Bakersfield City Council
August 26, 2026

AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS
Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd
Commercial Development
Bakersfield, CA
Prepared For:

McIntosh & Associates
10800 Stockdale Hwy, Suite 103
Bakersfield, CA 93390
Prepared By:

Tiffany Wang – Senior Consultant
Jonathan Garcia – Associate Consultant

TRINITY CONSULTANTS
4900 California Avenue, Suite 420A
Bakersfield, CA 93309
661-282-2200
December 2024
Project 230505.0287
Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-1

2. INTRODUCTION 2-1

2.1 Purpose ..................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 General Project Description ...................................................................................... 2-1

3. SETTING 3-1

3.1 Air Quality Standards ................................................................................................ 3-1

3.2 Existing Air Quality ................................................................................................... 3-5

3.2.1 Ozone (O3) ............................................................................................................. 3-6

3.2.2 Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) .......................................................... 3-6

3.2.3 Carbon Monoxide (CO) ............................................................................................ 3-6

3.2.4 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) and Hydrocarbons ................................................................. 3-7

3.2.5 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) ................................................................................................ 3-7

3.2.6 Lead (Pb) and Suspended Sulfate ............................................................................. 3-8

3.3 Climate ...................................................................................................................... 3-8

3.4 Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases .................................................................... 3-9

3.4.1 Global Climate Change............................................................................................. 3-9

3.4.2 Effects of Global Climate Change ............................................................................ 3-11

3.4.3 Global Climate Change Regulatory Issues ................................................................ 3-12

4. IMPACT ASSESSMENT 4-1

4.1 Significance Criteria .................................................................................................. 4-1

4.1.1 Thresholds Adopted for the Evaluation of Air Quality Impacts under CEQA .................... 4-1

4.1.2 Thresholds for Ambient Air Quality Impacts ............................................................... 4-2

4.1.3 Thresholds for Hazardous Air Pollutants .................................................................... 4-2

4.1.4 Cumulative Impacts Threshold of Significance ............................................................ 4-2

4.1.5 Global Climate Change Thresholds of Significance ...................................................... 4-3

4.2 Project Related Emissions ......................................................................................... 4-3

4.2.1 Short-Term Emissions .............................................................................................. 4-4

4.2.2 Long-Term Operations Emissions .............................................................................. 4-4

4.3 Potential Impact on Sensitive Receptors .................................................................. 4-6

4.4 Potential Impacts to Visibility to Nearby Areas ......................................................... 4-6

4.5 Potential Impacts from Carbon Monoxide ................................................................. 4-6

4.6 Predicted Health Risk Impacts .................................................................................. 4-7

4.7 Potential Impacts from Valley Fever ......................................................................... 4-9

4.8 Potential Impacts from Asbestos .............................................................................. 4-9

4.9 Odor Impacts and Mitigation .................................................................................... 4-9

4.10 Impacts to Ambient Air Quality ............................................................................... 4-10

4.11 Impacts to Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change ................................................ 4-10

4.11.1 Feasible and Reasonable Mitigation Relative to Global Warming ................................. 4-11

5. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 5-1

5.1 Cumulative Regional Air Quality Impacts .................................................................. 5-1

5.2 Cumulative Local Air Quality Impacts ....................................................................... 5-3

5.3 Cumulative Hazardous Air Pollutants ........................................................................ 5-3

5.4 Cumulative Carbon Monoxide (CO) – Mobile Sources ................................................ 5-3 Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants ii

6. CONSISTENCY WITH THE AIR QUALITY ATTAINMENT PLAN 6-1

6.1 Required Evaluation Guidelines ................................................................................ 6-1

6.2 Consistency with the Kern County Council of Government’s Regional Conformity Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 6-2

7. MITIGATION AND OTHER RECOMMENDED MEASURES 7-1

7.1 SJVAPCD Required PM10 Reduction Measures ........................................................... 7-1

7.2 Recommended Measures to Reduce Equipment Exhaust .......................................... 7-1

7.3 Other Measures to Reduce Project Impacts .............................................................. 7-2

8. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION 8-1

9. REFERENCES 9-1
APPENDIX A. EXISTING AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA A-1
APPENDIX B. PROJECT EMISSION CALCULATIONS B-1
APPENDIX C. CARB 2020 AND 2025 ESTIMATED EMISSION INVENTORIES C-1 APPENDIX D. HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT MODELING FILES D-1
Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants iii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1. Regional Location 2-1
Figure 2-2. Project Location 2-2
Figure 2-3. Project Master Plan 2-3
Figure 2-4. Project Site Topography 2-4
Figure 3-1. SJVAPCD Monitoring Network 3-4
Figure 6-1. City of Bakersfield Zoning 6-3
Figure 6-2. TAZ Analysis Map 6-4
Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants iv

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1. Federal & California Air Quality Standards 3-2 Table 3-2. SJVAB Attainment Status 3-3
Table 3-3. Existing Air Quality Monitoring Data in Project Area 3-5 Table 3-4. Bakersfield, California Weather Data 3-8
Table 4-1. SJVAPCD CEQA Thresholds of Significance 4-1
Table 4-2. Measures of Significance - Toxic Air Contaminants 4-2 Table 4-3. Short-Term Project Emissions 4-4
Table 4-4. Non-Permitted Post-Project (Operational) Emissions 4-6 Table 4-5. Sensitive Receptors Located < 2 Miles from Project 4-6 Table 4-6. Potential Maximum Impacts Predicted by HARP 4-8 Table 4-7. Estimated Annual GHG Emissions (MT/Year) 4-11 Table 4-8. Select CARB GHG Emission Reduction Strategies 4-12 Table 5-1. Comparative Analysis Based on SJV Air Basin 2020 Inventory - Tons per Year 5-2 Table 5-2. Emission Inventory SJVAB 2025 Projection - Tons per Year 5-2 Table 5-3. Emission Inventory SJVAB - Kern County Portion 2025 Projection - Tons per Year 5-2 Table 5-4. 2025 Emissions Projections - Proposed Project, Kern County, and SJVAB 5-3 Table 6-1. TAZ Analysis Area Projected Growth Analysis 6-5 Table 6-2. Percent Increase/Decrease on TAZ Analysis Area 6-5 Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 1-1

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Trinity Consultants has completed an Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) for the Taft Hwy and Ashe Rd commercial and residential project (Project). The Project will be located at southwest corner of the intersection of Taft Hwy and Ashe Rd in Bakersfield, CA.

The proposed Project’s construction would include the following criteria pollutant emissions: reactive organic gases (ROG), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and suspended particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Project operations would generate air pollutant emissions from mobile sources (vehicle activity from residents), energy sources, and area sources (incidental activities related to architectural coating and landscape maintenance). Project construction and operational activities would also generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Criteria and GHG emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1.28 (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) 2022), which is the most current version of the model approved for use by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD).

Table 4-3 presents the Project’s construction emissions and provides substantial evidence to support a less than significant air quality impact on the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. Table 4-4 presents the Project’s operations emissions and provides substantial evidence to support a less than significant air quality impact on the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. As discussed in Section 4.11, the Project’s GHG emissions will be in compliance with all local and statewide air quality and climate plans, therefore the Project would have less than significant GHG impacts.

SJVAPCD uses a single threshold for determination of significance for both project specific and cumulative impacts. As such, a qualitative evaluation of the cumulative projects supports a finding that the Project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable because the proposed Project’s incremental emissions would be less than significant.

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 2-1

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1 Purpose
This AQIA was prepared pursuant to the SJVAPCD Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) (SJVAPCD 2015), the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department’s (KCPD) Air Quality Preparation Guidelines (KCPD 2009), and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines (CEQA 2023).

2.2 General Project Description
The Taft Hwy-Ashe Rd (Project) includes the construction of 5.9 acres of mixed retail and commercial and 499 low-rise apartments. The Project is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Ashe Road and Taft Highway Drive in Bakersfield, California.

The exact development start date is still unknown; however, construction is tentatively expected to start in January of 2025 and end in September of 2026. Figure 2-1 depicts the regional location, and Figure 2-2 depicts an aerial view of the Project location.

Figure 2-1. Regional Location
Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 2-2
Figure 2-2. Project Location
Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 2-3
Figure 2-3 depicts the Project’s Master Plan for providing detailed location of the proposed commercial and residential development.

Figure 2-3. Project Master Plan
Figure 2-4 depicts the Project site’s topography based on Kern County Web Map Service (Kern County GIS 2024). The Project site is located at an elevation of approximately 350 feet above mean sea level and is surrounded by residential and agricultural land uses.

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 2-4
Figure 2-4. Project Site Topography
Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 3-1

3. SETTING
Protection of the public health is maintained through the attainment and maintenance of ambient air quality standards for various atmospheric compounds and the enforcement of emissions limits for individual stationary sources. The Federal Clean Air Act requires that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public.

NAAQS have been established for ozone (O3), CO, NO2, SO2, PM10 and PM2.5, and lead (Pb). California has also adopted ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) for these "criteria" air pollutants. CAAQS are more stringent than the corresponding NAAQS and include standards for hydrogen sulfide (H2S), vinyl chloride (chloroethene), and visibility reducing particles. The U.S. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 required each state to identify areas that were in non-attainment of the NAAQS and to develop State Implementation Plans (SIP's) containing strategies to bring these non-attainment areas into compliance. NAAQS and CAAQS designation/classification for Kern County are presented in Section 3.1 below.

Responsibility for regulation of air quality in California lies with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the 35 local air districts with oversight responsibility held by the EPA. CARB is responsible for regulating mobile source emissions, establishing CAAQS, conducting research, managing regulation development, and providing oversight and coordination of the activities of the 35 air districts. The air districts are primarily responsible for regulating stationary source emissions and monitoring ambient pollutant concentrations. CARB also determines whether air basins, or portions thereof, are “unclassified,” in “attainment” or in “non-attainment” for the NAAQS and CAAQS relying on statewide air quality monitoring data.

3.1 Air Quality Standards
The Project area is located within Kern County’s portion of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB or Basin).

Kern County is included among the eight counties that comprise the SJVAPCD. The SJVAPCD acts as the regulatory agency for air pollution control in the Basin and is the local agency empowered to regulate air pollutant emissions for the Project area. Table 3-1 provides the NAAQS and CAAQS.

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 3-2
Table 3-1. Federal & California Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging Time

NAAQS CAAQS
Concentration
O3
8-hour 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3)
a 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3
)
1-hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3
)
CO
8-hour 9 ppm (10 µg/m3) 9 ppm (10 µg/m3)
1-hour 35 ppm (40 µg/m3) 20 ppm (23 µg/m3)
NO2
Annual Average 53 ppb (100 µg/m3) 0.030 ppm (57 µg/m3)
1-Hour 100 ppb (188.68 µg/m3) 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m3)
SO2
3-Hour 0.5 ppm (1,300 µg/m3)
24 Hour 0.14 ppm (365 µg/m3) 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m3)
1-Hour 75 ppb (196 µg/m3) 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3)
Particulate Matter
(PM10)
Annual Arithmetic
Mean 20 µg/m3
24-Hour 150 µg/m3 50 µg/m3
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
Annual Arithmetic
Mean 9 µg/m3 12 µg/m3
24-Hour 35 µg/m3
Sulfates 24-Hour 25 µg/m3
Pbd
Rolling Three-Month
Average 0.15 µg/m3
30 Day Average 1.5 µg/m3
H2S 1-Hour 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m3)
Vinyl Chloride
(chloroethene) 24-Hour 0.010 ppm (26 µg/m3
)
Visibility Reducing
particles
8 Hour (1000 to 1800
PST)
b
ppm = parts per million
ppb = parts per billion
mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic
meter
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic
meter
Source: CARB 2016, SJVAPCD 2024b
a. On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm
b. In 1989, CARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile visibility standards and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are “extinction of 0.23 per kilometer” and “extinction of 0.07 per kilometer” for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively.

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 3-3
Under the provisions of the U.S. Clean Air Act, the Kern County portion of the SJVAB has been classified as nonattainment/extreme, nonattainment/severe, nonattainment, attainment/unclassified, attainment, or unclassified under the established NAAQS and CAAQS for various criteria pollutants. Table 3-2 provides the SJVAB’s designation and classification based on the various criteria pollutants under both NAAQS and CAAQS.

Table 3-2. SJVAB Attainment Status
Pollutant NAAQSa CAAQSb
O3, 1-hour Revoked
f Nonattainment/Severe
O3, 8-hour Nonattainment/Extremee Nonattainment
PM10 Attainmentc Nonattainment
PM2.5 Nonattainmentd Nonattainment
CO Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified
NO2 Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
SO2 Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
Pb (Particulate) No Designation/Classification Attainment H2S No Federal Standard Unclassified
Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment
Visibility Reducing Particulates No Federal Standard Unclassified Vinyl Chloride No Federal Standard Attainment
Source: SJVAPCD 2022a
Note:
a. See 40 CFR Part 81
b. See CCR Title 17 Sections 60200-60210
c. On September 25, 2008, EPA redesignated the San Joaquin Valley to attainment for the PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and approved the PM10 Maintenance Plan. d. The Valley is designated nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA designated the Valley as nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on November 13, 2009 (effective December 14, 2009). e. Though the Valley was initially classified as serious nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour O3 standard, EPA approved Valley reclassification to extreme nonattainment in the Federal Register on May 5, 2010 (effective June 4, 2010). f. Effective June 15, 2005, the EPA revoked the federal 1-hour O3 standard, including associated designations and classifications. EPA had previously classified the SJVAB as extreme nonattainment for this standard. EPA approved the 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan on March 8, 2010 (effective April 7, 2010). Many applicable requirements for extreme 1-hour O3 nonattainment areas continue to apply to the SJVAB.

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 3-4
The SJVAPCD, along with CARB, operates an air quality monitoring network that provides information on average concentrations of those pollutants for which Federal or State agencies have established NAAQS and CAAQS, respectively. The monitoring stations in the San Joaquin Valley are depicted in Figure 3-1.

Figure 3-1. SJVAPCD Monitoring Network
Source: SJVAPCD 2022b
Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 3-5

3.2 Existing Air Quality
For the purposes of background data and this air quality analysis, this analysis relied on data collected in the last three years for the CARB monitoring stations that are located in the closest proximity to the project site.

Table 3-3 provides the background concentrations for O3, particulate matter of 10 microns (PM10), particulate matter of less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), CO, NO2, SO2, and Pb. Information is provided for Bakersfield – 5558 California Avenue, Oildale – 3311 Manor Street, Edison, and Bakersfield – Municipal Airport monitoring stations for 2020 to 2022. No data is available for H2S, vinyl chloride or other toxic air contaminants in Kern County.

Table 3-3. Existing Air Quality Monitoring Data in Project Area Maximum Concentration Days Exceeding Standard
Pollutant and
Monitoring Station Location 2021 2022 2023 2021 2022 2023 O3 – 1-hour CAAQS (0.09 ppm)
Bakersfield – 5558 California Ave 0.090 0.093 0.088 0 0 0 Bakersfield – Municipal Airport 0.100 0.108 0.098 6 6 3 Edison 0.116 0.126 0.107 23 19 16
O3 – 8-hour CAAQS (0.070 ppm)
Bakersfield – 5558 California Ave 0.081 0.076 0.079 11 7 7 Bakersfield – Municipal Airport 0.090 0.087 0.085 30 45 26 Edison 0.099 0.096 0.092 70 63 54
O3 – 8-hour NAAQS (0.070 ppm)
Bakersfield – 5558 California Ave 0.080 0.076 0.079 11 4 7 Bakersfield – Municipal Airport 0.090 0.086 0.084 29 45 25 Edison 0.098 0.096 0.091 66 61 52
PM10 – 24-hour CAAQS (50 µg/m3
)
Bakersfield – 5558 California Ave 439.3 133.0 180.2 124 135 106 Oildale – 3311 Manor Street 423.0 146.3 266.0 129 127 102 PM10 – 24-hour NAAQS (150 µg/m3
)
Bakersfield – 5558 California Ave 437.5 134.7 181.3 3 0 1 Oildale – 3311 Manor Street 421.4 149.4 270.4 2 0 1
PM2.5 - 24-hour NAAQS (35 µg/m3
)
Bakersfield – 5558 California Ave 72.3 58.1 63.7 40 34 9 Bakersfield – Golden State Highway 78.5 58.6 58.0 43 33 9 CO - 8-Hour CAAQS & NAAQS (9.0 ppm)
No data collected * * * * * *
NO2 - 1-Hour CAAQS (0.18 ppm)
Bakersfield – 5558 California Ave 0.057 0.053 0.057 0 0 0 Bakersfield – Municipal Airport 0.068 0.058 0.063 0 0 0 NO2 - 1-Hour NAAQS (0.10 ppm)
Bakersfield – 5558 California Ave 0.057 0.054 0.058 0 0 0 Bakersfield – Municipal Airport 0.068 0.059 0.064 0 0 0 SO2 – 24-hour Concentration - CAAQS (0.04 ppm) & NAAQS (0.14 ppm) No data collected * * * * * *
Pb - Maximum 30-Day Concentration CAAQS (1500 ng/m3
)
Bakersfield – 5558 California Ave 9.9 10.8 9.5 * * *
Source: CARB 2024a
Notes: ppm= parts per million
* There was insufficient (or no) data available to determine the value.

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 3-6
The following is a description of criteria air pollutants, typical sources and health effects and the recently documented pollutant levels in the project vicinity.

3.2.1 Ozone (O3)
The most severe air quality problem in the San Joaquin Valley is high concentrations of O3. High levels of O3 cause eye irritation and can impair respiratory functions. High levels of O3 can also affect plants and materials.

Grapes, lettuce, spinach and many types of garden flowers and shrubs are particularly vulnerable to O3 damage. O3 is not emitted directly into the atmosphere but is a secondary pollutant produced through photochemical reactions involving hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides (NOx). Significant O3 generation requires about one to three hours in a stable atmosphere with strong sunlight. For this reason, the months of April through October comprise the "ozone season." O3 is a regional pollutant because O3 precursors are transported and diffused by wind concurrently with the reaction process. The data contained in Table 3-3 shows that the Bakersfield and Edison area exceeded the 1-hour average ambient O3 CAAQS and the 8-hour average ambient O3 NAAQS and CAAQS during the 2021 through 2023 period.

3.2.2 Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5)
Both State and Federal particulate standards now apply to particulates under 10 microns (PM10) rather than to total suspended particulate (TSP), which includes particulates up to 30 microns in diameter. Continuing studies have shown that the smaller-diameter fraction of TSP represents the greatest health hazard posed by the pollutant; therefore, EPA has recently established NAAQS for PM2.5. The project area is classified as attainment for PM10 and non-attainment for particulates under 2.5 microns (PM2.5) for NAAQS.

Particulate matter consists of particles in the atmosphere resulting from many kinds of dust and fumeproducing industrial and agricultural operations, from combustion, and from atmospheric photochemical reactions. Natural activities also increase the level of particulates in the atmosphere; wind-raised dust and ocean spray are two sources of naturally occurring particulates. The largest sources of PM10 and PM2.5 in Kern County are vehicle movement over paved and unpaved roads, demolition and construction activities, farming operations, and unplanned fires. PM10 and PM2.5 are considered regional pollutants with elevated levels typically occurring over a wide geographic area. Concentrations tend to be highest in the winter, during periods of high atmospheric stability and low wind speed. In the respiratory tract, very small particles of certain substances may produce injury by themselves or may contain absorbed gases that are injurious. Particulates of aerosol size suspended in the air can both scatter and absorb sunlight, producing haze and reducing visibility. They can also cause a wide range of damage to materials.

Table 3-3 shows that PM10 levels regularly exceeded the CAAQS but not the NAAQS at the two monitoring stations over the three-year period of 2021 through 2023. Table 3-3 shows that PM2.5 NAAQS were exceeded during the 2021 through 2023 period. Similar levels can be expected to occur in the vicinity of the Project site.

3.2.3 Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Ambient CO concentrations normally correspond closely to the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. Relatively high concentrations of CO would be expected along heavily traveled roads and near busy intersections. Wind speed and atmospheric mixing also influence CO concentrations; however, under inversion conditions prevalent in the San Joaquin Valley, CO concentrations may be more uniformly distributed over a broad area.

Internal combustion engines, principally in vehicles, produce CO due to incomplete fuel combustion. Various industrial processes also produce CO emissions through incomplete combustion. Gasoline-powered motor Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 3-7
vehicles are typically the major source of this contaminant. CO does not irritate the respiratory tract but passes through the lungs directly into the blood stream. By interfering with the transfer of oxygen to the blood, CO deprives sensitive tissues of oxygen, which can exacerbate cardiovascular disease and lead to symptoms such as fatigue, headaches, and dizziness. CO is not known to have adverse effects on vegetation, visibility, or materials.

Table 3-3 reports no CO data is available for the three-year period from 2021 through 2023; historically Bakersfield area data for CO has been below the CAAQS and NAAQS.

3.2.4 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) and Hydrocarbons
Kern County has been designated as an attainment area for the NAAQS for NO2. NO2 is the "whiskey brown" colored gas readily visible during periods of heavy air pollution. Mobile sources and oil and gas production account for nearly all of the County's NOx emissions, most of which is emitted as NO and converted into NO2.

Combustion in motor vehicle engines, power plants, refineries and other industrial operations are the primary sources in the region. Railroads and aircraft are other potentially significant sources of combustion air contaminants. Oxides of nitrogen are direct participants in photochemical smog reactions. The emitted compound, nitric oxide, combines with oxygen in the atmosphere in the presence of hydrocarbons and sunlight to form NO2 and O3. NO2, the most significant of these pollutants, can color the atmosphere at concentrations as low as 0.5 ppm on days of 10-mile visibility. NOx is an important air pollutant in the region because it is a primary receptor of ultraviolet light, which initiates the reactions producing photochemical smog. It also reacts in the air to form nitrate particulates.

Motor vehicles are the major source of reactive hydrocarbons in the basin. Other sources include evaporation of organic solvents and petroleum production and refining operations. Certain hydrocarbons can damage plants by inhibiting growth and by causing flowers and leaves to fall. Levels of hydrocarbons currently measured in urban areas are not known to cause adverse effects in humans. However, certain members of this contaminant group are important components in the reactions, which produce photochemical oxidants.

Table 3-3 shows that the Bakersfield area did not exceed the 1-hour average ambient NO2 NAAQS and CAAQS during the 2021 through 2023 period. Hydrocarbons are not currently monitored.

3.2.5 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Kern County has been designated as an attainment area for the NAAQS for SO2. SO2 is the primary combustion product of sulfur, or sulfur containing fuels. Fuel combustion is the major source of this pollutant, while chemical plants, sulfur recovery plants, and metal processing facilities are minor contributors. Gaseous fuels (natural gas, propane, etc.) typically have lower percentages of sulfur containing compounds than liquid fuels such as diesel or crude oil. SO2 levels are generally higher in the winter months. Decreasing levels of SO2 in the atmosphere reflect the use of natural gas in power plants and boilers.

At high concentrations, SO2 irritates the upper respiratory tract. At lower concentrations, when respirated in combination with particulates, SO2 can result in greater harm by injuring lung tissues. Sulfur oxides (SOx), in combination with moisture and oxygen, results in the formation of sulfuric acid, which can yellow the leaves of plants, dissolve marble, and oxidize iron and steel. SOx can also react to produce sulfates that reduce visibility and sunlight.

Table 3-3 shows no data has been reported over the three-year period in Kern County.

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 3-8

3.2.6 Lead (Pb) and Suspended Sulfate
Ambient Pb levels have dropped dramatically due to the increase in the percentage of motor vehicles that run exclusively on unleaded fuel. Ambient Pb levels in Lost Hills are well below the ambient standard and are expected to continue to decline; the data reported in Table 3-3 only shows the highest concentration as the number of days exceeding standards are not reported. Suspended sulfate levels have stabilized to the point where no excesses of the State standard are expected in any given year.

3.3 Climate
The most significant single control on the weather pattern of the San Joaquin Valley is the semi-permanent subtropical high-pressure cell, referred to as the "Pacific High." During the summer, the Pacific High is positioned off the coast of northern California, diverting ocean-derived storms to the north. Hence, the summer months are virtually rainless. During the winter, the Pacific High moves southward allowing storms to pass through the San Joaquin Valley. Almost all of the precipitation expected during a given year occurs from December through April. During the summer, the predominant surface winds are out of the northwest.

Air enters the Valley through the Carquinez strait and flows toward the Tehachapi Mountains. This up-valley (northwesterly) wind flow is interrupted in early fall by the emergence of nocturnal, down-valley (southeasterly) winds which become progressively more predominant as winter approaches. Wind speeds are generally highest during the spring and lightest in fall and winter. The relatively cool air flowing through the Carquinez strait is warmed on its journey south through the Valley. On reaching the southern end of the Valley, the average high temperature during the summer is nearly 100 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). Relative humidity during the summer is quite low, causing large diurnal temperature variations. Temperatures during the summer often drop into the upper 60s. In winter, the average high temperatures reach into the mid-50s and the average low drops to the mid-30s. In addition, another high-pressure cell, known as the "Great Basin High," develops east of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range during winter. When this cell is weak, a layer of cool, damp air becomes trapped in the basin and extensive fog results. During inversions, vertical dispersion is restricted, and pollutant emissions are trapped beneath the inversion and pushed against the mountains, adversely affecting regional air quality. Surface-based inversions, while shallow and typically short-lived, are present most mornings. Elevated inversions, while less frequent than ground-based inversions, are typically longer lasting and create the more severe air stagnation problems. The winter season characteristically has the poorest conditions for vertical mixing of the entire year.

Meteorological data for various monitoring stations is maintained by the Western Regional Climate Center.

Meteorological data for the Project site is expected to be similar to the data recorded at the Bakersfield monitoring station. This data is provided in Table 3-4, which contains average precipitation data recorded at the Wasco monitoring station. Over the 79-year period from October of 1937 through June of 2016 (the most recent data available), the average annual precipitation was 6.17 inches.

Table 3-4. Bakersfield, California Weather Data
Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary for the Period 10/01/1937 to 6/09/2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
Avg. Maximum
Temp (F) 57.4 63.6 69.0 75.7 84.2 92.1 98.6 96.7 91.0 80.5 67.3 57.8 77.8 Avg. Minimum
Temp (F) 38.5 42.1 45.4 49.7 56.6 63.3 69.2 67.7 63.1 54.0 44.1 38.5 52.7 Average Total
Precipitation (in.) 1.04 1.16 1.12 0.67 0.21 0.07 0.01 0.04 0.10 0.30 0.59 0.85 6.17 Average Snowfall
(in.) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 3-9
Percent of possible observations for period of record:

Max. Temp.: 99.6% Min. Temp.: 99.6% Precipitation: 99.7% Snowfall: 92.4% Snow Depth: 92.2% Source: Western Regional Climate Center, 2024.

