MM 4.F-7b: The City shall include of clean fuel -efficient through preferential parking, installation of charging stations, and low emission electric vehicle carsharing programs to reduce the need to have a car or second car vehicles in the TDM Program.
16 Impact 4.F-8: Development facilitated by the proposed, when combined with past, present and other reasonably foreseeable development in the vicinity, could pot entially result in cumulative criteria air pollutant air quality impacts. (Significant)
MM 4.F-8: Implement Mitigation Measures 4.F-2 and 4.F-7b.
Impact 4.F-9: Development facilitated by the proposed project could cumulatively expose persons to substantial levels of TACs, which may lead to adverse health effects. (Less than Significant)
AIR QUALITY IMPACTS AND CONTROL MEASURES
Impact AIR-1: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
The Air District is the regional agency responsible for overseeing compliance with State and Federal laws, regulations, and programs within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB).
The Air District, with assistance from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), prepares and implements specific plans to meet the applicable laws, regulations, and programs. The most recent and comprehensive of which is the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan.
17 The primary goals of the Clean Air Plan are to attain air quality standards, reduce population exposure and protect public health, and reduce GHG emissions and protect the climate. The Air District has also developed CEQA guidelines to assist lead agencies in evaluating the significance of air quality and GHG impacts. In formulating compliance strategies, the Air District relies on planned land uses established by local general plans. Land use planning affects vehicle travel, which, in turn, affects region-wide emissions of air pollutants and GHGs.
The 2017 Clean Air Plan, adopted by the Air District in April 2017, includes control measures that are intended to reduce air pollutant emissions in the Bay Area either directly or indirectly.
Guidance provided in the Air District CEQA guidelines recommends that Plans show consistency with the control measures listed within the Clean Air Plan. The Pacific Fusion Project is consistent with the Alameda Point Plan (a community plan adopted as part of the General Plan), is consistent with the Alameda 2040 General Plan, and is consistent with the Project site’s Enterprise-1 zoning action, each of which designates or zones the parcel that the Pacific Fusion Project would be located to accommodate the Project’s proposed land use type and intensity of development. The EIR for the General Plan was certified in 2021 by the City of Alameda, and the Alameda Point Project EIR was certified by the City in 2014.
At the project-level, there are no consistency measures or thresholds provided in the Air District’s CEQA guidance to demonstrate consistency with the Clean Air Plan . The Pacific Fusion project would not introduce any new substantial sources of air pollutants and stationary sources would be permitted by the Air District. The project would not confli ct with the latest Clean Air planning efforts since 1) project would have emissions below the Air District thresholds (see Impact below), 2) the project would be considered urban infill as it redevelops an active land use, 3) the project
17 Bay Area Air District, 2017. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. 17 would be located near employment centers, and 4) the project would be located near transit with regional connections.
Impact AIR-2 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?
Alameda Point DEIR Impact 4.F-1 and -2 found that development facilitated by the full build-out of the plan area could potentially generate emissions that would result in a considerable net increase of criteria pollutants and precursors for which the air basin is in nonattainment under an applicable federal of state ambient air quality standard.
Construction Period Emissions
General Plan Policy HS -65: Construction Air Pollution, includes a policy to reduce dust and harmful air pollutants resulting from construction activities by requiring compliance with best management practices (BMPs) as recommended by the Air District . Policy HS-65 would include the measures recommended by the Air District in the 2022 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.
The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2022 was used to estimate emissions from construction activities and project operation. CalEEMod predicted emissions from construction activity, construction vehicle trips, and evaporative emissions. The Pacific Fusion project land use types and size, and anticipated construction schedule were input to CalEEMod.
The CalEEMod model output along with construction inputs are included in Attachment 1.
CalEEMod Inputs
Land Use Inputs
The Pacific Fusion project land uses were entered into CalEEMod as described in Table 2.
Table 2. Summary of Pacific Fusion Land Use Inputs
Project Land Uses Size Units Square Feet (sf) Acreage
Project Construction and On-Site Improvements
Industrial Park 220 1,000-sf 220,000 15 Parking Lot 142 1,000-sf 141,750 Off-Site Improvements
Road Construction1 0.64 Mile -
New pipelines/trenching (3 lines) 10,397 feet
Off-site potential 60” main 1,230 feet
1Road construction land uses were used to represent the underground recycled water line in order to capture the linear construction activities.
Construction Inputs
CalEEMod computes annual emissions for construction that are based on the project type, size, and acreage. The model provides emission estimates for both on- site and off -site construction 18 activities. On-site activities are primarily made up of construction equipment emissions, while off- site activity inclu des worker, hauling, and vendor traffic. The construction build- out scenario, including equipment quantities, average hours per day, total number of workdays, and schedule , were based on CalEEMod defaults for a project of this type and size . The construction schedule assumed that the earliest start date would be January 2026 and would be built over a period of approximately 15 months or 325 construction workdays. The earliest full year of operation was assumed to be 2028.
Construction Truck Traffic Emissions
Construction would produce traffic in the form of worker trips and truck traffic. The traffic-related emissions are based on worker and vendor trip estimates produced by CalEEMod and haul trips that were computed based on provided demolition materials to be exported, soil imported and/or exported to the site , equipment that would be hauled to the site, and the amount of asphalt and cement truck deliveries. CalEEMod provides daily estimates of worker and vendor trips for each applicable phase. Haul trips are calculated by CalEEMod based on the volume of demolition material exported and soil imported or exported . Cement and asphalt truck trips were estimated based on a capacity of 9 cy per truck delivery (2 trips) . Pacific Fusion estimates up to 80 vendor deliveries (2 trips each) during the final phase of construction to deliver specific equipment. Table 3 reports the estimate of traffic generated by on - and off-site construction needed for the Pacific Fusion Project.
Table 3. Construction Traffic Estimates
Construction Phase Work Days
Daily Trips
Worker
Vendor
Truck
Hauling
Truck Notes
On Site Work
Demolition 20 15.0 64.3
Removal of demolition
debris
Site Preparation 10 17.5
Grading 20 15.0 96.3 Import/export of soils
Trenching 20 5.0
Building Construction 230 92.4 36.1 10.4 Vendor plus cement Architectural (interior) 20 18.5 8.0
Includes 80 truck
deliveries
Paving 20 15.0 26.0 Import of asphalt
Off Site Work
Pipeline Trenching 104 17.5 21.9 Export demo asphalt and soil, import materials, soil
and asphalt
Street Paving 12 17.5 53.6
Potential offsite 60in line 20 10.0 19.9
Summary of Computed Construction Emissions
Average daily construction emissions were estimated for the total duration of the project ( 325 days) since the construction duration is just over one year. Table 4 shows the uncontrolled annualized average daily construction emissions of ROG, NO X, PM10 exhaust, and PM2.5 exhaust
19 during construction of the project. As indicated in Table 4, predicted uncontrolled annualized average project construction emissions would not exceed the Air District significance thresholds during any year of construction.
Table 4. Construction Period Emissions - Uncontrolled
Year ROG NOx PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5
Exhaust
Construction Emissions Per Year (Tons)
2026+2027 On-site construction 1.38 2.15 0.07 0.07
2026 Off-site construction 0.04 0.64 0.02 0.01
Average Daily Construction Emissions Per Year (pounds/day) 2026+2027 (325 construction workdays) 8.70 17.17 0.55 0.49 Bay Area Air District Thresholds (pounds per day) 54 lbs./day 54 lbs./day 82 lbs./day 54 lbs./day Exceed Threshold? No No No No
Fugitive Dust and Air District Recommendations
Construction activities, particularly during site preparation and grading, would temporarily generate fugitive dust in the form of PM
10 and PM2.5. Sources of fugitive dust include disturbed soils at the construction site and trucks carrying uncovered loads of soils. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site deposit mud on local streets, which is an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. The Air District recommends all projects include a “basic” set of best management practices (BMPs) to manage fugitive dust and considers impacts from dust (i.e. , fugitive PM
10 and PM2.5) to be less -than-significant if BMPs are implemented to reduce these emissions. The City of Alameda’s General Plan Health and Safety Policy HS-65 Action A, Policy HS-69 Action A, and the City’s Alameda Point DEIR MM 4.F-1a would implement the following the Air District basic BMPs during construction:
General Plan Policy HS-65 Action A, HS-69 Action A, and Alameda Point DEIR MM 4.F-1a:
During any construction period ground disturbance, the applicant shall ensure that the project contractor implement measures to control dust and exhaust. Implementation of the measures listed below would reduce the air quality impacts associated with grading and new construction to a less- than-significant level. The contractor shall implement the following BMPs that are required of all projects under General Plan Policy HS-65 Action A, Policy HS-69 Action A, and Alameda Point DEIR MM 4.F-1a:
1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
3. 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.
4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph). 20 5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
6. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.
7. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.
8. Unpaved roads providing access to sites located 100 feet or further from a paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12-inch layer of compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel.
9. Publicly visible signs shall be posted with the telephone number and name of the person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s General Air Pollution Complaints number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
Effectiveness of Policies
The General Plan Policy HS -65 Action A, HS -69 Action A, and Alameda Point DEIR MM 4.F - 1a, described above, are consistent with the Air District- recommended basic BMPs for reducing fugitive dust contained in the Air District CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. For this analysis, only the basic set of BMPs are required as the Project emissions and PM
2.5 impacts were below the Air
District thresholds. Enhanced BMPs are only required as control measures if quantified air quality impacts were found to be significant.
Operational Period Emissions
ROG, PM, and NOX emissions from the Pacific Fusion project would be generated primarily from trucks and autos driven by future employees. Evaporative emissions from architectural coatings and maintenance products (classified as consumer products) are also typical ROG emission sources from these types of land uses. CalEEMod was used to estimate emissions from operation of the proposed project assuming full build-out.
CalEEMod Inputs
Land Uses
The project land uses were input to CalEEMod as described above for the construction period modeling.
Model Year
Emissions associated with vehicle travel depend on the year of analysis because emission control technology requirements are phased- in over time. Therefore, the earlier the year analyzed in the 21 model, the higher the emission rates utilized by CalEEMod. The earliest full year of operation would be 2028 if construction begins in 2026. Emissions associated with build-out later than 2028 would be lower.
Traffic Information
The project-specific daily trip generation rate provided by the traffic consultant was entered into the CalEEMod.
18 The daily trip generation was calculated by the Traffic Consultant using the 11th Edition ITE trip generation rates and the size of the Pacific Fusion project land uses. The project is predicted to produce approximately 741 daily trips. The Saturday and Sunday trip rates were derived by multiplying the ratio of the CalEEMod default rates for Saturday and Sunday trips to the default weekday rate with the project-specific daily weekday trip rate. The default trip lengths and trip types specified by CalEEMod were used. Pacific Fusion predicts that the project, on average, would generate less than 20 truck trips per day. Therefore, 20 truck trips wer e included in the operational modeling.
The Pacific Fusion project would have to meet Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program requirements established by the City for Alameda Point with the purpose of reducing new trips from commercial development by 30 percent in the peak hour. 19 This is anticipated to reduce
daily trip rates by over 15 percent. However, this reduction was not included in the modeling since the final TDM effectiveness assumption had not been determined at the time of the analysis.
Energy
CalEEMod defaults for energy use were used , including the 2019 Title 24 Building Standards.
These defaults are conservative, as the Project would need to meet the more stringent and latest 2022 or 2025 Title 24 Building Standards. The electricity produced emission rate was modified in CalEEMod. An emission factor of 105 pounds of CO
2 per megawatt (MW) of electricity produced
was entered into CalEEMod, which is based on Alameda Municipal Power’s ( AMP) 2023 residential emissions rate.20
The Pacific Fusion project consists of a pulse system (or Pulser) that comprised of multiple modules of electrical capacitors connected in series and parallel, generating the necessary energy for fusion. The Pulser stores electrical energy and then discharges it through pulse tubes and water transmission lines into a target chamber. One “pulse” would require a load size ultra -capacitor energy storage system, which supplies the Pulser with anywhere from 5 to 8 MW of electricity to charge the Pulser . However, the Pulser is used for only about one minute once a day. At peak operation, the Project would require approximately 3.3 MW of power for its standard lab and office space operations, plus the power demands of the Pulser. Most of the other times, the CalEEMod default setting is considered representative of the project’s electricity demand.
18 Kimley Horn, Memorandum Project Solis- Alameda Project Trip Generation and Vehicle Mi les Traveled (VMT) Analysis, May 2, 2025.
19 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Final Report – Alameda point Transportation Demand Management Plan. May 20, 2014.
20 Alameda Municipal Power, Power Content Label. Web: https://alamedamp.com/336/Power-Content-Label 22 The Pacific Fusion project plans do not show any natural gas infrastructure, and the applicant has confirmed the building will be all electric. Therefore, natural gas use for the project land uses was set to zero and reassigned to electricity use in CalEEMod.
Project Generator
The Pacific Fusion project would include one diesel -powered emergency generator located near the northeastern corner of the building. The generator would produce a maximum of 300-kW and would be powered by a 402- horsepower (hp) diesel-fired engine. The generator would be tested periodically and power the building in the event of a power failure. For modeling purposes, it was assumed that the generator would be operated for testing and maintenance purposes as well as non- testing purposes per the Air Dis trict’s newest Guidelines. CARB and the Air District’s requirements limit the engine operations to 50 hours each per year for testing and maintenance.
During testing periods, the engine would typically run for less than one hour. The engine would be requir ed to meet CARB and EPA emission standards and consume commercially available California low -sulfur diesel fuel. Additionally, the generator would have to meet Air District BACT requirements for IC Engine -Compression Ignition: Stationary Emergency, non- Agricultural, non-direct drive fire pump sources. The emissions from operation of the generator were calculated using CalEEMod.
Off-Road Mobile Equipment
The project is anticipated to include the use of forklifts and possibly other off-road equipment that is typical for warehouse uses. The equipment would be used to move products throughout the warehouse prior to shipping and for truck loading/unloading. All off -road equipment would be electric-powered. Emissions from off-road mobile equipment are expected to be negligible and are not included in this analysis. Trucks equipped with TRUs in operation would not be used by the Pacific Fusion project.
Other Inputs
Default model assumptions for emissions associated with solid waste generation and water use were applied to the project. W astewater treatment was estimated to be 100 percent aerobic conditions to represent City wastewater treatment plant conditions. The Pacific Fusion project would not send wastewater to on-site septic tanks or facultative lagoons.
Summary of Computed Operational Emi
ssions
Annual emissions were predicted using CalEEMod and daily emissions were estimated assuming 365 days of operation. Table 5 shows uncontrolled net average daily operational emissions of
ROG, NO
X, total PM 10, and total PM 2.5 during operation of the project. O perational period emissions would not exceed the Air District significance thresholds.
23 Table 5. Operational Period Emissions
Scenario ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
2028 Annual Project Operational Emissions (tons/year) 1.50 1.00 1.31 0.32 Bay Area Air District Thresholds (tons /year) 10 tons 10 tons 15 tons 10 tons Exceed Thresholds? No No No No
2028 Daily Project Operational Emissions (pounds/day)1 8.23 5.48 7.19 1.74 Bay Area Air District Thresholds (pounds/day) 54 lbs. 54 lbs. 82 lbs. 54 lbs.
Exceed Threshold? No No No No
Notes: 1Assumes 365-day operation.
Impact AIR-3: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Project impacts related to increased health risk can occur by generating emissions of TACs and air pollutants. This project would introduce new sources of TACs during construction (e.g., on- site construction and truck hauling emissions) and operation (e.g., stationary and mobile sources).
Project construction activity would generate dust and equipment exhaust that would affect nearby sensitive receptors. The project would include an emergency generator powered by a diesel-fueled engine. Traffic generated by the project would consist of mostly light -duty gasoline -powered vehicles, which would produce TAC and air pollutant emissions. However, there would be up to 20 truck trips per day, which were assumed to be heavy heavy-duty diesel trucks.
Project impacts to existing receptors were addressed for temporary construction activities and long-term operational conditions. There are also several sources of existing TACs and localized air pollutants in the vicinity of the project. The impact of existing sources of TAC s was assessed in terms of the cumulative risk which includes the project contribution.
Health Risk Methodology
Health risk impacts were addressed by predicting increased cancer risk, the increase in annual PM
2.5 concentrations, and by computing the Hazard Index (HI) for non- cancer health risks. The risk impacts from the project are the combination of risks from construction and operation sources.
These sources include on -site construction activity, construction truck hauling, operation of the project generator and increased traffic from the Pacific Fusion project. To evaluate the increased cancer risks from the project, a 30-year exposure period was used, per the Air District guidance,21 with the sensitive receptors being exposed to both project construction and operation emissions during this timeframe.
The project increased cancer risk is computed by summing the project construction cancer risk and operation cancer risk contributions. Unlike the increased maximum cancer risk, the annual PM
2.5 concentration and HI values are not additive but based on the annual maximum values for the entirety of the project. The project m aximally exposed individual (MEI) is identified as the sensitive receptor(s) that is most impacted by the project’s construction and operation.
The methodology for computing health risks impacts is contained in Appendix E of the Air District’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. TAC and PM
2.5 emissions were calculated, a dispersion
21 Bay Area Air District, Appendix E of the 2022 CEQA Guidelines, April 2023 24 model was used to compute contaminant concentrations, and cancer risks and HI were calculated based on modeled DPM concentrations.
Modeled Receptors
Receptors for this assessment included locations where sensitive populations closest to the Pacific Fusion project site would be present for extended periods of time (i.e., chronic exposures). This includes the nearby residences and schools, as shown in Figure 1. Residential receptors were assumed to include all receptor groups (i.e., third trimester, infants, children, and adults) with almost continuous exposure to project emissions , while child receptors were assumed at the schools. DPM and PM
2.5 concentrations were also calculated at nearby worker receptors. While there are additional sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the project site, th e receptors chosen are adequate to identify maximum impacts from the project.
Health Risk from Project Construction
The primary health risk impact issues associated with construction projects are cancer risk s associated with diesel exhaust (i.e., DPM), which is a known TAC, and exposure to high ambient concentrations of dust (i.e., PM
2.5). DPM poses both a potential health and nuis ance impact to nearby receptors. A health risk assessment of the project construction activities was conducted that evaluated potential health effects to nearby sensitive receptors from construction emissions of DPM and PM
2.5.22 This assessment included dispersion modeling to predict the offsite concentrations resulting from project construction, so that lifetime cancer risks and non -cancer health effects could be estimated.
Construction Emissions
The CalEEMod model provided total uncontrolled annual PM10 exhaust emissions (assumed to be DPM) for the off-road construction equipment and for exhaust emissions from on- road vehicles, such as trucks. Emissions were reported for both on- site construction (i.e., Project construction) and off-site improvements (i.e., new pipelines and roadway pavement).
Total DPM emissions were estimated to be 0. 01 tons (19 pounds) and controlled fugitive dust emissions (PM2.5), assuming application of the City’s General Plan Policy HS-65 Action A, to be less than 0.01 tons (3 pounds) from all construction stages. The on- road emissions are a result of haul truck travel during grading activities, worker travel, and vendor deliveries during construction. A trip length of one mile was used to represent veh icle travel while at or near the construction site. It was assumed that the emissions from on-road vehicles traveling at or near the site would occur at the construction site.
Dispersion Modeling
The U.S. EPA AERMOD dispersion model was used to predict DPM and PM2.5 concentrations at sensitive receptors (i.e., residences) in the vicinity of the project construction area. The AERMOD dispersion model is an Air District-recommended model for use in modeling analysis of these types
22 DPM is identified by California as a toxic air contaminant due to the potential to cause cancer. 25 of emission activities for CEQA projects. 23 Emission sources for the construction site were grouped into two categories: exhaust emissions of DPM and fugitive PM2.5 dust emissions.
