-003

2.4500e-003

0.0232 5.0000e-005

3.7600e-003

3.0000e-005

3.7900e-003

1.0000e-003

3.0000e-005

1.0300e-003

0.0000 3.5255 3.5255 2.0000e-004

0.0000 3.5296



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Off-Road 0.0647 0.5928 0.3651 4.7000e-004

0.0453 0.0453 0.0417 0.0417 0.0000 44.5106 44.5106 0.0133 0.0000 44.7897

Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.0647 0.5928 0.3651 4.7000e-004

0.0453 0.0453 0.0417 0.0417 0.0000 44.5106 44.5106 0.0133 0.0000 44.7897



3.5 Paving - 2015


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



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 1.7000e-003

2.4500e-003

0.0232 5.0000e-005

3.7600e-003

3.0000e-005

3.7900e-003

1.0000e-003

3.0000e-005

1.0300e-003

0.0000 3.5255 3.5255 2.0000e-004

0.0000 3.5296

Total 1.7000e-003

2.4500e-003

0.0232 5.0000e-005

3.7600e-003

3.0000e-005

3.7900e-003

1.0000e-003

3.0000e-005

1.0300e-003

0.0000 3.5255 3.5255 2.0000e-004

0.0000 3.5296




Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Archit. Coating 0.5734 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 0.0110 0.0694 0.0514 8.0000e-005

5.9600e-003

5.9600e-003

5.9600e-003

5.9600e-003

0.0000 6.8938 6.8938 9.0000e-004

0.0000 6.9126

Total 0.5844 0.0694 0.0514 8.0000e-005

5.9600e-003

5.9600e-003

5.9600e-003

5.9600e-003

0.0000 6.8938 6.8938 9.0000e-004

0.0000 6.9126





Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



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 5.6000e-004

8.0000e-004

7.5800e-003

1.0000e-005

1.2300e-003

1.0000e-005

1.2400e-003

3.3000e-004

1.0000e-005

3.4000e-004

0.0000 1.1538 1.1538 6.0000e-005

0.0000 1.1552

Total 5.6000e-004

8.0000e-004

7.5800e-003

1.0000e-005

1.2300e-003

1.0000e-005

1.2400e-003

3.3000e-004

1.0000e-005

3.4000e-004

0.0000 1.1538 1.1538 6.0000e-005

0.0000 1.1552



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Archit. Coating 0.5734 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 0.0110 0.0694 0.0514 8.0000e-005

5.9600e-003

5.9600e-003

5.9600e-003

5.9600e-003

0.0000 6.8938 6.8938 9.0000e-004

0.0000 6.9126

Total 0.5844 0.0694 0.0514 8.0000e-005

5.9600e-003

5.9600e-003

5.9600e-003

5.9600e-003

0.0000 6.8938 6.8938 9.0000e-004

0.0000 6.9126





Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



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 5.6000e-004

8.0000e-004

7.5800e-003

1.0000e-005

1.2300e-003

1.0000e-005

1.2400e-003

3.3000e-004

1.0000e-005

3.4000e-004

0.0000 1.1538 1.1538 6.0000e-005

0.0000 1.1552

Total 5.6000e-004

8.0000e-004

7.5800e-003

1.0000e-005

1.2300e-003

1.0000e-005

1.2400e-003

3.3000e-004

1.0000e-005

3.4000e-004

0.0000 1.1538 1.1538 6.0000e-005

0.0000 1.1552




Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Archit. Coating 1.2849 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 0.0223 0.1435 0.1140 1.8000e-004

0.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0000 15.4472 15.4472 1.8200e-003

0.0000 15.4854

Total 1.3072 0.1435 0.1140 1.8000e-004

0.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0000 15.4472 15.4472 1.8200e-003

0.0000 15.4854





Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



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 1.1100e-003

1.6100e-003

0.0151 3.0000e-005

2.7600e-003

2.0000e-005

2.7800e-003

7.3000e-004

2.0000e-005

7.5000e-004

0.0000 2.4938 2.4938 1.3000e-004

0.0000 2.4965

Total 1.1100e-003

1.6100e-003

0.0151 3.0000e-005

2.7600e-003

2.0000e-005

2.7800e-003

7.3000e-004

2.0000e-005

7.5000e-004

0.0000 2.4938 2.4938 1.3000e-004

0.0000 2.4965



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Archit. Coating 1.2849 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 0.0223 0.1435 0.1140 1.8000e-004

0.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0000 15.4472 15.4472 1.8200e-003

0.0000 15.4854

Total 1.3072 0.1435 0.1140 1.8000e-004

0.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0000 15.4472 15.4472 1.8200e-003