3.4 Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases

3.4.1 Global Climate Change
“Global climate change” refers to change in average meteorological conditions on the earth with respect to temperature, precipitation, and storms, lasting for decades or longer. The term “global climate change” is often used interchangeably with the term “global warming,” but “global climate change” is preferred by some scientists and policy makers to “global warming” because it helps convey the notion that in addition to rising temperatures, other changes in global climate may occur. Climate change may result from the following influences:
► Natural factors, such as changes in the sun’s intensity or slow changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun;
► Natural processes within the climate system (e.g., changes in ocean circulation); and/or ► Human activities that change the atmosphere’s composition (e.g., through burning fossil fuels) and the land surface (e.g., deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, and desertification).

As determined from worldwide meteorological measurements between 1990 and 2005, the primary observed effect of global climate change has been a rise in the average global tropospheric temperature of 0.36 degree Fahrenheit (°F) per decade. Climate change modeling shows that further warming could occur, which could induce additional changes in the global climate system during the current century. Changes to the global climate system, ecosystems, and the environment of California could include higher sea levels, drier or wetter weather, changes in ocean salinity, changes in wind patterns or more energetic aspects of extreme weather (e.g., droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, extreme cold, and increased intensity of tropical cyclones).

Specific effects from climate change in California may include a decline in the Sierra Nevada snowpack, erosion of California’s coastline, and seawater intrusion in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.

Human activities, including fossil fuel combustion and land use changes, release carbon dioxide (CO2) and other compounds cumulatively termed greenhouse gases (GHGs). GHGs are effective at trapping radiation that would otherwise escape the atmosphere. This trapped radiation warms the atmosphere, the oceans, and the earth’s surface (USGCRP, 2014). Many scientists believe “most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities” (IPCC, 2017). The increased amount of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere is the alleged primary result of human-induced warming.

GHGs are present in the atmosphere naturally, released by natural sources, or formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. They include CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and O3. In the last 200 years, substantial quantities of GHGs have been released into the atmosphere, primarily from fossil fuel combustion. These human-induced emissions are increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, therefore enhancing the natural greenhouse effect. The GHGs resulting from human activity are believed to be causing global climate change. While human-made GHGs include CO2, CH4, and N2O, some (like chlorofluorocarbons [CFCs]) are completely new to the atmosphere. GHGs vary considerably in terms of Global Warming Potential (GWP), the comparative ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere. The GWP is based on several factors, including the relative effectiveness of a gas to absorb infrared radiation and the length of time that the gas remains in the atmosphere (“atmospheric lifetime”). The GWP of each gas is measured relative to CO2, the most abundant GHG. The definition of GWP for a particular GHG is the ratio of Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 3-10
heat trapped by one unit mass of the GHG to the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of CO2 over a specified time period. GHG emissions are typically measured in terms of pounds or tons of “CO2 equivalents” (CO2e).

Methane is produced when organic matter decomposes in environments lacking sufficient oxygen. Natural sources of CH4 production include wetlands, termites, and oceans. Human activity accounts for the majority of the approximately 500 million metric tons of CH4 emitted annually. These anthropogenic sources include the mining and burning of fossil fuels; digestive processes in ruminant livestock such as cattle; rice cultivation; and the decomposition of waste in landfills. The major removal process for atmospheric CH4, the chemical breakdown in the atmosphere, cannot keep pace with source emissions; therefore, CH4 concentrations in the atmosphere are rising.

Worldwide emissions of GHGs in 2008 were 30.1 billion metric tons of CO2e and have increased considerably since that time (United Nations, 2011). It is important to note that the global emissions inventory data are not all from the same year and may vary depending on the source of the data (U.S. EPA, 2019). Emissions from the top five emitting countries and the European Union accounted for approximately 70% of total global GHG emissions in 2014. The United States was the number two producer of GHG emissions behind China.

The primary GHG emitted by human activities was CO2, representing approximately 76% of total global GHG emissions (U.S. EPA, 2019).

In 2017, the United States emitted approximately 6.5 million metric tons of CO2e. Of the six major sectors nationwide (electric power industry, transportation, industry, agriculture, commercial, and residential), the electric power industry and transportation sectors combined account for approximately 57% of the GHG emissions; the majority of the electrical power industry and all of the transportation emissions are generated from direct fossil fuel combustion. Between 1990 and 2017, total United States GHG emissions rose approximately 1.3% (U.S. EPA, 2019).

Worldwide, energy-related CO2 emissions are expected to increase at an average rate of 0.6% annually between 2018 and 2050, compared with the average growth rate of 1.8% per year from 1990 to 2018. Much of the increase in these emissions is expected to occur in the developing world where emerging economies, such as China and India, fuel economic development with fossil fuel energy. Developing countries’ emissions are expected to grow above the world average at a rate of approximately 1% annually between 2018 and 2050 and surpass emissions of industrialized countries by 2025 (U.S. EIA, 2019).

CARB is responsible for developing and maintaining the California GHG emissions inventory. This inventory estimates the amount of GHGs emitted into and removed from the atmosphere by human activities within the state of California and supports the Assembly Bill (AB) 32 Climate Change Program. CARB’s current GHG emission inventory covers the years 2000 through 2017 and is based on fuel use, equipment activity, industrial processes, and other relevant data (e.g., housing, landfill activity, and agricultural lands).

In 2017, emissions from statewide emitting activities were 424 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MMT CO2e), which is 5 MMT CO2e lower than 2016 levels. 2017 emissions have decreased by 14% since peak levels in 2004 and are 7 MMT CO2e below the 1990 emissions level and the State’s 2020 GHG limit. Per capita GHG emissions in California have dropped from a 2001 peak of 14.1 tonnes per person to 10.7 tonnes per person in 2017, a 24% decrease (CARB 2019).

CARB estimates that transportation was the source of approximately 40% of California’s GHG emissions in 2017, followed by electricity generation at 15%. Other sources of GHG emissions were industrial sources at 21%, residential plus commercial activities at 10%, and agriculture at 8% (CARB 2019).

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 3-11
CARB has projected the estimated statewide GHG emissions for the year 2020, which represent the emissions that would be expected to occur with reductions anticipated from Pavley I and the Renewables Electricity Standard (30 MMT CO2e total), will be 509 MMT of CO2e (CARB, 2014). GHG emissions from the transportation and electricity sectors as a whole are expected to increase at approximately 36% and 20% of total CO2e emissions, respectively, as compared to 2009. The industrial sector consists of large stationary sources of GHG emissions and the percentage of the total 2020 emissions is projected to be 18% of total CO2e emissions.

The remaining sources of GHG emissions in 2020 are high global warming potential gases at 6%, residential and commercial activities at 10%, agriculture at 7%, and recycling and waste at 2%.

3.4.2 Effects of Global Climate Change
Changes in the global climate are assessed using historical records of temperature changes that have occurred in the past. Climate change scientists use this temperature data to extrapolate a level of statistical significance specifically focusing on temperature records from the last 150 years (the Industrial Age) that differ from past climate changes in rate and magnitude.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) constructed several emission trajectories of GHGs needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts. In its Fifth Assessment Report, the IPCC predicted that the global mean temperature change from 1990 to 2100 could range from 1.1 degree Celsius (°C) to 6.4 °C (8 to 10.4 °Fahrenheit) (IPCC, 2013). Global average temperatures and sea levels are expected to rise under all scenarios (IPCC, 2014). The IPCC concluded that global climate change was largely the result of human activity, mainly the burning of fossil fuels. However, the scientific literature is not consistent regarding many of the aspects of climate change, the actual temperature changes during the 20th century, and contributions from human versus non-human activities.

Effects from global climate change may arise from temperature increases, climate sensitive diseases, extreme weather events, and degradation of air quality. There may be direct temperature effects through increases in average temperature leading to more extreme heat waves and less extreme cold spells. Those living in warmer climates are likely to experience more stress and heat-related problems. Heat-related problems include heat rash and heat stroke, drought, etc. In addition, climate-sensitive diseases may increase, such as those spread by mosquitoes and other disease-carrying insects. Such diseases include malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, and encephalitis. Extreme events such as flooding and hurricanes can displace people and agriculture. Global warming may also contribute to air quality problems from increased frequency of smog and particulate air pollution.

According to the 2006 California Climate Action Team (CAT) Report, several climate change effects can be expected in California over the course of the next century (CalEPA, 2006). These are based on trends established by the IPCC and are summarized below.
► A diminishing Sierra snowpack declining by 70% to 90%, threatening the state’s water supply. ► A rise in sea levels, resulting in the displacement of coastal businesses and residences. During the past century, sea levels along California’s coast have risen about seven inches. If emissions continue unabated and temperatures rise into the higher anticipated warming range, sea level is expected to rise an additional 22 to 35 inches by the end of the century. Sea level rises of this magnitude would inundate coastal areas with salt water, accelerate coastal erosion, threaten vital levees and inland water systems, and disrupt wetlands and natural habitats. (Note: This condition would not affect the Proposed Project area, as it is a significant distance away from coastal areas.) ► An increase in temperature and extreme weather events. Climate change is expected to lead to increases in the frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme heat events and heat waves in California.

More heat waves can exacerbate chronic disease or heat-related illness.

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 3-12
► Increased risk of large wildfires if rain increases as temperatures rise. Wildfires in the grasslands and chaparral ecosystems of southern California are estimated to increase by approximately 30% toward the end of the 21st century because more winter rain will stimulate the growth of more plant fuel available to burn in the fall. In contrast, a hotter, drier climate could promote up to 90% more northern California fires by the end of the century by drying out and increasing the flammability of forest vegetation. ► Increasing temperatures from 8 to 10.4 °F under the higher emission scenarios, leading to a 25% to 35% increase in the number of days that ozone pollution levels are exceeded in most urban areas (see below).
► Increased vulnerability of forests due to forest fires, pest infestation, and increased temperatures. ► Reductions in the quality and quantity of certain agricultural products. The crops and products likely to be adversely affected include wine grapes, fruit, nuts, and milk. ► Exacerbation of air quality problems. If temperatures rise to the medium warming range, there could be 75 to 85% more days with weather conducive to ozone formation in Los Angeles and the San Joaquin Valley, relative to today’s conditions. This is more than twice the increase expected if rising temperatures remain in the lower warming range. This increase in air quality problems could result in an increase in asthma and other health-related problems.
► A decrease in the health and productivity of California’s forests. Climate change can cause an increase in wildfires, an enhanced insect population, and establishment of non-native species. ► Increased electricity demand, particularly in the hot summer months. ► Increased ground-level ozone formation due to higher reaction rates of ozone precursors.

3.4.3 Global Climate Change Regulatory Issues
In 1988, the United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to evaluate the impacts of global warming and to develop strategies that nations could implement to curtail global climate change. In 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change established an agreement with the goal of controlling GHG emissions, including methane. As a result, the Climate Change Action Plan was developed to address the reduction of GHGs in the United States. The plan consists of more than 50 voluntary programs. Additionally, the Montreal Protocol was originally signed in 1987 and substantially amended in 1990 and 1992. The Montreal Protocol stipulates that the production and consumption of compounds that deplete O3 in the stratosphere (chlorofluorocarbons [CFCs], halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform) were phased out by 2000 (methyl chloroform was phased out by 2005).

On September 27, 2006, Assembly Bill 32 (AB32), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (the Act) was enacted by the State of California. The legislature stated, “Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California.” The Act caps California’s GHG emissions at 1990 levels by 2020. The Act defines GHG emissions as all of the following gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. This agreement represents the first enforceable statewide program in the U.S. to cap all GHG emissions from major industries that includes penalties for non-compliance. While acknowledging that national and international actions will be necessary to fully address the issue of global warming, AB32 lays out a program to inventory and reduce GHG emissions in California and from power generation facilities located outside the state that serve California residents and businesses.

AB32 charges CARB with responsibility to monitor and regulate sources of GHG emissions in order to reduce those emissions. CARB has adopted a list of discrete early action measures that can be implemented to reduce GHG emissions. CARB has defined the 1990 baseline emissions for California and has adopted that baseline as the 2020 statewide emissions cap. CARB is conducting rulemaking for reducing GHG emissions to achieve the emissions cap by 2020. In designing emission reduction measures, CARB must aim to minimize costs, maximize benefits, improve, and modernize California’s energy infrastructure, maintain electric system Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 3-13
reliability, maximize additional environmental and economic co-benefits for California, and complement the state’s efforts to improve air quality.

Subsequent legislation by the California legislature has included Senate Bill (SB) 32, which expanded upon AB32 to reduce GHG emissions to 40% below the 1990 levels by 2030; AB197 which increased the legislative oversight of the CARB by adding two legislatively appointed non-voting members to the CARB Board and provided additional protection to disadvantaged communities; SB350, which increased California’s renewable energy electricity procurement goal and SB100, which established a landmark policy requiring renewable energy and zero-carbon resources to supply 100 percent of electrical retail sales to end use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve state agencies by 2045.

Global warming and climate change have received substantial public attention for more than 20 years. For example, the United States Global Change Research Program was established by the Global Change Research Act of 1990 to enhance the understanding of natural and human-induced changes in the Earth’s global environmental system, to monitor, understand, and predict global change, and to provide a sound scientific basis for national and international decision-making. Even so, the analytical tools have not been developed to determine the effect on worldwide global warming from a particular increase in GHG emissions, or the resulting effects on climate change in a particular locale. The scientific tools needed to evaluate the impacts that a specific project may have on the environment are even farther in the future.

The California Supreme Court’s most recent CEQA decision on the Newhall Ranch development case, Center for Biological v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (November 30, 2015, Case No. 217763), determined that the project’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) did not substantiate the conclusion that the GHG cumulative impacts would be less than significant. The EIR determined that the Newhall Ranch development project would reduce GHG emissions by 31 percent from business as usual (BAU). This reduction was compared to the California’s target of reducing GHG emissions statewide by 29 percent from business as usual. The Court determined that “the EIR’s deficiency stems from taking a quantitative comparison method developed by the Scoping Plan as a measure of the greenhouse gas reduction effort required by the state as a whole, and attempting to use that method, without adjustments, for a purpose very different from its original design.” In the Court’s final ruling it offered suggestions that were deemed appropriate use of the BAU methodology:

1. Lead agencies can use the comparison to BAU methodology if they determine what reduction a particular project must achieve in order to comply with statewide goals,

2. Project design features that comply with regulations to reduce emissions may demonstrate that those components of emissions are less that significant, and

3. Lead agencies could also demonstrate compliance with locally adopted climate plans or could apply specific numerical thresholds developed by some local agencies.

Kern County, the Lead CEQA agency for this Project, has not developed specific thresholds for GHGs. As discussed in Section 4.1, the SJVAPCD, a CEQA Trustee Agency for this Project, has developed thresholds to determine significance of a proposed project – either implement Best Performance Standards or achieve a 29% reduction from BAU (a specific numerical threshold). However, the SJVAPCD has established their BAU and baseline emissions based on the years 2002-2004 and 2020, respectively. The 2020 projected baseline has passed, and at this time, no new guidance has been approved for determining BAU and projected baseline for the next target year. Therefore, the 29% reduction from BAU cannot be applied to the subject Project in order to determine significance. Additionally, a Best Performance Standards threshold has not been established. For this Project, compliance with locally adopted climate plans will be used to determine level of significance for GHG. Therefore, the GHG analysis for this Project follows the suggestions from the Court’s Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 3-14
ruling on the Newhall Ranch development project in order to determine significance using the project design features.

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 4-1

4. IMPACT ASSESSMENT

4.1 Significance Criteria
To determine whether a proposed Project could create a potential CEQA impact, local, State, and Federal agencies have developed various means by which a project’s impacts may be measured and evaluated. Such means can generally be categorized as follows:
► Thresholds of significance adopted by air quality agencies to guide lead agencies in their evaluation of air quality impacts under the CEQA.
► Regulations established by air districts, CARB and EPA for the evaluation of stationary sources when applying for Authorities to Construct, Permits to Operate and other permit program requirements (e.g., New Source Review).
► Thresholds utilized to determine if a project would cause or contribute significantly to violations of the ambient air quality standards or other concentration-based limits. ► Regulations applied in areas where severe air quality problems exist.

Summary tables of these emission-based and concentration-based thresholds of significance for each pollutant are provided below along with a discussion of their applicability.

4.1.1 Thresholds Adopted for the Evaluation of Air Quality Impacts under CEQA In order to maintain consistency with CEQA, the SJVAPCD (2015) adopted guidelines to assist applicants in complying with the various requirements. According to the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI, a project would have potentially significant air quality impacts when the project:
► Creates a conflict with or obstructs implementation of the applicable air quality plan; ► Causes a violation of any air quality standard or generates substantial contribution towards exceeding an existing or projected air quality standard;
► Results in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is designated non-attainment under a NAAQS and CAAQS (including emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for O3 precursors);
► Exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or ► Creates objectionable odors that affect a substantial number of people.

The SJVAPCD GAMAQI thresholds are designed to implement the general criteria for air quality emissions as required in the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Paragraph III (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations §15064.7) and CEQA (California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. al). SJVAPCD’s specific CEQA air quality thresholds are presented in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1. SJVAPCD CEQA Thresholds of Significance
Criteria Pollutant Significance Level
Construction Operational
CO 100 tons/yr 100 tons/yr
NOx 10 tons/yr 10 tons/yr
ROG 10 tons/yr 10 tons/yr
SOx 27 tons/yr 27 tons/yr
PM10 15 tons/yr 15 tons/yr
PM2.5 15 tons/yr 15 tons/yr
Source: SJVAPCD 2015
Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 4-2

4.1.2 Thresholds for Ambient Air Quality Impacts
CEQA Guidelines – Appendix G (Environmental Checklist) states that a project that would “violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation” would be considered to create significant impacts on air quality. Therefore, an AQIA should determine whether the emissions from a project would cause or contribute significantly to violations of the NAAQS or CAAQS (presented above in Table 3-1) when added to existing ambient concentrations.

The EPA has established the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program to determine what comprises “significant impact levels” (SIL) to NAAQS attainment areas. A project’s impacts are considered less than significant if emissions are below PSD SIL for a particular pollutant. When a SIL is exceeded, an additional “increment analysis” is required. As the Project would not include modification to the stationary source under NSR, it would not be subject to either PSD or NSR review. The PSD SIL thresholds are used with ambient air quality modeling for a CEQA project to address whether the Project would “violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.” Ambient air quality emissions estimates below the PSD SIL thresholds would result in less than significant ambient air quality impacts for both a project and cumulative CEQA impact analysis. The SJVAB is classified as non-attainment for the O3 NAAQS and, as such, is subject to “non-attainment new source review” (NSR). PSD SILs and increments are more stringent than the CAAQS or NAAQS and represent the most stringent thresholds of significance.

4.1.3 Thresholds for Hazardous Air Pollutants
The SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI states, “From a health risk perspective there are basically two types of land use projects that have the potential to cause long-term public health risk impacts:
► Type A Projects: Land use projects that will place new toxic sources in the vicinity of existing receptors, and
► Type B Projects: Land use projects that will place new receptors in the vicinity of existing toxics sources” (SJVAPCD 2015).

Table 4-2 presents the thresholds of significance used with toxic air contaminants when evaluating hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).

Table 4-2. Measures of Significance - Toxic Air Contaminants Agency Level Description
Significance Thresholds Adopted for the Evaluation of Impacts Under CEQA

SJVAPCD
Carcinogens Maximally Exposed Individual risk equals or exceeds 20 in one million.

NonCarcinogens
Acute: Hazard Index equals or exceeds 1 for the
Maximally Exposed Individual.

Chronic: Hazard Index equals or exceeds 1 for the
Maximally Exposed Individual.

Source: SJVAPCD 2015

4.1.4 Cumulative Impacts Threshold of Significance
Attachment A of Kern County’s Guidelines for Preparing an Air Quality Assessment for Use in Environmental Impact Reports states “the following threshold are defined for purposes of determining cumulative effects as the baseline for “considerable”. “Projects in the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District…will be subject to the following significance thresholds”. The thresholds outlined in the guidelines mirror the individual project Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 4-3
significance thresholds of 15 tons per year for PM10 and 10 tons per year for NOX and ROG. Therefore, owing to the inherently cumulative nature of air quality impacts, the threshold for whether a project would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact is simply whether the project would exceed project-level thresholds.

4.1.5 Global Climate Change Thresholds of Significance
On December 17, 2009, SJVAPCD adopted Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA (SJVAPCD 2009); which outlined the SJVAPCD’s methodology for assessing a project’s significance for GHGs under CEQA. The following criteria was outlined in the document to determine whether a project could have a significant impact:
► Projects determined to be exempt from the requirements of CEQA would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions and would not require further environmental review, including analysis of project specific GHG emissions. Projects exempt under CEQA would be evaluated consistent with established rules and regulations governing project approval and would not be required to implement BPS.
► Projects complying with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program which avoids or substantially reduces GHG emissions within the geographic area in which the project is located would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions.

Such plans or programs must be specified in law or approved by the lead agency with jurisdiction over the affected resource and supported by a CEQA compliant environmental review document adopted by the lead agency. Projects complying with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program would not be required to implement BPS.
► Projects implementing Best Performance Standards would not require quantification of project specific GHG emissions. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines, such projects would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions. ► Projects not implementing Best Performance Standards would require quantification of project specific GHG emissions and demonstration that project specific GHG emissions would be reduced or mitigated by at least 29%, compared to Business-as-Usual (BAU), including GHG emission reductions achieved since the 2002-2004 baseline period. Projects achieving at least a 29% GHG emission reduction compared to BAU would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG. ► Notwithstanding any of the above provisions, projects requiring preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for any other reason would require quantification of project specific GHG emissions. Projects implementing BPS or achieving at least a 29% GHG emission reduction compared to BAU would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG.

4.2 Project Related Emissions
This document was prepared pursuant to the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI. The GAMAQI identifies separate thresholds for a project’s short-term (construction) and long-term (operational) emissions.

Project emissions were estimated for the following project development stages:
► Short-term (Construction and Demolition) – Construction emissions for the proposed project were estimated in CalEEMod, taking into account the proposed construction schedules, default values for construction equipment, and the building square footage for each structure type. The project includes 6,455 square feet (sf) for a fast-food restaurant with a drive-thru, 5,020 sf for a convenience market with gasoline pumps, 4,200 sf for a bank, 8,648 sf for a strip mall, a 179-space parking lot, and 499 lowrise apartment units.

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 4-4
► Long-term (Operations) – Long term emissions were also estimated in CalEEMod using model default values for operations of a 6,455 square feet (sf) of fast-food restaurant with drive thru, a 5,020 sf convenience market with gasoline pumps, a 4,200 sf bank, 8,650 sf strip mall, a 179-space parking lot, and 499 low rise apartment units.

4.2.1 Short-Term Emissions
The construction emissions were based on the default CalEEMod equipment list for the proposed Project’s land use type and development intensity and applying model defaults as well as a conservative analysis approach. Construction emissions were estimated under the assumption that the residential development would begin construction in January 2025. The dates entered into the CalEEMod program represent the earliest construction timeline, which would estimate the worst-case emissions as construction equipment technology and emissions improve over time; therefore, all estimated emission totals are conservative and reflect a reasonable and legally sufficient estimate of potential impacts. All construction equipment activity levels assumed were based on the CalEEMod default values for type and number of equipment and hours per day.

SJVAPCD’s required measures for all projects were also applied:
► C-10-A: Water exposed areas 3 times per day
► C-11: Limit vehicle speed to less than 15 miles per hour.

Table 4-3 presents the Project’s short-term emissions based on the anticipated construction period.

Table 4-3. Short-Term Project Emissions
Emissions Source Pollutant (tons/year)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Unmitigated
2025 Construction Emissions 0.37 2.23 4.39 0.01 0.88 0.31 2026 Construction Emissions 1.93 1.13 2.68 0.00 0.43 0.13 Maximum Annual Emissions 1.93 2.23 4.39 0.01 0.88 0.31
Mitigated
2025 Construction Emissions 0.37 2.23 4.39 0.01 0.68 0.23 2026 Construction Emissions 1.93 1.13 2.68 0.00 0.43 0.13 Maximum Annual Emissions 1.93 2.23 4.39 0.01 0.68 0.23
Significance Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Is Threshold Exceeded for a Single Year
After Mitigation? No No No No No No
Source: Trinity Consultants 2024
Note: 0.00 could represent < 0.00
As calculated with CalEEMod, the estimated short-term construction-related emissions would not exceed SJVAPCD significance threshold levels during any given year and would therefore be less than significant.

4.2.2 Long-Term Operations Emissions
Long-term emissions are caused by operational mobile, area, and energy sources. Long-term emissions would consist of the following components:

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 4-5

4.2.2.1 Fugitive Dust Emissions
Operation of the Project site at full build-out is not expected to present a substantial source of fugitive dust (PM10) emissions. The main source of PM10 emissions would be from vehicular traffic associated with the Project site.

PM10, on its own as well as in combination with other pollutants, creates a health hazard. The SJVAPCD’s Regulation VIII establishes required controls to reduce and minimize fugitive dust emissions. The following SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations apply to the proposed Project (and all projects):
► Rule 4102 – Nuisance – prohibits a facility from posing as a nuisance to surrounding receptors and can impose penalties for nuisance issues such as dust, smoke, excess emissions, etc. Compliance with this rule ensures that the area around the Project site will not be adversely impacted by such issues. ► Regulation VIII – Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions
• Rule 8011 - General Requirements – this rule is to reduce ambient concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM10) by requiring actions to prevent, reduce or mitigate anthropogenic (human-caused) fugitive dust emissions.
• Rule 8021 - Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities – restricts generation of airborne dust and visibility impacts from these activities. Places limits on opacity and equipment operation under certain adverse weather conditions. • Rule 8041 - Carryout and Trackout – requires that equipment and vehicles leaving the construction site control the amount of dirt, soil or mud that is tracked offsite and onto public roadways. This helps eliminate or minimize dust generation and opacity degradation. • Rule 8051 - Open Areas – limits fugitive dust from open areas, i.e., areas on a construction site that are not actively being constructed upon but may generate wind-blown dust.

The Project would comply with applicable SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations, the local zoning codes, and additional emissions reduction measures recommended later in this analysis, in Section 7, Mitigation and Other Recommended Measures.

4.2.2.2 Exhaust Emissions
Project-related transportation activities from residents would generate mobile source ROG, NOx, SOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 exhaust emissions. Exhaust emissions would vary substantially from day to day but would average out over the course of an operational year. The variables factored into estimating total Project emissions include: level of activity, site characteristics, weather conditions, number of residents and visitors.