Construction Sources
To represent both on- and off-site construction equipment exhaust emissions, an area source was used with an emission release height of 20 feet (6 meters).24 Since most of the off-site construction emissions would occur near the edge of the project site, these emissions were included in the project construction area source. The release height incorporates both the physical release height from the construction equipment (i.e., the height of the exhaust pipe) and plume rise after it leaves the exhaust pipe. Plume rise is due to both the high temperature of the exhaust and the high velocity of the exhaust gas. It should be noted that when modeling an area source, plume rise is not calculated by the AERMOD dispersion model as it would do for a point source (exhaust stack).
Therefore, the release height from an area source used to represent emissions from sources with plume rise, such as construction equipment, was based on the height the exhaust plume is expected to achieve, not just the height of the top of the exhaust pipe.
For modeling fugitive PM
2.5 emissions, a near-ground level release height of 7 feet (2 meters) was used for the area source. Fugitive dust emissions at construction sites come from a variety of sources, including truck and equipment travel, grading activities, truck loading (with loaders) and unloading (rear or bottom dumping), loaders and excavators moving and transferring soil and other materials, etc. All of these activities result in fugitive dust emissions at various heights at the point(s) of generation. Once generated, the dust plume will tend to rise as it moves downwind across the site and exit the site at a higher elevation than when it was generated. For all these reasons, a 7-foot release height was used as the average release height across the construction site.
Emissions from the construction equipment and on-road vehicle travel were distributed throughout the modeled area sources. Figure 1 shows the Pacific Fusion project construction site and receptors.
AERMOD Inputs and Meteorological Data
The modeling used a five-year meteorological data set (2013-2017) from the Oakland International Airport prepared for use with the AERMOD model by the Air District. Construction emissions were modeled as occurring Monday through Friday between 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p. m. when the majority of construction is expected to occur according to the applicant. Annual DPM and PM
2.5 concentrations from construction activities during the 2026-2027 period were calculated at nearby sensitive receptors using the model. Receptor heights of 5 feet (1.5 meters) were used to represent the breathing height on the first floor s of nearby residences and worker receptors .25 Receptor heights of 3 feet (1 meter) was used to represent the breathing height of children at the nearby schools.
23 Bay Area Air District, Appendix E of the 2022 CEQA Guidelines, April 2023 24 California Air Resource Board, 2007. Proposed Regulation for In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicles, Appendix D:
Health Risk Methodology. April. Web: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/ordiesl07/ordiesl07.htm 25 Bay Area Air District, Appendix E of the 2022 CEQA Guidelines. April 2023. 26 Health Risks from Project Operation
Operation of the Pacific Fusion project would have long-term emissions from mobile sources (i.e., truck trips) and stationary sources (i.e., emergency generator). While these emissions would not be as intensive at or near the site as construction activity, they would contribute to long-term effects to sensitive receptors. The project expects to have approximately four to five electric powered forklifts used during all hours of operation. Since the forklifts would not be diesel powered and therefore not emit substantial TACs, a health risk analysis of the forklifts was not conducted.
Project Truck Trips
Diesel powered vehicles are the primary concern with local traffic- generated TAC impacts. This project is anticipated to generate 20 truck trips per day. These trips were assumed to be heavy heavy-duty truck (HHDT) trips. These trips were conservatively modeled to use Pacific Avenue and both Main Street and Central Avenue.
This analysis involved the development of DPM, organic TACs, and PM
2.5 emissions for project
truck trips using the Caltrans version of the CARB EMFAC2021 emissions model, known as CT- EMFAC2021. CT-EMFAC2021 provides emission factors for mobile source criteria pollutants and TACs, including DPM. Emission processes modeled include running exhaust for DPM, PM2.5 and total organic compounds (TOG), running evaporative losses for TOG, and tire and brake wear and fugitive road dust for PM
2.5. Additionally, PM2.5 emissions from vehicle tire and brake wear from re-entrained roadway dust were included in these emissions. DPM emissions are projected to decrease in the future and are reflected in the CT -EMFAC2021 emissions data. Inputs to the model include region ( Alameda County), type of roadway (major/colle ctor), 100 percent HHDT trips (truck 2 input), year of analysis (2028 - operational start year), and season (annual) . Traffic speed was 15 miles per hour (mph) on Pacific Avenue and at the speed limit for collector roadways.
Dispersion Modeling
Dispersion modeling of TAC and PM
2.5 emissions was conducted using the EPA AERMOD air
quality dispersion model, which is recommended by the Air District for this type of analysis. 26 TAC and PM2.5 emissions from trucks on each roadway within 1,000 feet of the project site was evaluated. Vehicle traffic on each roadway was evaluated as an R -Line source for each opposing travel direction on the roadways. The same meteorological data and off -site sensitive receptors used in the previous construction site dispersion model ing scenario were used in the roadway modeling. Other inputs to the model included road geometry, hourly traffic emissions, and receptor locations. Concentrations were calculated using the same receptor heights that were utilized in the construction health risk modeling.
Computed Cancer and Non-Cancer Health Impacts
To calculate the increased cancer risk from the project truck trips, the cancer risks were adjusted for exposure duration to account for construction for the first two years, while the operat ional exposure duration was adjusted for the remaining 28 years of the 30- year exposure period. The
26 Bay Area Air District, Appendix E of the 2022 CEQA Guidelines. April 2023. 27 cancer risk, PM 2.5 concentration, and HI impacts from truck trips on the off -site receptors are shown in Table 6. Figure 2 shows the roadways links modeled and receptor locations where concentrations were calculated. Details of the emission calculations, dispersion modeling, and cancer risk calculations for the receptors with the maximum cancer risk from truck trips on the nearby roadways are provided in Attachment 2.
Project Generator
The Pacific Fusion project plans include one emergency generator. The generator would provide up to 300-kW powered by a 402-hp diesel-powered engine. The generator would be located near the northeastern corner of the building. The location of the modeled generator is shown in Figure
1. Operation of the diesel generator would be a source of TAC emissions. The generator would be tested periodically and power the building in the event of a power failure. For modeling purposes, it was assumed that the generator would be operated for testing and maintenance purposes. During testing periods, the engine would typically run for less than one hour. CARB and the Air District’s requirements limit the engine operations to 50 hours each per year for testing and maintenance.
The engine would be required to meet CARB and EPA emission standards and consume commercially available California low-sulfur diesel fuel. Additionally, the generator would have to meet Air District BACT requirements for IC Engine -Compression Ignition: Stationary Emergency, non- Agricultural, non -direct drive fire pump sources. The emissions from the operation of the generator were calculated using CalEEMod.
The diesel engine would be subject to CARB’s Stationary Diesel Airborne Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) and require permits from the Air District, since it will be equipped with an engine larger than 50-HP. BACT requirements would apply to the generator that would limit DPM emissions.
As part of the Air District permit requirements for toxics screening analysis, the engine emissions will have to meet Best Available Control Technology for Toxics (BACT) and pass the toxic risk screening level of less than ten in a million. The risk assessment would be prepared by the Air District. Depending on results, the Air District would set limits for DPM emissions (e.g., more restricted engine operation periods). S ources of air pollutant emissions complying with all applicable Air District regulations generally will not be considered to have a significant air quality health risk impact.
Dispersion Modeling
To estimate potential increased cancer risks and PM
2.5 impacts from operation of the generator,
the same previous AERMOD dispersion model was used to compute the maximum annual DPM concentration at off -site MEIs. Emissions of DPM were based on PM 10 exhaust emissions predicted by CalEEMod for operation of the project generator. The same receptors, breathing heights, and meteorological data used in the construction dispersion modeling were used for the generator modeling. Stack parameters (stack height, exhaust flow rate, and exhaust gas temperature) for modelin g the generator were based on Air District default parameters for 28 emergency generators.27 Annual average DPM and PM2.5 concentrations were modeled assuming that generator testing could occur at any time of the day (24 hours per day, 365 days per year).
Computed Cancer and Non-Cancer Health Impacts
To calculate the increased cancer risk from the generator, the cancer risks were adjusted for exposure duration to account for construction for the first two years, while the operational exposure duration was adjusted for the remaining 28 years of the 30-year exposure period. Table 6 lists the health risks from the project generator at the location of the receptors discussed above. The emissions and health risk calculations for the proposed generator are included in Attachment 2.
Summary of Project-Related Health Risks at the Off-Site MEIs
The maximum increased cancer risks were calculated using the modeled TAC concentrations combined with the Air District CEQA guidance for age sensitivity factors and exposure parameters. Age-sensitivity factors reflect the greater sensitivity of infants and small children to cancer causing TACs. Third trimester, infant, child, and adult exposures were assumed to occur at all residences during the entire construction period, while child exposures were assumed at the nearby preschool and high school and adults only exposures was assumed at the worker receptors.
The Project risk impacts are the combination of construction and operation sources. For this project, these sources include the on-site construction activity and a diesel-powered generator. The project impact is computed by adding the construction cancer risk for an infant to the increased cancer risk for the project operational con ditions for the generator over a 30- year period. The project MEI is identified as the sensitive receptor that is most impacted by the project’s construction and operational activities.
Non-cancer health hazards and maximum PM
2.5 concentrations were also calculated. The
maximum modeled annual PM 2.5 concentration was calculated based on combined exhaust and fugitive concentrations. The maximum computed HI value was based on the ratio of the maximum DPM concentration modeled and the chronic inhalation DPM reference exposure level of 5 µg/m3.
The annual PM 2.5 concentration and HI values are based on an annual maximum risk for the entirety of the project.
The modeled maximum annual DPM and PM
2.5 concentrations were identified at nearby receptors
to find the MEI. Results of this assessment indicated that the construction MEIs were located at two different receptors (i.e., one for cancer risk and the other for annual PM2.5 concentration). The cancer risk MEI was located on the first floor (5 feet above the ground) of a residence east of the project site, opposite Central Avenue. The annual PM
2.5 MEI was located at an adjacent worker
receptor to the northwest of the site. The location of the MEI s and nearby receptors are shown in Figure 1. Table 6 summarizes the maximum cancer risks, PM2.5 concentrations, and health hazard indexes for project related construction, generator, and truck trip activities. A ttachment 2 to this report includes the e mission calculations u sed for the construction, generator, and truck trip modeling and the cancer risk calculations.
27 The San Francisco Community Risk Reduction Plan: Technical Support Document, BAAQMD, San Francisco Dept. of Public Health, and San Francisco Planning Dept., December 2012 29 Construction health risk impacts are shown in Table 6. The uncontrolled maximum cancer risks, annual PM2.5 concentrations, and HI at the modeled MEIs do not exceed its Air District single- source significance threshold.
Table 6. Construction Risk Impacts at the Off-Site MEIs Source Cancer Risk1
(per million)
Annual PM2.51
(µg/m3)
Hazard
Index
Maximum Cancer Risk - Residential Impacts
Project Construction (Years 0 – 2) Uncontrolled 6.55 (infant) 0.06 0.01 Project Generators (Years 2 – 30) 0.34 <0.01 <0.01
Project Truck Trips (Years 2 – 30) 0.02 <0.01 <0.01
Project Maximum/Total Impact (Construction and/or Operation) 6.91 0.06 0.01 Air District Single-Source Threshold >10.0 >0.3 >1.0
Exceed Threshold? No No No Maximum Annual PM2.5 Concentration - Worker Impacts
Project Construction (Years 0 – 2) Uncontrolled 0.10 (adult) 0.06 0.01 Project Generators (Years 2 – 30) 0.02 <0.01 <0.01
Project Truck Trips (Years 2 – 30) <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Project Maximum/Total Impact (Construction and/or Operation) <0.13 0.06 0.01 Air District Single-Source Threshold >10.0 >0.3 >1.0
Exceed Threshold? No No No Maximum School Impacts - Encinal Junior & Senior High School Project Construction (Years 0 – 2) Uncontrolled 3.17 (child) 0.03 <0.01 Project Generators (Years 2 – 7) 0.03 <0.01 <0.01
Project Truck Trips (Years 2 – 7) <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Project Maximum/Total Impact (Construction and/or Operation) <3.21 0.03 <0.01 Air District Single-Source Threshold >10.0 >0.3 >1.0
Exceed Threshold? No No No Notes: 1 The maximum cancer risk and PM2.5 concentration occur at different receptor locations.
30 Figure 1. Locations of Project Construction Site, Project Operational Pollutant Sources, Off-Site Receptors, Maximum TAC Impact Locations (MEI s), and Oakland Airport Wind Rose
Cumulative Health Risks of all TAC Sources at the Off-Site Project MEIs
Health risk assessments typically look at all substantial sources of TACs that can affect sensitive receptors that are located within 1,000 feet of a project site (i.e., influence area). These sources include rail lines, highways, busy surface streets, and stationary sources identified by the Air District.
A review of the project area using the Air District’s geographic information systems (GIS) screening maps identified the existing health risks from nearby roadways and stationary sources at the MEIs. Local roadways and one stationary source was identified as TAC sources with the potential to affect the project MEIs. Figure 2 shows the sources affecting the MEIs. Health risk impacts from these sources upon the MEIs are reported in Table 7. Details of the cumulative screening and health risk calculations are included in Attachment 3.
31 Figure 2. Locations o f Project Site, MEIs, and Nearby TAC and PM2.5 Sources
Nearby Local Roadways
The project site is located in an industrial area with nearby streets .
Cancer risk, PM 2.5
concentrations, and HI associated with traffic on the nearby roadways were estimated using the Air District screening values provided via GIS data files (i.e., raster files). 28 Air District raster files
provide screening-level cancer risk, PM 2.5 concentrations, and HI for roadways within the Bay Area and were produced using AERMOD and 20x20- meter emissions grid. The raster file uses EMFAC2021 data for vehicle emissions and fleet mix for roadways and includes Appendix E of the Air District’s CEQA Air Quality Guidance for risk assessment assumptions. These estimates represent conservative risks reflective of 2022 conditions and are meant to provide a conservative estimate of future conditions, which do not reflect the increased proportion of zero emission motor vehicles that will result in lower future emissions.
29 These screening values are considered higher
than values that would be obtained with refined modeling methods. These raster data are based on region-wide emissions rather than just those that occur within 1,000 feet of the project. More
28 Bay Area Air District, Health Risk Screening and Modeling, 2022. Web: https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and- climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/ceqa-tools/health-risk-screening-and-modeling 29 Bay Area Air District, 2022 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines Appendix E, Section 9, April 2023.
32 information regarding the assumptions used to develop the screening layers can be found in Sections 6 and 7 in Appendix E of the Air District’s 2022 CEQA Guidance. 30 Screening-level cancer risk, PM2.5 concentration, and HI for the cumulative roadway impacts at the construction MEIs are listed in Table 7.
Bay Area Air District Permitted Stationary Sources
Permitted stationary sources of air pollution near the project site were identified using the Air District’s Permitted Stationary Sources 2022 GIS website, which identifies the location of nearby stationary sources and their estimated risk and hazard impacts, including emissions and adjustments to account for OEHHA guidance.
31 One source was identified using this tool ; an
emergency diesel generator. The screening risk and hazard levels provided by the Air District for the stationary source was adjusted for distance using the Air District’s Distance Adjustment Multiplier Tool for Diesel Internal Combustion Engines . Health risk impacts from the stationary source upon the MEI is reported in Table 7.
Summary of Cumulative Risks at the Off-Site ME
Is
Table 7 reports both the project and cumulative health risk impacts (i.e., cancer risk, annual PM
2.5 concentration and Hazard Index) at the receptor most affected by project construction (i.e., the MEIs). The project’s predicted health risks would not exceed the Air District single-source and cumulative-source thresholds.
Table 7 Cumulative Health Risk Impacts at the Project MEIs Source Cancer Risk1
(per million)
Annual PM2.51
(µg/m3)
Hazard
Index
Project Impacts
Project Maximum/Total Impact (Construction and/or Operation) 6.91 0.06 0.01 Bay Area Air District Single-Source Threshold >10.0 >0.3 >1.0 Exceed Threshold? No No No Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative Roadways – Air District Screening GIS Data 3.41 0.08 0.01 City of Alameda Public Works Department (Facility ID #15806, Generator), MEIs at +1,000 feet 0.05 - -
Combined Sources 10.37 0.14 0.02 Cumulative Source Threshold >100 >0.8 >10.0
Exceed Threshold? No No No Notes: 1 The maximum cancer risk and PM2.5 concentration occur at different receptor locations.
30 Bay Area Air District, 2022 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines Appendix E, Sections 6 and 7, April 2023. 31 Bay Area Air District,
https://baaqmd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=845658c19eae4594b9f4b805fb9d89a3 33 GHG Emissions
As described above, CalEEMod was used to compute air pollutant and GHG emissions. While air pollutant emissions include direct and off-site traffic emissions from the project, GHG emissions also include indirect emissions associated with electricity genera tion, electricity transmission , emissions associated with water usage and sewage treatment, and the transportation and landfill of solid waste. These emissions are computed by CalEEMod using default factors that are representative of a R&D land use for the project. The Pacific Fusion project Pulser will require additional electricity. Each day, approximately 8 MW of additional energy was assumed to be used, in addition to other the electricity demands of the project represented by CalEEMod default electricity use settings. This electricity would be provided by AMP.
Annual GHG emissions associated with the operation of the Pacific Fusion Project are reported in Table 8. The GHG emissions per capita are based on projections that the project will employ 250 workers.
Table 8. Annual Project GHG Emissions (CO
2e) in Metric Tons
Source Category Emissions (2028)
Area 1
Energy Consumption 71
Mobile 820
Solid Waste Generation 29
Water Usage 5
Total (MT CO2e/year) 926
GHG Emissions per capita With Pulser 6.26
Without Pulser 5.73
Supporting Documentation
Attachment 1 includes the CalEEMod output for project construction and operational criteria air pollutant emissions. Also included are any modeling assumptions.
Attachment 2 includes the health risk assessment. The AERMOD dispersion modeling files, which are quite voluminous, are available upon request and would be provided in digital format.
Attachment 3 includes the cumulative health risk screening and calculation results from existing TAC sources affecting the MEIs.
CEQA Environmental Checklist: Pacific Fusion
Appendix B
Project Solis Technical Memorandum for the Noise and Vibration Assessment Illingworth & Rodkin, June 2025
429 E. Cotati Avenue
Cotati, CA 94931
Tel: 707-794-0400 Fax: 707-794-0405 www.illingworthrodkin.com [email protected]
M E M O
Date: June 4, 2025
To: Mario Tjia
Director, Hines
From: Carrie J. Janello
Senior Consultant, Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.
SUBJECT: Pacific Fusion Project at Alameda Point, Alameda, CA – Technical Memorandum for the Noise and Vibration Assessment
The Pacific Fusion Project, consisting of a research and development (R&D)/light industrial facility, is proposed on a 12.9-acre site east of Orion Street between West Pacific Avenue and West Ticonderoga Avenue in Alameda, California. The proposed building would be one story tall and approximately 224,500 square feet. The Pacific Fusion building will contain approximately 33,500 square feet of office and operational support space, approximately 72,800 square feet of lab and testing space, approximately 105,500 square feet of high-bay industrial R&D space where the Pulser is located and operated, and approximately 12,600 square feet of ce ntral utility space, including the electrical room and fire pump.