0.0000 15.4854



4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

Increase Density

Increase Diversity

Improve Pedestrian Network



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



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 1.1100e-003

1.6100e-003

0.0151 3.0000e-005

2.7600e-003

2.0000e-005

2.7800e-003

7.3000e-004

2.0000e-005

7.5000e-004

0.0000 2.4938 2.4938 1.3000e-004

0.0000 2.4965

Total 1.1100e-003

1.6100e-003

0.0151 3.0000e-005

2.7600e-003

2.0000e-005

2.7800e-003

7.3000e-004

2.0000e-005

7.5000e-004

0.0000 2.4938 2.4938 1.3000e-004

0.0000 2.4965




Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Mitigated 0.7889 1.6884 7.3327 0.0114 0.7485 0.0194 0.7678 0.2006 0.0178 0.2184 0.0000 909.7553 909.7553 0.0393 0.0000 910.5808

Unmitigated 0.8005 1.7702 7.5732 0.0121 0.7958 0.0205 0.8163 0.2133 0.0188 0.2321 0.0000 964.4857 964.4857 0.0413 0.0000 965.3538

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information

Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated

Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT

Single Family Housing 486.75 486.75 486.75 1,086,604 1,021,951

Strip Mall 676.60 677.96 677.96 1,042,585 980,551

Total 1,163.35 1,164.71 1,164.71 2,129,189 2,002,502

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-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by

Single Family Housing 12.40 4.30 5.40 26.10 29.10 44.80 86 11 3

Strip Mall 9.50 7.30 7.30 16.60 64.40 19.00 45 40 15

5.0 Energy Detail4.4 Fleet Mix

LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH

0.522085 0.064887 0.165672 0.136634 0.038355 0.005456 0.012406 0.037489 0.004454 0.002641 0.006732 0.000682 0.002505

Historical Energy Use: N



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Electricity Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 179.2112 179.2112 8.1000e-003

1.6800e-003

179.9011

Electricity Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 179.2112 179.2112 8.1000e-003

1.6800e-003

179.9011

NaturalGas Mitigated

0.0115 0.0980 0.0426 6.2000e-004

7.9100e-003

7.9100e-003

7.9100e-003

7.9100e-003

0.0000 113.3460 113.3460 2.1700e-003

2.0800e-003

114.0359

NaturalGas Unmitigated

0.0115 0.0980 0.0426 6.2000e-004

7.9100e-003

7.9100e-003

7.9100e-003

7.9100e-003

0.0000 113.3460 113.3460 2.1700e-003

2.0800e-003

114.0359


NaturalGas Use


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr


2.08169e+006

0.0112 0.0959 0.0408 6.1000e-004

7.7600e-003

7.7600e-003

7.7600e-003

7.7600e-003

0.0000 111.0872 111.0872 2.1300e-003

2.0400e-003

111.7632

Strip Mall 42330 2.3000e-004

2.0800e-003

1.7400e-003

1.0000e-005

1.6000e-004

1.6000e-004

1.6000e-004

1.6000e-004

0.0000 2.2589 2.2589 4.0000e-005

4.0000e-005

2.2726

Total 0.0115 0.0980 0.0426 6.2000e-004

7.9200e-003

7.9200e-003

7.9200e-003

7.9200e-003

0.0000 113.3460 113.3460 2.1700e-003

2.0800e-003

114.0359

Unmitigated

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy



NaturalGas Use


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr

Strip Mall 42330 2.3000e-004

2.0800e-003

1.7400e-003

1.0000e-005

1.6000e-004

1.6000e-004

1.6000e-004

1.6000e-004

0.0000 2.2589 2.2589 4.0000e-005

4.0000e-005

2.2726


2.08169e+006

0.0112 0.0959 0.0408 6.1000e-004

7.7600e-003

7.7600e-003

7.7600e-003

7.7600e-003

0.0000 111.0872 111.0872 2.1300e-003

2.0400e-003

111.7632

Total 0.0115 0.0980 0.0426 6.2000e-004

7.9200e-003

7.9200e-003

7.9200e-003

7.9200e-003

0.0000 113.3460 113.3460 2.1700e-003

2.0800e-003

114.0359

Mitigated

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity

Electricity Use

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr


417303 121.3984 5.4900e-003

1.1400e-003

121.8657

Strip Mall 198730 57.8128 2.6100e-003

5.4000e-004

58.0354

Total 179.2112 8.1000e-003

1.6800e-003

179.9011

Unmitigated


6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total



Mitigated 0.5979 7.9900e-003

0.6155 5.8000e-004

0.0305 0.0305 0.0305 0.0305 3.7381 3.0033 6.7414 0.0183 4.0000e-005

7.1376

Unmitigated 0.5979 7.9900e-003

0.6155 5.8000e-004

0.0305 0.0305 0.0305 0.0305 3.7381 3.0033 6.7414 0.0183 4.0000e-005

7.1376

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity

Electricity Use


Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr


417303 121.3984 5.4900e-003

1.1400e-003

121.8657

Strip Mall 198730 57.8128 2.6100e-003

5.4000e-004

58.0354

Total 179.2112 8.1000e-003

1.6800e-003

179.9011

Mitigated




Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr


0.0836 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Consumer Products

0.4812 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Hearth 0.0191 2.7900e-003