4.2.2.3 Projected Emissions
The proposed Project is expected to have long-term air quality impacts as shown in Table 4-4. The outputs from the CalEEMod runs are available in Appendix B. Mitigation measures implemented within CalEEMod include:
► E-10-B. Establish Onsite Renewable Energy Systems: Solar Power1 1 This measure requires electricity to be generated from onsite PV systems.

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 4-6
Table 4-4. Non-Permitted Post-Project (Operational) Emissions Emissions Source Pollutant (tons/year)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 T PM2.5 T
Mobile 3.73 3.58 39.02 0.11 10.88 2.79
Area 2.58 0.03 2.64 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.04 0.70 0.32 0.00 0.06 0.06
Water - - - - - -
Waste - - - - - -
Refrig. - - - - - -
Total Emissions 6.35 4.31 41.98 0.11 10.94 2.84
SJVAPCD Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Is Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: Trinity Consultants 2024
Note: 0.00 could represent < 0.00; SOx is assumed to be equivalent to SO2.

As shown in Table 4-4, operation-related emissions, as calculated by CalEEMod (see Appendix B), would be less than the SJVAPCD significant threshold levels. Therefore, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact during Project operations.

4.3 Potential Impact on Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive receptors are defined as locations where young children, chronically ill individuals, the elderly or people who are more sensitive than the general population reside, such as schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and daycare centers. There are 3 known non-residential sensitive receptors within 2 miles of the Project site shown below in Table 4-5.

Table 4-5. Sensitive Receptors Located < 2 Miles from Project Receptor Type of Facility Distance from
Project in Miles
Direction from
Project
Panama Elementary School K-6 1.12 E
Douglas J. Miller Elementary School Elementary School 1.65 N Stonecreek Jr High School Jr High School 1.96 NE

4.4 Potential Impacts to Visibility to Nearby Areas
Visibility impact analyses are intended for stationary sources of emissions which are subject to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements in 40 CFR Part 60; they are not usually conducted for area sources. Because the Project’s PM10 emissions increase is predicted to be less than the PSD threshold levels, an impact at any Class 1 area or military/airspace operation within 100 kilometers of the Project (including San Rafael Wilderness, Domeland Wilderness, Edwards Air Force Base, China Lake Naval Weapons Station, and the entire R-2508 Airspace Complex) is extremely unlikely. Therefore, based on the Project’s predicted less-than significant PM10 emissions, the Project would be expected to have a less than significant impact to visibility at any Class 1 area or military/airspace operation.

4.5 Potential Impacts from Carbon Monoxide
Ambient CO concentrations normally correspond closely to the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. Relatively high concentrations of CO would be expected along heavily traveled roads and near busy intersections. CO concentrations are also influenced by wind speed and atmospheric mixing. CO Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 4-7
concentrations may be more uniformly distributed when inversion conditions are prevalent in the valley. Under certain meteorological conditions, CO concentrations along a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels for sensitive receptors, e.g. children, the elderly, hospital patients, etc. This localized impact can result in elevated levels of CO, or “hotspots” even though concentrations at the closest air quality monitoring station may be below NAAQS and CAAQS.

The localized Project impacts depend on whether ambient CO levels in the Project vicinity would be above or below NAAQS. If ambient levels are below the standards, a project is considered to have significant impacts if a project’s emissions would exceed of one or more of these standards. If ambient levels already exceed a state standard, a project’s emissions are considered significant if they would increase one-hour CO concentrations by 10 ppm or more or eight-hour CO concentrations by 0.45 ppm or more. There are two criteria established by the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI by which CO “Hot Spot” modeling is required:

1. A traffic study for the project indicates that the Level of Service (LOS) on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity would be reduced to LOS E or F; or

2. A traffic study indicates that the project would substantially worsen an already existing LOS F on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity.

A traffic generation assessment impact study was prepared by Ruettgers and Schuler (2024). The study shows the location and traffic increase anticipated from this Project; impacted intersections and roadway segments are anticipated to operate at a LOS of C or better with mitigation. Therefore, CO “Hotspot” Modeling was not conducted for this Project and no concentrated excessive CO emissions are expected to be caused once the proposed Project is completed.

4.6 Predicted Health Risk Impacts
GAMAQI recommends that Lead Agencies consider situations wherein a new or modified source of HAPs is proposed for a location near an existing residential area or other sensitive receptor when evaluating potential impacts related to HAPs.

The proposed Project would result in emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) and would be located near existing residents and workers; therefore, an assessment of the potential risk to the population attributable to emissions of hazardous air pollutants from the proposed Project is required.

To predict the potential health risk to the population attributable to emissions of HAPs from the proposed Project, ambient air concentrations were predicted with dispersion modeling to arrive at a conservative estimate of increased individual carcinogenic risk that might occur as a result of continuous exposure over a

4.8-year construction timeline. Similarly, predicted concentrations were used to calculate non-cancer chronic and acute hazard indices (HIs), which are the ratio of expected exposure to acceptable exposure. The basis for evaluating potential health risk is the identification of sources with increased HAPs.

Health risk is determined using the Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP2) software distributed by the CARB; HARP2 requires peak 1-hour emission rates and annual-averaged emission rates for all pollutants for each modeling source (CARB 2015). Assumptions used to calculate the emission rates for the proposed Project are outlined below.

The most recent version of EPA’s AMS/EPA Regulatory Model - AERMOD was used to predict the dispersion of emissions from the proposed Project. The analysis employed all of the regulatory default AERMOD model keyword parameters, including elevated terrain options.

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 4-8
For construction health impacts, diesel combustion emissions from diesel on-site construction equipment was modeled as an area source for on-site construction activity on the property. Diesel particulate matter was calculated using CalEEMod for on-site construction equipment. A unit emission rate of 1 grams/second (g/sec) was inputted into AERMOD for the area source. For operational health impacts, toxic emissions were calculated from diesel truck combustion, gasoline station operations, and fast-food cooking operations. A unit emission rate of 1 grams/second (g/sec) was inputted into AERMOD for each source.

Discrete receptors were placed on houses and businesses within close proximity of the Project site. Receptor grids were placed over the more densely populated areas mostly to the east and south of the Project site. A total of 1,225 discrete off-site receptors were analyzed. Elevated terrain options were employed even though there is not complex terrain in the Project area.

SJVAPCD-provided, AERMET UStar processed meteorological datasets for the Bakersfield monitoring station, calendar years 2018 through 2022 was input to AERMOD (SJVAPCD 2023). This was the most recent available dataset available at the time the modeling was conducted. Rural dispersion parameters were used because the operation and the majority of the land surrounding the facility is considered "rural" under the Auer land use classification method (Auer 1978).

Plot files generated by AERMOD were uploaded to the Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Assessment Tool (ADMRT) program in the Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program Version 2 (HARP2) (CARB 2015). ADMRT post-processing was used to assess the potential for excess cancer risk and chronic and acute non-cancer effects using the most recent health effects data from the California EPA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). HARP2 site parameters were set for the mandatory minimum pathways of inhalation, soil ingestion, dermal, and mother’s milk. Risk reports were generated using the derived OEHHA analysis method for carcinogenic risk and non-carcinogenic chronic and acute risk. Site parameters are included in the HARP2 output files. Total cancer risk was predicted for each receptor. A hazard index was computed for chronic and acute non-cancer health effects for each applicable endpoint and each receptor.

SJVAPCD has set the level of significance for carcinogenic risk at twenty in one million, which is understood as the possibility of causing twenty additional cancer cases in a population of one million people. The level of significance for chronic and acute non-cancer risk is a hazard index of 1.0. All receptors were modeled as residential receptors with a 2-year exposure for construction and 70-year exposure for operations. This is conservative since all on-site receptors and business receptors would be exposed for less than 2 years during construction. SJVAPCD requires a 70-year exposure to evaluate impacts to residential receptors.

The carcinogenic risk and the health hazard index (HI) for chronic and acute non-cancer risk at the point of maximum impact (PMI) do not exceed the significance levels of twenty in one million (20 x 10-6) and 1.0, respectively for the proposed Project. The PMIs are identified by receptor location and risk and are provided in Table 4-6. The electronic AERMOD and HARP2 output files are provided in Appendix D.

Table 4-6. Potential Maximum Impacts Predicted by HARP
Value UTM East UTM North
Excess Cancer Risk 5.56E-06 310988.5 3904579.5 Chronic Hazard Index 3.61E-03 Acute Hazard Index 1.38E-02 311339.4 3904755.6
As shown above in Table 4-6, the maximum predicted cancer risk for the proposed Project is 5.56E-06. The maximum chronic non-cancer hazard index for the proposed Project is 3.61E-03. The maximum acute noncancer hazard index for the proposed Project is 1.38E-02. Since the PMI remained below the significance Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 4-9
threshold for cancer, chronic, and acute risk, this Project would not have an adverse effect to any of the surrounding communities.

The potential health risk attributable to the proposed Project is determined to be less than significant based on the following conclusions:

1. Potential carcinogenic risk from the proposed Project is below the significance level of twenty in a million at each of the modeled receptors; and

2. The hazard index for the potential chronic non-cancer risk from the proposed Project is below the significance level of 1.0 at each of the modeled receptors.

3. The hazard index for the potential acute non-cancer risk from the proposed Project is below the significance level of 1.0 at each of the modeled receptors.

Therefore, the potential risk to the population attributable to emissions of HAPs from the proposed Project would be less than significant.

4.7 Potential Impacts from Valley Fever
The proposed project has the potential to generate fugitive dust and suspend Valley Fever spores with the dust that could then reach nearby sensitive receptors. It is possible that onsite workers could be exposed to Valley Fever spores as fugitive dust is generated during construction. In order to mitigate potential risk, the proposed Project would provide training and personal protective respiratory equipment to construction workers and provide information to all construction personnel and visitors about Valley Fever. Therefore, the exposure to Valley Fever would be minimized. With the implementation of the mitigation measures, dust from the construction of the proposed project would not add significantly to the existing exposure level of people to this fungus, including construction workers, and impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels.

4.8 Potential Impacts from Asbestos
Naturally occurring asbestos can be released from serpentinite and ultramafic rocks when the rock is broken or crushed. At the point of release, the asbestos fibers may become airborne, causing air quality and human health hazards. These rocks have been commonly used for unpaved gravel roads, landscaping, fill projects, and other improvement projects in some localities. Asbestos may be released to the atmosphere due to vehicular traffic on unpaved roads, during grading of development projects, and at mining operations.

Serpentinite and/or ultramafic rock are known to be present in 44 of California's 58 counties. These rocks are particularly abundant in the counties associated with the Sierra Nevada foothills, the Klamath Mountains, and Coast Ranges. However, according to information provided by the Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, the project site is not located in an area where naturally occurring asbestos is likely to be present (CDCDMG, 2000). Therefore, impacts associated with exposure of construction workers and nearby sensitive receptors to asbestos would be less than significant.

4.9 Odor Impacts and Mitigation
The SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI states “An analysis of potential odor impacts should be conducted for both of the following two situations:

1. Generators – projects that would potentially generate odorous emissions proposed to locate near existing sensitive receptors or other land uses where people may congregate, and

2. Receivers – residential or other sensitive receptor projects or other projects built for the intent of attracting people locating near existing odor sources.” (SJVAPCD 2015).

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 4-10
The GAMAQI also states, “The District has identified some common types of facilities that have been known to produce odors in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. These are presented in Table 6 (Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources), along with a reasonable distance from the source within which, the degree of odors could possibly be significant. [Table 6] can be used as a screening tool to qualitatively assess a project’s potential to adversely affect area receptors.” (SJVAPCD, 2015). Because the Project is a residential site and the anticipated activities for the Project site are not listed in Table 6 of the GAMAQI as a source that would create objectionable odors, the Project is not expected to be a source of objectionable odors.

Based on the provisions of the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI, the proposed Project would not exceed any screening trigger levels to be considered a source of objectionable odors or odorous compounds (SJVAPCD, 2015).

Furthermore, there does not appear to be any significant source of objectionable odors in close proximity that may adversely impact the Project site when it is in operation. Additionally, the Project emissions estimates indicate that it would not be expected to adversely impact surrounding receptors. As such, the proposed Project would not be a source of any odorous compounds nor would it likely be impacted by any odorous source.

4.10 Impacts to Ambient Air Quality
As stated in the GAMAQI (2015, p 96-97), SJVAPCD has developed screening levels for requiring an Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA). The SJVAPCD recommends that an AAQA be performed for all criteria pollutants when emissions of any criteria pollutant resulting from project construction or operational activities exceed the 100 pounds per day screening level, after compliance with Rule 9510 requirements and implementation of all enforceable mitigation measures.

As shown in Table 4-4, average daily emissions for construction and operational activities associated with this Project would not exceed 100 pounds per day. Therefore, an AAQA is not required for this Project.

4.11 Impacts to Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
In the decade after South Coast AQMD adopted the Interim GHG Significance Threshold, several new laws and executive orders were adopted that require additional reductions in years after 2020. For instance, Senate Bill 32 (Lara, 2016) requires that GHG emissions be 40% less than 1990 levels by 2030. More drastic still, Senate Bill 100 (de Leon, 2018) which was signed by the Governor recently requires 100% zero-carbon electricity by 2045. On the day SB 100 was signed into law, the Governor also signed Executive Order B-55- 18 which commits California to total, economy-wide carbon neutrality by 2045. Clearly, the 2008 Guidance may be somewhat inadequate in producing a meaningful comparison by today’s standards which propose a grand vision that, if achieved, would fundamentally change how business is conducted and citizens live in the State. Thus, as discussed in the most recent updates to the Scoping Plan, objectives of the Scoping Plan affect entire sectors of the economy and it no longer makes sense to evaluate GHG emissions on a project-level.

For these reasons, Project GHG emissions levels presented in Table 4-7 are primarily for disclosure purposes because impact analysis for the Project follows the approach certified by South Coast AQMD in the Final Negative Declaration for the Phillips 66 Los Angeles Refinery Carson Plant – Crude Oil Storage Capacity Project on December 12, 2014 (South Coast AQMD, 2014). The approach used by South Coast AQMD to assess GHG impacts from that project recognizes that consumers of electricity and transportation fuels are, in effect, regulated by requiring providers and importers of electricity and fuel to participate in the GHG Cap-and-Trade Program and other Programs (e.g., low carbon fuel standard, renewable portfolio standard, etc.). Each such sector-wide program exists within the framework of AB 32 and its descendant laws the purpose of which is to achieve GHG emissions reductions consistent with the AB 32 Scoping Plan.

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 4-11
In summary, the Project would generate GHGs from electricity use and combustion of gasoline/diesel fuels, each of which is regulated near the top of the supply-chain. As such, each citizen of California (including the operator of the Project) will have no choice but to purchase electricity and fuels produced in a way that is acceptable to the California market. Thus, Project GHG emissions will be consistent with the relevant plan (i.e., AB 32 Scoping Plan). The Project would meet its fair share of the cost to mitigate the cumulative impact of global climate change because the proposed Project will be purchasing energy from the California market.

Thus, the Project would have a less than significant impact on applicable GHG reduction plans.

Nonetheless, GHG emissions impacts from implementing the Project were calculated at the Project-specific level for construction and operations as explained in the previous paragraphs. Impact analysis for the Project follows the approach certified by South Coast AQMD in the Final Negative Declaration for the Phillips 66 Los Angeles Refinery Carson Plant – Crude Oil Storage Capacity Project on December 12, 2014 (South Coast AQMD, 2014). In summary, this approach takes into account the cumulative nature of the energy industry and recognizes that consumers of electricity and diesel fuel are in effect regulated by higher level emissions restrictions on the producers of these energy sources. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative global climate change impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Table 4-7. Estimated Annual GHG Emissions (MT/Year)
Source CO2 CH4 N2O R CO2e
Mitigated Construction Emissions
Construction Emissions 1,625 0.04 0.08 1.62 1,651
Mitigated Operational Emissions
Mobile Emissions 9,823.31 0.40 0.36 14.89 9,955
Area Emissions 6.54 0.00 0.00 - 6.56
Energy Emissions 985 0.10 0.01 - 989
Water Emissions 15.93 0.76 0.02 - 40.41
Waste Emissions 42.07 4.20 0.00 - 147.19
Refrigerant Emissions - - - 174.62 174.62
Total Project Operational Emissions 10,873 5.47 0.38 189.51 11,313 Annualized Construction Emissions1 54.18 0.00 0.00 0.05 55.06 Project Emissions 10,927 5.47 0.39 189.56 11,368
*Note: 0.00 could represent <0.00
Per South Coast AQMD’s Methodology
The Project will not result in the emissions of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), or sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), the other gases identified as GHG in AB32. The proposed Project will be subject to any new regulations developed by CARB to address GHG emissions.

4.11.1 Feasible and Reasonable Mitigation Relative to Global Warming CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce the impacts from construction and operations on air quality. The SJVAPCD’s “Non-Residential On-Site Mitigation Checklist” was utilized in preparing the mitigation measures and evaluating the projects features. These measures include using controls that limit the exhaust from construction equipment and using alternatives to diesel when possible. Additional reductions would be achieved through the regulatory process of the air district and CARB as required changes to diesel engines are implemented which would affect the product delivery trucks and limits on idling.

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 4-12
While it is not possible to determine whether the Project individually would have a significant impact on global warming or climate change, the Project would potentially contribute to cumulative GHG emissions in California as well as related health effects. The Project emissions would only be a very small fraction of the statewide GHG emissions. However, without the necessary science and analytical tools, it is not possible to assess, with certainty, whether the Project’s contribution would be cumulatively considerable, within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15065(a)(3) and 15130. CEQA, however, does note that the more severe environmental problems the lower the thresholds for treating a project’s contribution to cumulative impacts as significant.

Given the position of the legislature in AB32 which states that global warming poses serious detrimental effects, and the requirements of CEQA for the lead agency to determine that a project not have a cumulatively considerable contribution, the effect of the Project’s CO2 contribution may be considered cumulatively considerable. This determination is “speculative,” given the lack of clear scientific evidence or other criteria for determining the significance of the Project’s contribution of GHG to the air quality in the SJVAB.

The strategies currently being implemented by CARB may help in reducing the Project’s GHG emissions and are summarized in the table below.

Table 4-8. Select CARB GHG Emission Reduction Strategies Strategy Description of Strategy
Vehicle Climate Change Standards
AB 1493 (Pavley) required the state to develop and adopt regulations that achieve the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of climate change emissions emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. Regulations were adopted by CARB in Sept. 2004.

Diesel Anti-Idling In July 2004, CARB adopted a measure to limit diesel-fueled retail motor vehicle idling.

Other Light-Duty Vehicle
Technology
New standards would be adopted to phase in beginning in the 2017 model year.

Alternative Fuels: Biodiesel Blends CARB would develop regulations to require the use of 1% to 4% Biodiesel displacement of California diesel fuel.

Alternative Fuels: Ethanol Increased use of ethanol fuel.

Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emission
Reduction Measures
Increased efficiency in the design of heavy-duty vehicles and an educational program for the heavy-duty vehicle sector.

Not all of these measures are currently appropriate or applicable to the proposed Project. While future legislation could further reduce the Project’s GHG footprint, the analysis of this is speculative and in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15145, will not be further evaluated in this AQIA.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 notes that sometimes the only feasible mitigation for cumulative impacts may involve the adoption of ordinances or regulations rather than the imposition of conditions on a project-byproject basis. Global climate change is this type of issue. The causes and effects may not be just regional or statewide, they may also be worldwide. Given the uncertainties in identifying, let alone quantifying the impact of any single project on global warming and climate change, and the efforts made to reduce emissions of GHGs from the Project through design, in accordance with CEQA Section 15130, any further feasible emissions reductions would be accomplished through CARB regulations adopted pursuant to AB32. The Project will comply with all local and statewide air quality and climate plans; therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative global climate change impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 5-1

5. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
By its very nature, air pollution has a cumulative impact. The District’s nonattainment status is a result of past and present development within the SJVAB. Furthermore, attainment of ambient air quality standards can be jeopardized by increasing emissions-generating activities in the region. No single project would be sufficient in size, by itself, to result in nonattainment of the regional air quality standards. Instead, a project’s emissions may be individually limited, but cumulatively considerable when taken in combination with past, present, and future development within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. When assessing whether there is a new significant cumulative effect, the Lead Agency shall consider whether the incremental effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects [CCR §15064(h)(1)]. Per CEQA Guidelines §15064(h)(3) a Lead Agency may determine that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program, including, but not limited to an air quality attainment or maintenance plan that provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area in which the project is located. (SJVAPCD 2015)
Attachment A of Kern County’s Guidelines for Preparing an Air Quality Assessment for Use in Environmental Impact Reports states “The following threshold are defined for purposes of determining cumulative effects as the baseline for “considerable”. Projects in the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District…will be subject to the following significance thresholds”. The thresholds outlined in the guidelines mirror the individual project significance thresholds of 15 tons per year for PM10 and 10 tons per year for NOX and ROG. Therefore, owing to the inherently cumulative nature of air quality impacts, the threshold for whether a project would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact is simply whether the project would exceed project-level thresholds. Based on the analysis conducted for this Project, it is individually less than significant. This AQIA, however, also considered impacts of the proposed Project in conjunction with the impacts of other projects previously proposed in the area. The following cumulative impacts were considered:
► Cumulative O3 Impacts (ROG and NOx) from numerous sources within the region including transport from outside the region. O3 is formed through chemical reactions of ROG and NOx in the presence of sunlight.
► Cumulative CO Impacts produced primarily by vehicular emissions. ► Cumulative PM10 Impacts from within the region and locally from the various projects. Such projects may cumulatively produce a significant amount of PM10 if several projects conduct grading or earthmoving activities at the same time; and
► Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) Impacts on sensitive receptors.

5.1 Cumulative Regional Air Quality Impacts
The most recent, certified SJVAB Emission Inventory data available from the SJVAPCD is based on data gathered for the 2020 annual inventory2. This data will be used to assist the SJVAPCD in demonstrating attainment of Federal 1-hour O3 Standards (SJVAPCD 2007). Table 5-1 provides a comparative look at the impacts proposed by the proposed Project to the SJVAB Emissions Inventory. 2 SJVAPCD Emissions for Aggregated Stationary, Area-Wide, Mobile, and Natural Sources Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 5-2
Table 5-1. Comparative Analysis Based on SJV Air Basin 2020 Inventory - Tons per Year ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Kern County - 2020 22,739.5 16,315.5 39,274.0 547.5 14,636.5 4,270.5 SJVAB - 2020 114,938.5 72,014.5 241,630.0 2,336.0 99,389.5 24,966.0 Proposed Project 6.35 4.31 41.98 0.11 10.94 2.84
Proposed Project’s % of Kern 0.028% 0.026% 0.107% 0.020% 0.075% 0.067% Proposed Project’s % of SJVAB 0.006% 0.006% 0.017% 0.005% 0.011% 0.011% Note: This is the latest inventory available as of December 2024 Source: CARB 2024b
As shown in Table 5-1 the proposed Project does not pose a substantial increase to basin emissions, as such basin emissions would be essentially the same if the Project is approved.

Table 5-2, 5-3, and 5-4 provide CARB Emissions Inventory projections for the year 2025 for both the SJVAB and the Kern County portion of the air basin. Looking at the SJVAB Emissions predicted by the CARB year 2025 emissions inventory, the Kern County portion of the air basin is a moderate source of the emissions. The proposed Project produces a small portion of the total emissions in both Kern County and the entire SJVAB.

Table 5-2. Emission Inventory SJVAB 2025 Projection - Tons per Year ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Total Emissions 110,996.5 55,334.0 229,658.0 2,336.0 98,112.0 24,272.5 Percent Stationary Sources 27.66% 13.13% 3.35% 76.56% 4.46% 10.83% Percent Area-Wide Sources 54.95% 7.52% 26.21% 9.38% 91.07% 77.74% Percent Mobile Sources 17.40% 79.35% 70.44% 12.50% 4.50% 11.43% Total Stationary Source Emissions 30,696.5 7,263.5 7,701.5 1,788.5 4,380.0 2,628.0 Total Area-Wide Source Emissions 60,991.5 4,161.0 60,188.5 219.0 89,352.0 18,870.5 Total Mobile Source Emissions 19,308.5 43,909.5 161,768.0 292.0 4,416.5 2,774.0 Source: CARB 2024b
Note: Total may not add due to rounding
Table 5-3. Emission Inventory SJVAB - Kern County Portion 2025 Projection - Tons per Year ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Total Emissions 21,644.5 12,556.0 37,449.0 511.0 14,089.0 4,015.0 Percent Stationary Sources 47.22% 17.15% 7.89% 85.71% 9.84% 28.18% Percent Area-Wide Sources 36.59% 5.23% 14.81% 7.14% 84.46% 60.91% Percent Mobile Sources 16.02% 77.62% 77.29% 14.29% 5.70% 10.91% Total Stationary Source Emissions 10,220.0 2,153.5 2,956.5 438.0 1,387.0 1,131.5 Total Area-Wide Source Emissions 7,920.5 657.0 5,548.0 36.5 11,899.0 2,445.5 Total Mobile Source Emissions 3,467.5 9,745.5 28,944.5 73.0 803.0 438.0 Source: CARB 2024b
Note: Total may not add due to rounding
Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 5-3
Table 5-4. 2025 Emissions Projections - Proposed Project, Kern County, and SJVAB ROG NOx PM10
Proposed Project 6.35 4.31 10.94
Kern County 21,645 12,556 14,089
SJVAB 110,997 55,334 98,112
Proposed Project Percent of Kern County 0.029% 0.034% 0.078% Proposed Project Percent of SJVAB 0.006% 0.008% 0.011%
Kern County Percent of SJVAB 19.50% 22.69% 14.36%
Source: CARB 2024b
As shown above, the proposed Project would pose an inconsequential impact on regional O3 and PM10 formation. The regional contribution to these cumulative impacts would be negligible and additionally, the Project would not exceed cumulatively considerable thresholds since the Project would be less than thresholds outlined in Kern County’s Guidelines for Preparing an Air Quality Assessment for Use in Environmental Impact Reports. Therefore, this Project would not be considered cumulatively considerable in its contribution to regional O3 and PM10 impacts.

5.2 Cumulative Local Air Quality Impacts
Tentative development projects within a one-mile radius of the proposed Project area were identified; however, the details provided for these projects do not provide enough information to accurately estimate their potential emissions. The cumulative projects are typically listed only as geographical reference to demonstrate the construction activity within a one-mile radius of the proposed Project. The number and sizes of these projects are of no particular significance since the cumulative considerable thresholds established by Kern County are based on Project specific thresholds which are inherently cumulative in nature.

As details regarding the various cumulative projects were not readily available, emissions estimates were not calculated. As these projects are either currently under construction or, at a minimum, approved by the planning department for consistency with applicable regulation, for the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that they are in conformance with the regional AQAP.