This technical memorandum evaluates the project’s potential to result in significant impacts with respect to applicable California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. This memorandum provides a brief description of the fundamentals of environmental noise and groundborne vibration, summarizes applicable regulatory criteria, discusses ambient noise conditions in the project vicinity, evaluates the potential noise and vibration impacts generated by the construction and operation of the proposed project on the existing noise -sensitive receptors surrounding the site, and presents mitigation measures, where necessary , to mitigate project impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Fundamentals of Environmental Noise
Noise may be defined as unwanted sound. Noise is usually objectionable because it is disturbing or annoying. The objectionable nature of sound could be caused by its pitch or its loudness. Pitch is the height or depth of a tone or sound, depending on the relative rapidity ( frequency) of the vibrations by which it is produced. Higher pitched signals sound louder to humans than sounds
Mario Tjia
June 4, 2025
with a lower pitch. Loudness is the intensity of sound waves combined with the reception characteristics of the ear. Intensity may be compared with the height of an ocean wave in that it is a measure of the amplitude of the sound wave.
In addition to the concepts of pitch and loudness, there are several noise measurement scales which are used to describe noise in a particular location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement which indicates the relative amplitude of a sound. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Sound levels in decibels are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 decibels represents a ten -fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 decibels is 100 times more intense, 30 decibels is 1,000 times more intense, etc. There is a relationship between the subjective noisiness or loudness of a sound and its intensity. Each 10 decibel increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness over a fairly wide range of intensities. Technical terms are defined in Table 1.
There are several methods of characterizing sound. The most common in California is the A- weighted sound level (dBA). This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. Representative outdoor and indoor noise levels in units of dBA are shown in Table 2. Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time, a method for describing either the average character of the sound or the statistical behavior of the variations must be utilized. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of an average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time-varying events.
This energy-equivalent sound/noise descriptor is called L eq. The most common averaging period
is hourly, but Leq can describe any series of noise events of arbitrary duration.
The scientific instrument used to measure noise is the sound level meter. Sound level meters can accurately measure environmental noise levels to within plus or minus 1 dBA. Various computer models are used to predict environmental noise levels from sources, such as roadways and airports.
The accuracy of the predicted models depends upon the distance the receptor is from the nois e source. Close to the noise source, the models are accurate to within about plus or minus 1 to 2 dBA.
Since the sensitivity to noise increases during the evening and at night -- because excessive noise interferes with the ability to sleep -- 24-hour descriptors have been developed that incorporate artificial noise penalties added to quiet-time noise events. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a measure of the cumulative noise exposure in a community, with a 5 dB penalty added to evening (7:00 pm - 10:00 pm) and a 10 dB addition to nocturnal (10:00 pm - 7:00 am) noise levels. The Day/Night Average Sound Level ( DNL or L
dn) is essentially the same as CNEL, with
the exception that the evening time period is dropped and all occurrences during this t hree-hour period are grouped into the daytime period.
Mario Tjia
June 4, 2025
TABLE 1 Definition of Acoustical Terms Used in this Report Term Definition
Decibel, dB A unit describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure. The reference pressure for air is 20 micro Pascals.
Sound Pressure Level Sound pressure is the sound force per unit area, usually expressed in micro Pascals (or 20 micro Newtons per square meter), where 1 Pascal is the pressure resulting from a force of 1 Newton exerted over an area of 1 square meter. The sound pressure level is expressed in decibels as 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio between the pressures exerted by the sound to a reference sound pressure (e. g., 20 micro Pascals). Sound pressure level is the quantity that is directly measured by a sound level meter.
Frequency, Hz The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric pressure. Normal human hearing is between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz. Infrasonic sound are below 20 Hz and Ultrasonic sounds are above 20,000 Hz.
A-Weighted Sound
Level, dBA
The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise.
Equivalent Noise Level,
Leq
The average A-weighted noise level during the measurement period.
Lmax, Lmin The maximum and minimum A -weighted noise level during the measurement period.
L01, L10, L50, L90 The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 1%, 10%, 50%, and 90% of the time during the measurement period.
Day/Night Noise Level,
L
dn or DNL
The average A -weighted noise level during a 24 -hour day, obtained after addition of 10 decibels to levels measured in the night between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am.
Community Noise
Equivalent Level,
CNEL
The average A -weighted noise level during a 24 -hour day, obtained after addition of 5 decibels in the evening from 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm and after addition of 10 decibels to sound levels measured in the night between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am.
Ambient Noise Level The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location.
Intrusive That noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level.
Source: Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control, Harris, 1998.
Mario Tjia
June 4, 2025
TABLE 2 Typical Noise Levels in the Environment
Common Outdoor Activities
Noise Level (dBA)
Common Indoor Activities
110 dBA Rock band
Jet fly-over at 1,000 feet
100 dBA
Gas lawn mower at 3 feet
90 dBA
Diesel truck at 50 feet at 50 mph Food blender at 3 feet 80 dBA Garbage disposal at 3 feet
Noisy urban area, daytime
Gas lawn mower, 100 feet 70 dBA Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet Commercial area Normal speech at 3 feet
Heavy traffic at 300 feet 60 dBA
Large business office
Quiet urban daytime 50 dBA Dishwasher in next room
Quiet urban nighttime 40 dBA Theater, large conference room Quiet suburban nighttime
30 dBA Library
Quiet rural nighttime Bedroom at night, concert hall
(background)
20 dBA
Broadcast/recording studio
10 dBA
0 dBA
Source: Technical Noise Supplement (TeNS), California Department of Transportation, September 2013.
Mario Tjia
June 4, 2025
Effects of Noise
Sleep and Speech Interference
The thresholds for speech interference indoors are about 45 dBA if the noise is steady and above 55 dBA if the noise is fluctuating. Outdoors the thresholds are about 15 dBA higher. Steady noises of sufficient intensity (above 35 dBA) and fluctuating noise levels above about 45 dBA have been shown to affect sleep. Interior residential standards for multi-family dwellings are set by the State of California at 45 dBA L
dn. Typically, the highest steady traffic noise level during the daytime is about equal to the Ldn and nighttime levels are 10 dBA lower. The standard is designed for sleep and speech protection and most jurisdictions apply the same criterion for all residential uses.
Typical structural attenuation is 12 to 17 dBA with open windows. With closed windows in good condition, the noise attenuation factor is around 20 dBA for an older structure and 25 dBA for a newer dwelling.
1 Sleep and speech interference is therefore possible when exterior noise levels are about 57 to 62 dBA L dn with open windows and 65 to 70 dBA L dn if the windows are closed.
Levels of 55 to 60 dBA are common along collector streets and secondary arterials, while 65 to 70 dBA is a typical value for a primary/major arterial. Levels of 75 to 80 dBA are normal noise levels at the first row of development outside a freeway right -of-way. In order to achieve an acceptable interior noise environment, bedrooms facing secondary roadways need to be able to have their windows closed, those facing major roadways and freeways typically need special glass windows.
Annoyance
Attitude surveys are used for measuring the annoyance felt in a community for noises intruding into homes or affecting outdoor activity areas. In these surveys, it was determined that the causes for annoyance include interference with speech, radio and television, house vibrations, and interference with sleep and rest. The L
dn as a measure of noise has been found to provide a valid correlation between noise level and the percentage of people annoyed. People have been asked to judge the annoyance caused by aircraft noise and ground transportation noise. There continues to be disagreement about the relative annoyance of these different sources. When measuring the percentage of the population highly annoyed, the threshold for ground vehicle noise is about 50 dBA L
dn. At a Ldn of about 60 dBA, approximately 12 percent of the population is highly annoyed.
When the Ldn increases to 70 dBA, the percentage of the population highly annoyed increases to about 25 to 30 percent of the population. There is, therefore, an increase of about 2 percent per dBA between a L dn of 60 to 70 dBA. Between a L dn of 70 to 80 dBA, each decibel increase increases by about 3 percent the percentage of the population highly annoyed. People appear to respond more adversely to aircraft noise. When the L
dn is 60 dBA, approximately 30 to 35 percent
of the population is believed to be highly annoyed. Each decibel increase to 70 dBA adds about 3 percentage points to the number of people highly annoyed. Above 70 dBA, each decibel increase results in about a 4 percent increase in the percentage of the population highly annoyed. 2 1 Based on the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration document “Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance” (2010) and data from Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. noise monitoring projects.
2 Kryter, Karl D. The Effects of Noise on Man. Menlo Park, Academic Press, Inc., 1985.
Mario Tjia
June 4, 2025
Fundamentals of Groundborne Vibration
Ground vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves with an average motion of zero.
Several different methods are typically used to quantify vibration amplitude. One method is the Peak Particle Velocity (PPV). The PPV is defined as the maximu m instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave. In this report, a PPV descriptor with units of mm/sec or in/sec is used to evaluate construction generated vibration for building damage and human complaints.
Table 3 displays the reactions o f people and the effects on buildings that continuous or frequent intermittent vibration levels produce. The guidelines in Table 3 represent syntheses of vibration criteria for human response and potential damage to buildings resulting from construction vibration.
TABLE 3 Reaction of People and Damage to Buildings from Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibration Levels
Velocity Level,
PPV (in/sec) Human Reaction Effect on Buildings
0.01 Barely perceptible No effect
0.04 Distinctly perceptible Vibration unlikely to cause damage of any type to any structure
0.08 Distinctly perceptible to
strongly perceptible
Recommended upper level of the vibration to which
ruins and ancient monuments should be subjected
0.1 Strongly perceptible Threshold at which there is a risk of damage to fragile buildings with no risk of damage to most buildings
0.25 Strongly perceptible to severe Threshold at which there is a risk of damage to historic and some old buildings.
0.3 Strongly perceptible to severe Threshold at which there is a risk of damage to older residential structures
0.5 Severe - Vibrations considered
unpleasant
Threshold at which there is a risk of damage to new
residential and modern commercial/industrial structures Source: Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, California Department of Transportation, April 2020.
Construction activities can cause vibration that varies in intensity depending on several factors.
The use of pile driving and vibratory compaction equipment typically generates the highest construction related groundborne vibration levels. Because of the impulsive nature of such activities, the use of the PPV descriptor has been routinely used to measure and assess groundborne vibration and almost exclusively to assess the potential of vibration to cause damage and the degree of annoyance for humans.
The two primary concerns with construction-induced vibration, the potential to damage a structure and the potential to interfere with the enjoyment of life, are evaluated against different vibration limits. Human perception to vibration varies with the individual and is a function of physical setting and the type of vibration. Persons exposed to elevated ambient vibration levels, such as people in an urban environment, may tolerate a higher vibration level.
Structural damage can be classified as cosmetic only, such as paint flaking or minimal extension Mario Tjia
June 4, 2025
of cracks i n building surfaces; minor, including limited surface cracking ; or major , that may threaten the structural integrity of the building. Safe vibration limits that can be applied to assess the potential for damaging a structure vary by researcher. The damage criteria presented in Table 3 include several categories for ancient, fragile, and historic structures, the types of structures most at risk to damage. Most buildings are included within the categories ranging from “Historic and some old buildings” to “Modern industrial/commercial buildings”. Construction-induced vibration that can be detrimental to the building is very rare and has only been observed in instances where the structure is at a high state of disrepair and the construction activity occurs immediately adjacent to the structure.
The annoyance levels shown in Table 3 should be interpreted with care since vibration may be found to be annoying at lower levels than those shown, depending on the level of activity or the sensitivity of the individual. To sensitive individuals, vibrations approaching the threshold of perception can be annoying. Low-level vibrations frequently cause irritating secondary vibration, such as a slight rattling of windows, doors, or stacked dishes. The rattling sound can give rise to exaggerated vibration complaints, even though there is very little risk of actual structural damage.
Regulatory Background
This section describes the relevant guidelines, policies, and standards established by State Agencies, Alameda County, and the City of Alameda. The State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, are used to assess the potential significance of impacts pursuant to local General Plan policies or the applicable standards of other agencies. A summary of the applicable regulatory criteria is provided below.
State of California
State CEQA Guidelines. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) contains guidelines to evaluate the significance of effects of environmental noise attributable to a proposed project.
Under CEQA, noise impacts would be considered significant if the project would result in:
(a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies;
(b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels;
(c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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, if the project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
Alameda County
Oakland International Airport: Airport Land Use Commission Compatibility Plan. The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan was prepared for the Alameda County ALUC in December 2012, Mario Tjia
June 4, 2025
and included noise compatibility policies to prevent the development of noise -sensitive land uses in portions of the airport environ that are exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise. The compatibility of new nonresidential development with noise levels generated by the Airport is provided in Table 3-1.
City of Alameda
City of Alameda General Plan 2040. Chapter 6 of the City of Alameda General Plan 2040, which was amended in June 2022, includes policies and actions with the goal of maintaining an adequate noise environment in the City of Alameda. The following are applicable to this proposed project:
Objective 6. Protect Alameda residents from the harmful effects of exposure to excessive noise from aircraft, buses, boats, trucks and automobiles, and adjacent land uses.
Policy HS-41: Support Pol icies to Reduce Transportation Noise. Support state and federal legislation to reduce transportation noise from cars, trucks, and aircraft.
Policy HS-58: Business Operations. To the extent feasible, through the development entitlement process, require local businesses to reduce noise impacts on the community by avoiding or replacing excessively noisy equipment and machinery, applying noise -reduction technology, and following operating procedures that limit the potential for conflicts.
Policy HS-59: Require Noise Reduction Strategies in All Construction Projects.
Require a vibration impact assessment for proposed projects in which heavy-duty construction equipment would be used (e.g. pile driving, bulldozing) within 200 feet of an existing structure or sensitive receptor. If applicable, the City shall require all feasible mitigation measures to be implemented to ensure that no damage to structures will occur and disturbance to sensitive receptors will be minimized.
Policy HS-60: Significant CEQA Impacts. In making a determination of impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), consider the following impacts to be “significant” if the proposed project causes: an increase in the day-night average sound level (L
dn) of 4 or more dBA if the resulting noise
level would exceed that described as normally acceptable for the affected land use, as indicated by State guidelines, or any increase in L dn of 6 dBA or more.
Mario Tjia
June 4, 2025
Source: Oakland International Airport, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, December 2010, Amended December 15, 2012.
Mario Tjia
June 4, 2025
City of Alameda Municipal Code. Chapter IV of the City’s Municipal Code includes noise control regulations, and the following apply to the proposed project:
Chapter 4-10.4 – Exterior Noise Standards
b. Exterior noise levels when measured at any receiving single or multiple family residential, school, hospital, church, public library or commercial property situated in the City do not conform to the provisions of this subsection when they exceed the noise level standards set forth in Table I or Table II (Tables 4 and 5, respectively, in this report) following:
TABLE 4 Receiving Land Use Noise Level Standards, dB(A) – Single or Multiple Family Residential, School, Hospital, Church, or Public Library Properties Category
Cumulative Number of Minutes
in Any One (1) Hour Time Period
Daytime (7:00 a.m.
to 10:00 p.m.)
Nighttime (10:00
p.m. to 7:00 a.m.)
1a 30 55 50
2 15 60 55
3 5 65 60
4 1 70 65
5 0 75 70
a For example, this means the measured noise level may not exceed fifty -five (55) dB(A) for more than thirty (30) minutes out of any one (1) hour time period.
TABLE 5 Receiving Land Use Noise Level Standards, dB(A) – Commercial Properties Category
Cumulative Number of Minutes
in Any One (1) Hour Time Period
Daytime (7:00 a.m.
to 10:00 p.m.)
Nighttime (10:00
p.m. to 7:00 a.m.)
1a 30 65 60
2 15 70 65
3 5 75 70
4 1 80 75
5 0 85 80
c. In the event the measured ambient noise level exceeds the applicable noise level standard in any category above, the applicable standards shall be adjusted so as to equal said ambient noise level.
d. Each of the noise level standards specified above shall be reduced by five (5) dB(A) for simple tone noises, noises consisting primarily of speech or music, or for recurring impulsive noises.
Mario Tjia
June 4, 2025
Chapter 4-10.5 – Prohibited Acts
b. Specific Provisions. The following acts, and the causing or permitting thereof, are a violation of this section:
7. Loading and Unloading . Loading, unloading, opening, closing or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans, or similar objects between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. in such a manner as to cause a noise disturbance across a residential real property line. This action shall not apply to such activities where the items handled are still in interstate commerce.
8. Vibration. Operating or permitting the operation of any device that creat es a vibration which is above the vibration perception threshold of an individual at or beyond the property boundary of the source if on private property or at one hundred fifty (150′) feet (forty-six [46] meters) from the source if on a public space or public right-of-way.
10. Construction. Construction other than during the following hours: 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Fridays and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays.
Chapter 4-10.7 – Special Provisions (Exceptions)
e. Construction. The provisions of this section shall not apply to noise sources associated with construction provided the activities take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Monday through Fridays or 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays.
Existing Noise Environment
The project site is located east of Orion Street between West Pacific Avenue and West Ticonderoga Avenue as shown on Figure 1. Surrounding land uses include the Woodstock and West End residential neighborhoods, approximately 520 feet to the east; the Encinal Junior and Senior High School, approximately 635 feet to the southeast; the Hornet Field Park and the Alameda Community Sailing Center, approximately 700 feet to the south; the USS Hornet Sea, Air and Space Museum, approximately 1,875 feet southwest; and the Seaplane Lagoon, approximately 1,015 feet west. Other light industrial buildings and storage buildings surround the project site.
The noise environment at the site and in the surrounding area results primarily from traffic along Pacific Avenue, Main Street, and Central Avenue. Distant traffic along Atlantic Avenue/Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway, aircraft associated with Oakland International Airport, and other industrial uses also contribute to the noise environment.
As part of the Alameda Point Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), 3 existing (2013),
existing plus project, cumulative, and cumulative plus project traffic volumes were provided along Central Avenue, south of Pacific Avenue. The existing (2013) peak hour volumes along Central Avenue would be 332 vehicles per hour, and would consist of 95% passenger cars (a total of 315),
3 ESA, “Alameda Point Project Draft Environmental Impact Report,” SCH No. 2013012043, September 2013.
FIGURE 1 Aerial Image Showing the Project Site and the Surrounding Noise-Sensitive Receptors
Source: Google Earth, 2025.
3% medium trucks (a total of 10), and 2% heavy trucks (a total of 7).4
Assuming a conservative traffic volume growth of 2% per year from 2013 to 2025, the existing (2025) peak hour traffic volumes along Central Avenue are estimated to be 421 vehicles per hour, consisting of 400 passenger cars, 13 medium trucks, and 8 heavy trucks, assuming the same vehicle mix. These traffic volumes were used as inputs in the Federal Highway Administration’s Traffic Noise Model, version 2.5 (FHWA’s TNM2.5) to calculate the peak hour noise level at a distance of 75 feet from the centerline of Central Avenue. The predicted noise level from existing trips is estimated to be 63 dBA L
eq at 75 feet from the centerline of Central Avenue. Assuming the 24- hour community noise equivalent level (CNEL) or day- night average noi se level (L dn) to be equivalent to the peak hour noise level, which was assumed in Table 4.G -6 of the Draft EIR, the estimated Ldn along Central Avenue would be 63 dBA at 75 feet.
These noise levels would represent the ambient noise environment at the Wo odstock and West End residences and the Encinal Junior and Senior High School located along Central Avenue.
Typically, hourly average noise levels during nighttime hours are about 10 dBA lower than daytime hourly average noise levels along arterial roadways such as Central Avenue. Therefore, the L
eq during nighttime hours would be about 53 dBA for receptors along Central Avenue.
The ambient noise levels at the remaining noise-sensitive receptors in the site vicinity (i.e., Hornet Field Park, Alameda Community Sailing Center, and USS Hornet Sea, Air and Space M useum) would be lower than the noise levels at the receptors along Central Avenue since these receptors would be more than 1,000 feet from the centerline of Central Avenue. While local roadways and light industrial sources would contribute to the noise environment at these sources, noise levels are expected to be at least 5 dBA lower at these receptor locations, as compared to the noise levels at receptors along Central Avenue.