0.1711 5.6000e-004

0.0281 0.0281 0.0281 0.0281 3.7381 2.2873 6.0255 0.0175 4.0000e-005

6.4064

Landscaping 0.0140 5.2000e-003

0.4444 2.0000e-005

2.4000e-003

2.4000e-003

2.4000e-003

2.4000e-003

0.0000 0.7159 0.7159 7.3000e-004

0.0000 0.7312

Total 0.5979 7.9900e-003

0.6155 5.8000e-004

0.0305 0.0305 0.0305 0.0305 3.7381 3.0032 6.7414 0.0183 4.0000e-005

7.1376

Unmitigated


7.1 Mitigation Measures Water


Category MT/yr

Mitigated 12.9057 0.1668 4.0300e-003

17.6559

Unmitigated 12.9057 0.1668 4.0300e-003

17.6585

7.0 Water Detail



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr


0.0836 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Consumer Products

0.4812 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Hearth 0.0191 2.7900e-003

0.1711 5.6000e-004

0.0281 0.0281 0.0281 0.0281 3.7381 2.2873 6.0255 0.0175 4.0000e-005

6.4064

Landscaping 0.0140 5.2000e-003

0.4444 2.0000e-005

2.4000e-003

2.4000e-003

2.4000e-003

2.4000e-003

0.0000 0.7159 0.7159 7.3000e-004

0.0000 0.7312

Total 0.5979 7.9900e-003

0.6155 5.8000e-004

0.0305 0.0305 0.0305 0.0305 3.7381 3.0032 6.7414 0.0183 4.0000e-005

7.1376

Mitigated


8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

7.2 Water by Land Use

Indoor/Outdoor Use


Land Use Mgal MT/yr


3.84409 / 2.42345

9.7381 0.1256 3.0400e-003

13.3183

Strip Mall 1.25923 / 0.771788

3.1675 0.0412 9.9000e-004

4.3402

Total 12.9057 0.1668 4.0300e-003

17.6585

Unmitigated

Indoor/Outdoor Use


Land Use Mgal MT/yr


3.84409 / 2.42345

9.7381 0.1256 3.0300e-003

13.3163

Strip Mall 1.25923 / 0.771788

3.1675 0.0412 9.9000e-004

4.3396

Total 12.9057 0.1668 4.0200e-003

17.6559

Mitigated

8.0 Waste Detail



MT/yr

Mitigated 18.0317 1.0656 0.0000 40.4102

Unmitigated 18.0317 1.0656 0.0000 40.4102

Category/Year

8.2 Waste by Land Use

Waste Disposed


Land Use tons MT/yr


70.98 14.4083 0.8515 0.0000 32.2899

Strip Mall 17.85 3.6234 0.2141 0.0000 8.1203

Total 18.0317 1.0657 0.0000 40.4102

Unmitigated


10.0 Vegetation

8.2 Waste by Land Use

Waste Disposed


Land Use tons MT/yr


70.98 14.4083 0.8515 0.0000 32.2899

Strip Mall 17.85 3.6234 0.2141 0.0000 8.1203

Total 18.0317 1.0657 0.0000 40.4102

Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad

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


Zephyr Estates

Construction and Operational Emissions

CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS

Pollutants (tons/year)

Annual

Metric Tons

ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5 CO2e

2015 1.00 3.73 0.23 0.22 320

2016 1.49 1.69 0.10 0.10 171

Total 2.49 5.42 0.33 0.31 491

Average Daily (lbs/day) 15.66 34.11 2.09 1.97 ‐

Amortized Emissions ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 16

Work days 318

OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (Without Statewide Reductions)

Pollutants (lbs/day)

Annual

Metric Tons


Area 4.76 0.27 2.21 2.20 7

Energy 0.06 0.54 0.04 0.04 294

Mobile 4.76 9.72 0.11 0.10 911

Waste ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 40

Water ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 18

Total 9.58 10.53 2.36 2.35 1,286

OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (With Statewide Reductions)

Pollutants (lbs/day)

Annual

Metric Tons


Area 4.76 0.27 2.21 2.20 7

Energy 0.06 0.54 0.04 0.04 294

Mobile 4.76 9.72 0.11 0.10 686

Waste ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 40

Water ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 18

Total 9.58 10.53 2.36 2.35 1,062

Phase

Emissions Source

Emissions Source