The cumulative projects have already been approved or are pending approval; it is assumed that these projects are in conformance with the regional AQAP. Additionally, the proposed Project would generate lessthan-significant impacts to criteria air pollutants; the Project’s incremental contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3); (SJVAPCD 2015).

5.3 Cumulative Hazardous Air Pollutants
The GAMAQI also states that when evaluating potential impacts related to HAPs, “impacts of local pollutants (CO, HAPs) are cumulatively significant when modeling shows that the combined emissions from the project and other existing and planned projects will exceed air quality standards.” Because the Project would not be a significant source of HAPs, the proposed Project would also not be expected to pose a significant cumulative CO or HAPs impact.

5.4 Cumulative Carbon Monoxide (CO) – Mobile Sources
The SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI has identified CO impacts from impacted traffic intersections and roadway segments as being potentially cumulatively considerable. Traffic increases and added congestion caused by a project Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 5-4
can combine to cause a violation of the SJVAPCD’s CO standard also known as a “Hotspot”. There are two criteria established by the GAMAQI by which CO “Hot Spot” modeling is required:
► A traffic study for the project indicates that the Level of Service (LOS) on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity will be reduced to LOS E or F; or ► A traffic study indicates that the project will substantially worsen an already existing LOS F on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity.

A traffic generation assessment impact study was prepared by Ruettgers and Schuler (2024). The study shows the location and traffic increase anticipated from this Project; impacted intersections and roadway segments are anticipated to operate at a LOS of C or better with mitigation. Therefore, CO “Hotspot” Modeling was not conducted for this Project and no concentrated excessive CO emissions are expected to be caused once the proposed Project is completed.

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 6-1

6. CONSISTENCY WITH THE AIR QUALITY ATTAINMENT PLAN
Air quality impacts from proposed projects within Kern County are controlled through policies and provisions of the SJVAPCD and the Kern County General Plan (KCPD 2009). In order to demonstrate that a proposed project would not cause further air quality degradation in either the SJVAPCD’s plan to improve air quality within the air basin or the federal requirements to meet certain air quality compliance goals, each project should also demonstrate consistency with the SJVAPCD’s adopted Air Quality Attainment Plans (AQAP) for O3 and PM10. The SJVAPCD is required to submit a “Rate of Progress” document to CARB that demonstrates past and planned progress toward reaching attainment for all criteria pollutants. The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires air pollution control districts with severe or extreme air quality problems to provide for a 5% reduction in non-attainment emissions per year. The AQAP prepared for the San Joaquin Valley by the SJVAPCD complies with this requirement. CARB reviews, approves or amends the document and forwards the plan to the EPA for final review and approval within the SIP.

Air pollution sources associated with stationary sources are regulated through the permitting authority of the SJVAPCD under the New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule (SJVAPCD Rule 2201). Owners of any new or modified equipment that emits, reduces, or controls air contaminants, except those specifically exempted by the SJVAPCD, are required to apply for an Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate (SJVAPCD Rule 2010). Additionally, best available control technology (BACT) is required on specific types of stationary equipment and are required to offset both stationary source emission increases along with increases in cargo carrier emissions if the specified threshold levels are exceeded (SJVAPCD Rule 2201, 4.7.1). Through this mechanism, the SJVAPCD would ensure that all stationary sources within the project area would be subject to the standards of the SJVAPCD to ensure that new developments do not result in net increases in stationary sources of criteria air pollutants.

6.1 Required Evaluation Guidelines
State CEQA Guidelines and the Federal Clean Air Act (Sections 176 and 316) contain specific references on the need to evaluate consistencies between the proposed project and the applicable AQAP for the project site.

To accomplish this, CARB has developed a three-step approach to determine project conformity with the applicable AQAP:

1. Determination that an AQAP is being implemented in the area where the project is being proposed.

The SJVAPCD has implemented the current, modified AQAP as approved by CARB.

2. The proposed project must be consistent with the growth assumptions of the applicable AQAP. The proposed Project land use type was not anticipated in the current growth assumptions. Therefore, growth assumptions in the Kern County General Plans will be modified with the approval of the proposed Project.

3. The project must contain in its design all reasonably available and feasible air quality control measures.

The proposed project incorporates various policy and rule-required implementation measures that will reduce related emissions.

The CCAA and AQAP identify transportation control measures as methods to further reduce emissions from mobile sources. Strategies identified to reduce vehicular emissions such as reductions in vehicle trips, vehicle use, vehicle miles traveled, vehicle idling, and traffic congestion, in order to reduce vehicular emissions, can be implemented as control measures under the CCAA as well. Additional measures may also be implemented through the building process such as providing electrical outlets on exterior walls of structures to encourage use of electrical landscape maintenance equipment or measures such as electrical outlets for electrical systems on diesel trucks to reduce or eliminate idling time.

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 6-2
As the growth represented by the proposed Project will be updated in the Kern County General Plan and incorporated into the AQAP, conclusions may be drawn from the following criteria:

1. That, by definition, the proposed emissions from the Project are below the SJVAPCD’s established emissions impact thresholds;

2. That the primary source of emissions from the Project will be motor vehicles that are licensed through the State of California and whose emissions are already incorporated into CARB’s San Joaquin Valley Emissions Inventory.

Based on these factors, the Project appears to be consistent with the AQAP.

6.2 Consistency with the Kern County Council of Government’s Regional Conformity Analysis
The Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG) Regional Conformity Analysis (Kern COG 2022) Determination demonstrates that the regional transportation expenditure plans (Destination 2042 Regional Transportation Plan and Federal Transportation Improvement Program) in the Kern County portion of the San Joaquin Valley air quality attainment areas would not hinder the efforts set out in CARB’s SIP for each area’s non-attainment pollutants (CO, O3, and PM10). The analysis uses an adopted regional growth forecast, governed by both the adopted Kern COG Policy and Procedure Manual and a Memorandum of Understanding between the County of Kern and Kern COG (representing itself and outlying municipal member agencies).

The Kern COG Regional Conformity Analysis considers General Plan Amendments (GPA) and zone changes that were enacted at the time of the analysis as projected growth within the area based on land use designations incorporated within the Kern County General Plan. Land use designations that are altered based on subsequent GPAs that were not included in the Regional Conformity Analysis were not incorporated into the Kern COG analysis. Consequently, if a proposed project is not included in the regional growth forecast using the latest planning assumptions, it may not be said to conform to the regional growth forecast. Under the current City of Bakersfield Zoning, the Project site is designated as “R-2: Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling” (see Figure 6-1).

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 6-3
Figure 6-1. City of Bakersfield Zoning
Item 2 under Section 3 – Model Maintenance Procedure, of the Kern COG Regional Transportation Modeling Policy and Procedure Manual states “Land Use Data – General Plan land capacity data or “Build -out capacity” is used to distribute the forecasted County totals, and may be updated as new information becomes available, and is revised in regular consultation with local planning departments.” The adopted growth forecast for the project site is distributed to Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) (see Figure 6- 2). In order to evaluate the impacts to the proposed Project area, a one-mile radius analysis was conducted that included TAZ 220, 271, 671, 706, 735, 741, 898, 899, 900, 901, 902, 903, 904, 906, 907, 908, 909, 910, 911, 913, 915, and 917. This places the Project site at the center of the analysis area and provides a conservative evaluation of the TAZ data. Kern COG has predicted an increase of 82% for households and 79% in employment between 2020 and 2035. Residential forecast for the TAZ analysis area appears to be sufficient to account for 100% of the planned population growth attributed to the proposed Project. To be considered “consistent” and, therefore, in conformance with the AQAP, these increases would need to occur over the same time as the adopted growth forecast. Since the proposed development requires a GPA and zone change, the existing growth forecast will be modified to reflect these changes. Based on these factors, the Project appears to be in conformance with the AQAP.

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 6-4
Figure 6-2. TAZ Analysis Map
Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 6-5
Table 6-1 provides the projected growth rates for the TAZ analysis area.

Table 6-1. TAZ Analysis Area Projected Growth Analysis3 Years 2020 2035 2046
Households 1,773 3,230 3,499
Employment 440 789 758
Table 6-2 provides the percent increase/decrease for the analysis area population, households, and employment.

Table 6-2. Percent Increase/Decrease on TAZ Analysis Area Years Percent Increase / Decrease
Households Employment
2020* 0 0
2035 82% 79%
2046 8% -4%
*Baseline year of 2020 was valued at “0” to measure net percent increase/decrease. 3 Kern Council of Governments Regional Conformity Analysis Data, 2022 Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 7-1

7. MITIGATION AND OTHER RECOMMENDED MEASURES
As the estimated construction and operational emissions from the proposed Project would be less than significant, no specific mitigation measures would be required. However, to ensure that Project is in compliance with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations and emissions are further reduced, the applicant should implement and comply with a number of measures that are either recommended as a “good operating practice” for environmental stewardship or they are required by regulation. Some of the listed measures are regulatory requirements or construction requirements that would result in further emission reductions through their inclusion in Project construction and long-term design. The following measures either have been applied to the Project through the CalEEMod model and would be incorporated into the Project by design or would be implemented in conjunction with SJVAPCD rules as conditions of approval.

7.1 SJVAPCD Required PM10 Reduction Measures
As the Project would be completed in compliance with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII, dust control measures would be taken to ensure compliance specifically during grading and construction phases. The required Regulation VIII measures are as follows:
► Water previously exposed surfaces (soil) whenever visible dust is capable of drifting from the site or approaches 20% opacity.
► Water all unpaved haul roads a minimum of three-times/day or whenever visible dust from such roads is capable of drifting from the site or approaches 20% opacity. ► Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 miles per hour. ► Install and maintain a track out control device that meets the specifications of SJVAPCD Rule 8041 if the site exceeds 150 vehicle trips per day or more than 20 vehicle trips per day by vehicles with three or more axles.
► Stabilize all disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for production purposes using water, chemical stabilizers or by covering with a tarp or other suitable cover. ► Control fugitive dust emissions during land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, leveling, grading, or cut and fill operations with application of water or by presoaking. ► When transporting materials offsite, maintain a freeboard limit of at least 6 inches and cover or effectively wet to limit visible dust emissions.
► Limit and remove the accumulation of mud and/or dirt from adjacent public roadways at the end of each workday. (Use of dry rotary brushes is prohibited except when preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit visible dust emissions and use of blowers is expressly forbidden). ► Stabilize the surface of storage piles following the addition or removal of materials using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressants.
► Remove visible track-out from the site at the end of each workday. ► Cease grading or other activities that cause excessive (greater than 20% opacity) dust formation during periods of high winds (greater than 20 mph over a one-hour period).

7.2 Recommended Measures to Reduce Equipment Exhaust
In addition, the GAMAQI guidance document lists the following measures as approved and recommended for construction activities. These measures are recommended:
► Maintain all construction equipment as recommended by manufacturer manuals. ► Shut down equipment when not in use for extended periods. ► Use electric equipment for construction whenever possible in lieu of diesel or gasoline powered equipment.

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 7-2
► Curtail use of high-emitting construction equipment during periods of high or excessive ambient pollutant concentrations.
► All construction vehicles shall be equipped with proper emissions control equipment and kept in good and proper running order to substantially reduce NOx emissions. ► On-Road and Off-Road diesel equipment shall use diesel particulate filters if permitted under manufacturer’s guidelines.
► On-Road and Off-Road diesel equipment shall use cooled exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) if permitted under manufacturer’s guidelines.
► All construction workers shall be encouraged to shuttle (car-pool) to retail establishments or to remain on-site during lunch breaks.
► All construction activities within the project area shall be discontinued during the first stage smog alerts. ► Construction and grading activities shall not be allowed during first stage O3 alerts. First stage O3 alerts are declared when the O3 level exceeds 0.20 ppm (1-hour average).

7.3 Other Measures to Reduce Project Impacts
The following measures are recommended to further reduce the potential for long-term emissions from the Project. These measures are required as a matter of regulatory compliance:
► The Project design shall comply with applicable standards set forth in Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code to minimize total consumption of energy.
► Applicants shall be required to comply with applicable mitigation measures in the AQAP, SJVAPCD Rules, Traffic Control Measures, Regulation VIII and Indirect Source Rules for the SJVAPCD. ► The developer shall comply with the provisions of SJVAPCD Rule 4601 - Architectural Coatings, during the construction of all buildings and facilities. Application of architectural coatings shall be completed in a manner that poses the least emissions impacts whenever such application is deemed proficient. ► The applicant shall comply with the provisions of SJVAPCD Rule 4641 during the construction and pavement of all roads and parking areas within the project area. Specifically, the applicant shall not allow the use of:
• Rapid cure cutback asphalt;
• Medium cure cutback asphalt;
• Slow cure cutback asphalt (as specified in SJVAPCD Rule 4641, Section 5.1.3); or Emulsified asphalt (as specified in SJVAPCD Rule 4641, Section 5.1.4).
• The developer shall comply with applicable provisions of SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review).

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 8-1

8. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
The proposed Project would have short-term air quality impacts due to construction activities as well as vehicular emissions. Both of these impacts would be mitigated and were found to be less than significant before and after mitigation.

The proposed Project would result in long-term air quality impacts due to operational and related mobile source emissions. These impacts were found to be less than significant before and after mitigation.

The proposed Project, in conjunction with other past, present, and foreseeable future projects, would result in cumulative short-term and long-term impacts to air quality. The proposed Project’s incremental contribution to these impacts would be mitigated, are below thresholds of significance, and would not be considered cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts were found to be less than significant.

The proposed Project, in conjunction with other past, present and foreseeable future projects, would result in cumulative long-term impacts to global climate change. The proposed Project’s incremental contribution to these impacts will be mitigated to the extent feasible and are considered less than significant.

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 9-1

9. REFERENCES
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2022. California Emissions Estimator Model™ (CalEEMod), version 2022.1.28, released October 2024.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2024a. website – Background Emissions Data. https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam, accessed December 2024.
--------. 2019. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2017: Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators. 2019.
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2017/ghg_inventory_trends_00-17.pdf --------. 2024b. Almanac Emission Projection Data.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/2021/emssumcat.php, accessed December 2024. --------. 2016. “Ambient Air Quality Standards.” May 4, 2016. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf
--------. 2015. Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP2) User Guide. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//toxics/harp/docs2/harp2admrtuserguide.pdf, accessed December 2024.

California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2006. Climate Action Team (CAT) Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature.
http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/2006report/2006-04- 03_FINAL_CAT_REPORT.PDF.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines. 2023. (Public Resources Code 21000 to 21177) and CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000 – 15387).
--------. 2018. Appendix G – Environmental Checklist Form, Final Text. December 28, 2018.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf ---------. 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/.

Kern County GIS. 2024. Bakersfield, CA. Interactive County Map (GIS Tool) | Kern County, CA, Accessed December 2024.

Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG). December 2022. Draft Air Quality Conformity Analysis.

Kern County Planning Department (KCPD). 2009. Kern County General Plan Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2022a. Ambient Air Quality Standards & Valley Attainment Status. http://www.valleyair.org/aqinfo/attainment.htm, accessed November 2024.

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 9-2
----------. 2022b. Air Monitoring Location Map. http://valleyair.org/aqinfo/air-monitoring.htm, accessed November 2024.
----------. 2023. UStar Meteorological Datasets for Bakersfield 2018-2022. https://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/Tox_Resources/AirQualityMonitoring.htm#met_data ----------. 2019. APR 1925 Policy for District Rule 2201 AAQA Modeling. March 10, 2019. ----------. 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. March 19, 2015. ----------. 2007. SJVAB Emissions Inventory to Demonstrating Attainment of Federal 1-hour O3 Standards, SJVAPCD. September 2007.

United Nations, 2011. The Millennium Development Goals Report 2011. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/(2011_E)%20MDG%20Report%202011_Book%20LR.pdf United States Energy Information Administration (U.S. EIA). 2019. International Energy Outlook 2019. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/pdf/ieo2019.pdf
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2019. Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990–2017. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gasemissions-and-sinks. April 11, 2019.

United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). 2014. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/, accessed December 2024.

Western Regional Climate Center, 2024. Bakersfield, California, Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary, 10/01/1937 to 6/09/2016. https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca0444, accessed December 2024.

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants A-1
APPENDIX A. EXISTING AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants B-1
APPENDIX B. PROJECT EMISSION CALCULATIONS
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
1 / 86
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated

3.2. Site Preparation (2025) - Mitigated

3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
2 / 86

3.4. Grading (2025) - Mitigated

3.5. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

3.6. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated

3.8. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated

3.9. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated

3.10. Paving (2026) - Mitigated

3.11. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated

3.12. Architectural Coating (2026) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.1.2. Mitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
3 / 86

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.3.2. Mitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.4.2. Mitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.5.2. Mitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.6.2. Mitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.7.2. Mitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.8.2. Mitigated
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
4 / 86

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.9.2. Mitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.2.2. Mitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.3.2. Mitigated
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
5 / 86

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.9.2. Mitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
6 / 86

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.11.2. Mitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.12.2. Mitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.13.2. Mitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.14.2. Mitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
7 / 86

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

8. User Changes to Default Data
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
8 / 86

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name McIntosh Tash/Ashe
Construction Start Date 1/1/2025
Operational Year 2026
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.70
Precipitation (days) 18.0
Location 35.266565045887134, -119.07538467267167
County Kern-San Joaquin
City Bakersfield
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2892
EDFZ 5
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.28

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
9 / 86
Convenience 5.02 1000sqft 0.98 5,020 0.00 — — —
Market with Gas
Pumps
Bank (with
Drive-Through)

4.20 1000sqft 0.82 4,200 0.00 — — —
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru

3.20 1000sqft 0.63 3,200 0.00 — — —
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru

3.25 1000sqft 0.64 3,255 0.00 — — —
Strip Mall 3.60 1000sqft 0.70 3,600 0.00 — 12.0 —
Strip Mall 5.05 1000sqft 0.99 5,048 0.00 — 17.0 —
Apartments Low
Rise
499 Dwelling Unit 18.5 528,940 0.00 — 1,607 —
Parking Lot 179 Space 1.61 0.00 0.00 — — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-10-A Water Exposed Surfaces
Construction C-11 Limit Vehicle Speeds on Unpaved Roads Energy E-10-B Establish Onsite Renewable Energy Systems: Solar Power

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
10 / 86
Unmit. 173 14.1 41.5 0.04 0.46 5.00 5.46 0.42 1.19 1.62 — 9,238 9,238 0.32 0.47 23.0 9,409 Mit. 173 14.1 41.5 0.04 0.46 5.00 5.46 0.42 1.19 1.62 — 9,238 9,238 0.32 0.47 23.0 9,409 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.38 31.7 32.8 0.06 1.37 19.9 21.2 1.26 10.2 11.4 — 8,629 8,629 0.27 0.47 0.60 8,775 Mit. 3.38 31.7 32.8 0.06 1.37 5.32 6.69 1.26 2.68 3.93 — 8,629 8,629 0.27 0.47 0.60 8,775 %
Reduced
— — — — — 73% 68% — 74% 66% — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 10.6 12.2 24.0 0.03 0.43 4.37 4.80 0.39 1.33 1.73 — 6,007 6,007 0.14 0.29 5.91 6,101 Mit. 10.6 12.2 24.0 0.03 0.43 3.32 3.75 0.39 0.87 1.26 — 6,007 6,007 0.14 0.29 5.91 6,101 %
Reduced
— — — — — 24% 22% — 35% 27% — — — — — — —
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.93 2.23 4.39 0.01 0.08 0.80 0.88 0.07 0.24 0.31 — 994 994 0.02 0.05 0.98 1,010 Mit. 1.93 2.23 4.39 0.01 0.08 0.61 0.68 0.07 0.16 0.23 — 994 994 0.02 0.05 0.98 1,010 %
Reduced
— — — — — 24% 22% — 35% 27% — — — — — — —
Exceeds
(Annual)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Threshol
d

10.0 10.0 100 27.0 — — 15.0 — — 15.0 — — — — — — —
Unmit. No No No No — — No — — No — — — — — — —
Mit. No No No No — — No — — No — — — — — — —

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
11 / 86
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 2.90 14.1 41.5 0.04 0.46 5.00 5.46 0.42 1.19 1.62 — 9,238 9,238 0.32 0.47 23.0 9,409 2026 173 13.3 39.1 0.04 0.41 5.00 5.41 0.38 1.19 1.57 — 9,095 9,095 0.17 0.45 20.8 9,254 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 3.38 31.7 32.8 0.06 1.37 19.9 21.2 1.26 10.2 11.4 — 8,629 8,629 0.27 0.47 0.60 8,775 2026 2.53 13.7 31.1 0.04 0.41 5.00 5.41 0.38 1.19 1.57 — 8,501 8,501 0.20 0.46 0.54 8,643 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 2.00 12.2 24.0 0.03 0.43 4.37 4.80 0.39 1.33 1.73 — 6,007 6,007 0.14 0.29 5.91 6,101 2026 10.6 6.18 14.7 0.02 0.19 2.15 2.34 0.18 0.51 0.69 — 3,811 3,811 0.08 0.20 3.89 3,876 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.37 2.23 4.39 0.01 0.08 0.80 0.88 0.07 0.24 0.31 — 994 994 0.02 0.05 0.98 1,010 2026 1.93 1.13 2.68 < 0.005 0.03 0.39 0.43 0.03 0.09 0.13 — 631 631 0.01 0.03 0.64 642

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 2.90 14.1 41.5 0.04 0.46 5.00 5.46 0.42 1.19 1.62 — 9,238 9,238 0.32 0.47 23.0 9,409 2026 173 13.3 39.1 0.04 0.41 5.00 5.41 0.38 1.19 1.57 — 9,095 9,095 0.17 0.45 20.8 9,254 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
12 / 86
2025 3.38 31.7 32.8 0.06 1.37 5.32 6.69 1.26 2.68 3.93 — 8,629 8,629 0.27 0.47 0.60 8,775 2026 2.53 13.7 31.1 0.04 0.41 5.00 5.41 0.38 1.19 1.57 — 8,501 8,501 0.20 0.46 0.54 8,643 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 2.00 12.2 24.0 0.03 0.43 3.32 3.75 0.39 0.87 1.26 — 6,007 6,007 0.14 0.29 5.91 6,101 2026 10.6 6.18 14.7 0.02 0.19 2.15 2.34 0.18 0.51 0.69 — 3,811 3,811 0.08 0.20 3.89 3,876 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.37 2.23 4.39 0.01 0.08 0.61 0.68 0.07 0.16 0.23 — 994 994 0.02 0.05 0.98 1,010 2026 1.93 1.13 2.68 < 0.005 0.03 0.39 0.43 0.03 0.09 0.13 — 631 631 0.01 0.03 0.64 642

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 39.5 25.3 388 0.91 0.74 85.7 86.4 0.71 21.6 22.3 299 96,895 97,194 33.2 2.57 1,348 100,139 Mit. 39.5 25.3 388 0.91 0.74 85.7 86.4 0.71 21.6 22.3 299 96,216 96,515 33.1 2.56 1,348 99,453 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 1% 1% < 0.5% 1% — 1%
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 33.9 29.4 256 0.80 0.73 85.7 86.4 0.70 21.6 22.3 299 86,128 86,427 33.5 2.86 1,062 89,179 Mit. 33.9 29.4 256 0.80 0.73 85.7 86.4 0.70 21.6 22.3 299 85,449 85,748 33.4 2.85 1,062 88,494 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 1% 1% < 0.5% < 0.5% — 1%
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 34.8 23.6 230 0.61 0.64 59.3 59.9 0.62 15.0 15.6 299 66,050 66,349 33.2 2.33 1,145 69,016 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
13 / 86
Mit. 34.8 23.6 230 0.61 0.64 59.3 59.9 0.62 15.0 15.6 299 65,372 65,671 33.0 2.31 1,145 68,330 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 1% 1% < 0.5% 1% — 1%
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 6.35 4.31 42.0 0.11 0.12 10.8 10.9 0.11 2.73 2.84 49.5 10,935 10,985 5.49 0.39 190 11,426 Mit. 6.35 4.31 42.0 0.11 0.12 10.8 10.9 0.11 2.73 2.84 49.5 10,823 10,873 5.47 0.38 190 11,313 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 1% 1% < 0.5% 1% — 1%
Exceeds
(Annual)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Threshol
d

10.0 10.0 100 27.0 — — 15.0 — — 15.0 — — — — — — —
Unmit. No No No No — — No — — No — — — — — — —
Mit. No No No No — — No — — No — — — — — — —

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 23.8 21.2 357 0.89 0.42 85.7 86.1 0.39 21.6 22.0 — 90,138 90,138 2.50 2.42 293 91,213 Area 15.5 0.28 29.4 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 80.0 80.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 80.3 Energy 0.22 3.81 1.76 0.02 0.31 — 0.31 0.31 — 0.31 — 6,626 6,626 0.72 0.04 — 6,657 Water — — — — — — — — — — 44.8 51.4 96.2 4.60 0.11 — 244 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 254 0.00 254 25.4 0.00 — 889
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,055 1,055
Total 39.5 25.3 388 0.91 0.74 85.7 86.4 0.71 21.6 22.3 299 96,895 97,194 33.2 2.57 1,348 100,139 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
14 / 86
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Mobile 20.9 25.6 255 0.78 0.42 85.7 86.1 0.39 21.6 22.0 — 79,451 79,451 2.79 2.71 7.60 80,334 Area 12.8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.22 3.81 1.76 0.02 0.31 — 0.31 0.31 — 0.31 — 6,626 6,626 0.72 0.04 — 6,657 Water — — — — — — — — — — 44.8 51.4 96.2 4.60 0.11 — 244 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 254 0.00 254 25.4 0.00 — 889
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,055 1,055
Total 33.9 29.4 256 0.80 0.73 85.7 86.4 0.70 21.6 22.3 299 86,128 86,427 33.5 2.86 1,062 89,179 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 20.4 19.6 214 0.58 0.33 59.3 59.6 0.30 15.0 15.3 — 59,333 59,333 2.44 2.17 89.9 60,131 Area 14.1 0.14 14.5 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 39.5 39.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 39.6 Energy 0.22 3.81 1.76 0.02 0.31 — 0.31 0.31 — 0.31 — 6,626 6,626 0.72 0.04 — 6,657 Water — — — — — — — — — — 44.8 51.4 96.2 4.60 0.11 — 244 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 254 0.00 254 25.4 0.00 — 889
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,055 1,055
Total 34.8 23.6 230 0.61 0.64 59.3 59.9 0.62 15.0 15.6 299 66,050 66,349 33.2 2.33 1,145 69,016 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.73 3.58 39.0 0.11 0.06 10.8 10.9 0.06 2.73 2.79 — 9,823 9,823 0.40 0.36 14.9 9,955 Area 2.58 0.03 2.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 6.54 6.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.56 Energy 0.04 0.70 0.32 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 1,097 1,097 0.12 0.01 — 1,102 Water — — — — — — — — — — 7.41 8.52 15.9 0.76 0.02 — 40.4 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 42.1 0.00 42.1 4.20 0.00 — 147 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 175 175
Total 6.35 4.31 42.0 0.11 0.12 10.8 10.9 0.11 2.73 2.84 49.5 10,935 10,985 5.49 0.39 190 11,426