Operational Noise
Operational noise associated with the proposed project includes project traffic, mechanical equipment, truck loading and unloading, and forklift operations. Each of these project -generated operations are discussed below.
According to Policy HS -60 of the City’s General Code, a significant impact would occur if the proposed project causes: an increase of 4 dBA L
dn or more if the resulting noise level would exceed
the normally acceptable limit for the affected land use; or any increase of 6 dBA Ldn or more.
Chapter 4-10.4 of the City’s Municipal code provides exterior noise standards for noise -sensitive uses (i.e., residences, hospitals, churches, etc.) and commercial uses. For activities occurring for more than 30 minutes in a given hour, noise levels would be limited to 55 dBA L 50 during daytime
hours and 50 dBA L 50 during nighttime hours for noise -sensitive uses and to 65 dBA L 50 during daytime hours and 60 dBA L 50 during nighttime hours for commercial uses. For activities occurring for more than five minutes in a given hour, noise level limits (L08) would be 10 dBA above the L50 limits. Maximum instantaneous noise level limits (Lmax) would be 20 dBA above the L50 limits.
Mario Tjia
June 4, 2025
The Municipal Code further states that where ambient conditions exceed the standards, ambient noise levels would be used as the daytime and nighttime standards. Table 6 summarizes the applicable standards for the proposed project at each of the surrounding receptors. Note, the light industrial and storage buildings surrounding the site are not considered noise -sensitive receptors subject to the City’s daytime and nighttime noise limits; however, operational noise levels generated by the proposed project are provided at these receptors for informational purposes.
Project Traffic
The traffic study included peak hour project trips generated by the proposed project. Daily project trips would by 741 vehicles, with peak AM and PM project trips of 75 each. Additionally, the traffic study included 79 daily truck trips with 8 peak AM and PM truck trips. When the peak hour truck trips and peak hour project trips are added to existing (2025) volumes, the existing plus project noise levels along Central Avenue would be 68 dBA L dn. By comparing the existing plus
project traffic scenario to the existing (2025) traffic scenario, the project’s contribution to the noise level increase was determined to be 1 dBA Ldn in the project vicinity. Therefore, the project would not result in a significant permanent noise increase at noise- sensitive receptors in the project vicinity.
The Alameda Point Draft EIR calculated a 4 dBA increase when the full Area Plan buildout was added to existing volumes in 2013. The findings for the proposed project would not add an additional impact and would be included in the 4 dBA increase. No additional impact would occur with the proposed project.
Truck Loading and Unloading
The site plan shows loading docks along the northern façade of the building, as well as drive thru doors along the northern, eastern, and western façades of the building. As mentioned above, there would be 79 daily truck trips generated by the proposed project, with 8 peak AM and PM truck trips. The expected hours of delivery are between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and the expected truck routes would be to the north of the project site along Main Street.
Truck maneuvering noise would include a combination of engine, exhaust, and tire noise, as well as the intermittent sounds of back -up alarms and releases of compressed air associated with truck/trailer air brakes. Heavy trucks typically generate maximum noise levels ranging from 70 to 75 dBA at 50 feet during maneuvering activities, with maximum noise levels from backup beepers being up to 75 dBA. During delivery hours, hourly average noise levels due to truck loading and unloading activities would range from 69 to 73 dBA at 50 feet, assuming three to eight truck trips each hour between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. T he 24-hour noise level average would be 69 dB A L
dn at 50 feet.
Truck maneuvering typically occurs for up to five minutes per delivery. Therefore, the daytime L08 standards provided in Table 6 for each receptor would apply to this noise source.
TABLE 6 Standards Applied to Each of the Surrounding Receptors Receptor Ldn
Daytime Standards Nighttime Standards
More than 30
minutes,
dBA L50
More than 5
minutes,
dBA L08
Max. Level,
dBA Lmax
More than 30
minutes,
dBA L50
More than 5
minutes,
dBA L08
Max. Level,
dBA Lmax
Woodstock & West
End Res. 67 63 73a 83a 53a 63a 73a
Encinal Junior &
Senior High School 67 63 73a 83a 53a 63a 73a
Hornet Field Park 59 55b 65b 75b 50b 60b 70b
Alameda Community
Sailing Center 59 55b 65b 75b 50b 60b 70b
USS Hornet Sea, Air
& Space Museum 59 55b 65b 75b 50b 60b 70b
a For receptors located along Central Avenue, typical ambient noise levels would be up 63 dBA L50 during daytime hours. When arterial roadways are the dominant noise source, nighttime ambient noise levels are typically 10 dBA lower than the daytime noise levels. Since the ambient noise levels due to traffic noise along Central Avenue would exceed the City’s thresholds, the ambient noise levels would be the operational noise standards. The daytime and nighttime L08 and Lmax standards are 10 and 20 dBA higher than the L50 noise standards. b For receptors setback 1,000 feet or more from Central Avenue, the City’s 55 dBA L50 daytime and 50 dBA L50 nighttime noise standards for noise-sensitive uses would apply. The daytime and nighttime L08 and Lmax standards are 10 and 20 dBA higher than the L50 noise standards.
Mario Tjia
June 4, 2025
TABLE 7 Operational Noise Levels from the Nearest Loading Areas to the Receiving Property Lines Receptor Distance from Center of Nearest
Loading Area, feet L08, dBA L50, dBA Operational
Ldn, dBA
Noise Level
Increase, dBA Ldn
Woodstock & West
End Res. 625 48 to 53 47 to 51 47 0
Encinal Junior &
Senior High School 970 44 to 49 43 to 48 44 0
Hornet Field Park 1,090 43 to 48 42 to 47 43 0
Alameda Community
Sailing Center 1,180 43 to 48 42 to 47 43 0
USS Hornet Sea, Air
& Space Museum 2,075 38 to 43 37 to 41 37 0
North Light Ind. 215 57 to 62 56 to 61 57 N/Aa
West Light Ind. 140 61 to 66 60 to 64 60 N/Aa
East Storage 110 63 to 68 62 to 66 63 N/Aa
a As stated in Objective 6 of the City’s General Plan, Policy HS-60, which defines a significant noise level increase under CEQA, is intended to protect residential uses and other noise-sensitive uses. Therefore, noise level increases at the surrounding light industrial and storage uses are not subject to the City’s permanent noise level thresholds.
Table 7 summarizes expected noise levels generated by typical truck maneuvering at the surrounding receptors. All noise levels in Table 7 are unattenuated.
Based on the operational noise levels in Table 7, truck loading and unloading activities would not exceed the City’s L 08 or L50 daytime standards, which are summarized in Table 6, at the noise - sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. For all existing noise-sensitive receptors, the noise level increase due to truck loading/unloading activities would not be measurable or detectable (0 dBA Ldn increase).
Parking Lot
A surface parking lot would be located to the east of project building, and all receptors to the west and north would be mostly shielded from parking lot noise. The only receptors analyzed for this noise source would be the receptors to the east and to the south.
Noise sources associated with the use of the parking lots would include vehicular circulation, loud engines, door slams, and human voices. The maximum noise level of a passing car at 15 mph typically ranges from 45 to 55 dBA at a distance of 100 feet. The noise generated during an engine start is similar. Door slams cause slightly lower noise levels. The hourly average noise levels resulting from all of these noise-generating activities in a busy parking lot typically range from 40 to 50 dBA L
eq at a distance of 100 feet from the parking area. Noise levels decrease at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance. Assuming maximum activities in a busy parking lot for three hours between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and again between 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. and so me activity between 8:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., the 24- hour average noise level at 100 feet would be 48 dBA Ldn.
While a single vehicle accessing a parking lot and maneuvering to and from a parking spot would typically take up to five minutes, activity throughout the parking lot at the start and end of a shift would be constant for more than 30 minutes in a given hour . Therefore, the daytime L08 and L50 standards provided in Table 6 for each receptor would apply to this noise source.
Table 8 summarizes expected noise levels generated by parking lots at the surrounding receptors.
All noise levels in Table 8 are unattenuated.
Based on the operational noise levels in Table 8, parking lot activities would not exceed the City’s L
08 or L50 daytime standards, which are summarized in Table 6, at the noise-sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. For all existing noise-sensitive receptors, the noise level increase due to parking lot activities would not be measurable or detectable (0 dBA Ldn increase).
Mechanical Equipment
Most operational mechanical equipment proposed at the project site, including the Pulser, would be located within the proposed building, which would adequately shield the mechanical equipment noise from the surrounding receptors. On the exterior of the proposed building, the site plan shows two transformers located along the eastern façade near the northeastern corner of the building. The receptors to the west would not be subject to noise generated by the transformers.
Mario Tjia
June 4, 2025
Transformers up to 1,000 kVA typically generate noise levels up to 64 dBA, as measured at 1 meter (about 3 feet). Assuming two transformers run continuously during daytime and nighttime hours, the 24-hour average noise level would be 73 dBA Ldn at a distance of about 3 feet.
For this analysis, it is assumed that both transformers operate continuously throughout each hour in a 24-hour period. Therefore, the daytime and nighttime L 50 standards provided in Table 6 for
each receptor would apply to this noise source. Table 9 summarizes the unattenuated operational noise levels for mechanical equipment noise.
Based on the operational noise levels in Table 9, mechanical equipment noise would not exceed the City’s L
50 daytime or nighttime standards, which are summarized in Table 6, at the noise - sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. For all existing noise-sensitive receptors, the noise level increase due to mechanical equipment would not be measurable or detectable (0 dBA Ldn increase).
Forklift Operations
Forklifts are typically used to off load heavy trucks at the loading docks at the north end of the building and could also be used to maneuver around the exterior of the site in the yard located north of the building and in the northeastern corner of the building, moving supplies from one location to another about the project site or providing maintenance operations.
Forklift operations are expected to occur during daytime hours only and, conservatively, could occur continuously for 30 minutes or more in a given hour. Forklifts typically generate noise levels of 67 dBA at 50 feet. While usage of forklifts on the project site is difficult to anticipate, if two to four forklifts operate simultaneously within 50 feet of a receptor, hourly average noise levels would range from 70 to 73 dBA. Assuming this occurs each hour between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., the 24-hour average noise level would range from 70 to 73 dBA L dn at 50 feet.
Table 10 summarizes expected noise levels generated by forklift operations at the surrounding receptors, assuming two to four forklifts operate simultaneously within 50 feet of the project’s boundaries. All noise levels in Table 10 are unattenuated.
Based on the operational noise levels in Table 10 , forklift activities would not exceed the City’s L
50 daytime standards, which are summarized in Table 6, at the noise -sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. For all existing noise-sensitive receptors, the noise level increase due to forklift activities would not be measurable or detectable (0 dBA Ldn increase).
TABLE 8 Operational Noise Levels from the Center of the Parking Lot to the Receiving Property Lines Receptor Distance from Center of Parking
Lot, feet L08, dBA L50, dBA Operational
Ldn, dBA
Noise Level
Increase, dBA Ldn
Woodstock & West
End Res. 690 28 to 38 23 to 33 32 0
Encinal Junior &
Senior High School 800 27 to 37 22 to 32 30 0
Hornet Field Park 1,025 25 to 35 20 to 30 28 0
Alameda Community
Sailing Center 905 26 to 36 21 to 31 29 0
East Storage 100 45 to 55 40 to 50 48 N/Aa
a As stated in Objective 6 of the City’s General Plan, Policy HS-60, which defines a significant noise level increase under CEQA, is intended to protect residential uses and other noise-sensitive uses. Therefore, noise level increases at the surrounding light industrial and storage uses are not subject to the City’s permanent noise level thresholds.
TABLE 9 Operational Noise Levels from the Transformers to the Receiving Property Lines Receptor Distance from Center of Nearest
Loading Area, feet L50, dBA Operational Ldn, dBA Noise Level Increase, dBA Ldn
Woodstock & West
End Res. 630 21 27 0
Encinal Junior &
Senior High School 1,040 < 20 23 0
Hornet Field Park 1,420 < 20 20 0
Alameda Community
Sailing Center 1,315 < 20 21 0
North Light Ind. 290 27 34 N/Aa
East Storage 100 37 43 N/Aa
a As stated in Objective 6 of the City’s General Plan, Policy HS-60, which defines a significant noise level increase under CEQA, is intended to protect residential uses and other noise-sensitive uses. Therefore, noise level increases at the surrounding light industrial and storage uses are not subject to the City’s permanent noise level thresholds.
Mario Tjia
June 4, 2025
TABLE 10 Operational Noise Levels from the Forklifts to the Receiving Property Lines Receptor Distance from the Nearest
Operating Forklifts, feet L50, dBA Operational Ldn, dBA Noise Level Increase, dBA Ldn
Woodstock & West
End Res. 600 48 to 51 46 to 49 0
Encinal Junior &
Senior High School 895 45 to 48 43 to 46 0
Hornet Field Park 1,225 42 to 45 40 to 43 0
Alameda Community
Sailing Center 1,125 43 to 46 41 to 44 0
USS Hornet Sea, Air
& Space Museum 2,205 37 to 40 35 to 38 0
North Light Ind. 50 70 to 73 68 to 71 N/Aa
West Light Ind. 120 62 to 65 60 to 63 N/Aa
East Storage 80 66 to 69 64 to 67 N/Aa
a As stated in Objective 6 of the City’s General Plan, Policy HS-60, which defines a significant noise level increase under CEQA, is intended to protect residential uses and other noise-sensitive uses. Therefore, noise level increases at the surrounding light industrial and storage uses are not subject to the City’s permanent noise level thresholds.
Total Combined Project-Generated Noise
Operational noise levels due to project-generated activities (i.e., traffic, truck loading/unloading, parking lot, mechanical equipment, and forklift operations) would not exceed the City’s daytime noise limits at the noise-sensitive receptors surrounding the site, which include residential uses, a school, a park, a community sailing center, and a museum.
For all existing noise -sensitive receptors in the project vicinity, the noise level increase due to project-generated noise levels would not result in a measurable or detectable permanent noise level increase (i.e., 0 dBA L
dn increase).
The City does not have operational noise limits for light industrial uses and storage facilities and therefore the noise level increase threshold established in the City’s General Plan would not apply to the surrounding light industrial land use s and storage facilities. These uses are not considered noise-sensitive receptors and would not be subject to the permanent noise level increase threshold established by the City under CEQA. For all the foregoing reasons , total combined Project - generated noise would be a less-than-significant impact.
Construction Noise
Construction of the proposed project would include onsite demolition, building assembly, paving, and landscaping. As part of the Alameda Point Master Infrastructure Plan (MIP) , each phase of development will include construction of a portion of the infrastructure required to support the proposed uses and surrounding existing uses, while being balanced to maintain the feasibility of the development projects. While terms have not been finalized, the maximum package of offsite infrastructure improvements required of the Pacific Fusion Project would include roadway extensions, intersection improvements, frontage improvements, a new wastewater collection system, a new stormwater system, a looped water line, a 12 -inch recycled water line, and a join trench from the existing Cartwright substation to the project site to accommodate a new main line underground electric distribution system service. Noise generated by both onsite and offsite construction activities are discussed in this section.
Chapter 4-10.5 of the City’s Municipal Code limits construction work hours to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Fridays and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays.
Noise impacts resulting from construction depend upon the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise -generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sources and noise -sensitive areas. Construction noise impacts primarily result when construction activities occur during noise -sensitive times of the day (e.g., early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), the construction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise-sensitive land uses, or when construction lasts over extended periods of time.
Construction activities generate considerable amounts of noise, especially during earth -moving activities when heavy equipment is used. The construction of the proposed project would involve demolition of existing structures and pavement, substantial excavation and foundation work including pile driving activities , building assembly, paving, and landscaping. The hauling of Mario Tjia
June 4, 2025
excavated materials and construction materials would generate truck trips on local roadways, as well. For the proposed project, impact pile driving may be required and is assumed in this analysis.
Construction activities for individual projects are typically carried out in phases. During each phase of construction, there would be a different mix of equipment operating, and noise levels would vary by phase and vary within phases, based on the amount of equipment in operation and the location at which the equipment is operating.
The highest noise levels would be generated during grading, excavation, and foundation construction. The assembly of large buildings from steel structures could also cause considerable noise for fairly long durations. The typical range of maximum instantaneous noise levels for the proposed project would be 70 to 90 dBA L
max at a distance of 50 feet (see Table 11) from the
equipment. At 50 feet, maximum noise levels generated by impact pile driving would be 105 dBA Lmax.
Table 12 shows the hourly average noise level ranges, by construction phase, typical for various types of projects. Hourly average noise levels generated by construction typically are about 75 to 89 dBA L
eq for R&D buildings and about 78 to 88 dBA Leq for roadwork and trenching, measured at a distance of 50 feet from the center of a busy construction site. Construction -generated noise levels drop off at a rate of about 6 dBA per doubling of the distance between the source and receptor. Shielding by buildings or terrain often results in lower construction noise levels at distant receptors.
Mario Tjia
June 4, 2025
TABLE 11 Construction Equipment 50-Foot Noise Emission Limits Equipment Category Lmax Level
(dBA)1,2 Impact/Continuous
Arc Welder
Auger Drill Rig
Backhoe
Bar Bender
Boring Jack Power Unit
Chain Saw
Compressor3
Compressor (other)
Concrete Mixer
Concrete Pump
Concrete Saw
Concrete Vibrator
Crane
Dozer
Excavator
Front End Loader
Generator
Generator (25 KVA or less)
Gradall
Grader
Grinder Saw
Horizontal Boring Hydro Jack
Hydra Break Ram
Impact Pile Driver
Insitu Soil Sampling Rig
Jackhammer
Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram)
Paver
Pneumatic Tools
Pumps
Rock Drill
Scraper
Slurry Trenching Machine
Soil Mix Drill Rig
Street Sweeper
Tractor
Truck (dump, delivery)
Vacuum Excavator Truck (vac-truck)
Vibratory Compactor
Vibratory Pile Driver
All other equipment with engines larger than 5 HP
73 85
80 80
80 85
70 80
85 82
90 80
85 85
85 80
82 70
85 85
85 80
90 105
84 85
90 85
85 77
85 85
82 80
80 84
84 85
80 95
85 Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Impact
Impact
Continuous
Impact
Impact
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Notes:
1 Measured at 50 feet from the construction equipment, with a “slow” (1 sec.) time constant. 2 Noise limits apply to total noise emitted from equipment and associated components operating at full power while engaged in its intended operation.
3Portable Air Compressor rated at 75 cfm or greater and that operates at greater than 50 psi.
Mario Tjia
June 4, 2025
TABLE 12 Typical Ranges of Construction Noise Levels at 50 Feet, L eq (dBA)
Domestic Housing
Office Building,
Hotel, Hospital,
School, Public
Works
Industrial Parking
Garage, Religious
Amusement &
Recreations, Store,
Service Station
Public Works
Roads & Highways,
Sewers, and
Trenches
I II I II I II I II
Ground
Clearing
83 83
84 84
84 83
84 84
Excavation
88 75
89 79
89 71
88 78
Foundations
81 81
78 78
77 77
88 88
Erection
81 65
87 75
84 72
79 78
Finishing
88 72
89 75
89 74
84 84
I - All pertinent equipment present at site.
II - Minimum required equipment present at site.
Source: U.S.E.P.A., Legal Compilation on Noise, Vol. 1, p. 2-104, 1973.
Onsite Construction
Project construction would include demolition of the existing 90,000-square- foot Building 530 currently on the project site and is expected to start in early January 2026. As part of the project site preparation, remediation programs have been or will be completed, with monitoring efforts demonstrating that remediation goals have been achieved and regulatory closure was obtained.
The new R&D building would have a footprint of approximately 600 feet by 350 feet, with a maximum height of approximately 100 feet at the 300- foot by 350-foot high-bay industrial R&D space. The project’s exterior will be a combination of tilt up concrete for the office, lab space and the base of the R&D space, and a precast panel or metal panel construction for the high bay industrial lab space for the Pulser. Due to the bearing pressure of the large concrete structure and the sensitive equipment of the Pulser , which cannot withstand substantial settlement once in operation, the project will rely on deep foundation systems (i.e., piles) deriving support from below the underlying Young Bay Mud. The Project’s concrete slab foundation would rest on these piles so that the building will not settle with the surrounding soil. Other onsite site improvements would include the following:
• 202-space parking lot
• A small frontage roadway between the project’s building and Orion Street, which shall provide offsite firefighting access to the 100-foot-tall bay structure • A loading dock with four bays accessing the R&D building space/Pulser • A transformer pad
• A covered s torage area and trash enclosure and several nine- foot by nine -foot by 20-foot storage containers
• Four above-ground storage tanks for water and oil
Mario Tjia
June 4, 2025
• A perimeter landscaped area, which shall also serve as bioretention to meet clean stormwater runoff requirements, with an eight -foot-tall fence securing the site and landscaping designed to meet the City parking lot shading and water efficiency requirements
Total onsite project construction is expected to take about 15 months to complete, ending at the end of March 2027. The applicant proposes construction between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) was used to calculate the typical hourly average noise levels for each phase of construction, assuming the two loudest pieces of equipment would operate simultaneously, as recommended by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for construction noise evaluations. This construction noise model includes representative sound levels for the most common types of construction equipment and the approximate usage factors of such equipment that were developed based on an extensive database of information gathered during the construction of the Central Artery/Tunnel Project in Boston, Massachusetts (CA/T Project or "Big Dig"). The usage factors represent the percentage of time that the equipment would be operating at full power.
Equipment expected to be used in each construction phase of the onsite work is summarized in Table 13, along with the quantity of each type of equipment and the reference noise level at 50 feet, assuming the operation of the two loudest pieces of construction equipment for each construction phase, per recommendation by the FTA. As previously mentioned, pile driving would be required for the proposed project during the foundation work; however, the type of pile driving (i.e., impact driving, vibratory driving, drilling) has not been specified. Additionally, the number of rigs has not yet been established. P ile driving activities, which are very noisy, dominate the noise environment where utilized and typically operate as an isolated construction activity with little to no other equip ment operating simultaneously. Therefore, noise levels shown in Table 13 do not include pile driving activity.
Mario Tjia
June 4, 2025
TABLE 13 C onstruction Noise Levels During Onsite Work at a Distance of 50 feet Phase of Construction Total
Workdays
Construction Equipment
(Quantity)
Estimated
Construction
Noise Level at 50
feet, dBA Leq
Demolition 20
Concrete/Industrial Saw (1)a
Excavator (3)
Rubber-Tired Dozer (2)a
84 Site Preparation 10 Rubber-Tired Dozer (3)a
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe (4)a 82
Grading/Excavation 20
Excavator (1)
Grader (1)a
Rubber-Tired Dozer (1)
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe (3)a
84 Trenching/Foundation 20 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe (1)a
Excavator (1)a 82
Building – Exterior 230
Crane (1)
Forklift (3)
Generator Set (1)a
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe (3)a
Welder (1)
82 Building – Interior/
Architectural Coating 20 Air Compressor (1)a 74
Paving 20
Paver (2)a
Paving Equipment (2)a
Roller (2)
83 a Denotes two loudest pieces of construction equipment per phase (not including pile driving).
Temporary construction noise was also assessed at the receiving property lines of all existing receptors in the project vicinity. Table 14 summarizes the hourly average noise levels calculated for all construction equipment operating simultaneously in each phase (except for pile driving activities) for the onsite construction work when the source levels are positioned at the center of the project building and propagated to the receiving property lines. Most of the heavy construction activities would occur at the building footprint and would be partially shielded from the Woodstock & West End residences and the Encinal Junior & Senior High School by the intervening storage facilities. Conservatively, 5 dBA attenuation is assumed at these receptors. All other receptors would have mostly direct line -of-sight to the project site, and no attenuation is assumed for these receptors in Table 14.
As shown in Table 13, construction noise levels would intermittently range from 74 to 84 dBA L eq
at a distance of 50 feet from the non-pile driving equipment. When the noise source is positioned at the center of the proposed building, construction noise levels would range from 43 to 57 dBA Leq at the nearest residential receptors and from 42 to 56 dBA Leq at the nearest school, assuming a conservative attenuation of 5 dBA due to the intervening storage facilities. Construction noise levels would range from 41 to 61 dBA L eq at the other noise -sensitive receptors, assuming n o attenuation. At the industrial uses and storage facilities immediately surrounding the project site, Mario Tjia
June 4, 2025
unattenuated construction noise levels would range from 54 to 72 dBA L eq when activities are centered at the building center. Since noise-sensitive receptors would be located 550 feet or more from the project site, construction noise levels during non- pile driving activities would be below 70 dBA Leq. For the surrounding industrial uses, construction noise levels would be at or below 84 dBA Leq during non-pile driving activities even when construction occurs in close proximity to the receiving property lines.
Isolated pile driving activity is required for the foundation of the building and would occur along the perimeter of the building footprint, as well as within the footprint of the building . While the total number of required piles is unknown, i t is assumed that pile driving would take about two weeks to complete. Table 15 summarizes the hourly Leq and Lmax for various pile driving options.
During impact pile driving, the hammer guide is placed on top of the piles, and the hammer is picked up and driven into the piles in multiple, isolated strikes. Noise generated by impact pile driving is dependent on the size of the piles, the size of the hammer, and force of each strike. Each strike generates a maximum instantaneous noise level, and the number of repeated strikes adds to the disruption at the receiving property lines. The L
eq is averaged over a given hour when the
activities occur, and the Leq for impact pile driving depends on the number of strikes in that hour, which is unknown at this time. The L eq shown in Table 15, therefore, is estimated based on 20% usage. Assuming 20% usage, the maximum noise levels measured during each individual st rike would potentially be up to 82 dBA Lmax at the south park and community sailing center, and Lmax levels would be up to 98 dBA at these receptors.
During vibratory pile driving, the hammer is placed on the pile, and the pile is vibrated in to the ground using constant operation of the hammer. Depending on the soil conditions and size of the piles, this could take more than 30 minutes in a given hour to install. Hence, the L eq and the Lmax are virtually the same in Table 15.
Using a standard drill rig or an auger drill rig would further reduce construction noise levels during the installation of piles as part of the foundation work of the proposed project by a minimum of 10 dBA compared to vibratory pile driving. However, the total required time to insta ll the piles may be lengthened with the use of drilling.
TABLE 14 Construction Noise Levels During Onsite Activities for the Proposed Project at the Receiving Property Lines in the Project Vicinity
Calculated Hourly Average Noise Levels, Leq (dBA)
Woodstock &
West End Res.
(925ft)
Encinal Junior
& Senior High
School (1,120ft)
Hornet Field
Park (1,085ft)
Alameda
Community
Sailing Center
(1,145ft)
USS Hornet
Sea, Air &
Space Museum
(2,200ft)
North Light
Ind. (510ft)
West Light
Ind. (315ft)
East Storage
(380ft)
Demolition 56a 54a 60 59 54 66 70 69
Site
Preparation 57a 56a 61 60 55 67 72 70
Grading/
Excavation 57a 55a 61 60 54 67 71 70
Trenching/
Foundationb 51a 50a 55 55 49 62 66 64
Building –
Exterior 56a 54a 59 59 53 66 70 68
Building –
Interior/
Architectural
Coating
43a 42a 47 47 41 54 58 56
Paving 56a 55a 60 59 54 66 71 69
a Conservative 5 dBA attenuation applied to construction noise levels due to intervening storage facilities. b Not including pile driving activities.
TABLE 15 Pile Driving Noise Levels Propagated from the Nearest Building Façade to the Receiving Property Lines in the Project Vicinity
Construction Noise Levels (dBA)
Woodstock &
West End Res.
(645ft)
Encinal Junior
& Senior High
School (880ft)
Hornet Field
Park (740ft)
Alameda
Community
Sailing Center
(805ft)
USS Hornet
Sea, Air &
Space Museum
(1,935ft)
North Light
Ind. (225ft)
West Light
Ind. (145ft)
East Storage
(115ft)
Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Impact Pile
Driving 67a 78a 64a 75a 71 82 70 81 63 73 81 92 85 96 87 98 Vibratory
Pile Driving 67a 68a 64a 65a 70 72 70 71 62 63 81 82 85 86 87 88 Drilling 45-50a 53-58a 42-48a 50-55a 49-54 57-62 48-53 56-61 40-46 48-53 59-64 67-72 63-68 71-76 65-70 73-78 a Conservative 5 dBA attenuation applied to construction noise levels due to intervening storage facilities.
Mario Tjia
June 4, 2025
Offsite Construction
Construction activities occurring offsite is expected to start in early January 2026 and be completed in approximately 12 months. The applicant proposes construction between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays only. While this section discusses the assumed offsite improvements to be completed by the proposed project, these have not been confirmed and may not include all of these activities.
This analysis represents the maximum offsite construction work that could be completed under the proposed project.
It is assumed that the project would be responsible for construction of street system improvements relative to the Alameda Point MIP (see Figure 2 ). The following street system improvements are assumed for this analysis:
• A new segment of West Pacific Avenue extending from the western terminus of the Central Avenue Safety Improvements Project (a City of Alameda project currently under construction), westward to and including full intersection improvements at Orion Street, conforming to the existing roadways north and west of the intersection
• A new segment of Orion Street, from West Pacific Avenue to West Ticonderoga Avenue • A new segment of West Ticonderoga Avenue, from Orion Street to Skyhawk Street, including full intersection improvements at Orion Street conforming to existing roadways to the south and west of the intersection, and partially improved interim intersection improvements at Skyhawk Street
• Frontage improvements on the outside of the curb include a three-foot landscape buffer at the curb, a six-foot bike lane and a seven- foot sidewalk. The project would install these frontage improvements on the project-side of the street.
The project may also construct a new wastewater collection system of eight-inch sewer lines below the rights -of-way for West Pacific Avenue, West Ticonderoga Avenue, and Orion Street . The existing sewer system that is internal to the project site would be removed, and the new sewer lines may connect via a lift station to the existing 12 -inch sewer line within Viking Way, which flows north to an existing pump station near Orion Street and Trident Avenue.
The project may construct a new stormwater system of 24-inch, 36-inch, and 48-inch storm drains below the rights-of-way for West Pacific Avenue, West Ticonderoga Avenue, and Orion Street .
The project may also construct an offsite 60-inch gravity-drained storm drain pipe within the Orion Street alignment from West Ticonderoga Avenue to West Hornet Avenue and a “jog” around Hornet Field Park to a new outfall into San Francisco Bay at the southwesterly end of Hornet Field Park.
A looped water line, which includes 12- to 16-inch water lines within the rights-of-way under West Pacific Avenue, West Ticonderoga Avenue, and Orion Street may also be constructed under the project. The West Pacific Avenue line would connect to the existing water main at the Central Avenue Safety Improvements Project. The West Ticonderoga Avenue line may extend past the street improvements that terminate at Skyhawk Street, connecting to the existing water main in Central Avenue just north of Ticonderoga Avenue . Private fire service will be provided via hydrants located along this water loop.
Mario Tjia
June 4, 2025
FIGURE 2 Potential Offsite Master Infrastructure Improvements
Source: Derived from Alameda Point Improvement Package, Site B, CBG, April 2024.
Mario Tjia
June 4, 2025
A segment of a 12 -inch recycled water line under Orion Street, from Pacific Avenue to Ticonderoga Avenue, may also be constructed, which would be available for connections to a future recycled water system.
The project would construct a joint trench from the existing Cartwright substation, along the west side of Central Avenue, to a connection at the project site near Pacif ic Avenue. The joint trench would accommodate a new main line underground electric distribution system service, including new underground conduits, vaults, boxes, cables, transformers, switches and other utility distribution equipment. From the main line, the electric distribution facilities w ould be installed under the right -of-way of Pacific Avenue to the project site. This joint utility trench w ould also accommodate PG&E’s natural gas lines, as well as telephone, cable television, possible ancillary fiber-optic cable systems and street light facilities. The proposed electric system and joint trench would be constructed in accordance with Alameda Municipal Power’s ( AMP’s) rules and regulations.
Equipment expected to be used in each construction phase of the onsite work is summarized in Table 15, along with the quantity of each type of equipment and the reference noise level at 50 feet, assuming the operation of the two loudest pieces of construction equipment for each construction phase, per recommendation by the FTA. As shown in Table 15, construction noise levels would intermittently range from 84 to 85 dBA L
eq at a distance of 50 feet from roadway and
trenching construc tion corridor. When all equipment per phase operates simultaneously, noise levels would range from 85 to 86 dBA Leq at 50 feet.
The Woodstock and West End residences would be 60 to 90 feet from the easternmost points of the offsite improvement alignments (see blue line in Figure 2). The nearest offsite construction along the green and purple alignments would be 240 and 840 feet, respectively, from the nearest residences. At 60 feet, the nearest residences would be exposed to construction noise levels up t o 84 dBA L
eq, but at 240 feet or more, construction noise levels would be at or below 72 dBA L eq, assuming no attenuation. Trenching and roadway paving work would move along the alignments shown in Figure 2, limiting the exposure to construction noise.
The Encinal Junior and Senior High School would be 155 feet from the offsite work along the blue line alignment, generating unattenuated construction noise levels up 76 dBA L eq, and would be
885 feet or more from the nearest green and purple alignments, exposing the school to construction noise levels up to 61 dBA L
eq.
The Hornet Field Park would be 655 feet or more from the blue and purple alignments, generating construction noise levels up to 64 dBA L
eq. However, the 60- inch lines south would go through
the park, exposing receptors at the park to construction noise levels up to 86 dBA Leq.
The Alameda Community Sailing Center would be 650 feet or more from the blue alignme nt (exposing receptors to construction noise levels up to 64 dBA L eq) and 735 feet from the green and
purple alignments (exposing receptors to construction noise levels up to 63 dBA Leq).
Mario Tjia
June 4, 2025
TABLE 15 C onstruction Noise Levels During Offsite Work at a Distance of 50 feet Phase of Construction Total
Workdays
Construction Equipment
(Quantity)
Estimated
Construction
Noise Level at 50
feet, dBA Leq
Paved Road Trench 104
Concrete/Industrial Saw (1)a
Excavator (1)
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe (1)a
Paver (1)
Roller (1)
Welder (1)
Sweeper/Scrubber (1)
85 Street Paving 20
Paver (1)
Paving Equipment (1)a
Roller (1)
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe (1)a
84 60-inch Lines (South) 12
Concrete/Industrial Saw (1)a
Excavator (1)
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe (1)a
Paver (1)
Roller (1)
Welder (1)
Sweeper/Scrubber (1)
85 a Denotes two loudest pieces of construction equipment per phase.
The USS Hornet Sea, Air, and Space Museum 1,140 feet or more from all offsite work, which would expose receptors to construction noise levels up to 59 dBA L eq.
All offsite construction improvements would occur along Orion Street, West Pacific Avenue and West Ticonderoga Avenue, along which the light industrial uses and storage facilities surrounding the project site are located. Therefore, construction activities would occur right along the property lines of these receptors, with heavy construction operating within 50 feet of the buildings.
Construction would move along the alignments all around these receptors, limiting the exposure of any single receptor to construction noise levels up to 86 dBA L eq for a limited period.
As trenching and roadway paving work is completed, construction activities would move along the alignments shown in Figure 2. While multiple noise- sensitive receptors, as well as light industrial uses and storage facilities, located in the project site vicinity would be exposed to construction noise at any given time, the active construction work would move along the alignments, limiting total exposure. Assuming an installation rate of about 100 feet per day, any single receptor along the corridor would be exposed to noisy construction activities for no more than 10 consecutive days.
Mario Tjia
June 4, 2025
Construction Noise Summary
The Alameda Point Draft EIR included three mitigation measures to reduce project co nstruction activities occurring within the Plan Area. The proposed project would adhere to these measures, which are listed as follows:
Mitigation Measure 4.G-1b: To reduce daytime noise impacts due to construction, the City will require construction contractors to implement the following measures:
• Equipment and trucks used for project construction will utilize the best available noise control techniques, such as improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures and acoustically-attenuating shields or shrouds, wherever feasible.
• Impact tools (i.e., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for project construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. However, where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust will be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 dBA. External jackets on the tools themselves will be used where feasible, and this could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures will be used, such as drills rather than impact equipment, whenever feasible.
• Stationary noise sources will be located as far from adjacent receptors as possible, and they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or other measures to the extent feasible.
• Haul routes that affect the fewest number of people will be selected.
Mitigation Measure 4.G -1c: Pile driving activities within 300 feet of sensitive receptors will require additional noise attenuation measures. Prior to commencing construction, a plan for such measures will be submitted for review and approval by the City to ensure that maximum feasible noise attenuation will be achieved. These attenuation measures will include as many of the following control strategies as feasible:
• Erect temporary plywood noise barriers if they would block the line of sight between sensitive receptors and construction activities, particularly for existing residences in the northern area of the project site and for residences across Main Street.
• Implement “quiet” pile driving technology (such as pre -drilling of piles or use of sonic pile drivers), where feasible, in consideration of geotechnical and structural requirements and conditions; and
• Utilize noise control blankets on the building structure as the building is erected to reduce noise emission from the site.
Mitigation Measure 4.G -1d: Prior to the issuance of each building permit, along with the Mario Tjia
June 4, 2025
submission of construction documents, the project applicant will submit to the City a list of measures to respond to and track complaints pertaining to construction noise. These measures will include:
• Signs will be posted at the construction site that include permitted construction days and hours, a day and evening contact number for the job site, and a contact number with the City of Alameda in the event of noise complaints. The project applicant will designate an onsite complaint and enforcement manager to track and respond to noise complaints; and
• Notification of neighbors within 300 feet of the project construction area at least 30 days in advance of pile-driving activities about the estimated duration of the activity.
The proposed project would comply with the City of Alameda Noise Ordinance , and implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce the construction noise levels from the project.
After implementation of the noise mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR , temporary construction activities would be reduced as much as possible, protecting the nearby noise-sensitive receptors, to the most feasible extent possible. Construction noise from the project would be consistent with the noise impacts previously disclosed in the Alameda Point Draft EIR.
Considering the expected duration of elevated noise levels, incorporation of the above measures would reduce the temporary construction noise impact to a less-than-significant level.
Construction Vibration
The construction of the project may generate perceptible vibration when heavy equipment or impact tools (e.g., jackhammers, hoe rams) are used. Construction activities would include demolition, site preparation work, foundation work, and new building framing and finishing.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) recommends a vibration limit of 0.5 in/sec PPV for buildings structurally sound and designed to modern engineering standards, which typically consist of buildings constructed since the 1990s. Conservative vibration limits of 0.3 in/sec PPV has been used for buildings that are found to be structurally sound but where structural damage is a major concern (see Table 3 for further explanation). For historical buildings and some old buildings, a vibration limit of 0. 25 in/sec PPV would apply, and for ruins or ancient monuments, a cautious vibration limit of 0.08 in/sec PPV is often used to provide the highest level of protection. No historical buildings, ancient monuments or ruins have been identified within 200 feet of the project. Conservatively, the 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold would be applied for all structures in the project vicinity.