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
15 / 86
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 23.8 21.2 357 0.89 0.42 85.7 86.1 0.39 21.6 22.0 — 90,138 90,138 2.50 2.42 293 91,213 Area 15.5 0.28 29.4 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 80.0 80.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 80.3 Energy 0.22 3.81 1.76 0.02 0.31 — 0.31 0.31 — 0.31 — 5,947 5,947 0.61 0.03 — 5,972 Water — — — — — — — — — — 44.8 51.4 96.2 4.60 0.11 — 244 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 254 0.00 254 25.4 0.00 — 889
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,055 1,055
Total 39.5 25.3 388 0.91 0.74 85.7 86.4 0.71 21.6 22.3 299 96,216 96,515 33.1 2.56 1,348 99,453 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 20.9 25.6 255 0.78 0.42 85.7 86.1 0.39 21.6 22.0 — 79,451 79,451 2.79 2.71 7.60 80,334 Area 12.8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.22 3.81 1.76 0.02 0.31 — 0.31 0.31 — 0.31 — 5,947 5,947 0.61 0.03 — 5,972 Water — — — — — — — — — — 44.8 51.4 96.2 4.60 0.11 — 244 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 254 0.00 254 25.4 0.00 — 889
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,055 1,055
Total 33.9 29.4 256 0.80 0.73 85.7 86.4 0.70 21.6 22.3 299 85,449 85,748 33.4 2.85 1,062 88,494 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 20.4 19.6 214 0.58 0.33 59.3 59.6 0.30 15.0 15.3 — 59,333 59,333 2.44 2.17 89.9 60,131 Area 14.1 0.14 14.5 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 39.5 39.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 39.6 Energy 0.22 3.81 1.76 0.02 0.31 — 0.31 0.31 — 0.31 — 5,947 5,947 0.61 0.03 — 5,972 Water — — — — — — — — — — 44.8 51.4 96.2 4.60 0.11 — 244 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 254 0.00 254 25.4 0.00 — 889
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,055 1,055
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
16 / 86
Total 34.8 23.6 230 0.61 0.64 59.3 59.9 0.62 15.0 15.6 299 65,372 65,671 33.0 2.31 1,145 68,330 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.73 3.58 39.0 0.11 0.06 10.8 10.9 0.06 2.73 2.79 — 9,823 9,823 0.40 0.36 14.9 9,955 Area 2.58 0.03 2.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 6.54 6.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.56 Energy 0.04 0.70 0.32 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 985 985 0.10 0.01 — 989 Water — — — — — — — — — — 7.41 8.52 15.9 0.76 0.02 — 40.4 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 42.1 0.00 42.1 4.20 0.00 — 147 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 175 175
Total 6.35 4.31 42.0 0.11 0.12 10.8 10.9 0.11 2.73 2.84 49.5 10,823 10,873 5.47 0.38 190 11,313

3. Construction Emissions Details

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

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

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
17 / 86
Off-Road
Equipment

0.09 0.87 0.83 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 146 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.54 0.54 — 0.28 0.28 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.02 0.16 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 24.0 24.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.1 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.10 0.10 — 0.05 0.05 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.09 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 207 207 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 210 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.89 5.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.97 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.98 0.98 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.99 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
18 / 86
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

3.31 31.6 30.2 0.05 1.37 — 1.37 1.26 — 1.26 — 5,295 5,295 0.21 0.04 — 5,314 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 5.11 5.11 — 2.63 2.63 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.09 0.87 0.83 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 146 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.14 0.14 — 0.07 0.07 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.02 0.16 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 24.0 24.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.1 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
19 / 86
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.03 0.03 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.09 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 207 207 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 210 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.89 5.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.97 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.98 0.98 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.99 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
20 / 86
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.20 29.7 28.3 0.06 1.23 — 1.23 1.14 — 1.14 — 6,599 6,599 0.27 0.05 — 6,622 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 9.20 9.20 — 3.65 3.65 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.31 2.85 2.71 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.11 — 0.11 — 633 633 0.03 0.01 — 635 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.88 0.88 — 0.35 0.35 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.06 0.52 0.50 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 105 105 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 105 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.16 0.16 — 0.06 0.06 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
21 / 86
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.10 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 237 237 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 239 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 23.6 23.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 23.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.90 3.90 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.95 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

3.20 29.7 28.3 0.06 1.23 — 1.23 1.14 — 1.14 — 6,599 6,599 0.27 0.05 — 6,622 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 2.39 2.39 — 0.95 0.95 — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
22 / 86
Onsite
truck

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

0.31 2.85 2.71 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.11 — 0.11 — 633 633 0.03 0.01 — 635 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.23 0.23 — 0.09 0.09 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.06 0.52 0.50 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 105 105 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 105 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.04 0.04 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.10 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 237 237 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 239 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 23.6 23.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 23.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
23 / 86
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.90 3.90 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.95 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

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

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

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

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

0.67 6.17 7.71 0.01 0.26 — 0.26 0.23 — 0.23 — 1,417 1,417 0.06 0.01 — 1,422 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
24 / 86
Off-Road 0.12 1.13 1.41 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 235 235 0.01 < 0.005 — 235 Equipment
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.72 1.53 27.7 0.00 0.00 4.49 4.49 0.00 1.05 1.05 — 4,959 4,959 0.21 0.17 17.8 5,033 Vendor 0.06 2.14 0.71 0.01 0.03 0.51 0.54 0.03 0.14 0.17 — 1,881 1,881 0.02 0.28 5.17 1,970 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.50 1.86 19.0 0.00 0.00 4.49 4.49 0.00 1.05 1.05 — 4,349 4,349 0.09 0.17 0.46 4,403 Vendor 0.05 2.29 0.72 0.01 0.03 0.51 0.54 0.03 0.14 0.17 — 1,883 1,883 0.02 0.28 0.13 1,966 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.90 1.00 12.2 0.00 0.00 2.63 2.63 0.00 0.61 0.61 — 2,670 2,670 0.04 0.10 4.54 2,706 Vendor 0.03 1.33 0.42 0.01 0.02 0.30 0.31 0.02 0.08 0.10 — 1,112 1,112 0.01 0.16 1.32 1,163 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.16 0.18 2.23 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.00 0.11 0.11 — 442 442 0.01 0.02 0.75 448 Vendor 0.01 0.24 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 184 184 < 0.005 0.03 0.22 193 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.6. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
25 / 86
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

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

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

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

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

0.67 6.17 7.71 0.01 0.26 — 0.26 0.23 — 0.23 — 1,417 1,417 0.06 0.01 — 1,422 Onsite
truck

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

0.12 1.13 1.41 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 235 235 0.01 < 0.005 — 235 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.72 1.53 27.7 0.00 0.00 4.49 4.49 0.00 1.05 1.05 — 4,959 4,959 0.21 0.17 17.8 5,033 Vendor 0.06 2.14 0.71 0.01 0.03 0.51 0.54 0.03 0.14 0.17 — 1,881 1,881 0.02 0.28 5.17 1,970 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
26 / 86
Worker 1.50 1.86 19.0 0.00 0.00 4.49 4.49 0.00 1.05 1.05 — 4,349 4,349 0.09 0.17 0.46 4,403 Vendor 0.05 2.29 0.72 0.01 0.03 0.51 0.54 0.03 0.14 0.17 — 1,883 1,883 0.02 0.28 0.13 1,966 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.90 1.00 12.2 0.00 0.00 2.63 2.63 0.00 0.61 0.61 — 2,670 2,670 0.04 0.10 4.54 2,706 Vendor 0.03 1.33 0.42 0.01 0.02 0.30 0.31 0.02 0.08 0.10 — 1,112 1,112 0.01 0.16 1.32 1,163 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.16 0.18 2.23 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.00 0.11 0.11 — 442 442 0.01 0.02 0.75 448 Vendor 0.01 0.24 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 184 184 < 0.005 0.03 0.22 193 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

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

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

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

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
27 / 86
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.45 4.17 5.48 0.01 0.16 — 0.16 0.15 — 0.15 — 1,013 1,013 0.04 0.01 — 1,017 Onsite
truck

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

0.08 0.76 1.00 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 168 168 0.01 < 0.005 — 168 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.59 1.37 25.5 0.00 0.00 4.49 4.49 0.00 1.05 1.05 — 4,853 4,853 0.06 0.16 16.0 4,920 Vendor 0.06 2.05 0.66 0.01 0.03 0.51 0.54 0.03 0.14 0.17 — 1,844 1,844 0.02 0.26 4.79 1,928 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.41 1.69 17.4 0.00 0.00 4.49 4.49 0.00 1.05 1.05 — 4,258 4,258 0.08 0.17 0.42 4,312 Vendor 0.05 2.20 0.68 0.01 0.03 0.51 0.54 0.03 0.14 0.17 — 1,846 1,846 0.02 0.26 0.12 1,925 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.61 0.65 8.04 0.00 0.00 1.88 1.88 0.00 0.44 0.44 — 1,870 1,870 0.03 0.07 2.92 1,895 Vendor 0.02 0.91 0.28 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.22 0.01 0.06 0.07 — 780 780 0.01 0.11 0.87 814 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.12 1.47 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 310 310 0.01 0.01 0.48 314 Vendor < 0.005 0.17 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 129 129 < 0.005 0.02 0.14 135 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
28 / 86
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

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

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

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

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

0.45 4.17 5.48 0.01 0.16 — 0.16 0.15 — 0.15 — 1,013 1,013 0.04 0.01 — 1,017 Onsite
truck

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

0.08 0.76 1.00 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 168 168 0.01 < 0.005 — 168 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
29 / 86
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Worker 1.59 1.37 25.5 0.00 0.00 4.49 4.49 0.00 1.05 1.05 — 4,853 4,853 0.06 0.16 16.0 4,920 Vendor 0.06 2.05 0.66 0.01 0.03 0.51 0.54 0.03 0.14 0.17 — 1,844 1,844 0.02 0.26 4.79 1,928 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.41 1.69 17.4 0.00 0.00 4.49 4.49 0.00 1.05 1.05 — 4,258 4,258 0.08 0.17 0.42 4,312 Vendor 0.05 2.20 0.68 0.01 0.03 0.51 0.54 0.03 0.14 0.17 — 1,846 1,846 0.02 0.26 0.12 1,925 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.61 0.65 8.04 0.00 0.00 1.88 1.88 0.00 0.44 0.44 — 1,870 1,870 0.03 0.07 2.92 1,895 Vendor 0.02 0.91 0.28 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.22 0.01 0.06 0.07 — 780 780 0.01 0.11 0.87 814 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.12 1.47 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 310 310 0.01 0.01 0.48 314 Vendor < 0.005 0.17 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 129 129 < 0.005 0.02 0.14 135 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

0.76 7.12 9.94 0.01 0.32 — 0.32 0.29 — 0.29 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
30 / 86
Paving 0.21 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.04 0.39 0.54 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 82.8 82.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 83.1 Paving 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.7 13.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.8 Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 1.04 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 198 198 < 0.005 0.01 0.65 201 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.89 9.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
31 / 86
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.64 1.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.66 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

0.76 7.12 9.94 0.01 0.32 — 0.32 0.29 — 0.29 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 0.21 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.04 0.39 0.54 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 82.8 82.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 83.1 Paving 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.7 13.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.8 Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
32 / 86
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 1.04 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 198 198 < 0.005 0.01 0.65 201 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.89 9.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.64 1.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.66 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
33 / 86
Architect
Coatings
172 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.32 7.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.34 Architect
ural
Coatings

9.43 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.21 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.22 Architect
ural
Coatings

1.72 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.32 0.27 5.10 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.90 0.00 0.21 0.21 — 971 971 0.01 0.03 3.20 984 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
34 / 86
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 48.5 48.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 49.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.02 8.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.13 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings
172 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.32 7.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.34 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
35 / 86
Architect 9.43 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.21 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.22 Architect
ural
Coatings

1.72 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.32 0.27 5.10 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.90 0.00 0.21 0.21 — 971 971 0.01 0.03 3.20 984 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 48.5 48.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 49.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.02 8.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.13 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
36 / 86

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps

2.64 2.11 47.2 0.12 0.05 12.5 12.6 0.05 3.16 3.21 — 12,562 12,562 0.22 0.24 41.3 12,680 Bank
(with
Drive-Through)

0.98 0.56 11.1 0.03 0.01 2.67 2.68 0.01 0.67 0.68 — 2,710 2,710 0.07 0.06 8.81 2,739 Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru

7.51 6.01 134 0.35 0.14 35.7 35.8 0.13 8.99 9.12 — 35,719 35,719 0.63 0.68 118 36,055 Strip
Mall

1.50 1.22 26.7 0.07 0.03 7.11 7.14 0.03 1.79 1.82 — 7,131 7,131 0.13 0.14 23.4 7,199 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

11.2 11.4 138 0.31 0.19 27.7 27.9 0.18 7.00 7.18 — 32,016 32,016 1.45 1.30 102 32,541 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 23.8 21.2 357 0.89 0.42 85.7 86.1 0.39 21.6 22.0 — 90,138 90,138 2.50 2.42 293 91,213 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
37 / 86
Conveni
Market
with Gas
Pumps

2.35 2.62 32.4 0.11 0.05 12.5 12.6 0.05 3.16 3.21 — 10,984 10,984 0.26 0.28 1.07 11,074 Bank
(with
Drive-Through)

0.87 0.68 8.40 0.02 0.01 2.67 2.68 0.01 0.67 0.68 — 2,375 2,375 0.09 0.07 0.23 2,399 Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru

6.68 7.47 92.2 0.31 0.14 35.7 35.8 0.13 8.99 9.12 — 31,233 31,233 0.73 0.79 3.05 31,489 Strip
Mall

1.33 1.51 18.4 0.06 0.03 7.11 7.14 0.03 1.79 1.82 — 6,238 6,238 0.14 0.16 0.61 6,289 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

9.65 13.3 103 0.28 0.19 27.7 27.9 0.18 7.00 7.18 — 28,622 28,622 1.57 1.40 2.64 29,083 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 20.9 25.6 255 0.78 0.42 85.7 86.1 0.39 21.6 22.0 — 79,451 79,451 2.79 2.71 7.60 80,334 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps

0.40 0.24 3.34 0.01 < 0.005 0.92 0.93 < 0.005 0.23 0.24 — 788 788 0.03 0.02 1.21 797 Bank
(with
Drive-Through)

0.14 0.10 1.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.42 0.42 < 0.005 0.11 0.11 — 355 355 0.01 0.01 0.55 358 Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru

1.15 0.76 10.8 0.03 0.01 3.20 3.21 0.01 0.81 0.82 — 2,713 2,713 0.09 0.08 4.18 2,742 Strip
Mall

0.25 0.25 3.64 0.01 0.01 1.28 1.29 < 0.005 0.32 0.33 — 1,074 1,074 0.02 0.02 1.68 1,083 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
38 / 86
Apartme 1.80 2.25 19.8 0.05 0.03 5.00 5.03 0.03 1.26 1.30 — 4,894 4,894 0.25 0.22 7.29 4,974 nts
Low Rise
Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 3.73 3.58 39.0 0.11 0.06 10.8 10.9 0.06 2.73 2.79 — 9,823 9,823 0.40 0.36 14.9 9,955

4.1.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps

2.64 2.11 47.2 0.12 0.05 12.5 12.6 0.05 3.16 3.21 — 12,562 12,562 0.22 0.24 41.3 12,680 Bank
(with
Drive-Through)

0.98 0.56 11.1 0.03 0.01 2.67 2.68 0.01 0.67 0.68 — 2,710 2,710 0.07 0.06 8.81 2,739 Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru

7.51 6.01 134 0.35 0.14 35.7 35.8 0.13 8.99 9.12 — 35,719 35,719 0.63 0.68 118 36,055 Strip
Mall

1.50 1.22 26.7 0.07 0.03 7.11 7.14 0.03 1.79 1.82 — 7,131 7,131 0.13 0.14 23.4 7,199 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

11.2 11.4 138 0.31 0.19 27.7 27.9 0.18 7.00 7.18 — 32,016 32,016 1.45 1.30 102 32,541 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 23.8 21.2 357 0.89 0.42 85.7 86.1 0.39 21.6 22.0 — 90,138 90,138 2.50 2.42 293 91,213 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
39 / 86
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps

2.35 2.62 32.4 0.11 0.05 12.5 12.6 0.05 3.16 3.21 — 10,984 10,984 0.26 0.28 1.07 11,074 Bank
(with
Drive-Through)

0.87 0.68 8.40 0.02 0.01 2.67 2.68 0.01 0.67 0.68 — 2,375 2,375 0.09 0.07 0.23 2,399 Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru

6.68 7.47 92.2 0.31 0.14 35.7 35.8 0.13 8.99 9.12 — 31,233 31,233 0.73 0.79 3.05 31,489 Strip
Mall

1.33 1.51 18.4 0.06 0.03 7.11 7.14 0.03 1.79 1.82 — 6,238 6,238 0.14 0.16 0.61 6,289 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

9.65 13.3 103 0.28 0.19 27.7 27.9 0.18 7.00 7.18 — 28,622 28,622 1.57 1.40 2.64 29,083 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 20.9 25.6 255 0.78 0.42 85.7 86.1 0.39 21.6 22.0 — 79,451 79,451 2.79 2.71 7.60 80,334 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps

0.40 0.24 3.34 0.01 < 0.005 0.92 0.93 < 0.005 0.23 0.24 — 788 788 0.03 0.02 1.21 797 Bank
(with
Drive-Through)

0.14 0.10 1.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.42 0.42 < 0.005 0.11 0.11 — 355 355 0.01 0.01 0.55 358 Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru

1.15 0.76 10.8 0.03 0.01 3.20 3.21 0.01 0.81 0.82 — 2,713 2,713 0.09 0.08 4.18 2,742 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
40 / 86
Strip
Mall

0.25 0.25 3.64 0.01 0.01 1.28 1.29 < 0.005 0.32 0.33 — 1,074 1,074 0.02 0.02 1.68 1,083 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

1.80 2.25 19.8 0.05 0.03 5.00 5.03 0.03 1.26 1.30 — 4,894 4,894 0.25 0.22 7.29 4,974 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 3.73 3.58 39.0 0.11 0.06 10.8 10.9 0.06 2.73 2.79 — 9,823 9,823 0.40 0.36 14.9 9,955

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — — 165 165 0.03 < 0.005 — 166
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — — 27.8 27.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.1
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — 161 161 0.03 < 0.005 — 163
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — 51.0 51.0 0.01 < 0.005 — 51.5
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 1,371 1,371 0.22 0.03 — 1,384
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
41 / 86
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 34.4 34.4 0.01 < 0.005 — 34.7
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1,810 1,810 0.29 0.04 — 1,828 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — — 165 165 0.03 < 0.005 — 166
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — — 27.8 27.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.1
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — 161 161 0.03 < 0.005 — 163
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — 51.0 51.0 0.01 < 0.005 — 51.5
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 1,371 1,371 0.22 0.03 — 1,384
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 34.4 34.4 0.01 < 0.005 — 34.7
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1,810 1,810 0.29 0.04 — 1,828 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — — 27.2 27.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.5
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — — 4.61 4.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.66
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
42 / 86
Fast — — — — — — — — — — — 26.7 26.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.0 Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — 8.45 8.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.53
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 227 227 0.04 < 0.005 — 229
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 5.69 5.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.74
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 300 300 0.05 0.01 — 303

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — — 165 165 0.03 < 0.005 — 166
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — — 27.8 27.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.1
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — 161 161 0.03 < 0.005 — 163
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — 51.0 51.0 0.01 < 0.005 — 51.5
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
43 / 86
Apartme
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 692 692 0.11 0.01 — 699
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 34.4 34.4 0.01 < 0.005 — 34.7
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1,131 1,131 0.18 0.02 — 1,142 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — — 165 165 0.03 < 0.005 — 166
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — — 27.8 27.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.1
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — 161 161 0.03 < 0.005 — 163
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — 51.0 51.0 0.01 < 0.005 — 51.5
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 692 692 0.11 0.01 — 699
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 34.4 34.4 0.01 < 0.005 — 34.7
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1,131 1,131 0.18 0.02 — 1,142 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — — 27.2 27.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.5
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
44 / 86
Bank — — — — — — — — — — — 4.61 4.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.66 (with
Drive-Through)
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — 26.7 26.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.0
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — 8.45 8.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.53
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 115 115 0.02 < 0.005 — 116
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 5.69 5.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.74
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 187 187 0.03 < 0.005 — 189

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
< 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 53.7 53.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 53.8 Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
< 0.005 0.05 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 55.2 55.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 55.3 Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru

0.01 0.22 0.18 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 259 259 0.02 < 0.005 — 259 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
45 / 86
Strip
Mall
< 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 27.1 27.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.2 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

0.20 3.48 1.48 0.02 0.28 — 0.28 0.28 — 0.28 — 4,422 4,422 0.39 0.01 — 4,434 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.22 3.81 1.76 0.02 0.31 — 0.31 0.31 — 0.31 — 4,816 4,816 0.43 0.01 — 4,830 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
< 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 53.7 53.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 53.8 Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
< 0.005 0.05 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 55.2 55.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 55.3 Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru

0.01 0.22 0.18 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 259 259 0.02 < 0.005 — 259 Strip
Mall
< 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 27.1 27.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.2 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

0.20 3.48 1.48 0.02 0.28 — 0.28 0.28 — 0.28 — 4,422 4,422 0.39 0.01 — 4,434 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.22 3.81 1.76 0.02 0.31 — 0.31 0.31 — 0.31 — 4,816 4,816 0.43 0.01 — 4,830 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
46 / 86
Conveni < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.89 8.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.91 ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 9.13 9.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.16 Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
< 0.005 0.04 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 42.8 42.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 42.9 Strip
Mall
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.49 4.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.51 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

0.04 0.64 0.27 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 732 732 0.06 < 0.005 — 734 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.04 0.70 0.32 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 797 797 0.07 < 0.005 — 800

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
< 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 53.7 53.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 53.8 Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
< 0.005 0.05 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 55.2 55.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 55.3 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
47 / 86
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru

0.01 0.22 0.18 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 259 259 0.02 < 0.005 — 259 Strip
Mall
< 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 27.1 27.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.2 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

0.20 3.48 1.48 0.02 0.28 — 0.28 0.28 — 0.28 — 4,422 4,422 0.39 0.01 — 4,434 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.22 3.81 1.76 0.02 0.31 — 0.31 0.31 — 0.31 — 4,816 4,816 0.43 0.01 — 4,830 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
< 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 53.7 53.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 53.8 Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
< 0.005 0.05 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 55.2 55.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 55.3 Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru

0.01 0.22 0.18 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 259 259 0.02 < 0.005 — 259 Strip
Mall
< 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 27.1 27.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.2 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

0.20 3.48 1.48 0.02 0.28 — 0.28 0.28 — 0.28 — 4,422 4,422 0.39 0.01 — 4,434 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.22 3.81 1.76 0.02 0.31 — 0.31 0.31 — 0.31 — 4,816 4,816 0.43 0.01 — 4,830 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
48 / 86
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.89 8.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.91 Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 9.13 9.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.16 Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
< 0.005 0.04 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 42.8 42.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 42.9 Strip
Mall
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.49 4.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.51 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

0.04 0.64 0.27 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 732 732 0.06 < 0.005 — 734 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.04 0.70 0.32 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 797 797 0.07 < 0.005 — 800

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Products

11.8 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
49 / 86
Architect
Coatings

0.94 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

2.68 0.28 29.4 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 80.0 80.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 80.3 Total 15.5 0.28 29.4 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 80.0 80.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 80.3 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Products

11.8 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings

0.94 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 12.8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Products

2.16 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings

0.17 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.24 0.03 2.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.54 6.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.56 Total 2.58 0.03 2.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 6.54 6.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.56

4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
50 / 86
Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Products

11.8 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings

0.94 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

2.68 0.28 29.4 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 80.0 80.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 80.3 Total 15.5 0.28 29.4 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 80.0 80.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 80.3 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Products

11.8 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings

0.94 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 12.8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Products

2.16 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings

0.17 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
51 / 86
Landsca
Equipment

0.24 0.03 2.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.54 6.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.56 Total 2.58 0.03 2.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 6.54 6.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.56

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — 0.71 0.82 1.53 0.07 < 0.005 — 3.88
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — 0.32 0.37 0.69 0.03 < 0.005 — 1.74
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — 3.75 4.31 8.07 0.39 0.01 — 20.5
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — 1.23 1.41 2.64 0.13 < 0.005 — 6.69
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 38.8 44.5 83.3 3.98 0.10 — 211
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 44.8 51.4 96.2 4.60 0.11 — 244 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
52 / 86
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — 0.71 0.82 1.53 0.07 < 0.005 — 3.88
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — 0.32 0.37 0.69 0.03 < 0.005 — 1.74
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — 3.75 4.31 8.07 0.39 0.01 — 20.5
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — 1.23 1.41 2.64 0.13 < 0.005 — 6.69
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 38.8 44.5 83.3 3.98 0.10 — 211
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 44.8 51.4 96.2 4.60 0.11 — 244 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — 0.12 0.14 0.25 0.01 < 0.005 — 0.64
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — 0.05 0.06 0.11 0.01 < 0.005 — 0.29
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — 0.62 0.71 1.34 0.06 < 0.005 — 3.39
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
53 / 86
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — 0.20 0.23 0.44 0.02 < 0.005 — 1.11
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 6.42 7.37 13.8 0.66 0.02 — 35.0
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 7.41 8.52 15.9 0.76 0.02 — 40.4

4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — 0.71 0.82 1.53 0.07 < 0.005 — 3.88
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — 0.32 0.37 0.69 0.03 < 0.005 — 1.74
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — 3.75 4.31 8.07 0.39 0.01 — 20.5
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — 1.23 1.41 2.64 0.13 < 0.005 — 6.69
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 38.8 44.5 83.3 3.98 0.10 — 211
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
54 / 86
Total — — — — — — — — — — 44.8 51.4 96.2 4.60 0.11 — 244 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — 0.71 0.82 1.53 0.07 < 0.005 — 3.88
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — 0.32 0.37 0.69 0.03 < 0.005 — 1.74
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — 3.75 4.31 8.07 0.39 0.01 — 20.5
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — 1.23 1.41 2.64 0.13 < 0.005 — 6.69
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 38.8 44.5 83.3 3.98 0.10 — 211
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 44.8 51.4 96.2 4.60 0.11 — 244 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — 0.12 0.14 0.25 0.01 < 0.005 — 0.64
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — 0.05 0.06 0.11 0.01 < 0.005 — 0.29
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
55 / 86
Fast — — — — — — — — — — 0.62 0.71 1.34 0.06 < 0.005 — 3.39 Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — 0.20 0.23 0.44 0.02 < 0.005 — 1.11
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 6.42 7.37 13.8 0.66 0.02 — 35.0
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 7.41 8.52 15.9 0.76 0.02 — 40.4