Damage due to construction vibration would fall into three categories: threshold damage (or cosmetic), m inor damage, and major damage. Threshold damage, or cosmetic damage, would entail hairline cracking in plaster, the opening of old cracks, the loosening of paint or the dislodging of loose objects. Minor damage would include hairline cracking in masonry or the loosening of plaster, and major structural damage would include wide cracking or shifting of foundation or bearing walls.
Mario Tjia
June 4, 2025
Pile driving, which produces substantial vibrations, would be required for the foundation of the proposed building. Pile driving would potentially occur for about two weeks , averaging approximately eight hours per day and would not occur within 160 feet of the nearest surrounding building or storage structure.
Table 16 presents typical vibration levels that could be expected from construction equipment at a distance of 25 feet. At 25 feet, typical impact and vibratory pile driving would generate vibration levels of 0.64 and 0.17 in/sec PPV, respectively, with the upper limit on vibration levels of 1.16 and 0.73 in/sec PPV, respectively. Other options, such as drilling, would typically generate vibration levels of 0.09 in/sec PPV at a distance of 25 feet.
TABLE 16 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment PPV at 25 ft.
(in/sec)
Minimum Distance to Meet 0.3 in/sec
PPV (feet)
Pile drive
(impact)
upper range 1.158 86
typical 0.644 51
Pile drive
(sonic)
upper range 0.734 57
typical 0.170 15
Clam shovel drop 0.202 18
Hydromill
(slurry wall)
in soil 0.008 1
in rock 0.017 2
Vibratory Roller 0.210 19
Hoe Ram 0.089 9
Large bulldozer 0.089 9
Caisson drilling 0.089 9
Loaded trucks 0.076 8
Jackhammer 0.035 4
Small bulldozer 0.003 < 1
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment, U.S. Department of Transportation, September 2018, as modified by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., May 2025.
Vibration levels would vary depending on soil conditions, construction methods, and equipment used. Table 16 also summarizes the distances to the 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold for older conventional buildings located in the project vicinity.
Vibration levels are highest close to the source and then attenuate with increasing distance at the rate �𝐷𝐷𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟
𝐷𝐷� �
1.1 , where D is the distance from the source in feet and Dref is the reference distance of 25 feet. Construction vibration levels would be dependent on the location of individual pieces of equipment. Equipment scattered throughout the site would not generate a collective vibration level, but a vibratory roller, for instance, operating near the project site boundary would generate the worst-case vibration levels for the receptor sharing that property line.
Mario Tjia
June 4, 2025
Onsite Construction
Pile driving is a stationary construction activity occurring at the location of the foundation piles.
The nearest pile locations to the surrounding offsite buildings surrounding the site would at the proposed building façades. For this analysis, pile drivi ng operations are assumed at the nearest building façades to each of the offsite buildings, and all other onsite construction is propagated to the offsite buildings assuming equipment to be operating along the nearest project site boundary, which represents the worst-case conditions.
Vibration levels summarized in Table 16 represents the range of vibration levels within which all construction equipment fall. During onsite construction activities not including pile driving, operation of construction equipment along the project site boundaries would represent the worst - case vibration conditions for the offsite buildings surrounding the site. Assuming operation along the nearest property lines, construction equipment would be 575 to 1,880 feet from the neares t building façades on the receiving noise-sensitive sites (i.e., Woodstock and West End residences, Encinal Junior and Senior High School, Hornet Field Park, Alameda Community Sailing Center, and USS Hornet Sea, Air, and Space Museum). At these distances, vibration levels would be below
0.01 in/sec PPV. For the light industrial buildings and storage facilities immediately surrounding the site, buildings would be 65 to 75 feet from the nearest project site boundaries. Using these representative vibration lev els, Table 17 summarizes the highest potential vibration levels expected at the offsite building façade s during onsite, non-pile driving activities. Table 17 also summarizes the specific equipment to be used in each phase and the corresponding vibration levels for the equipment. All non-pile driving construction activities occurring on the project site would result in vibration levels below 0.3 in/sec PPV at offsite buildings surrounding the site.
Pile driving activities occurring at the proposed building would be 665 to 1,940 feet from the nearest noise-sensitive receptors. At these distances, the upper range (i.e., worst -case vibration levels) for impact pile driving would be at or below 0.03 in/sec PPV. The upper range of vibratory pile driving would be at or below 0.02 in/sec PPV. Drilling activities at the proposed building would be below 0.01 in/sec PPV. The nearest light industrial and storage buildings would be 165 to 260 feet from the nearest pile driving activities. Table 18 summarizes the pile driving vibration levels at the nearest surrounding buildings. Vibration levels generated by pile driving activities would be below 0.3 in/sec PPV at offsite buildings surrounding the site.
Mario Tjia
June 4, 2025
TABLE 17 Construction Vibration Levels During On site Project Const ruction (Not Including Pile Driving)
Phase Equipment
PPV at
25 ft.,
in/sec
Vibration Levels
at Nearest Building Façade
North Light
Ind.
(65ft)
West Light Ind.
& East Storage
(75ft)
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saw 0.003 0.001 0.001
Excavator 0.089 0.031 0.027
Rubber-Tired Dozer 0.089 0.031 0.027
Site
Preparation
Rubber-Tired Dozer 0.089 0.031 0.027
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 0.003 0.001 0.001
Grading/
Excavation
Excavator 0.089 0.031 0.027
Grader 0.089 0.031 0.027
Rubber-Tired Dozer 0.089 0.031 0.027
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 0.003 0.001 0.001
Trenching/
Foundation
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 0.003 0.001 0.001
Excavator 0.089 0.031 0.027
Building
Exterior
Crane 0.003 0.001 0.001
Forklift 0.003 0.001 0.001
Generator Set 0.003 0.001 0.001
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 0.003 0.001 0.001
Welder 0.003 0.001 0.001
Building
Interior Air Compressor 0.003 0.001 0.001
Paving
Paver 0.003 0.001 0.001
Paving Equipment 0.003 0.001 0.001
Roller 0.21 0.073 0.063
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment, U.S. Department of Transportation, September 2018, as modified by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., May 2025.
Mario Tjia
June 4, 2025
TABLE 18 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment
Vibration Levels at Nearest Building Façade
North Light Ind.
(260ft)
West Light Ind.
(165ft)
East Storage
(190ft)
Pile drive
(impact)
upper range 0.088 0.145 0.124
typical 0.049 0.081 0.069
Pile drive
(sonic)
upper range 0.056 0.092 0.079
typical 0.013 0.021 0.018
Caisson drilling 0.007 0.011 0.010
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment, U.S. Department of Transportation, September 2018, as modified by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., May 2025.
Offsite Construction
Offsite construction operations would occur along the alignments shown in Figure 2 and operations would be propagated from project corridors to the nearest offsite buildings. The nearest noise - sensitive structures to the offsite construction alignments would include the Woodstock and West End residences (70 feet from the nearest alignment) and the Encinal Junior and Senior High School (65 feet from the nearest alignment). At these distances, vibration levels would be at or below 0.07 in/sec PPV. All other structures at the noise -sensitive receptors would be 250 feet or more from the nearest alignment and be subject to vibration levels below 0.02 in/sec PPV during of fsite construction activities.
The light industrial and storage buildings would be 25 to 40 feet from the alignments. Table 19 summarizes the highest potential vibration levels expected at the offsite building façades during offsite construction activiti es based on the equipment provided by the applicant. All offsite construction activities would result in vibration levels below 0.3 in/sec PPV at offsite buildings surrounding the site.
Construction Vibration Summary
All onsite and offsite vibration levels would be below the 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold at the surrounding offsite buildings. This would be a less-than-significant impact.
Mario Tjia
June 4, 2025
TABLE 19 Construction Vibration Levels During Offsite Project Construction Phase Equipment
PPV at
25 ft.,
in/sec
Vibration Levels at Nearest Building Façade
North
Light Ind.
(25ft)
West Light
Ind.
(30ft)
East Storage
(40ft)
Paved Road
Trench
Concrete/Industrial Saw 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.002
Excavator 0.089 0.089 0.073 0.053
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.002
Paver 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.002
Roller 0.21 0.21 0.172 0.125
Welder 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.002
Sweeper/Scrubber 0.089 0.089 0.073 0.053
Street
Paving
Paver 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.002
Paving Equipment 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.002
Roller 0.21 0.21 0.172 0.125
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.002
60-inch
Lines
(South)
Concrete/Industrial Saw 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.002
Excavator 0.089 0.089 0.073 0.053
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.002
Paver 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.002
Roller 0.21 0.21 0.172 0.125
Welder 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.002
Sweeper/Scrubber 0.089 0.089 0.073 0.053
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment, U.S. Department of Transportation, September 2018, as modified by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., May 2025.
Summary
Operational noise generated by the proposed project would not exceed City noise standards at surrounding noise-sensitive uses or result in a permanent noise level increase exceeding 4 dBA L
dn at noise-sensitive receptors. Temporary construction vibration would not generate vibration levels exceeding the Caltrans limit at buildings surrounding the project site.
With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures 4.G -1b, 4.G -1c, and 4.G -1d included in the Alameda Point Draft EIR and the understanding that exposure to pile driving and offsite improvement noise would occur for no more than two weeks at any given receptor, the temporary construction noise impact would be reduced to less-than-significant level.
CEQA Environmental Checklist: Pacific Fusion
Appendix C
Project Solis Trip Generation and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Kimley Horn, May 2025
Project Solis – Alameda
Project Trip Generation and VMT Analysis
Memorandum
To: Mr. Mario Tjia
Hines, Inc.
From: Mike Mowery, P.E.
Curtis Yee, P.E.
Re: Project Solis - Alameda
Project Trip Generation and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Date: May 23, 2025
The purpose of this memorandum is to document VMT analysis and a trip generation analysis for the limited purpose to estimate the weekday daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak-hour trips anticipated to be generated by the proposed project to determine whether the project would be within the scope of the Alameda General Plan 2040 project (General Plan) and within the impact analyzed for the Alameda Point Project.
Project Description
The proposed project contemplates developing within the Alameda Point development area in Alameda, California. The project proposes approximately 224,500 square feet of building containing a mix of research and development uses, including high bay light industrial, laboratory, and administrative office.
This trip generation analysis was completed to compare the proposed project’s use with the previously approved Alameda Point development. A map of the project location and surrounding vicinity is depicted in
Exhibit 1. The project’s proposed uses are consistent with the uses assumed in the Alameda Point EIR for the Enterprise District, which is the district in which the project would be located.
Trip Generation
A traffic impact analysis was previously completed for Alameda Point as a part of the Alameda Point Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
1. As described in the traffic portion of the EIR the prior analysis trip generation was derived from the Alameda Countywide travel demand model. Table 1 presents the Alameda Point estimated trip generation from the prior traffic analysis. The trip estimates in Table 1 is based on an assumption that the share of trips made using transit will be consistent with the 2012 transit ridership patterns in Alameda and does not assume any reduction in automobile trip generation rates to account for the potential future benefits of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs required on Alameda Point and discussed in the Draft TDM2.
Based on the expected uses of high bay light industrial, laboratory, and administrative office it was determined that ITE LU 130 (Industrial Park) best estimates the trip generation anticipated to be experienced for the proposed project site within Alameda Point. Table 1 presents the comparison of trips from the prior analysis and the proposed project.
1 Alameda Point Project | Environmental Impact Report, ESA, September 2013. 2 Project Solis Alameda | Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan, Kimley-Horn & Associates, May 2025.
Project Solis – Alameda Page 2 of 5
Project Trip Generation and VMT Analysis May 23, 2025 Table 1 – ITE Trip Generation Land Use Summary and Comparison
As shown in Table 1, the proposed project is estimated to generate 741 daily trips, 75 AM, and 75 PM peak- hour trips. The project represents approximately 2.2% of the daily trips, 2.5% of the AM, and 2.3% of the PM peak-hour trips estimated to be generated by the Alameda Point development. Based on the truck data plots presented for ITE LU 130, it is anticipated that there will be 8 truck trips in the AM peak -hour and 8 truck trips in the PM peak-hour included in the estimate provided in Table 1. Based on the expected project use, the project is not anticipated to exceed the 16 truck trips estimated for the peak -hours. The 16 truck trips represent approximately 2.2% of the total project trips. The proposed project is consistent with the uses allowed in the Alameda Point EIR and the proposed project trips are below the total trips for Alameda Point. Therefore, the proposed project is accounted for in the prior analysis.
It should also be noted that while the proposed project is anticipated to generate approximately 2.2% of the daily trips for Alameda Point, the building size of approximately 224,500 square feet represents 4% of the 5.5 million square feet of total building square footage for the development, per Table 3 -1 in the prior DEIR2. As such, it is anticipated that the planned transportation infrastructure presented in the DEIR will adequately serve the proposed project traffic.
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis
Purpose of Analysis
Senate Bill 743 (2013) changed the focus of transportation impact analyses in CEQA from measuring impacts to drivers, to measuring the impact of driving. The change was made by replacing Level of Service (LOS) with VMT. This shift in transportation impact focus was intended to better align transportation impact analyses and mitigation outcomes with the State’s goals to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, encourage infill development, and improve public health through more active transportation. Level of service or other delay metrics may still be used to evaluate the impact of projects on drivers as part of land use entitlement review, fee programs, and community plan conformance.
The City prepared the Alameda General Plan 2040 EIR (“General Plan EIR”) to analyze environmental impacts of the updated 2024 General Plan, which includes and incorporates the growth allowed on Alameda Point. The General Plan EIR used the following VMT thresholds for its analysis:
Average household VMT per capita 15 percent below the average baseline rate for the Bay Area region; and
Commute VMT per worker 15 percent below the average baseline rate for the Bay Area region.
The VMT forecasts generated for the General Plan EIR were produced using the Alameda CTC Model. The Model is used to estimate the household VMT per capita for residential uses and the commute VMT per worker. The Alameda County Transportation Commission (CTC) Model uses a four -step modeling process that considers trip generation, trip distribution, mode split, and trip assignment. The Alameda CTC Model assigns all predicted trips within, across, to, or from the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area region to t he roadway network and transit system by mode (i.e., single -occupant or carpool vehicle, biking, walking, or transit) and transit carrier (i.e., bus, rail, ferry) for a given scenario. The Alameda CTC Model incorporates Total In Out Total In Out
Alameda Point N/A Alameda Point 33,429 2,928 3,294
33,429 2,928 3,294
Proposed 130 Industrial Park 220.000 1,000 Sq Ft 741 75 61 14 75 16 59 741 75 61 14 75 16 59
Daily
Trips1
AM Peak PM Peak
Total Assumed Trips
Scenario ITE Land
Use Code Land Use Size Units
Total Proposed Trips
Project Solis – Alameda Page 3 of 5
Project Trip Generation and VMT Analysis May 23, 2025 land use data and transportation network improvements consistent with Plan Bay Area 2040 (the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the Bay Area region).
The General Plan EIR concluded that the Alameda General Plan 2040 would result in average household VMT per capita below the VMT threshold and average commute VMT per worker above the VMT threshold.
The General Plan EIR listed a number of General Plan policies that would reduce the commute VMT per worker in Alameda but conservatively concluded that impacts for worker VMT would remain significant and unavoidable because, due to the programmatic nature of the General Plan EIR’s analysis, it was infeasible to quantify the reductions achieved by such policies. The General Plan EIR notes that the program-level VMT impact for employment-based uses does not preclude the finding of less -than- significant impact for future development projects that achieve the applic able VMT thresholds of significance.
Methodology and Assumptions
The project proposes employment uses. Therefore, the project is considered to result in a significant impact if the commute VMT per worker for the proposed project exceeds 85 -percent of the Bay Area regional average VMT per worker.
To compare whether the project would exceed the VMT anticipated by the General Plan EIR, this analysis uses the same methodology as used in the General Plan EIR, relying on the Alameda CTC Model, which provides VMT mapping resources alongside a VMT Reduction Calculator Tool, developed to assist member agencies in their efforts to comply with the requirements of SB 743
3. The VMT screening completed for the
proposed project identifies the model estimated VMT per employee for the proposed project based on the Alameda CTC VMT mapping tool. The analysis then uses the Alameda CTC VMT Reduction calculator to estimate the percent VMT reduction that should be applied to the raw model estimate to account for the proposed TDM features of the Project. Finally, the analysis compares this post-processed project VMT per employee to the Bay Area regional average VMT per employee. If the project VMT per employee is greater than 85 percent of the Bay Area average VMT per employee, then the project would have a significant VMT impact.
Analysis
As shown in Table 2 the Bay Area Regional average VMT per employee is 18.1, which sets the VMT threshold (15 percent below the average) to 15.4. The proposed Project is located in traffic analysis zone (TAZ) 468 from the Alameda Countywide Travel Demand Model (ACTC TDM) as shown in Exhibit 2.
Table 2 – VMT Analysis Results
Metric VMT per
employee
Bay Area Regional Average4 18.1
VMT Target (15% below
Average) 15.4
ACTC TDM TAZ 468 15.9
TDM Plan Reduction (26 %) -4.2
Proposed Project 11.7
Difference from Threshold -3.7
3 SB 743 and VMT Tool, Alameda County Transportation Commission, https://www.alamedactc.org/planning/sb743-vmt, accessed April 30, 2025
4 Alameda General Plan 2040 Draft Environmental Impact Report: Table TRA-8. City of Alameda. May 2021.
Project Solis – Alameda Page 4 of 5
Project Trip Generation and VMT Analysis May 23, 2025 Model estimated VMT per employee for TAZ 468 is provided in the County’s screening map as 15.9 VMT per employee. TDM measures from the Project TDM Plan are expected to reduce Project VMT per employee at the Project site and are summarized in Table 3. Using the County’s VMT Reduction Calculator the project TDM plan shows that the Project is expected to produce 26 percent less average VMT per employee than similar adjacent uses without a TDM plan. A 26 percent reduction of TAZ 468 employment based VMT results 11.7 VMT per employee for the proposed project which is 3.7 VMT per employee below the regional threshold
. Thus, the proposed project is expected to have a less than significant VMT impact.
Table 3 – Proposed Project TDM Measures
ACTC
TDM ID Measure Description
Community Provided Measures
4E Bike Sharing AMTA provides BIKELINK on -demand bike sharing services. BikeLink locations at Alameda Seaplane and Main Street ferry terminals. 4F Car Sharing Car sharing provides employees with access to a vehicle for midday trips, reducing the need to drive their personal vehicle to work. 5D Free or Subsidized Transit Pass AMTA members are eligible Clipper Bay Pass pilot program which provides free unlimited rides on all bus, rail, and ferry.
- Ride matching Services Facilitate ride matching for residents and employees. Existing programs such as 511.org can be utilized to facilitate carpooling.
- Guaranteed Ride Home Program
Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) is a program that provides a "back -up" ride to employees who use transit, carpool, biking/walking, or other alternative as their commute mode.
Alameda CTC provides this service for employees within Alameda County Site-Specific Measures
1B
Actively Participate in
Transportation Management
Association (TMA)
The project will join the Alameda TMA.
1B TDM Coordinator TDM Coordinator will administer, update, and monitor TDM program, as well as coordinate with ATMA and the City.
1B Information Programs
TDM Coordinator will work with the ATMA to determine if there are additional supplemental materials that they should create. Keeping information and materials updated and relevant will be required. 1B, 3D Bicycle Parking The Project is providing XX short-term and XX long-term bicycle parking. 1B, 3D Bicycle End-Trip Facilities Provide end-trip facilities such as showers and lockers. 4D On-Site Bicycle Repair Facility Do-it-yourself bicycle repair stands will be provided, including tire gauges, air pumps, wrenches and other tools for minor repairs.
1B Pre-tax Commuter Benefits Allow employees to pay for transit passes with pre-tax earnings and can help encourage transit use among employees.
1B, 1F Encourage Telecommuting and
Alternative Work Schedule
Implement alternative work schedule which could take the form of staggered starting times, flexible schedule, or compressed work weeks. 3B Parking Cash-Out A parking "cash -out" program gives employees the choice of keeping their parking space at work or accepting a cash payment in lieu of the space. 1B Preferential parking permit
program Provide preferential parking for carpool/vanpool Source: Project Solis Alameda Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan May 2025.
Project Solis – Alameda Page 5 of 5
Project Trip Generation and VMT Analysis May 23, 2025 Conclusions
The following findings are made based on the trip generation and VMT analysis completed for the proposed project:
The project, located within the Alameda Point specific plan area, proposes 224,500 square feet of building containing a mix of uses including high bay industrial, laboratory, and administrative office. The project applicant also proposes a transportation demand management (TDM) plan which includes specific achievable measures to reduce vehicle travel to and from the project site.
The project trip generation represents approximately 2.2% of the daily trips, 2.5% of the AM, and
2.3% of the PM peak -hour trips estimated to be generated by the Alameda Point specific plan development.
The proposed project is expected to produce 11.7 VMT per employee which is 3.7 VMT per employee below the Bay Area regional threshold of 15.4 VMT per employee. Thus, the proposed project is expected to have a less than significant VMT impact.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1 – Project Location and Vicinity Map
Exhibit 2 – Vehicle Miles Traveled per Employee Map – North Planning Area Exhibit 3 – VMT per Employee for Project TAZ
Via Ingolia St
Sports Parkway
Future Connection
Exhibit 1
Project Location and Vicinity Map
Project Solis - Alameda, CA - Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis
NOT TO SCALE
Project Location
LEGEND
Via Ingolia St
Sports Parkway
Future Connection
Exhibit 2
Vehicle Miles Traveled per Employee Map - North Planning Area Project Solis - Alameda, CA - Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis
Via Ingolia St
Sports Parkway
Future Connection
Exhibit 3
VMT per Employee for Project TAZ
Project Solis - Alameda, CA - Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis LEGEND
Project TAZ
CEQA Environmental Checklist: Pacific Fusion
Appendix D
Project Solis Preliminary Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan Kimley-Horn, May 2025
Project Solis Alameda
Preliminary Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) Plan
May 2025
ii | P a g e
Contents
1. Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 1
1.1. Project Description ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 1
1.1.1. Project Trip Generation ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 1
1.1.2. Project Vehicle Miles Traveled ................................ ................................ .......................... 2
1.2. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Requirements ................................ ................... 2
1.2.1. City of Alameda Municipal Code ................................ ................................ ....................... 2
1.2.2. General Plan ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 3
1.2.3. Alameda Point Transportation Demand Management Plan ................................ ............... 3
2. Existing Conditions................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 4
2.1. Existing Transit Service................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 4
2.1.1. AC Transit ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 4
2.1.2. San Francisco Bay Ferry ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 4
2.1.3. BART ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 4
2.2. Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ................................ ................................ ................. 5
2.2.1. Bicycle Facilities ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 5
2.2.2. BikeLink ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 5
2.2.3. Alameda TMA E-Bike Rebate ................................ ................................ ............................ 6
2.2.4. Pedestrian Facilities ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 6
2.3. Other Transportation Options ................................ ................................ ................................ . 6
2.3.1. Car Sharing ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 6
2.4. Existing Mode Split ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 6
3. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program ................................ ................................ .... 7
3.1. Framework ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 7
3.1.1. Transportation Management Association Membership ................................ .................... 7
3.1.2. TDM Coordinator................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 7
3.2. Education ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 7
3.3. Program Elements ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 7
3.3.1. VMT Reduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 7
3.3.2. Additional TDM Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ 8
4. Monitoring and Evaluation................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 10
4.1. Review of TDM Program ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 10
4.2. Monitoring ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 10
4.2.1. Annual Travel Survey ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 10
4.2.2. Trip Counts ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 10
4.2.3. Annual Report ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 10
4.3. Evaluation................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 10 Appendix ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 11
1 | P a g e
1. Introduction
This document presents a preliminary Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”) plan for the Project Solis Development Project (“Project”), which is a proposed industrial development located in Alameda (“City”), California.
1.1. Project Description
The proposed project contemplates developing within the Alameda Point development area , as show in Figure 1, in Alameda, California. The site is bordered by Pacific A venue to the north, Skyhawk Street to the east, Oriskany Avenue to the south, and Orion Street to the west. The project proposes 220,000 - square feet building containing a mix of uses including high bay industrial, laboratory, and administrative office.
Figure 1: Project Vicinity
1.1.1. Project Trip Generation
Trip generation for the Project was determined based on data from the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) publication, Trip Generation, 11th Edition for ITE Land Use 130: Industrial Park. Table 1 presents the overall trip generation for the proposed Project. For a typical weekday, the Project will generate 741 daily trips, 75 trips in the AM peak hour, and 75 trips in the PM peak hour. Chapter 3 of Alameda Point Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan requires a minimum of 30% in peak Project Site
Pacific Avenue
Oriskany Avenue
Orion Street
Skyhawk Street
Main Street
Ferry Point
Viking Street
Atlantic Avenue
2 | P a g e
hour trips for commercial development which equates to a trip target of 52 trips in the AM peak hour and 52 trips in the PM peak hour.
Table 1: Project Trip Generation Summary
Land Use Daily Trips AM Peak PM Peak
Industrial Park 741 75 75
30% TDM Requirement - -23 -23
Trip Target - 52 52
Source: Kimely-Horn Project Trip Generation and Vehicle miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis (2025)
1.1.2. Project Vehicle Miles Traveled
Table 2 summarized the vehicles miles traveled (VMT) target and Project VMT. The Project’s VMT was determined based on Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) North Planning Area VMT maps. Based on the VMT maps, the Project’s VMT (15.9 VMT per employee), exceeds the VMT Target for the project is 15% below the Bay Area Regional average (15.4 VMT per employee) by 4%.
Table 2: Vehicle Miles Traveled Summary
VMT per
employee
Bay Area Regional Average 18.1
VMT Target (15% below Average) 15.4
Project VMT 15.9
Project target VMT reduction 4%
Source: Kimely-Horn Project Trip Generation and Vehicle miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis (2025)
1.2. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Requirements This TDM plan was developed to meet County and City requirements.
1.2.1. City of Alameda Municipal Code
The City’s requirements related to trip reduction and TDM are stated in Chapter 30-7.7 of the City’s Municipal Code. The intent of these requirements is to “ relieve automobile congestion and provide for the safe, efficient, and equitable use of the public street network by pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, emergency vehicles, and automobiles; and to reduce the air pollution, storm water runoff, urban heat island effects, and greenhouse gas emissions generated by automobile use.” Section 30-7.7 states the employer’s responsibilities, which includes:
a) TDM Program. Any development or project under Section 30-7.2 that will result in a net increase of one hundred ten (110) vehicle trips per day onto the public street network as determined by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual shall implement a TDM Program designed to reduce the n umber of vehicle trips generated by the project. The TDM program shall implement measures and/or improvements designed to change individual travel behavior to encourage greater use of alternative modes of transportation to reduce single - occupancy vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled, and parking demand.
3 | P a g e
1.2.2. General Plan
Policy ME -20 of t he City’s General Plan “require that new development s support citywide traffic reduction, greenhouse gas reduction, and sustainable transportation .” To achieve this goal, some actions include adopting the Transportation Demand Management ordinance and expanding the Alameda Transportation Management Association to provide transportation services to all new developments, existing business associations and neighborhoods.
1.2.3. Alameda Point Transportation Demand Management Plan The Alameda Point Transportation Demand Management Plan serves as a resource and guide to reduce single-occupant vehicles (SOV) for existing and future development within the Alameda Point area. This plan includes trip reduction goals which includes 30% trip reduction for commercial spaces. The plan also provides recommended TDM measures and monitoring efforts.
4 | P a g e
2. Existing Conditions
This section provides additional information on the existing transit services, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian facilities near the Project site, as well as existing commuting trends.
2.1. Existing Transit Service
Table 3 summarizes the transit services near the vicinity of the Project. Note Alameda TMA members are eligible for Clipper Bay Pass pilot program which provides free unlimited rides on all bus, rail, and ferry.
2.1.1. AC Transit
AC Transit provides multiple bus routes throughout Alameda County. Bus Route 96 services Alameda Point. The closest bus stop is located at the intersection of Pacific Avenue and Main Street, which is approximately 440 feet east of the Project. Note Routes 661 and 663 in the vicinity of site, but are Service to School lines that operate school days only.
2.1.2. San Francisco Bay Ferry
San Francisco Bay Ferry provides ferry services between San Francisco and Alameda. There are two ferry terminals in the vicinity of the Project site.
Alameda Seaplane is the closest terminal located 970 feet west of the Project site. This terminal provides ferry services Mondays through Fridays to downtown San Francisco. Ferry riders may also use BikeLink at the terminal to rent a bicycle.
In addition, the Main Street Alameda Ferry Terminal is located approximately a mile north of the site. This terminal provides routes to Downtown San Francisco, South San Francisco, and Oakland.
Currently there are no transit services that connect the Main Street Alameda Ferry Terminal with the Project site, but ferry riders may use the BikeLink at the terminal to rent a bicycle.
2.1.3. BART
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) is a heavy elevated rail and subway public transportation system that connects the San Francisco Peninsula with cities in the Bay Area such as Oakland, Fremont, Walnut Creek, and Dublin. The closest BART station is the Lake Merrit (3.8 miles) station. Riders may take AC Transit bus route 96 from the Lake Merrit station to the nearest bus stop and walk to the Project site.
5 | P a g e
Table 3: Existing Transit Service
Route Description
Weekday Weekend
Operating
Hours1
Headway2 (minutes) Operating
Hours1
Headway2
(minutes) Peak Off-Peak
AC Transit
96 Alameda Point to Dimond
District via Midway Ave
6:00 AM to 10:40
PM 30 30 6:00 AM to
10:40 PM 30
San Francisco Bay Ferry
Alameda
Seaplane
Alameda Seaplane to
Downtown SF
6:30 AM to 10:50
PM 30-55 50-95 Does not operate on Weekends
Oakland &
Alameda3 Oakland to Downtown SF 9:45 AM – 10:05
PM 35 70-85 8:30 AM to
10:35 PM 25-80
South San
Francisco3 Oakland to South SF 6:05 AM to 6:30
PM 55-60 - Does not operate on Weekends
Bart
Blue/Orange/
Green Lake Merrit Station 5:00 AM – 1:00
AM 15-20 15-20 5:55 AM to 1:00
AM 15-20
Notes:
1 Operating Hours rounded to the nearest 5 minutes for weekdays. Sunday may have reduced operating hours. 2 Headways are defined as the time between transit vehicles on the same route. 3 Services to Main Street Alameda Ferry Terminal
Source: AC Transit (December 2024); San Francisco Bay Ferry (March 2025) BART (November 2023)
2.2. Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
2.2.1. Bicycle Facilities
Bicyclists may access the Project through the existing bikeway facilities throughout Alameda. Table 4 lists the existing bicycle facilities near the Project site.
Table 4: Existing Bicycle Facilities
Road Segment Facility Type
Atlantic Avenue Pan Am Way to Main Street Protected Bicycle Lane Ferry Point Atlantic Avenue to Seaplane Ferry
Terminal Protected Bicycle Lane
Main Street Main Street Ferry Terminal to Pacific
Avenue Bicycle Lane
Main Street Main Street Ferry Terminal to Lincoln
Avenue Bicycle Walk/Path
Ralph Appezzato
Memorial Parkway Main Street to SR 260 Bicycle Walk/Path Source: BikeWalk Alameda Bicycle and Walking Map (2022)
2.2.2. BikeLink
BikeLink is an on-demand bicycle parking and rental service. A person can rent a bicycle with a BikeLink Card. There are currently BikeLink locations at Alameda Seaplane and Main Street ferry terminals.
6 | P a g e
2.2.3. Alameda TMA E-Bike Rebate
Members of Alameda TMA can apply for a $300 rebate when purchasing an electric bike.
2.2.4. Pedestrian Facilities
There are currently sidewalks and/or a walking path on Main Street and continuous sidewalk on Pacific Avenue east of Main Street which connects to transit stops and other uses. Currently there are no sidewalks along the project frontage, however the Project will construct sidewalks and curb ramps along its frontage.
2.3. Other Transportation Options
There are other transition options in addition to walking, biking, and transit.
2.3.1. Car Sharing
Car sharing reduces car ownership. Within the City of Alameda, Getaround is a peer-to-peer sharing service that allows people to rent their private vehicles to others through a mobile app. Alameda CTC provides a Zipcar pick-up location at Jack London Square in Oakland.
2.4. Existing Mode Split
Figure 2 illustrates the City’s work commute transportation mode split base on the recent American Community Survey . The most common mode is automobiles where 40% drive alone in cars and 9% carpool. Other modes include transit (15%), bicycle (4%), walking (4%), and other (29%).
Source: American Community Survey – B08301 Means of Transportation to Work (2023) Figure 2: City of Alameda Commute Work Mode Splits
40% 9% 15% 4% 4% 29%
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Car - Drive Alone Car - Carpool Transit Bicycle Walk Other
7 | P a g e
3. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program
3.1. Framework
The TDM program will be comprised of three major components: 1) Education, 2) Program Elements, and 3) Monitoring. The Education component is discussed in Section 3.2; the Program Elements component is discussed in Section 3.3; and the Monitoring component is discussed in Section 4.
3.1.1. Transportation Management Association Membership Transportation Management Association (TMA) assists with oversight and coordinating TDM-related programs and measures. Alameda Transportation Management Association (Alameda TMA or ATMA) is the TMA for Alameda, where businesses can join as members.
Alameda TMA provides a variety of TDM-related services for its members such as:
• Clipper Bay Pass pilot program (free unlimited rides on all bus, rail, and ferry) • E-bike rebate program
• Transportation-related information on their website (https://www.alamedatma.org/)
3.1.2. TDM Coordinator
The TDM Coordinator(s) will be responsible with developing information materials, managing transportation services offered as part of the TDM program, monitoring results, and coordinating with City staff and ATMA.
3.2. Education
The Education component focuses on awareness and communication to reduce vehicle trips to the building by employees and visitors. This can be implemented by providing informational kiosks, new employee packages, etc. In addition, the following website are helpful resources:
• 511 (https://511.org/)
• Alameda TMA (https://www.alamedatma.org/)
• Alameda CTC Commute Options and Benefits (https://www.alamedactc.org/programs- projects/commute-options-and-benefits)
3.3. Program Elements
The TDM program will implement elements that will promote carpool, bicycling, walking, and transit in place of drive-alone vehicle trips to and from the Project site. These elements may change or be adjusted to adapt to changing transportation trends and to maxim ize the efficiency and performance of the program. Table 5 presents the TDM elements.
Table 5 is organized based on community provided elements that employees have access to through ATMA or Alameda CTC and site-specific elements that the Project will implement.
3.3.1. VMT Reduction
The Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) VMT Reduction Calculator was used to estimate the anticipated VMT reduction by implementing the TDM program. VMT reduction was
8 | P a g e
determined based on Project’s Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) as well information related to TDM measure being implemented.
Reductions associated Mandatory Employer Commute Program (1B) were assumed due to the City’s and Alameda Point TDM requirements that also include regular performance monitoring, as well as including TDM measures such as providing service that encouraging carpooling/vanpooling, encouraging alternative or flexible scheduling, and providing bicycle end -trip facilities for all employees. Details on specific TDM measures are provided in Table 5. Based on these factors, The VMT Reduction Calculation resulted in a maximum reduction of 26% in employee commute trips. VMT Reduction Calculator output is included in the Appendix.
3.3.2. Additional TDM Measures
As discussed previously, the Project expects changes in commute patterns over time and will revise the TDM program to accommodate these changes. In addition, the Project may implement new measures if needed to achieve its 30% peak hour trip reduction goal.
9 | P a g e
Table 5: TDM Program Elements
ACTC
TDM ID Measure Description
Community Provided Measures
4E Bike Sharing
AMTA provides BIKELINK on-demand bike sharing services.
BikeLink locations at Alameda Seaplane and Main Street ferry terminals.
4F Car Sharing
Car sharing provides employees with access to a vehicle for midday trips, reducing the need to drive their personal vehicle to work.
5D Free or Subsidized Transit
Pass
AMTA members are eligible Clipper Bay Pass pilot program which provides free unlimited rides on all bus, rail, and ferry. - Ride matching Services Facilitate ride matching for residents and employees. Existing programs such as 511.org can be utilized to facilitate carpooling. - Guaranteed Ride Home
Program
Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) is a program that provides a "back- up" ride to employees who use transit, carpool, biking/walking, or other alternative as their commute mode.
Alameda CTC provides this service for employees within Alameda County
Site-Specific Measures
1B
Actively Participate in
Transportation Management
Association (TMA)
The project will join the Alameda TMA.
1B TDM Coordinator TDM Coordinator will administer, update, and monitor TDM program, as well as coordinate with ATMA and the City.
1B Information Programs
TDM Coordinator will work with the ATMA to determine if there are additional supplemental materials that they should create.
Keeping information and materials updated and relevant will be required.
1B, 3D Bicycle Parking The Project is providing XX short-term and XX long-term bicycle parking.
1B, 3D Bicycle End-Trip Facilities Provide end-trip facilities such as showers and lockers. 4D On-Site Bicycle Repair Facility Do-it-yourself bicycle repair stands will be provided, including tire gauges, air pumps, wrenches and other tools for minor repairs. 1B Pre-tax Commuter Benefits Allow employees to pay for transit passes with pre-tax earnings and can help encourage transit use among employees.
1B, 1F
Encourage Telecommuting
and Alternative Work
Schedule
Implement alternative work schedule which could take the form of staggered starting times, flexible schedule, or compressed work weeks.
3B Parking Cash-Out
A parking "cash-out" program gives employees the choice of keeping their parking space at work or accepting a cash payment in lieu of the space.
1B Preferential parking permit
program Provide preferential parking for carpool/vanpool
10 | P a g e
4. Monitoring and Evaluation
To ensure that the TDM program is working effectively and achieving its target, regular monitoring o f commute patterns and reviewing the TDM program is necessary for the life of the Project.
4.1. Review of TDM Program
The TDM program should be reviewed at least on an annual basis. Adjustments should be made based on information from annual commute surveys, shifts in traffic pattern, and change in techno logy. If necessary, adjustments to the TDM program may include:
• Implementing additional TDM elements
• Modifications to existing TDM elements (i.e. adding additional bicycle storage) If adjustments are made to the TDM program, the TDM coordinator (s) will communicate these adjustments to employees.
4.2. Monitoring
Regular monitoring is needed to assess compliance with meeting Alameda Point TDM Plan requirement of 30% reduction in peak hour trips. The monitoring process would include the following:
• Annual Travel Survey
• Trip Counts
• Annual Report
4.2.1. Annual Travel Survey
An annual travel survey will be conducted to ass ess the current use of alternative transportation options by employees and visitors. Results of the survey should be used to identify adjustments that could be made to sustain or increase the use of transit, carpool, bicycle, and walking.
4.2.2. Trip Counts
To access compliance with meeting the 30% peak hour trip reduction requirement, the Project will conduct trip count assessment at the Project’s driveways.
4.2.3. Annual Report
The Project will prepare an annual report which describes the operation and utilization of TDM measures. The report will also report on the results of the travel survey and trip counts.