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — 8.13 0.00 8.13 0.81 0.00 — 28.4
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — 2.11 0.00 2.11 0.21 0.00 — 7.39
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — 40.1 0.00 40.1 4.01 0.00 — 140
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
56 / 86
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — 4.89 0.00 4.89 0.49 0.00 — 17.1
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 199 0.00 199 19.9 0.00 — 696
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 254 0.00 254 25.4 0.00 — 889
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — 8.13 0.00 8.13 0.81 0.00 — 28.4
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — 2.11 0.00 2.11 0.21 0.00 — 7.39
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — 40.1 0.00 40.1 4.01 0.00 — 140
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — 4.89 0.00 4.89 0.49 0.00 — 17.1
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 199 0.00 199 19.9 0.00 — 696
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 254 0.00 254 25.4 0.00 — 889
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
57 / 86
Conveni — — — — — — — — — — 1.35 0.00 1.35 0.13 0.00 — 4.71 ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — 0.35 0.00 0.35 0.03 0.00 — 1.22
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — 6.63 0.00 6.63 0.66 0.00 — 23.2
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — 0.81 0.00 0.81 0.08 0.00 — 2.83
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 32.9 0.00 32.9 3.29 0.00 — 115
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 42.1 0.00 42.1 4.20 0.00 — 147

4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — 8.13 0.00 8.13 0.81 0.00 — 28.4
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — 2.11 0.00 2.11 0.21 0.00 — 7.39
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
58 / 86
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — 40.1 0.00 40.1 4.01 0.00 — 140
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — 4.89 0.00 4.89 0.49 0.00 — 17.1
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 199 0.00 199 19.9 0.00 — 696
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 254 0.00 254 25.4 0.00 — 889
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — 8.13 0.00 8.13 0.81 0.00 — 28.4
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — 2.11 0.00 2.11 0.21 0.00 — 7.39
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — 40.1 0.00 40.1 4.01 0.00 — 140
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — 4.89 0.00 4.89 0.49 0.00 — 17.1
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 199 0.00 199 19.9 0.00 — 696
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 254 0.00 254 25.4 0.00 — 889
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
59 / 86
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — 1.35 0.00 1.35 0.13 0.00 — 4.71
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — 0.35 0.00 0.35 0.03 0.00 — 1.22
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — 6.63 0.00 6.63 0.66 0.00 — 23.2
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — 0.81 0.00 0.81 0.08 0.00 — 2.83
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 32.9 0.00 32.9 3.29 0.00 — 115
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 42.1 0.00 42.1 4.20 0.00 — 147

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
60 / 86
Conveni — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,041 1,041
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 10.1 10.1
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.05 0.05
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.79 3.79
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,055 1,055
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,041 1,041
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 10.1 10.1
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.05 0.05
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
61 / 86
Apartme — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.79 3.79
nts
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,055 1,055
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 172 172
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.67 1.67
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.63 0.63
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 175 175

4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,041 1,041
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
62 / 86
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 10.1 10.1
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.05 0.05
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.79 3.79
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,055 1,055
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,041 1,041
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 10.1 10.1
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.05 0.05
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.79 3.79
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,055 1,055
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
63 / 86
Conveni
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 172 172
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.67 1.67
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.63 0.63
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 175 175

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
64 / 86
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
65 / 86
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
66 / 86
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
67 / 86
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
68 / 86
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
69 / 86
Vegetatio ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e n
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
70 / 86
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
71 / 86
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/1/2025 1/14/2025 5.00 10.0 — Grading Grading 1/15/2025 3/4/2025 5.00 35.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 3/5/2025 8/4/2026 5.00 370 — Paving Paving 8/5/2026 9/1/2026 5.00 20.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 9/2/2026 9/29/2026 5.00 20.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
72 / 86
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
73 / 86

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 368 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 57.3 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 73.5 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
74 / 86
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 368 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 57.3 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 73.5 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
75 / 86
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

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

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 1,071,104 357,035 36,485 12,162 4,211

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Site Preparation — — 15.0 0.00 —
Grading — — 105 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.61

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

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 0.00 0%
Bank (with Drive-Through) 0.00 0%
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 0.00 0%
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 0.00 0%
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
76 / 86
Strip Mall 0.00 0%
Strip Mall 0.00 0%
Apartments Low Rise — 0%
Parking Lot 1.61 100%

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

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Convenience
Market with Gas
Pumps
1,061 1,061 1,061 387,417 3,095 18,082 18,082 2,692,580 Bank (with
Drive-Through)
420 363 134 135,471 3,622 3,850 1,423 1,219,328
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
1,496 1,496 1,496 546,017 7,546 25,485 25,485 4,624,977 Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
1,522 1,522 1,522 555,401 7,675 25,923 25,923 4,704,468 Strip Mall 250 250 250 91,354 4,264 4,264 4,264 1,556,327 Strip Mall 351 351 351 128,099 5,979 5,979 5,979 2,182,316 Apartments Low
Rise
3,274 3,274 3,274 1,195,006 39,520 39,520 39,520 14,424,795 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
77 / 86

5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Convenience
Market with Gas
Pumps
1,061 1,061 1,061 387,417 3,095 18,082 18,082 2,692,580 Bank (with
Drive-Through)
420 363 134 135,471 3,622 3,850 1,423 1,219,328
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
1,496 1,496 1,496 546,017 7,546 25,485 25,485 4,624,977 Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
1,522 1,522 1,522 555,401 7,675 25,923 25,923 4,704,468 Strip Mall 250 250 250 91,354 4,264 4,264 4,264 1,556,327 Strip Mall 351 351 351 128,099 5,979 5,979 5,979 2,182,316 Apartments Low
Rise
3,274 3,274 3,274 1,195,006 39,520 39,520 39,520 14,424,795 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Apartments Low Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 0
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
78 / 86
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

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

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
1071103.5 357,035 36,485 12,162 4,211

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
79 / 86

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Convenience Market with Gas
Pumps
294,467 204 0.0330 0.0040 167,464
Bank (with Drive-Through) 49,829 204 0.0330 0.0040 172,084 Fast Food Restaurant with
Drive Thru
142,986 204 0.0330 0.0040 400,108
Fast Food Restaurant with
Drive Thru
145,444 204 0.0330 0.0040 406,985
Strip Mall 38,016 204 0.0330 0.0040 35,252
Strip Mall 53,307 204 0.0330 0.0040 49,432
Apartments Low Rise 2,452,533 204 0.0330 0.0040 13,797,089 Parking Lot 61,473 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Convenience Market with Gas
Pumps
294,467 204 0.0330 0.0040 167,464
Bank (with Drive-Through) 49,829 204 0.0330 0.0040 172,084 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
80 / 86
Fast Food Restaurant with 142,986 204 0.0330 0.0040 400,108 Drive Thru
Fast Food Restaurant with
Drive Thru
145,444 204 0.0330 0.0040 406,985
Strip Mall 38,016 204 0.0330 0.0040 35,252
Strip Mall 53,307 204 0.0330 0.0040 49,432
Apartments Low Rise 1,238,300 204 0.0330 0.0040 13,797,089 Parking Lot 61,473 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 371,844 0.00
Bank (with Drive-Through) 166,416 0.00
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 971,308 0.00
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 988,002 0.00
Strip Mall 266,661 0.00
Strip Mall 373,918 0.00
Apartments Low Rise 20,233,377 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 371,844 0.00
Bank (with Drive-Through) 166,416 0.00
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 971,308 0.00
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 988,002 0.00
Strip Mall 266,661 0.00
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
81 / 86
Strip Mall 373,918 0.00
Apartments Low Rise 20,233,377 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 15.1 —
Bank (with Drive-Through) 3.92 —
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 36.9 —
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 37.5 —
Strip Mall 3.78 —
Strip Mall 5.30 —
Apartments Low Rise 369 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 15.1 —
Bank (with Drive-Through) 3.92 —
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 36.9 —
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 37.5 —
Strip Mall 3.78 —
Strip Mall 5.30 —
Apartments Low Rise 369 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
82 / 86

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Convenience Market
with Gas Pumps
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Convenience Market
with Gas Pumps
Supermarket
refrigeration and
condensing units
R-404A 3,922 26.5 16.5 16.5 18.0
Bank (with
Drive-Through)
Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.02 0.60 0.00 1.00
Bank (with
Drive-Through)
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
Strip Mall Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Strip Mall Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Strip Mall Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
83 / 86
Strip Mall Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Strip Mall Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Strip Mall Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
Apartments Low Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Low Rise Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00

5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Convenience Market
with Gas Pumps
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Convenience Market
with Gas Pumps
Supermarket
refrigeration and
condensing units
R-404A 3,922 26.5 16.5 16.5 18.0
Bank (with
Drive-Through)
Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.02 0.60 0.00 1.00
Bank (with
Drive-Through)
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
84 / 86
Fast Food Restaurant R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
with Drive Thru
Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
Strip Mall Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Strip Mall Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Strip Mall Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
Strip Mall Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Strip Mall Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Strip Mall Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
Apartments Low Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Low Rise Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

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

5.15.2. Mitigated
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
85 / 86
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

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

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

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

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
86 / 86

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

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

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Operations: Vehicle Data Rates and lengths were replaced according to the traffic study conducted by Ruettgers & Schuler, civil engineers.

Operations: Fleet Mix District accepted fleet mix for residential projects - 2026 operational year. Commercial (excluding parking and the bank) fleet mix is adjusted on the R&S project traffic study and predicted truck trips per the applicant.

Land Use Residential Lot Acreage is scaled to reflect the site map dimensions. Commercial Lot Acreages (excluding parking) scaled to reflect site map acreage of 6.36 AC.

Construction: Construction Phases No proposed demolition.

Operations: Hearths Per the project applicant, there are no proposed hearths.

Project: Taft-Ashe
Key
value
value
Weekly Trips
Land Use Type # of Size Unit Total Weekly2
Trips
Total Annual
Trips
Fast Food (3,255 SF) 3.255 10,652 555,402
Fast Food (3,200 SF) 3.200 10,472 546,017
Multi-Tentant (5,048 SF) 5.048 2,457 128,099
Multi-Tentant (3,600 SF) 3.600 1,752 91,354
C-Store (5,020 SF) 16.000 23,681 1,234,796
Bank (4,200 SF) 3 4.200 2,598 135,470
Future Residential (499 Dwell) 499.000 22,918 1,195,011

1. ADT Rate per R&S Traffic Study.

2. Total Weekly Trips = [(Trip Rateweekday x 5) + Trip RateSaturday + Trip RateSunday] * Land Usei

3. Default CalEEMod Inputs. A traffic study was not performed on this land use type.

Default Average Trip Length
H-W H-S H-O H-W W-O O-O Primary Diverted Passby
Fast Food (3,255 SF) 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.1 14.5 7.9 27% 24% 50% Fast Food (3,200 SF) 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.1 14.5 7.9 27% 24% 50% Multi-Tentant (5,048 SF) 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.1 14.5 7.9 100% 0% 0% Multi-Tentant (3,600 SF) 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.1 14.5 7.9 100% 0% 0% C-Store (5,020 SF) 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.1 14.5 7.9 14% 21% 65% Bank (4,200 SF) 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.1 14.5 7.9 48% 22% 30%
Future Residential (499 Dwell) 17.1 6.6 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100% 0% 0%

1. Default CalEEMod data for land use setting.

2. Default CalEEMod data for land use type.

Default Average Trip Length
Primary Diverted Passby H-W H-S H-O H-W W-O O-O
Fast Food (3,255 SF) 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 99.3% 0.3% 0.4% Fast Food (3,200 SF) 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 99.3% 0.3% 0.4% Multi-Tentant (5,048 SF) 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 99.3% 0.3% 0.4% Multi-Tentant (3,600 SF) 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 99.3% 0.3% 0.4% C-Store (5,020 SF) 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 99.3% 0.3% 0.4%
Bank (4,200 SF) 62% 0% 38% 0% 0% 0% 99.3% 0.3% 0.4%
Future Residential (499 Dwell) 100% 0% 0% 24% 9% 67% 0% 0% 0%

1. Default CalEEMod data for land use setting.

2. Default CalEEMod data for land use type.

Annual VMT

H-W H-S H-O H-W W-O O-O H-W H-S H-O
Fast Food (3,255 SF) 392,972 1,156 1,501
Fast Food (3,200 SF) 386,332 1,136 1,476
Multi-Tentant (5,048 SF) 90,636 267 346
Multi-Tentant (3,600 SF) 64,637 190 247
C-Store (5,020 SF) 873,673 2,569 3,337
Bank (4,200 SF) 108,498 319 414
Future Residential (499 Dwell) 204,317 76,113 570,810 81,727 30,445 228,324

1. Average Trip Lengthi,m = (Link %primary x Trip Lengthprimary) + (Link %diverted x 2 miles) + (Link %passby x 0.1 miles) Annual VMT

H-W W-O O-O H-W H-S H-O H-W W-O O-O
Fast Food (3,255 SF) 157,189 462 600 5.06 4.37 2.62
Fast Food (3,200 SF) 154,533 454 590 5.06 4.37 2.62
Multi-Tentant (5,048 SF) 36,254 107 138 17.08 14.49 7.91 Multi-Tentant (3,600 SF) 25,855 76 99 17.08 14.49 7.91
C-Store (5,020 SF) 349,469 1,028 1,335 2.92 2.55 1.62
Bank (4,200 SF) 25,693 76 98 8.64 7.40 4.26
Future Residential (499 Dwell) 17 7 11

1. Average Trip Lengthi,m = (Link %primary x Trip Lengthprimary) + (Link %diverted x 2 miles) + (Link %passby x 0.1 miles) Annual VMT

H-W H-S H-O H-W W-O O-O H-W H-S H-O
Fast Food (3,255 SF) 17.08 14.49 7.91
Fast Food (3,200 SF) 17.08 14.49 7.91
Multi-Tentant (5,048 SF) 17.08 14.49 7.91
Multi-Tentant (3,600 SF) 17.08 14.49 7.91
C-Store (5,020 SF) 17.08 14.49 7.91
Bank (4,200 SF) 10.63 9.02 4.94
Future Residential (499 Dwell) 17 7 11 4,885,215 706,160 8,793,949

1. Average Trip Lengthi,m = (Link %primary x Trip Lengthprimary) + (Link %diverted x 2 miles) + (Link %passby x 0.1 miles) Data from CalEEMod or client
Data entered in CalEEMod

ADT RATE ADT RATE
Weekday Trip Rate 1
(trips/size unit)
Saturday Trip Rate1
(trips/size unit)
Sunday Trip Rate1 (trips/size
unit)
467.480 467.480 467.480

ADT RATE
467.480 467.480 467.480

69.524 69.524 69.524

69.524 69.524 69.524
211.438 211.438 211.438
100.029 86.480 31.959

6.561 6.561 6.561
Land Use Type Res Trip Length (miles)1 Non-Res Trip Length (miles)1 Weekday Trip Purpose2 Weekend Trip Purpose2 Res Trip Percentage2 Non-Res Trip Percentage2 Land Use Type Annual Weekday Trips by Type - Res Annual Weekday Trips by Type - Non-Res Annual Weekend Trips by Type - Res Land Use Type
Weekend Average Trip Length - Non-Res1 Annual VMT1
Land Use Type
Land Use Type
Annual Weekend Trips by Type - Non-Res Weekday Average Trip Length - Res1 Weekday Average Trip Length - Non-Res1 Weekend Average Trip Length - Res 1
Fleet Mix Adjustment
Annual VMT

H-W W-O O-O
Fast Food (3,255 SF) 4,671,148 11,744 8,688 4,691,579
Fast Food (3,200 SF) 4,592,219 11,545 8,541 4,612,305
Multi-Tentant (5,048 SF) 2,167,100 5,405 3,832 2,176,337 Multi-Tentant (3,600 SF) 1,545,475 3,855 2,733 1,552,063 C-Store (5,020 SF) 8,521,026 21,444 15,947 8,558,417
Bank (4,200 SF) 1,210,684 3,043 2,248 1,215,976
Future Residential (499 Dwell) 14,385,324

1. Average Trip Lengthi,m = (Link %primary x Trip Lengthprimary) + (Link %diverted x 2 miles) + (Link %passby x 0.1 miles) Default Vehicle Fleet Mix (Operational Year 2027)
HHD LDA LDT1 LDT2 LHD1 LHD2 MCY MDV MH
Default Fleet Mix 3.819885105 43.442294 3.587673232 21.69775367 3.446036205 1.079639792 2.040299587 18.67143363 0.359311001 Residential Fleet Mix (2026) 2.03 52.15 21.46 16.81 0.08 0.09 0.25 5.69 0.23 Fast Food (3,255 SF) 179,213 2,038,130 168,319 1,017,967 161,674 50,652 95,722 875,985 16,857 Fast Food (3,200 SF) 176,185 2,003,691 165,474 1,000,767 158,942 49,796 94,105 861,184 16,573 Multi-Tentant (5,048 SF) 83,134 945,451 78,080 472,216 74,997 23,497 44,404 406,353 7,820 Multi-Tentant (3,600 SF) 59,287 674,252 55,683 336,763 53,485 16,757 31,667 289,792 5,577 C-Store (5,020 SF) 326,922 3,717,973 307,048 1,856,984 294,926 92,400 174,617 1,597,979 30,751 Bank (4,200 SF) 46,449 528,248 43,625 263,839 41,903 13,128 24,810 227,040 4,369 Future Residential (499 Dwell) 292,022 7,501,946 3,087,090 2,418,173 11,508 12,947 35,963 818,525 33,086 Default Vehicle Fleet Mix (Operational Year 2027)
MDH OBUS SBUS UBUS Total
Default Fleet Mix 1.585871913 0.059110799 0.1756905 0.035002199 100.00 Residential Fleet Mix (2026) 0.75 0 0.02 0.44 100.00
Fast Food (3,255 SF) 74,402 2,773 8,243 1,642 4,691,579 Fast Food (3,200 SF) 73,145 2,726 8,103 1,614 4,612,305 Multi-Tentant (5,048 SF) 34,514 1,286 3,824 762 2,176,338 Multi-Tentant (3,600 SF) 24,614 917 2,727 543 1,552,063 C-Store (5,020 SF) 135,726 5,059 15,036 2,996 8,558,418 Bank (4,200 SF) 19,284 719 2,136 426 1,215,976
Future Residential (499 Dwell) 107,890 0 2,877 63,295 14,385,324 HHD VMT Adjustment
Fast Food (3,255 SF) 2 104 4.13 431 8,257
Fast Food (3,200 SF) 2 104 4.13 431 8,110
Multi-Tentant (5,048 SF) 2 104 7.91 825 3,008
Multi-Tentant (3,600 SF) 2 104 7.91 825 1,909
C-Store (5,020 SF) 3 156 3.41 534 15,413
Bank (4,200 SF) 2 104 4.45 464 1,784
Future Residential (499 Dwell) 0 0 11.00 0 8,793,949
Passenger Vehicle Trip Adjustment
LDA LDT1 LDT2 LDA LDT1 LDT2 LDA LDT1 LDT2
Fast Food (3,255 SF) 2,038,130 168,319 1,017,967 5,219 431 2,607 2,043,349 168,750 1,020,574 Fast Food (3,200 SF) 2,003,691 165,474 1,000,767 5,126 423 2,560 2,008,817 165,898 1,003,327 Multi-Tentant (5,048 SF) 945,451 78,080 472,216 1,901 157 950 947,352 78,237 473,166 Multi-Tentant (3,600 SF) 674,252 55,683 336,763 1,206 100 603 675,458 55,783 337,365 C-Store (5,020 SF) 3,717,973 307,048 1,856,984 9,743 805 4,866 3,727,715 307,853 1,861,850 Bank (4,200 SF) 528,248 43,625 263,839 1,128 93 563 529,376 43,718 264,403 Future Residential (499 Dwell) 7,501,946 3,087,090 2,418,173 5,071,936 2,087,128 1,634,885 12,573,882 5,174,219 4,053,058

1. Ratio of each type to total passenger vehicle categories. Passenger vehicle trips will be divided into these categories.

2. Annual passenger vehicle VMTs multiplied by passenger vehicle category ratio.

Adjusted Fleet Mix
HHD LDA LDT1 LDT2 LHD1 LHD2 MCY MDV
Annual VMT by
Vehicle Type 431 2,043,349 168,750 1,020,574 0 0 0 0
Fleet Mix 0.013334 63.200847 5.219429 31.566390 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Annual VMT by
Vehicle Type 431 2,008,817 165,898 1,003,327 0 0 0 0
Fleet Mix 0.013563 63.200702 5.219417 31.566318 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Annual VMT by
Vehicle Type 825 947,352 78,237 473,166 0 0 0 0
Fleet Mix 0.054984 63.174520 5.217255 31.553241 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Annual VMT by
Vehicle Type 825 675,458 55,783 337,365 0 0 0 0
Fleet Mix 0.077100 63.160540 5.216101 31.546259 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Annual VMT by
Vehicle Type 534 3,727,715 307,853 1,861,850 0 0 0 0
Fleet Mix 0.009052 63.203553 5.219653 31.567742 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Annual VMT by
Vehicle Type 464 529,376 43,718 264,403 0 0 0 0
Fleet Mix 0.055391 63.174263 5.217234 31.553113 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Total VMT2
Land Use Type Category
Fast Food (3,255 SF)
VMTs to Adjust
Land Use Type Default Annual VMT1 Additional VMT1
Land Use Type # of HHD
Trips per
# of Annual
HHD Trips
Weighted Avg
Trip Length
Annual HHD
VMTs
Land Use Type
Category Vehicle Type
Vehicle Type
Annual VMT1 Total Annual
VMT
Category
Vehicle Type
Bank (4,200 SF)
Fast Food (3,200 SF)
Multi-Tentant (5,048 SF)
Multi-Tentant (3,600 SF)
C-Store (5,020 SF)
Fleet Mix Adjustment
Adjusted Fleet Mix
MH MDH OBUS SBUS UBUS Total
Annual VMT by
Vehicle Type 0 0 0 0 0 3,233,103
Fleet Mix 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 100.00 Annual VMT by
Vehicle Type 0 0 0 0 0 3,178,473
Fleet Mix 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 100.00 Annual VMT by
Vehicle Type 0 0 0 0 0 1,499,580
Fleet Mix 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 100.00 Annual VMT by
Vehicle Type 0 0 0 0 0 1,069,431
Fleet Mix 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 100.00 Annual VMT by
Vehicle Type 0 0 0 0 0 5,897,952
Fleet Mix 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 100.00 Annual VMT by
Vehicle Type 0 0 0 0 0 837,961
Fleet Mix 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 100.00 C-Store (5,020 SF)
Bank (4,200 SF)
Category Vehicle Type Land Use Type
Fast Food (3,255 SF)
Fast Food (3,200 SF)
Multi-Tentant (5,048 SF)
Multi-Tentant (3,600 SF)
Fleet Mix Adjustment
Description AERMOD ID HHD Trips
per Week
On-site
Distance
(meters)
Miles
Traveled
per year
Annual
Emissions1
(lb/year)
Fast Food (3,255 SF) TT01_000 2 300.68 19 2.42E-04
Fast Food (3,200 SF) TT05_000 2 256.67 17 2.07E-04
Multi-Tentant (5,048 SF) TT03_000 2 225.56 15 1.82E-04
Multi-Tentant (3,600 SF) TT02_000 2 300.68 19 2.42E-04
C-Store (5,020 SF) TT04_000 3 133.68 13 1.61E-04
Bank (4,200 SF) TT06_000 2 258.78 17 2.08E-04

1. Assume PM10 emissions equal DPM emissions.

Operation Year Emission Factor1
(g/mile)
Emission Factor
(lb/mile)
2026 5.65E-03 1.25E-05

1. EMFAC2021 PM10 RUNEX EF for T7 Single Other Class 8 at 15mph.

Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions
Description AERMOD ID HHD Trips
per Week
Idle
minutes/truck
Idle
hours/year
Idle
days/year
Annual Emissions1
(lb/year)
Fast Food (3,255 SF) TI01_001 2 15 26 1.1 3.14E-05
Fast Food (3,200 SF) TI05_001 2 15 26 1.1 3.14E-05
Multi-Tentant (5,048 SF) TI03_001 2 15 26 1.1 3.14E-05
Multi-Tentant (3,600 SF) TI02_001 2 15 26 1.1 3.14E-05
C-Store (5,020 SF) TI04_001 3 15 39 1.6 4.70E-05
Bank (4,200 SF) TI06_001 2 15 26 1.1 3.14E-05

1. Assume PM10 emissions equal DPM emissions.

Operation Year Emission Factor1
(g/veh/day)
Emission Factor
(lb/veh/day)
2026 1.31E-02 2.90E-05
X Y Distance
311156.9 3904621.2 -
311157 3904580 41.20
311086.1 3904580.1 70.90
311086 3904549.4 30.70
311091.6 3904544 7.78
311163.3 3904543.6 71.70
311164.2 3904543.6 0.90
311163.9 3904621.1 77.50
300.68
X Y Distance
311299 3904546.9 -
311241.6 3904546.8 57.40
311241.8 3904532.7 14.10
311242.6 3904495 37.71
311249.9 3904490.6 8.52
311263.1 3904488.8 13.32
311264.9 3904493.1 4.66
311264.3 3904530 36.90
311260.5 3904533 4.84
311245.2 3904532.9 15.30
311245 3904542.8 9.90
311299 3904543.2 54.00
256.67