4.3. Evaluation
The ATMA Board of Directors will review the annual report to determine if the Project is in compliance in achieving its TDM target. As needed and based on the findings presented in the Annual Report, The Project in collaboration with the TMA Board of Directors and City, will develop an annual detailed refinement plan for the TDM Compliance Strategy to improve performance of the program to reasonably meet the trip reduction targets.
11 | P a g e
Appendix
Project Name (optional): Project Solis
Project Address (optional):
Project Type (optional): Industrial
Office
Analysis Location (TAZ # from website): 468
Jurisdiction (auto calculated from TAZ #): Alameda
TDM ID Strategy Name Strategy Type VMT Type Change in VMT Exclusions 1A Voluntary Employer Commute Program Project/Site Employee commute trips 1B Mandatory Employer Commute Program Project/Site Employee commute trips -26.0% 1C Employer Carpool Program Project/Site Employee commute trips 1D1 Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program (for Employees) Project/Site Employee commute trips 1D2 Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program (for Residents) Project/Site Project-generated trips 1E Employer Vanpool Program Project/Site Employee commute trips 1F Employer Telework Program Project/Site Employee commute trips 2A Transit Oriented Development Project/Site Project-generated trips 2B1 Increase Residential Density Project/Site Project-generated trips 2B2 Increase Employment Density Project/Site Employee commute trips 2C Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing Neighborhood/City All neighborhood/city trips 3A1 Price Workplace Parking Project/Site Employee commute trips 3A2 Unbundle Parking Costs from Property Cost Project/Site Project-generated trips 3B Parking Cash Out Project/Site Employee commute trips 3C Limit Parking Supply Project/Site Project-generated trips 3D Provide Bike Parking Project/Site Project-generated trips 4A Street Connectivity Improvement Neighborhood/City All neighborhood/city trips 4B Pedestrian Facility Improvement Neighborhood/City All neighborhood/city trips 4C Bikeway Network Expansion Neighborhood/City All neighborhood/city trips 4D Bike Facility Improvement Neighborhood/City Trips on roadway with bikeway addition 4E Bikeshare Neighborhood/City All neighborhood/city trips 4F Carshare Neighborhood/City All neighborhood/city trips 4G Community-Based Travel Planning Neighborhood/City All neighborhood/city trips 4H Provide Neighborhood Traffic Calming Measures Neighborhood/City All neighborhood/city trips 5A Transit Service Expansion Neighborhood/City All neighborhood/city trips 5B Transit Frequency Improvements Neighborhood/City All neighborhood/city trips 5C Transit-Supportive Treatments Neighborhood/City All neighborhood/city trips 5D Transit Fare Reduction Neighborhood/City All neighborhood/city trips 5E Microtransit NEV Shuttle Neighborhood/City All neighborhood/city trips Employee Commute Trips - Total Change in VMT -26.0%
Project-Generated Trips - Total Change in VMT 0.0%
All Neighborhood/City Trips - Total Change in VMT 0.0%
Trips on Roadway Affected by Bikeway Addition - Total Change in VMT 0.0% Project Information
TDM Strategy Results
MOBILITY MANAGEMENT VMT REDUCTION CALCULATOR TOOL
Return to Main É
MOBILITY MANAGEMENT VMT REDUCTION CALCULATOR TOOL
1A. Voluntary Employer Commute Program
1B. Mandatory Employer Commute Program
1C. Employer Carpool Program
1D1. Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program (for Employees) 1D2. Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program (for Residents) 1E. Employer Vanpool Program
1F. Employer Telework Program
2A. Transit Oriented Development
2B1. Increase Residential Density
2B2. Increase Employment Density
Citations for all
(1). Cambridge Systematics. 2009. "Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions." Technical Appendices. Prepared for the Urban Land Institute. www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/2009movingcoolerexecsumandappend.pdf (2). California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2010. "Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures." www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf (1) Tal, G., et al. 2013. "Technical Background Document on the Impacts of Transit Access (Distance to Transit) Based on a Review of the Empirical Literature." www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/transitservice/transit_brief.pdf (2) Federal Highway Administration. 2017a. National Household Travel Survey – 2017 Table Designer. Travel Day PMT by TRPTRANS by HH_CBSA. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed: January 2021. (3) Federal Highway Administration. 2017b. National Household Travel Survey – 2017 Table Designer. Average Vehicle Occupancy by HHSTFIPS. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed: January 2021. (4) Lund, H., Cervero, R., and Wilson, R. 2004. Travel Characteristics of Transit-Oriented Development in California. January. Available: https://community-wealth.org/sites/clone.communitywealth. org/files/downloads/report-lund-cerv-wil.pdf. Accessed: January 2021. (1) Ewing, R., Bartholomew, K., Winkelman, S., Walters, J., Chen, D. 2007. Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change. October. Available:
https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/cit_07092401a.pdf. Accessed: January 2021. (2) Stevens, M. 2016. Does Compact Development Make People Drive Less? Journal of the American Planning Association 83:1(7–18), DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2016.1240044. November. Available:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309890412_Does_Compact_Development_Make_Pe ople_Drive_Less. Accessed: January 2021. (1) Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Trip Generation Manual. 10th Edition. Available: https://www.ite.org/technical-resources/topics/trip-and-parking-generation/trip-generation- 10th-edition-formats/.
Accessed: January 2021.
(2) Stevens, M. 2016. Does Compact Development Make People Drive Less? Journal of the American Planning Association 83:1(7–18), DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2016.1240044. November. Available:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309890412_Does_Compact_Development_Make_Pe ople_Drive_Less. Accessed: January 2021. (1) Boarnet, M., Hsu, H., Handy, S. 2014. Impacts of Employer-Based Trip Reduction Programs and Vanpools on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. September. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/Impacts_of_Employer- Based_Trip_Reduction_Programs_and_Vanpools_on_Passenger_Vehicle_Use_and_Greenhouse_Ga s_Emissions_Policy_Brief.pdf. Accessed:
January 2021.
(1) Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates. 2015. Genentech – South San Francisco Campus TDM and Parking Report. June. Available: http://ci-ssfca. granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=859&meta_id=62028. Accessed: January 2021. (1) San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2019. Mobility Management VMT Reduction Calculator Tool – Design Document. June. Available:
https://www.icommutesd.com/docs/default-source/planning/tool-design-document_final_7- 17-19.pdf?sfvrsn=ec39eb3b_2. Accessed: January 2021.
(1) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017. National Household Travel Survey – 2017 Table Designer. Travel Day PMT by TRPTRANS by HH_CBSA, Workers by WRKTRANS by HH_CBSA. Available:
https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed: January 2021.
(2) Handy, L., Boarnet, S. 2013. Impacts of Transit Service Strategies on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/transitservice/transit_brief.pdf.
Accessed: January 2021.
(3) Litman, T. 2020a. Transit Price Elasticities and Cross-elasticities. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. April. Available: https://www.vtpi.org/tranelas.pdf. Accessed: January 2021. (4) Taylor, B., Miller, D., Iseki, H., & Fink, C. 2008. Nature and/or Nurture? Analyzing the Determinants of Transit Ridership Across US Urbanized Areas. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 43(1), 60-77.
Available: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.367.5311&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed: January 2021. (1) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017. National Household Travel Survey – 2017 Table Designer. Travel Day VT by HH_CBSA by TRPTRANS by TRIPPURP. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed: January 2021.
(2) San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2019. Mobility Management VMT Reduction Calculator Tool – Design Document. June. Available: https://www.icommutesd.com/docs/default-source/planning/tool- design-document_final_7- 17-19.pdf?sfvrsn=ec39eb3b_2. Accessed: January 2021. (1) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017. National Household Travel Survey – 2017 Table Designer. Travel Day PMT by TRPTRANS by HH_CBSA, Workers by WRKTRANS by HH_CBSA. Available:
https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed: January 2021.
(2) Handy, L., Boarnet, S. 2013. Impacts of Transit Service Strategies on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/transitservice/transit_brief.pdf.
Accessed: January 2021.
(3) Litman, T. 2020a. Transit Price Elasticities and Cross-elasticities. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. April. Available: https://www.vtpi.org/tranelas.pdf. Accessed: January 2021. (4) Taylor, B., Miller, D., Iseki, H., & Fink, C. 2008. Nature and/or Nurture? Analyzing the Determinants of Transit Ridership Across US Urbanized Areas. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 43(1), 60-77.
Available: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.367.5311&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed: January 2021.
MOBILITY MANAGEMENT VMT REDUCTION CALCULATOR TOOL
2C. Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing
3A1. Price Workplace Parking
3A2. Unbundle Parking Costs from Property Cost
3B. Parking Cash Out
3D. Provide Bike Parking
3C. Limit Parking Supply
4A. Street Connectivity Improvement
4B. Pedestrian Facility Improvement
4C. Bikeway Network Expansion
4D. Bike Facility Improvement
(1) Lehner, S., Stefanie, P. 2019. The Price Elasticity of Parking: A Meta-analysis. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 121 2019. Available:
http://sustainabletransportationsc.org/garage/pdf/parking_elasticity.pdf. Accessed: January 2021. (1) Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates. 2015. Genentech – South San Francisco Campus TDM and Parking Report. June. Available: http://ci-ssfca. granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=859&meta_id=62028. Accessed: January 2021. (1) California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2012. California Household Travel Survey (CHTS). Available: https://www.nrel.gov/transportation/secure-transportation-data/tsdccalifornia- travel-survey.html.
Accessed: January 2021.
(2) Chatman, D. 2013. "Does TOD need the T? On the importance of factors other than rail access." Journal of the American Planning Association 79, no. 1. Available: https://trid.trb.org/view/1243004 . Accessed: January 2021.
(1) Frank, L., Greenwald, M., Kavage, S. and Devlin, A. 2011. An Assessment of Urban Form and Pedestrian and Transit Improvements as an Integrated GHG Reduction Strategy. WSDOT Research Report WA-RD 765.1, Washington State Department of Transportation. April. Available: www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/reports/fullreports/765.1.pdf. Accessed: January 2021. (2) Handy, Susan, Glan-Claudia, Sciara, and Boarnet, Marlon. 2014. Impacts of Pedestrian Strategies on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Policy Brief. September. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020- 06/Impacts_of_Pedestrian_Strategies_on_Passenger_Vehicle_Use_and_Greenhouse_Gas_Emission s_Policy_Brief.pdf. Accessed: January 2021. (3) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2019. 2017 National Household Travel Survey Popular Vehicle Trip Statistics. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/vehicle-trips. Accessed: January 2021. (1) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017. National Household Travel Survey – 2017 Table Designer. Travel Day PMT by TRPTRANS by HH_CBSA. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed: January 2021. (2) Pucher, J., Buehler, R. 2011. Analysis of Bicycling Trends and Policies in Large North American Cities: Lessons for New York. March. Available: http://www.utrc2.org/sites/default/files/pubs/analysis-bike-final_0.pdf.
Accessed: January 2021.
(1) Fehr & Peers. 2009. Proposed Trip Generation, Distribution, and Transit Mode Split Forecasts for the Bayview Waterfront Project Transportation Study. (2) Stevens, M. 2016. Does Compact Development Make People Drive Less? Journal of the American Planning Association 83:1(7–18), DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2016.1240044. November. Available:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309890412_Does_Compact_Development_Make_Pe ople_Drive_Less. Accessed: January 2021. (3) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2021. EnviroAtlas: Estimated Intersection Density of Walkable Roads. Available:
https://enviroatlas.epa.gov/enviroatlas/DataFactSheets/pdf/Supplemental/Estimatedintersectiondensityofwalkableroads.pdf. Accessed: April 2021. (1) AAA. 2019. Your Driving Costs. September. Available: https://exchange.aaa.com/wpcontent/uploads/2019/09/AAA-Your-Driving-Costs-2019.pdf. Accessed: January 2021. (2) California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2002. 2000–2001 California Statewide Household Travel Survey Final Report. Available: https://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=681358. Accessed: January 2021. (3) Litman, T. 2020. Parking Requirement Impacts on Housing Affordability. June. Available: https://www.vtpi.org/park-hou.pdf. Accessed: January 2021. (1) Bento, Antonio M., Maureen L. Cropper, Ahmed Mushfiq Mobarak, and Katja Vinha. 2005. “The Effects of Urban Spatial Structure on Travel Demand in the United States.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 87,3:
466-478.
(2) Nelson\Nygaard, 2005. Crediting Low-Traffic Developments (p.15). http://www.montgomeryplanning.org/transportation/documents/TripGenerationAn alysisUsingURBEMIS.pdf Criteron Planner/Engineers and Fehr & Peers Associates (2001).
(3) Index 4D Method. A Quick-Response Method of Estimating Travel Impacts from Land- Use Changes. Technical Memorandum prepared for US EPA, October 2001. (4) Holtzclaw, John; Clear, Robert; Dittmar, Hank; Goldstein, David; and Haas, Peter (2002), “Location Efficiency: Neighborhood and Socio-Economic Characteristics Determine Auto Ownership and Use – Studies in Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco”, Transportation Planning and Technology, 25 (1): 1-27. (1) California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2020d. Quantification Methodology for the Strategic Growth Council’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program. September. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/capandtrade/auctionproceeds/draft_sgc_ ahsc_qm_091620.pdf. Accessed: January 2021. (2) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017. National Household Travel Survey – 2017 Table Designer. Travel Day PT by TRPTRANS by HH_CBSA. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed: January 2021. (1) Buehler, R. 2012. Determinants of bicycle commuting in the Washington, DC region: The role bicycle parking, cyclist showers, and free car parking at work. Transportation Research Part D, 17, 525– 531. Available:
http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/cms/downloads/DeterminantsofBicycleCommuting.pdf. Accessed: January 2021. (2) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017a. National Household Travel Survey – 2017 Table Designer. Travel Day PT by TRPTRANS by HH_CBSA. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed: January 2021. (3) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017b. National Household Travel Survey – 2017 Table Designer. Workers by WRKTRANS by HH_CBSA. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed: January 2021.
MOBILITY MANAGEMENT VMT REDUCTION CALCULATOR TOOL
4E. Bikeshare
4F. Carshare
4G. Community-Based Travel Planning
5A. Transit Service Expansion
5B. Transit Frequency Improvements
5C. Transit-Supportive Treatments
(1) California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2020a. Revisiting Average Trip Length Defaults and Adjustment Factors for Quantifying VMT Reductions from Car Share, Bike Share, and Scooter Share Services. May. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//cc/capandtrade/auctionproceeds/sharedm obility_technical_052920.pdf. Accessed: January 2021. (2) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017. National Household Travel Survey – 2017 Table Designer. Travel Day PT by TRPTRANS by HH_CBSA. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed: January 2021. (3) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2018. Summary of Travel Trends 2017 – National Household Travel Survey. July. Available:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/documents/2017_nhts_summary_travel_trends.p df. Accessed: January 2021. (4) Lazarus, J., Pourquier, J., Feng, F., Hammel, H., Shaheen, S. 2019. Bikesharing Evolution and Expansion: Understanding How Docked and Dockless Models Complement and Compete – A Case Study of San Francisco.
Paper No. 19-02761. Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board: Washington, D.C. Available: https://trid.trb.org/view/1572878. Accessed: January 2021. (5) Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). 2017. Plan Bay Area 2040 Final Supplemental Report – Travel Modeling Report. July. Available: http://2040.planbayarea.org/files/2020- 02/Travel_Modeling_PBA2040_Supplemental%20Report_7-2017.pdf. Accessed: January 2021. (1) Cervero, R., Golub, A., Nee, B. 2007. San Francisco City CarShare: Longer-Term Travel-Demand and Car Ownership Impacts. January. Available: https://iurd.berkeley.edu/wp/2006-07.pdf. Accessed: January 2021. (2) Lovejoy, K., Handy, S., Boarnet, M. 2013. Impacts of Carsharing on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy Brief. October. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020- 06/Impacts_of_Carsharing_on_Passenger_Vehicle_Use_and_Greenhouse_Gas_Emissions_Policy_B rief.pdf. Accessed: January 2021. (3) San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2017. San Diego Regional Transportation Study. Volume 1: Technical Report. Available:
https://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_2145_23025.pdf. Accessed: January 2021. (1) Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). 2021. Plan Bay Area 2050, Supplemental Report. (forthcoming) (1) Handy, S., Lovejoy, K., Boarnet, M., Spears, S. 2013. Impacts of Transit Service Strategies on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. October. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020- 06/Impacts_of_Transit_Service_Strategies_on_Passenger_Vehicle_Use_and_Greenhouse_Gas_Emi ssions_Policy_Brief.pdf. Accessed: January 2021. (2) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017. National Household Travel Survey – 2017 Table Designer. Average Vehicle Occupancy by HHSTFIPS. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed: January 2021. (1) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017a. National Household Travel Survey – 2017 Table Designer. Travel Day PMT by TRPTRANS by HH_CBSA. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed: January 2021. (2) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017b. National Household Travel Survey – 2017 Table Designer. Average Vehicle Occupancy by HHSTFIPS. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed: January 2021. (3) Handy, S., Lovejoy, K., Boarnet, M., Spears, S. 2013. Impacts of Transit Service Strategies on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. October. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020- 06/Impacts_of_Transit_Service_Strategies_on_Passenger_Vehicle_Use_and_Greenhouse_Gas_Emi ssions_Policy_Brief.pdf. Accessed: January 2021. (4) San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2019. Mobility Management VMT Reduction Calculator Tool – Design Document. June. Available: https://www.icommutesd.com/docs/default-source/planning/tool- design-document_final_7- 17-19.pdf?sfvrsn=ec39eb3b_2. Accessed: January 2021. (1) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017a. National Household Travel Survey – 2017 Table Designer. Travel Day PMT by TRPTRANS by HH_CBSA. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed: January 2021. (2) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017b. National Household Travel Survey – 2017 Table Designer. Average Vehicle Occupancy by HHSTFIPS. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed: January 2021. (3) San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2019. Mobility Management VMT Reduction Calculator Tool – Design Document. June. Available: https://www.icommutesd.com/docs/default-source/planning/tool- design-document_final_7-17-19.pdf?sfvrsn=ec39eb3b_2. Accessed: January 2021. (4) Transportation Research Board (TRB). 2007. Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide. Available: https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/tcrp118brt_practitioners_kittleson.pdf.
Accessed: January 2021.
MOBILITY MANAGEMENT VMT REDUCTION CALCULATOR TOOL
5D. Transit Fare Reduction
5E. Microtransit NEV Shuttle
(1) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017a. National Household Travel Survey – 2017 Table Designer. Travel Day PMT by TRPTRANS by HH_CBSA. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed: January 2021. (2) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017b. National Household Travel Survey – 2017 Table Designer. Average Vehicle Occupancy by HHSTFIPS. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed: January 2021. (3) Handy, S., Lovejoy, K., Boarnet, M., Spears, S. 2013. Impacts of Transit Service Strategies on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. October. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020- 06/Impacts_of_Transit_Service_Strategies_on_Passenger_Vehicle_Use_and_Greenhouse_Gas_Emi ssions_Policy_Brief.pdf. Accessed: January 2021. (4) San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2019. Mobility Management VMT Reduction Calculator Tool – Design Document. June. Available: https://www.icommutesd.com/docs/default-source/planning/tool- design-document_final_7- 17-19.pdf?sfvrsn=ec39eb3b_2. Accessed: January 2021. (1) WSP. 2019. “Draft TDM Off-Model Methodology—March 2019 Revision.” Memo to SANDAG. (2) Alameda CTC Travel Demand Forecasting Model scenario run (May 2019 version; base year 2020).