1. EMFAC2021 PM10 IDLEX EF for T7 Single Other Class 8.

On-Site Truck Travel - Line Sources
Operational HHD Emissions
PM10 Idling Emission Factor
PM10 RUNEx Emission Factor
On-Site Truck Idling - Point Sources
Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions
Fast Food (3,255 SF) Loop
Total Distance (m)
Total Distance (m)
Fast Food (3,200 SF) Loop
Operational HHD Emissions
X Y Distance
311157 3904621.1 -
311157 3904577.1 44.00
311157 3904562 15.10
311211 3904562.1 54.00
311216 3904567.9 7.66
311216 3904577.9 10.00
311216 3904579.9 2.00
311164.1 3904580.3 51.90
311163.9 3904621.2 40.90
225.56
X Y Distance
311156.9 3904621.2 -
311157 3904580 41.20
311086.1 3904580.1 70.90
311086 3904549.4 30.70
311091.6 3904544 7.78
311163.3 3904543.6 71.70
311164.2 3904543.6 0.90
311163.9 3904621.1 77.50
300.68
X Y Distance
311299.2 3904546.7 -
311288.1 3904546.9 11.10
311287.9 3904593.5 46.60
311282 3904604.3 12.31
311273.5 3904606.8 8.86
311233.6 3904606.1 39.91
311233.8 3904621 14.90
133.68
X Y Distance
311299 3904546.8 -
311241.6 3904546.8 57.40
311241.7 3904533.1 13.70
311241.7 3904531.9 1.20
311190.2 3904531.7 51.50
311180.7 3904537.6 11.18
311180.6 3904543 5.40
311299 3904543.2 118.40
Total Distance (m) 258.78
Multi-Tenant (3,600 SF) Loop
Total Distance (m)
Convenience Store (5,020 SF) Loop
Total Distance (m)
Bank (4,200 SF) Loop
Total Distance (m)
Multi-Tenant (5,048 SF) Loop
Operational HHD Emissions
Gasoline Dispensing
Average Annual Gasoline
Throughput per Station in
California (in 1,000 gallons)
Emission
Sources
VOC Emissions2
(lb/1000-gal)
Pollutant Name
(LS) CAS# Emission Factor3,4
(lb/lb-VOC)
Annual Emissions
(lb-LS/yr)
Hourly Emissions
(lb-LS/hr)
Benzene 71432 4.57E-03 0.58 6.66E-05
Ethyl benzene 100414 1.07E-03 0.14 1.56E-05
Hexane 110543 1.82E-02 2.32 2.65E-04
Naphthalene 91203 4.45E-06 0.00 6.49E-08
Propylene 115071 3.59E-05 0.00 5.24E-07
Toluene 108883 1.11E-02 1.42 1.62E-04
Xylenes (mixed) 1330207 4.09E-03 0.52 5.96E-05
Benzene 71432 4.57E-03 0.17 1.98E-05
Ethyl benzene 100414 1.07E-03 0.04 4.64E-06
Hexane 110543 1.82E-02 0.69 7.90E-05
Naphthalene 91203 4.45E-06 0.00 1.93E-08
Propylene 115071 3.59E-05 0.00 1.56E-07
Toluene 108883 1.11E-02 0.42 4.82E-05
Xylenes (mixed) 1330207 4.09E-03 0.16 1.77E-05
Benzene 71432 4.57E-03 5.14 5.87E-04
Ethyl benzene 100414 1.07E-03 1.20 1.37E-04
Hexane 110543 1.82E-02 20.47 2.34E-03
Naphthalene 91203 4.45E-06 0.01 5.71E-07
Propylene 115071 3.59E-05 0.04 4.61E-06
Toluene 108883 1.11E-02 12.49 1.43E-03
Xylenes (mixed) 1330207 4.09E-03 4.60 5.25E-04
Benzene 71432 7.07E-03 4.51 5.15E-04
Ethyl benzene 100414 1.29E-02 8.24 9.40E-04
Hexane 110543 1.86E-02 11.87 1.36E-03
Naphthalene 91203 1.74E-03 1.11 1.27E-04
Propylene 115071 1.22E-06 0.00 8.89E-08
Toluene 108883 5.63E-02 35.94 4.10E-03
Xylenes (mixed) 1330207 6.59E-02 42.07 4.80E-03
Benzene 71432 4.57E-03 0.06 7.14E-06
Ethyl benzene 100414 1.07E-03 0.01 1.67E-06
Hexane 110543 1.82E-02 0.25 2.84E-05
Naphthalene 91203 4.45E-06 0.00 6.95E-09
Propylene 115071 3.59E-05 0.00 5.61E-08
Toluene 108883 1.11E-02 0.15 1.73E-05
Xylenes (mixed) 1330207 4.09E-03 0.06 6.39E-06

2. VOC emission rates provided in SJVAPCD's Guidance for Air Dispersion Modeling (Draft) 08/06 Rev 1.2.

3. Loading, Breathing, and Refueling emission factors based on SJVAPCD Toxic Profile 128; Z1 SU Gasoline Dispensing Op VOC Vapor Speciation

4. Spillage emission factors based on SJVAPCD Toxic Profile 261; Z1 SU Gasoline Dispensing Op VOC Liquid Speciation

1. Average gasoline throughput per station calculated as Total California Gasoline Sales / Total Number of Stations in California, based on California Energy Commission's Retail Fuel Outlet Annual Reporting.

Hose Permeation 0.009
1520.06
Operational Gasoline Dispensing Emissions
Loading
(Tank) 0.084
Breathing
(Tank) 0.025
Refueling 0.74
Spillage 0.42
Emissions from Gasoline Dispensing
Conveyorized Charbroiler
Process Rates Avg. 1
lb/week
Avg.

Ton/hr
AVG.

Ton /yr
CC - Hamburger & Steak 800 2.38E-03 20.86
CC - Poultry w/o skin 265 7.89E-04 6.91
Conveyorized Charbroiler - Totals
Substances CAS# LB/HR LB/YR
Acenaphthene 83329 1.49E-06 1.31E-02
Acenaphthylene 208968 2.65E-05 2.32E-01
Acetaldehyde 75070 4.45E-04 3.90E+00
Acetophenone 98862 3.83E-06 3.36E-02
Anthracene 120127 5.72E-06 5.01E-02
Benz[a]Anthracene 56553 1.58E-06 1.39E-02
Benzene 71432 7.97E-04 6.98E+00
Benzo[a]Pyrene 50328 9.67E-07 8.47E-03
Benzo[g,h,i,]Perylene 191242 9.04E-07 7.92E-03
Biphenyl 92524 1.30E-05 1.14E-01
Cresol 1319773 5.41E-06 4.74E-02
Dibutyl Phthalate 84742 3.03E-06 2.65E-02
Ethyl Benzene 100414 6.31E-05 5.53E-01
Ethylene Dichloride 107062 2.21E-05 1.93E-01
Fluoranthene 206440 6.21E-06 5.44E-02
Fluorene 86737 6.33E-06 5.54E-02
Formaldehyde 50000 6.20E-04 5.43E+00
Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]Pyrene 193395 5.71E-07 5.00E-03
Naphthalene 91203 1.23E-04 1.08E+00
Phenanthrene 85018 2.87E-05 2.51E-01
Phenol 108952 3.63E-05 3.18E-01
Propionaldehyde 123386 1.20E-04 1.05E+00
Pyrene 129000 8.32E-06 7.28E-02
Styrene 100425 3.00E-04 2.63E+00
Toluene 108883 3.15E-04 2.76E+00
Total PAH 1150 4.90E-05 4.30E-01
Xylene 1330207 4.42E-05 3.87E-01
Conveyorized Charbroiler - Hamburger & Steak

LB/HR LB/YR
Acenaphthene 83329 5.60E-04 1.33E-06 1.17E-02
Acenaphthylene 208968 9.78E-03 2.33E-05 2.04E-01
Anthracene 120127 1.82E-03 4.33E-06 3.80E-02
Benz[a]Anthracene 56553 4.40E-04 1.05E-06 9.18E-03
Benzo[a]Pyrene 50328 3.40E-04 8.10E-07 7.09E-03
Benzo[g,h,i,]Perylene 191242 3.20E-04 7.62E-07 6.67E-03 Biphenyl 92524 4.86E-03 1.16E-05 1.01E-01
Fluoranthene 206440 1.76E-03 4.19E-06 3.67E-02
Fluorene 86737 2.18E-03 5.19E-06 4.55E-02
Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]Pyrene 193395 2.00E-04 4.76E-07 4.17E-03 Naphthalene 91203 4.60E-02 1.10E-04 9.59E-01
Phenanthrene 85018 9.76E-03 2.32E-05 2.04E-01
Pyrene 129000 2.30E-03 5.48E-06 4.80E-02
Total PAH 1150 7.24E-04 1.72E-06 1.51E-02

1. SJVAPCD Modeling Guidance Ref - Pechan (2005). Appendix A - Documentation for the draft 2002 non-point source national emission inventory for criteria and hazardous air pollutants (march 2005 version). Emissions Inventory Group, U.S. EPA. Pages A28 – A34 Substances CAS# EF Lb/Ton Uncontrolled
Commercial Cooking Toxic Emissions
Conveyorized Charbroiler - Poultry & Pork

LB/HR LB/YR
Acenaphthene 83329 2.00E-04 1.58E-07 1.38E-03
Acenaphthylene 208968 4.12E-03 3.25E-06 2.85E-02
Acetaldehyde 75070 5.64E-01 4.45E-04 3.90E+00
Acetophenone 98862 4.86E-03 3.83E-06 3.36E-02
Anthracene 120127 1.76E-03 1.39E-06 1.22E-02
Benz[a]Anthracene 56553 6.80E-04 5.36E-07 4.70E-03
Benzene 71432 1.01E+00 7.97E-04 6.98E+00
Benzo[a]Pyrene 50328 2.00E-04 1.58E-07 1.38E-03
Benzo[g,h,i,]Perylene 191242 1.80E-04 1.42E-07 1.24E-03 Biphenyl 92524 1.82E-03 1.44E-06 1.26E-02
Cresol 1319773 6.86E-03 5.41E-06 4.74E-02
Dibutyl Phthalate 84742 3.84E-03 3.03E-06 2.65E-02
Ethyl Benzene 100414 8.00E-02 6.31E-05 5.53E-01
Ethylene Dichloride 107062 2.80E-02 2.21E-05 1.93E-01
Fluoranthene 206440 2.56E-03 2.02E-06 1.77E-02
Fluorene 86737 1.44E-03 1.14E-06 9.95E-03
Formaldehyde 50000 7.86E-01 6.20E-04 5.43E+00
Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]Pyrene 193395 1.20E-04 9.46E-08 8.29E-04 Naphthalene 91203 1.75E-02 1.38E-05 1.21E-01
Phenanthrene 85018 6.92E-03 5.46E-06 4.78E-02
Phenol 108952 4.60E-02 3.63E-05 3.18E-01
Propionaldehyde 123386 1.52E-01 1.20E-04 1.05E+00
Pyrene 129000 3.60E-03 2.84E-06 2.49E-02
Styrene 100425 3.80E-01 3.00E-04 2.63E+00
Toluene 108883 4.00E-01 3.15E-04 2.76E+00
Total PAH 1150 6.00E-02 4.73E-05 4.15E-01
Xylene 1330207 5.60E-02 4.42E-05 3.87E-01
References (Beef):

Emission factors are derived from District adjustments of Charbroiler emission factors in EPA's 2002 NEI database (Appendix C1).

Hamburger is used as a surrogate for steak.

Pollutants required for toxic reporting: TACs w/o Risk Factor. Current as of update date.

References (PS):

Emission factors are derived from District adjustments of Charbroiler emission factors in EPA's 2002 NEI database (Appendix C1).

Poultry (chicken) is used as a surrogate for pork.

Pollutants required for toxic reporting: TACs w/o Risk Factor. Current as of update date.

Substances CAS# EF Lb/Ton Uncontrolled
Commercial Cooking Toxic Emissions
Flat Griddle
Process Rates Avg. 1
lb/week
Avg.

Ton/hr
AVG.

Ton /yr
FG - Beef 360 1.07E-03 9.39
FG - Poultry & Pork 220 6.55E-04 5.74
Flat Griddle - Totals
Substances CAS# LB/HR LB/YR
Acenaphthene 83329 1.08E-07 9.49E-04
Acenaphthylene 208968 5.13E-07 4.49E-03
Anthracene 120127 9.40E-07 8.24E-03
Benz[a]Anthracene 56553 3.07E-07 2.69E-03
Benzo[a]Pyrene 50328 5.60E-08 4.90E-04
Biphenyl 92524 2.99E-07 2.62E-03
Fluoranthene 206440 2.65E-06 2.33E-02
Fluorene 86737 6.86E-07 6.01E-03
Naphthalene 91203 1.44E-05 1.26E-01
Phenanthrene 85018 6.88E-06 6.03E-02
Pyrene 129000 3.54E-06 3.10E-02
Total PAH 1150 2.95E-05 2.58E-01
FG - Beef

LB/HR LB/YR
Acenaphthene 83329 4.00E-05 4.29E-08 3.75E-04
Acenaphthylene 208968 3.20E-04 3.43E-07 3.00E-03
Anthracene 120127 3.40E-04 3.64E-07 3.19E-03
Benz[a]Anthracene 56553 1.40E-04 1.50E-07 1.31E-03
Benzo[a]Pyrene 50328 4.00E-05 4.29E-08 3.75E-04
Biphenyl 92524 1.20E-04 1.29E-07 1.13E-03
Fluoranthene 206440 1.72E-03 1.84E-06 1.61E-02
Fluorene 86737 4.20E-04 4.50E-07 3.94E-03
Naphthalene 91203 1.22E-02 1.31E-05 1.15E-01
Phenanthrene 85018 4.14E-03 4.44E-06 3.89E-02
Pyrene 129000 2.30E-03 2.46E-06 2.16E-02
Total PAH 1150 1.59E-02 1.70E-05 1.49E-01
FG - Poultry & Pork

LB/HR LB/YR
Acenaphthene 83329 1.00E-04 6.55E-08 5.74E-04
Acenaphthylene 208968 2.60E-04 1.70E-07 1.49E-03
Anthracene 120127 8.80E-04 5.76E-07 5.05E-03
Benz[a]Anthracene 56553 2.40E-04 1.57E-07 1.38E-03
Benzo[a]Pyrene 50328 2.00E-05 1.31E-08 1.15E-04
Biphenyl 92524 2.60E-04 1.70E-07 1.49E-03
Fluoranthene 206440 1.24E-03 8.12E-07 7.11E-03
Fluorene 86737 3.60E-04 2.36E-07 2.06E-03
Naphthalene 91203 2.00E-03 1.31E-06 1.15E-02
Phenanthrene 85018 3.74E-03 2.45E-06 2.15E-02
Pyrene 129000 1.64E-03 1.07E-06 9.41E-03
Total PAH 1150 1.90E-02 1.24E-05 1.09E-01
References (Beef):

Emission factors are derived from District adjustments of Charbroiler emission factors in EPA's 2002 NEI database (Appendix C1).

Hamburger is used as a surrogate for steak.

Pollutants required for toxic reporting: TACs w/o Risk Factor. Current as of update date.

References (P&P):

Emission factors are derived from District adjustments of Charbroiler emission factors in EPA's 2002 NEI database (Appendix C1).

Poultry (chicken) is used as a surrogate for pork.

Pollutants required for toxic reporting: TACs w/o Risk Factor. Current as of update date.

Substances CAS# EF Lb/Ton Uncontrolled

1. SJVAPCD Modeling Guidance Ref - Pechan (2005). Appendix A - Documentation for the draft 2002 non-point source national emission inventory for criteria and hazardous air pollutants (march 2005 version). Emissions Inventory Group, U.S. EPA. Pages A28 – A34 Substances CAS# EF Lb/Ton Uncontrolled
Commercial Cooking Toxic Emissions
Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants C-1
APPENDIX C. CARB 2020 AND 2025 ESTIMATED EMISSION

INVENTORIES
0 !!" #
$ % & '!
( )*
0+,*-.
/
123443564
781
81981416:1;
36 <564
918
=7>
76;
81?1@:
:A1
254:
@B8816:
;7:7
985C3;1;
:5
/DEF

G11
;1:73 1;
36?5827:356F
G:78:
7 61H
IB18>F
( )*
0+,*-.
0+,*-.

J
+K L M )-
N)
O MN*
M- -N+* ).

M+,)0 M -+P)+P 0+ *+QM+Q R *S
TUVW
XYZEUG<[Y\ ]F^ _F` aF^ ]Fb _F] _Fc _Fd _Fd _F_
e/G<V
=[GfYG/W gFh _Fa _Fa _F_ _F_ _F_ _F_ _F_ _Fa
XWV/\[\i
/\=

GUDT/XV
XY/<[\iG _Fg _Fg _F_ _F_ _F_ _F_ _F_ _F_ _F_
fV<DYWVUZ
fDY=UX<[Y\
/\=
Z/DjV<[\i _F] _F] _F_ _F_ _F_ _F_ _F_ _F_ k
[\=UG<D[/W
fDYXVGGVG _F] _F] aaF`acFg aFd dF^ ]Fa _Fd _F_
l
-+- m
M- -N+* ).

M+,)0 M n o n R p R R n
) qN
M+,)0 M -+P)+P 0+ *+QM+Q R *S
GYWrV\<
Vr/fYD/<[Y\ aFh aFd k k k k k k aF`
Z[GXVWW/\VYUG
fDYXVGGVG aF^ _Fd ]Fc _F] _F_ acF] hFd aFd _Fc
l
-+- m
) qN
M+,)0 M R n R R p s s n
+ONm
M+,)0 M -+P)+P 0+ *+QM+Q R *S
Y\kDY/=
ZY<YD
rVt[XWVG aFa aF_ hF] `F^ _F_ _F` _F` _Fa _F`
Y<tVD
ZYE[WV
GYUDXVG cFh cFc ]^Fa cF] _F` `F_ ]Fg ]Fg _F_
l
-+- m
+ONm
M+,)0 M o n o R R
-+- m
( )*
0+,*-.

N*
+K L M )- s R p n n R
( )*
0+,*-.
0+,*-.

J
M *
K+ u,N*
L mm .

N)
O MN*
M- -N+* ).

M+,)0 M -+P )+P 0+ *+QM+Q R *S
TUVW
XYZEUG<[Y\ gF] aFh hF^ bFb _F^ ]Fg ]Fg ]Fg _Fh
e/G<V
=[GfYG/W aggFc aaF^ _F] _F_ _F_ _Fa _F_ _F_ cF^
XWV/\[\i
/\=

GUDT/XV
XY/<[\iG ]F^ ]Fc k k k _Fa _Fa _Fa k
fV<DYWVUZ
fDY=UX<[Y\
/\=
Z/DjV<[\i ddF` a_Fg _Fb _F] _Fd _Fa _Fa _Fa k
[\=UG<D[/W
fDYXVGGVG aFg aFg _Fa _Fa _F_ ]F` aF_ _F` _F_
/v5B: YB8
e58w D145B8@14 G18C3@14 DB 127w36x \1H4 VIB3:>
0 0
 
! !"#$ $%# & $ %'() !
*+ , - ! %# & $ %'() !
' . /
/  12 &
3 2 $/ 425 2 $
# $ 6. 7 & $ * $ $
8 /
3 2 $ 5 2 $
' %' . ( 9 2 : 2, ;
< = 9 ;
3 2 $ 5 2 $
> ' . ( 9 2 : 2, ;2 .2 - ;2%; $& $2% ;.. 2: ; $ ' . 7 & $ * $ $ ( 6
' 6 $? !)#$ $ .' .
@ A B CD C0E FGHIJ FJIJ JIH KIL MIN GIO OIP NIN KIK
CE QBRE C0E S C S 0 T T UV UVMPUVFIG WN
#+<37 >73(*+9(>"+ ! ) !! X !
="#'7<<( 7+Y#*9+'7##7# Z ! ! Z ! ! ) ! ZZ Z [[ X Z !Z
@ ACE QBRE C0E HGIP FMIL MGIG MIL PIM KKIK NNIH KIJONIK V \BAE C0E S C S 0 T T UV UVMPUVFIG WN
+ 9+(]=+>+937^"'<7# ! [ ! ) ! ! X ! X !
+>^79=+,"<7#+Y9'7# X X X Z ! ! X
@ AV \BAE C0E MFIH MMIK JNIONGIL PIF FIG FIO MIG MIO A_EC 0 DB  ` a B
b AAED NOGIG KFINMPHIK OOIH MIG HOIO OPIM MMIH GMIG
SC R Ac C_EC 0 D NKLIK HFIF MGJIG HFIG NIG LJIF GNIN MKILGNIH #$ $ 1d: 6
(''7##","<">8
*9"3('8*+<"'8
'+ ]">"+ #+eY#7
<+'(<("9]"#>9"'>#
97/"#>79>+3+>7
' 7*( ' 9 6 ]*9 ]>#' +7^^( #59',
0 !
""# $
% & ' ("
) *+
0,-+./
11 234554675
892
92:92527;2<
47 =675
:29
>8?
87<
92@12A;
;B2
365;
AC9927;
<8;8
:96D4<2<
;6
EFG

H22
<2;8412<
47@6938;467G
H;89;
8 72I
JC29?G
) *+
0,-+./
0,-+./
K
,L M N *.

O*
P NO+
N. .O,+ */
N,-*0 N .,Q*,Q 0, +,RN,R +S
TUVW
XYZFUH=[Y\ ]G^ _G` aG^ ]Gb _G] _Gc _Gd _Gd _G_
e H=V
>[HfYH W a_Ga _Ga _Ga _G_ _G_ _G_ _G_ _G_ _Ga
XWV \[\g
\>

HUET XV
XY =[\gH aG_ aG_ _G_ _G_ _G_ _G_ _G_ _G_ _G_
fV=EYWVUZ
fEY>UX=[Y\
\>
Z EhV=[\g _G] _G] _G_ _G_ _G_ _G_ _G_ _G_ i
[\>UH=E[ W
fEYXVHHVH _G] _G] aaGjabGb aGc cG_ ]G] _Gd _G_
k
.,. l
N. .O,+ */
N,-*0 N m n n n o
* pO
N,-*0 N .,Q*,Q 0, +,RN,R +S
HYWqV\=
Vq fYE =[Y\ aGr aGd i i i i i i aG`
Z[HXVWW \VYUH
fEYXVHHVH aGr _Gd ]Gc _G] _G_ acG] rGd aGd _Gc
k
.,. l
* pO
N,-*0 N m s n m m s
,POl
N,-*0 N .,Q*,Q 0, +,RN,R +S
Y\iEY >
ZY=YE
qVt[XWVH _Gj _Gr cG` ]Gj _G_ _G` _G` _Ga _G`
Y=tVE
ZYF[WV
HYUEXVH cGb cGd]jG^ cG] _G` `G_ ]G^ ]G^ _G_
k
.,. l
,POl
N,-*0 N o o m s
.,. l
) *+
0,-+./
O+
,L M N *. m o m n m m
) *+
0,-+./
0,-+./
K
N +
L, u-O+
M ll /
O*
P NO+
N. .O,+ */
N,-*0 N .,Q *,Q 0, +,RN,R +S
TUVW
XYZFUH=[Y\ jGb aGb rG` cGr _Gr ]Gb ]Gb ]Gb _Gr
e H=V
>[HfYH W ]a_G_ a]G` _G] _G_ _G_ _Ga _G_ _G_ bG_
XWV \[\g
\>

HUET XV
XY =[\gH `G_ ]Gr i i i _Ga _Ga _Ga i
fV=EYWVUZ
fEY>UX=[Y\
\>
Z EhV=[\g daGc ^Gc _Gb _Ga _Gd _Ga _Ga _Ga i
[\>UH=E[ W
fEYXVHHVH ]G_ ]G_ _Ga _Ga _G_ ]Gd aG_ _G` _G_
v6C; YC9
e69w E256C9A25 H29D4A25 EC1238w47x \2I5 VJC4;?
0 0
 
! !"#$ $%# & $ %'() !
*+ , - ! %# & $ %'() !
' . /
/  12 &
3 2 $/ 425 2 $
# $ 6. 7 & $ * $ $
8 /
3 2 $ 5 2 $
' %' . ( 9 2 : 2, ;
< = 9 ;
3 2 $ 5 2 $
> ' . ( 9 2 : 2, ;2 .2 - ;2%; $& $2% ;.. 2: ; $ ' . 7 & $ * $ $ ( 6
' 6 $? !)#$ $ .' .
@ A B CD C0E FGHIF FJIK JIL HIM LIF HIF NIJ NIL GIO
CE PBQE C0E R C R 0 S S TU TULKTUFIH VN
#+<37 >73(*+9(>"+ ! !! W X
="#'7<<( 7+Y#*9+'7##7# W! ! ! ! ! W X X W W Z !W
@ ACE PBQE C0E O[IF FLIO LHIF LIJ KILG[IN NFIG GIO [FIO U \BAE C0E R C R 0 S S TU TULKTUFIH VN
+ 9+(]=+>+937^"'<7# X Z X ) ! ! ! W ! W Z !
+>^79=+,"<7#+Y9'7# W Z W X !! Z W W
@ AU \BAE C0E LKI[ MIH OMIN FGIO KIF FIF FIF LIF LIJ A_EC 0 DB  ` a B
b AAED N[MIJ HMIN LKFIG N[I[ LI[ OLIJ NJIG LLIKHLIN
RC Q Ac C_EC 0 D NO[IK GJIMLHNIKGLIJ NIH MHIJ HLIJ LGIN HNI[ #$ $ 1d: 6
(''7##","<">8
*9"3('8*+<"'8
'+ ]">"+ #+eY#7
<+'(<("9]"#>9"'>#
97/"#>79>+3+>7
' 7*( ' 9 6 ]*9 ]>#' +7^^( #59',
0 0
 
! !"#$ $%# & $ %'() !
*+ , - ! %# & $ %'() !
' . /
/  12 &
3 2 $/ 425 2 $
067 89:;<=;>:?6@ABBACD7ECFGHIACDJKIK
9:9:6LMNOPMQRSSTPUVQWPXQ6ONLLNYSL
Z [ \ ] ^^6_\`a \
( & 22 2  2 $ bc 2 d e b. $$ & 2$f $b $  b b$ (g, # b $ b. & $
#$ $ 1hf e
\ `_ `06 i ` i 0 j j 78 78;: 789>k l?
mnop'+q,n#c"+ ! r !) !s t ! t ! !
5(#cod"#*+#(p ) r s r r !
'po( " /( d#ngm('o'+(c" /# s ! t
*ocg+ponq*g+dn'c"+ ( d
q(guoc" /
! ) ! t s r ! ! !
" dn#cg"(p*g+'o##o# !t !t ! r s ! t ) !
v ^ \ `_ `06 ww:>? x?>9 9;>w 9;>< k>: 9;>9 ;9>; y>k ;?>9 `6 z\J6 `06 i ` i 0 j j 78 78;: 789>k l?
#+p3o co3(*+g(c"+ tt s !!r
q"#'opp( o+n#*g+'o##o# s s ! ) !tt ! !! ) t ! t ) ! ) !st v ^`6 z\J6 `06 x:x>x ;wy>k ;ww>; ;;>< :>w {x9>; 9{w>< k;>< 9<:>w 8 a\^6 `06 i ` i 0 j j 78 78;: 789>k l?
+ g+(dq+c+g3o|"'po# ) r !s t s s s r t t
+c|ogq+,"po#+ng'o# s r r s s) r r t r !
v ^8 a\^6 `06 y:>? w{>; {y{>? ;w?>k :>< ;?>y ;?>{ <>: w>; i` J ^} ` Z [ \
] ^^6_\`a \
;k?<>{ ?;{>< ww9>: ;<y>? w>{ k;y>: 9y9>? wx>{ ?:<><
#$ $ 1hf e
(''o##","p"c~
*g"3('~*+p"'~
'+ d"c"+ #+mn#o
p+'(p("gd"#cg"'c#
go/"#cogc+3+co
  
( f$ +f 5  g 2 f 2 # 2  gf &   12  ohf $e
0 

 
!" #

$      %  #     
 & "
# & '()*+0
, ,$0 - .. 0
0 0
 
! !"#$ $%# & $ %'() !
*+ , - ! %# & $ %'() !
' . /
/  12 &
3 2 $/ 425 2 $
067 89:;<=;>:?6@ABBACD7ECFGHIACDJKIK
9:9L6MNOPQNRSTTUQVWRXQYR6POMMOZTM
[ \ ] ^ __6`]ab ]
( & 22 2  2 $ cd 2 e f c. $$ & 2$g $c $  c c$ (h, # c $ c. & $
#$ $ 1ig f
] a` a06 j a j 0 k k 78 78;: 789>L l?
mnop'+q,n#d"+ !r ) !) ! s ! ! ! ! ! !
5(#doe"#*+#(p ! ) t t !
'po( " /( e#nhm('o'+(d" /# s !
*odh+ponq*h+en'd"+ ( e
q(huod" /
! s ! !r s s ! ! !
" en#dh"(p*h+'o##o# !t !s ) r ) ) !s t s !
v _ ] a` a06 wx:>y xz>; 9;>; ;<>< z>< 9;>L ;9>: y>9 ;?>w a6 {]J6 a06 j a j 0 k k 78 78;: 789>L l?
#+p3o do3(*+h(d"+ s ) t s !!! t
q"#'opp( o+n#*h+'o##o# t ! ) !s ) !! s t ! t !ts
v _a6 {]J6 a06 x:w>y;wy>; ;wz>< ;;>z :>w zyx>: 9zz>x L;>y9xy>y 8 b]_6 a06 j a j 0 k k 78 78;: 789>L l?
+ h+(eq+d+h3o|"'po# ! r !s ! ) t r t r ! t r
+d|ohq+,"po#+nh'o# r) r rs ! r!t r s r r ) !
v _8 b]_6 a06 Ly>y L9>< zz?>9 ;9:>? :>x ;9>z ;9>; y>w y>z ja J _} a [ \ ]
^ __6`]ab ]
;LzL>: ?:z>; w9<>9 ;L;>w w>z L;;>< 9wx>x ww>L ?:x>y
#$ $ 1ig f
(''o##","p"d~
*h"3('~*+p"'~
'+ e"d"+ #+mn#o
p+'(p("he"#dh"'d#
ho/"#dohd+3+do
  
( g$ +g 5  h 2 g 2 # 2  hg &   12  oig $f
0 

 
!" #

$      %  #     
 & "
# & '()*+0
, ,$0 - .. 0
Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants D-1
APPENDIX D. HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT MODELING FILES
(Electronic Files)

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE EVALUATION
General Plan Amendment/Zone Change
Assessor’s Parcel Map Number
184-260-09
County of Kern
Bakersfield, California
Prepared for:

New Gen Engineering Group, Inc.

Karandeep Gill
6349 Houghton Rd
Bakersfield, California 93313
Prepared by:

Pruett Biological Resource Consulting
8819 Latera Court
Bakersfield, California 93314
661.421.0006
27 January 2025
Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 184-260-09
January 2025

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Pruett Biological Resource Consulting, Inc. (PruettBio) has prepared this biological resource evaluation for a proposed Site Plan Review of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 184-260-09. The project consists of 24.86 gross acres (10.06 hectares)(project) Section 04, Township 31 South, Range 27 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian. The project is located southwest of the intersection of Taft Highway and Ashe Rd, within the incorporated limits of the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, California.

The project is located within the geographic range of several federal-, and state-listed, threatened and/or endangered plant and animal taxa. Several non-listed, special-status species also have the potential to occur in the vicinity of the project.

The purpose of this report is to document biological resources identified during a reconnaissance-level field study of the project site and include potential biological resources identified during a literature review of the site and vicinity, identify potential impacts to biological resources resulting from the project.

Evaluation of potential impacts to plant and animal species are required under federal and state regulation during a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Appendix G thresholds have been used to evaluate potential impacts to the biological resources from the proposed project development. Avoidance and minimization measures for implementation prior to and during project activities are recommended as appropriate.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have not been contacted regarding the preparation of this report. Appendix B, Special-Status Plant and Animal Evaluations, satisfy the requirements for an initial determination of potential impacts under the CEQA Appendix G thresholds. If CEQA threshold determinations warrant, further consultation may be required with CDFW and USFWS. If additional consultation with the agencies results in the need for Application for a California Incidental Take Permit, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 783.2 outlines requirements for detailed species-specific take analysis, proposed measures to minimize and fully mitigate impacts, compliance monitoring, and funding. A detailed description satisfying Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 783.2 is not required to meet the CEQA Appendix G thresholds.

A literature review was conducted of the site and vicinity, prior to the field study, of the biological resources known to occur based on recorded, direct observation, or potentially occurring in the project impact area based on current or historical habitat conditions. During the field study, existing habitat conditions, direct observations and/or species sign was recorded to assess the potential for occurrence of special-status species. This report includes an evaluation of the potential for those special-status biological resources not observed during the field study, with the potential to occur on the property based on the habitat conditions observed.

The project is in southwest Bakersfield in an area historically farmed. Urban development has increased along the margins of Metropolitan Bakersfield in the past 50 years and has resulted in the conversion of farmland to residential and commercial properties. The project includes vacant land and a Crimson Midstream, LLC facility on the southeast corner of the project. The project is surrounded by agricultural land, vacant land, mixed use residential and commercial development, and an outdoor sports field complex.

The federal and state database queries yielded 21 special-status plant species and 33 special-status animal species as potentially occurring within the vicinity of the project site. Of these, 5 plant species, and 15 animal species have federal-, and/or state-listing and are afforded protection under federal or state law.

A query of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) database was made for the nine-quadrangles surrounding the project. The CNPS tracks plant species that do not meet the CEQA Section 15380 Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 184-260-09
January 2025
criteria for listing as threatened or endangered and are afforded no protection under federal or state law.

A USGS nine-quadrangle query additionally includes a search area beyond a standard 10-mile radius.

Plant species meeting the criteria for Special Status Plants as defined in Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW 2018) and evaluated under CEQA Section 15380 have been included in this report.

Some CRPR 4 taxa may meet the Section 15380 definition of an endangered, rare, or threatened species, and in the definition of CRPR 4, CNPS and CDFW suggest additional reasons for including CRPR 4 taxa in a CEQA analysis. These reasons include Regionally Rare Taxa. Considered locally significant plants, that is, plants that are not rare from a statewide perspective but are rare or uncommon in a local context such as within a county or region (CEQA Guidelines, § 15125, subd. (c)), or as designated in local or regional plans, policies, or ordinances (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G). “Locally rare” has not been generally defined, but in counties where a “locally rare” policy exists, it applies to taxa with only five to 10 known occurrences in that county.

The CNDDB, iPac, and CNPS lists were cross-referenced for consistency. A separate CNDDB query for the County of Kern was also generated to evaluate plant species for local significance.

The project will not conflict with existing or adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, local or regional conservation plans, or local ordinances protecting biological resources.

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 184-260-09
January 2025
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................................1 PROJECT LEGAL DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................................. 1 PROJECT SETTING AND PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION....................................................................................................... 1 METHODS.............................................................................................................................................................2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................................................................ 2 FIELD STUDY ............................................................................................................................................................. 2 RESULTS ...............................................................................................................................................................3 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND LAND COVER...................................................................................................... 3 SOILS ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.......................................................................................................................................... 3 Special-Status Plant Species................................................................................................................................ 4 Special-Status Animal Species ............................................................................................................................. 5 Designated Critical Habitat ................................................................................................................................. 5 Jurisdictional Water Resource Features .............................................................................................................. 5 Special-Status Natural Communities................................................................................................................... 5 Wildlife Migration Corridors and Nursery Sites................................................................................................... 5 Regional and Local Policies.................................................................................................................................. 6 IMPACT ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES .......................................................................6 REFERENCES .........................................................................................................................................................9 APPENDIX A .......................................................................................................................................................12 PROJECT VICINTY AND SITE ................................................................................................................................12 APPENDIX B........................................................................................................................................................20 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT AND ANIMAL EVALUATION...........................................................................................20 APPENDIX C........................................................................................................................................................34 PLANTS AND ANIMALS OBSERVED ON THE PROJECT ..........................................................................................34 Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 184-260-09
January 2025
1 INTRODUCTION
Pruett Biological Resource Consulting, Inc. (PruettBio) has prepared this biological resource evaluation for the proposed development of APN 184-260-09. The project consists of 24.86 gross acres (10.06 hectares)(project) Section 4, Township 31 South, Range 27 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian. The project is located southwest of the intersection of Taft Highway and Ashe Rd, within the incorporated limits of the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, California. The report documents biological resources identified during fieldwork conducted on the project site and those identified through a literature search as potentially occurring based on known observations or historic habitat conditions. The report uses the information collected during the field study and literature search to evaluate potential impacts to biological resources, resulting from the project. The report is intended to assist in the analysis of the proposed project for a Site Plan Review.

Listed plant and animal species are protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Protection of other non-listed, special-status species is afforded under additional regulation including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) impacts to non-listed, special-status species must be evaluated. Where necessary, the report recommends avoidance and minimization measures for implementation prior to and during project activities. The report is intended to provide technical information in support of a CEQA preliminary review. For the purposes of this report, potential impacts to the biological resources of the proposed project were evaluated in accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (2024).

PROJECT LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The project consists of 24.86 gross acres (10.06 hectares) of APN 184-260-09. The project site is located southwest of the intersection of Taft Highway and Ashe Rd, Section 04, Township 31 South, Range 27 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian.

PROJECT SETTING AND PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
The project site is in the southern San Joaquin Valley; a broad, treeless plain in the rain shadow of the Inner Coast Ranges. The region’s climate can be characterized as Mediterranean; with hot, dry summers and cool, moist winters. Summer high temperatures typically exceed 100 °Fahrenheit (°F); with an average of 110 days per year over 90 °F. Winter temperatures in the San Joaquin Valley are mild, with an average of only 16 days per year with frost (Twisselmann 1967).

Rainfall varies, increasing from west to east, with the west side of the valley receiving an average of around 4 inches (10 centimeters) per year and the east side averaging about 6 inches (15 centimeters) per year. Winter fog, called Tule fog, sometimes forms during the months of November, December, and January, supplementing the annual precipitation. Approximately 90% of the rainfall in the region occurs between November 1 and April 1. Drought cycles occur periodically, becoming severe enough that plant and animal populations can experience large fluctuations. The vegetation communities in the San Joaquin Valley are distinguishable from the Mojave Desert to the east due to Tule fog, higher humidity, and isolation from continental climatic influences by mountain ranges (Twisselmann 1967).

The general topography of the area of the project is generally flat at about 343 feet (104.6 meters) above mean sea level. The project and vicinity were historically farmed for decades. Historical aerial imagery going back to 1985 shows the project with much of the surrounding land under row crops with scattered residential development. The project was farmed until 2005 and had a residence until 2008. The project is now vacant except for a fenced Crimson Midstream, LLC facility on the southeast corner of the project.

The project is surrounded by vacant land, mixed use residential and commercial development, row crops, and an outdoor sports complex. In 2011, the Bakersfield Sports Village, a 170-acre outdoor sporting complex, with soccer fields, football fields, and two manmade ponds was constructed 0.20 miles north of the project. By 2016, residential development expanded lands near the project.

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 184-260-09
January 2025
2 METHODS

LITERATURE REVIEW
PruettBio conducted a literature review to identify known observations and potential for listed, or otherwise special-status, species to occur in the vicinity of the project site. A standard, 10-mile (16- kilometer) radius query was performed. Database records reviewed included:
• United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) iPac: The iPac report generates a list of federal-listed species and other resources under the jurisdiction of the USFWS, including designated critical habitat for listed species, National Wildlife Refuge lands, and Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory. The list includes resources that are outside of the project site, but that have the potential to be impacted by project activities. • USFWS National Wetlands Inventory: The Wetlands Mapper is an online inventory integrating digital map data and other resources to provide current information regarding the status of national wetlands, riparian, and deepwater habitats.
• United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) WebSoil Survey: The report is an online database providing soil data produced by the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the USDA and other federal, state, and local agencies. The information drawn for the Soil Survey of Kern County, California, Southwest Part was originally drawn from fieldwork completed in 1981 with soil names and descriptions approved in 1982, and most recently updated in August 2024. • California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB-RareFind 5): The CNDDB is a database of listed, or otherwise special-status, plant and animal species and sensitive communities maintained by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The information queried for this report included a standard 10-mile radius of the project site. • California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants:

CNPS is a private, professional organization that maintains a database evaluating the current conservation status of California’s rare, threatened, and endangered plant species. The information queried for this report included a standard 10-mile radius of the project site. The list includes resources that are outside of the project site, but that have the potential to be impacted by project activities based on known historic or current habitat features. The data base was compared to the CNDDB and iPac queries for consistency.

FIELD STUDY
A reconnaissance-level, biological field study was conducted by Jared Pratt and Jacob Spriester on 23 December 2024. The project was surveyed by walking the perimeter and transects to evaluate all representative habitat features of the site. The field study conducted, allowed for 100% visual coverage of the project site. Field notes included observations of all plant and wildlife species observed. Direct observations and/or species sign was recorded to assess the potential for occurrence. Land cover types and general habitat conditions were recorded and photographed. Special-status species and habitat features, such as vegetation communities or ephemeral channels, were also recorded and photographed if observed.

Coordinates for important biological resource elements and direct observations of special-status species were recorded using a handheld geographic positioning system unit. If observed, San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF) dens were classified as defined by the USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (2011). All plant taxa encountered were identified to the extent possible given the diagnostic features present. Identifications were made using keys contained in The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California and online updates containing revisions to taxonomic treatments (Baldwin et al. 2012; Jepson Flora Project 2015).

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 184-260-09
January 2025
3 RESULTS
This section summarizes the results of the field study conducted on the project site and evaluates those results for the known or potential for occurrence of special-status species based on the literature review and database queries and pursuant to statutory regulation. Discussions are provided describing the existing habitat conditions including vegetation communities, land cover and current use; soils; specialstatus biological resources potentially occurring in the vicinity of the project site; the potential for jurisdictional resources including designated critical habitat and riparian/wetland/water resource features; the potential for wildlife migration corridors and nursery sites; and regional and local policy.

VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND LAND COVER
The project site is located at the southwestern edge of Bakersfield city limits. Before conversion to farmland, the original vegetive communities of the project site were Non-native Grassland (Holland 42200) and Valley Saltbush Scrub (Holland 36220). The project and vicinity were historically farmed for decades. Aerial imagery shows that the last time that the project had row crops was 2005 and appears to have been vacant since. Most of the project is now recovering non-native grassland except for the Crimson Midway pipeline facility, which is layered with gravel, and maintained to manage vegetative growth in and around the facility. The project is surrounded by vacant land that is recovering non-native grassland to the immediate north and east, mixed use residential and commercial development to the west and northwest, and intensive row crop to the south of the project. An outdoor sports complex and park containing soccer fields, football fields, and two manmade ponds is 0.20 miles north and northwest of the project.

SOILS
The USGS soil survey map describes the soil of the project site as Unit 102, Bakersfield sandy loam, partially drained, 0 to 1 percent slopes and Unit 123 Granoso sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, overwash (NRCS 2024). Unit 102 is alluvium derived from granitoid sources found on flood plains. It is comprised of sandy loam, fine sandy loam, stratified sand to loam, loam, stratified sandy loam to silt loam, and stratified sand to loam to a depth of about 62 inches. The depth to the restrictive feature is more than 80 inches and the available water supply in profile is listed as high (about 9.9 inches). Unit 123 is alluvium derived from mixed rock sources found on alluvial fans and flood plains. It is comprised of sandy loam, loamy sand, and sand to a depth of 62 inches. The depth to the restrictive feature is more than 80 inches and the available water supply in profile is listed as low (about 4.9 inches).

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The literature review and database queries yielded 21 special-status plant species as potentially occurring within the vicinity of the project site. 33 special-status animal species were identified as potentially occurring in the region of the project site. No special-status animals or plants were observed on site during the field study. However, sign of San Joaquin kit fox and dens were observed on the project during the field study. One known natal San Joaquin kit fox den, three known dens, and one potential den were recorded on the project during the field study. No evidence of any locally rare plant was observed during the field study.

No focused, protocol-level surveys were conducted for the preparation of this report. The field study was conducted outside of the blooming period for many of the special-status plant species potentially occurring in the vicinity of the project. The evaluation of special-status species that were found during the literature review with a potential to occur in the region are included in Appendix B.

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 184-260-09
January 2025
4 Special-Status Plant Species
The federal and state database queries yielded 21 special-status plant species as potentially occurring within the vicinity of the project site. A query of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) database was made for the nine-quadrangles surrounding the project. A USGS nine-quadrangle query additionally includes a search area beyond a standard 10-mile radius. Plant species meeting the criteria for Special Status Plants as defined in Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW 2018) were evaluated under CEQA Section 15380.

Special-status plant species considered in this evaluation include all plant species that meet one or more of the following criteria:
• Listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under ESA or candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA (50 CFR §17.12). • Listed or candidates for listing by the State of California as threatened or endangered under CESA (Fish and Game Code §2050 et seq.). A species, subspecies, or variety of plant is endangered when the prospects of its survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, over-exploitation, predation, competition, disease, or other factors (Fish and Game Code §2062). A plant is threatened when it is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future in the absence of special protection and management measures (Fish and Game Code §2067). • Listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act (Fish and Game Code §1900 et seq.). A plant is rare when, although not presently threatened with extinction, the species, subspecies, or variety is found in such small numbers throughout its range that it may be endangered if its environment worsens (Fish and Game Code §1901). • Meet the definition of rare or endangered under CEQA §15380(b) and (d). Species that may meet the definition of rare or endangered include the following:
o Species considered by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) to be “rare, threatened or endangered in California” (Lists 1A, 1B and 2);
o Species that may warrant consideration on the basis of local significance or recent biological information.
o Some species included on the California Natural Diversity Database’s (CNDDB) Special Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List (California Department of Fish and Game 2008). • Considered a locally significant species, that is, a species that is not rare from a statewide perspective but is rare or uncommon in a local context such as within a county or region (CEQA §15125 (c)) or is so designated in local or regional plans, policies, or ordinances (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G). Examples include a species at the outer limits of its known range or a species occurring on an uncommon soil type.

Some CRPR 4 taxa may meet the Section 15380 definition of an endangered, rare, or threatened species, and in the definition of CRPR 4, CNPS and CDFW suggest additional reasons for including CRPR 4 taxa in a CEQA analysis. These reasons include Regionally Rare Taxa. Considered locally significant plants, that is, plants that are not rare from a statewide perspective but are rare or uncommon in a local context such as within a county or region (CEQA Guidelines, § 15125, subd. (c)), or as designated in local or regional plans, policies, or ordinances (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G). “Locally rare” has not been generally defined, but in counties where a “locally rare” policy exists, it applies to taxa with only five to 10 known occurrences in that county. The CNDDB, iPac, and CNPS lists were crossreferenced for consistency.

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 184-260-09
January 2025
5 Of the 21 special-status plant species returned during database queries for the project vicinity, 5 species are either federally- or state-listed as threatened or endangered. Although CEQA requires consideration for impacts to locally significant plant species, no mitigation is legally required to compensate for impacts to non-listed plant species. No listed, or otherwise special-status plant species was observed during the fieldwork conducted for the preparation of this report. No listed, or otherwise special-status plant species, has been recorded as occurring within the project site.

Special-Status Animal Species
The federal and state database queries yielded 33 special-status animal species as potentially occurring within the vicinity of the project site. Of these, 15 animal species have federal-, and/or state-listing and are afforded protection under federal or state law. Special-status animal species considered in this evaluation include those that may occur in the project vicinity that have statutory protections. This includes federal- and state-listed (rare, threatened, or endangered; fully protected) species and candidates for listing under the respective endangered species acts. Species that are of special concern to the CDFW or the USFWS are included in this evaluation. Special-status bird species that are afforded protection under the MBTA which may nest on or within an approximate 10-mile (16-kilometer) radius of the project site are also evaluated. One SJKF natal den, three “known” dens, and one potential den as defined in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox prior to or During Ground Disturbance (USFWS 2011) were observed during the survey. No SJKF individuals were observed during the survey effort. No evidence of other special-status animal species, or animal species sign was observed during the field study.

Designated Critical Habitat
The USFWS iPac report and USFWS Designated Critical Habitat Mapper lists no Designated Critical Habitat within the project (USFWS 2024). Designated Critical Habitats closest to the project site include California condor (Gymnogyps californianus) approximately 20-miles south/southeast and Buena Vista Lake shrew (Sorex ornatus relictus) approximately 13-miles west of the project site. No suitable habitat for either species exists on the project site.

Jurisdictional Water Resource Features
Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates discharge of dredged and fill material into Waters of the United States. Wetlands are included under this jurisdiction. Proposed activities that may result in discharge of material into Waters of the U.S. require a permit review process by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as set forth under CWA section 404(b)(1). Fish and Game Code section 1602 requires any person, state or local governmental agency, or public utility to notify CDFW before beginning any activity that will substantially modify a river, stream, or lake.

A search of the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory resulted in no riparian, wetlands, or other jurisdictional water features mapped on the project site (USFWS 2024). These results are consistent with the observed conditions within the survey area.

Special-Status Natural Communities
No special-status vegetation communities on the project site were identified by the USFWS iPac query, the CNDDB, or the CNPS Inventory (USFWS 2024, CDFW 2024, CNPS 2024). These results are consistent with the observed conditions within the survey area.

Wildlife Migration Corridors and Nursery Sites
Wildlife corridors can be defined as connections between wildlife blocks that meet specific habitat needs for species movement generally during migratory periods but seasonally as well. Wildlife corridors Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 184-260-09
January 2025
6 generally contain habitat dissimilar to the surrounding vicinity and include examples such as riparian areas along rivers and streams, washes, canyons, or otherwise undisturbed areas within urbanization.

Corridor width requirements can vary based on the needs of the species utilizing them. Development of the project would not impact wildlife migration corridors or nursery sites.

Regional and Local Policies
The proposed, modified project will not conflict with existing or adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, local or regional conservation plans, or local ordinances protecting biological resources.

IMPACT ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
CEQA Appendix G thresholds have been used to evaluate potential impacts to the biological resources from the proposed project. Appendix G provides an analysis of the impacts of the proposed project following the standards of CEQA and provides recommendations that, when implemented, would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. It is important to note that potential take of any federal- or statelisted species from project activities would require contacting the appropriate wildlife agency (the USFWS and/or the CDFW).

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have not been contacted regarding the preparation of this report. Appendix B, Special-Status Plant and Animal Evaluations, satisfy the requirements for an initial determination of potential impacts under the CEQA Appendix G thresholds. If CEQA threshold determinations warrant, further consultation may be required with CDFW and USFWS. If additional consultation with the agencies results in the need for Application for a California Incidental Take Permit, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 783.2 outlines requirements for detailed species-specific take analysis, proposed measures to minimize and fully mitigate impacts, compliance monitoring, and funding. A detailed description satisfying Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 783.2 is not required to meet the CEQA Appendix G thresholds.

The project would create a significant impact to biological resources, based on the specifications in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, if the following were to occur:

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

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

3. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;

4. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;

5. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance;

6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 184-260-09
January 2025
7 The following analysis discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the project and provides recommendations where appropriate to further reduce potential impacts.

1. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, by the CDFW, or the USFWS? Direct and indirect impacts, in the form of “incidental take” of a threatened, endangered, or otherwise protected species, are expected as a result of the development of the proposed project. One natal SJKF den complex, two “known” SJKF complexes, and one potential den were observed during the field study.

Take of San Joaquin kit fox natal and “known” dens requires state and federal authorization.

Communication with state and federal agencies regarding Avoidance and Mitigation Measures is recommended prior to initial ground disturbance to fully comply with FESA, CESA, and CEQA. If consulted, state and federal agencies will determine the Avoidance and Mitigation Measures required for take authorization and may include, but is not limited to:
• A biological resource pre-activity survey conducted by a qualified biologist no more that 30 days before the start of construction activities,
• Biological resource monitoring during each initial phase of ground disturbance, • Compliance reporting provided to the required oversight agencies for all biological resource field surveys, monitoring, and additional tasks as warranted, • A Worker Environmental Awareness Program outlining special-status species that may access, use or otherwise transverse the project area will be implemented, • If known or natal SJKF dens are identified at any time during construction, protocols enumerated in the USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (2011) should be implemented, and the appropriate agencies contacted for guidance,
• Vertical sided trenching deeper than 2-feet will include escape ramps at no more than a 1:1 ratio every 100 feet,
• Vertical sided holes that are not capable of being ramped should be covered or otherwise secured to the greatest extent practicable,
• Pipes, conduit and similar material 4 inches or greater should be capped to prevent wildlife from becoming inadvertently trapped in the piping.

The project is within the historic range of Tipton kangaroo rat. The project was not included in the southwest focus area for the species in the previous habitat conservation plan. The most recent habitat suitability modeling (Cypher 2021) does not include the project in any of the four tiers enumerated for suitability, but the nearest habitat included in the model was habitat rank 4 (disturbed but suitable) about

0.5 miles east of the project. Trapping would be required to confirm small mammal species occupying the project.

2. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations, or by the CDFW or the USFWS?
No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service exists on the project site. No adverse effect will occur as a result of the development of the proposed project and no mitigation measures are recommended.

3. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 184-260-09
January 2025
8 No features, identified in wetland categories, appear on the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory mapping (USFWS 2021) on the proposed, modified project site. No federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act were identified during the field study conducted for the preparation of this report. No substantial adverse effect will occur as a result of the development of the project. No mitigation measures are recommended.

4. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No migratory wildlife corridors were identified during the literature search or field study. The project will not interfere substantially with the movement of any native fish of wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The following recommendations are provided for the general protection of bird species that may occur on the project site or vicinity in compliance with the MBTA:

If ground-disturbing activities are planned during the nesting season for migratory birds that may nest on or near the site (generally February 1 through August 31), nesting bird surveys are recommended prior to the commencement of ground disturbance for project activities. If nesting birds are present, no new construction or ground disturbance should occur within an appropriate avoidance area for that species until young have fledged, unless otherwise approved and monitored by a qualified onsite biologist.

Appropriate avoidance should be determined by a qualified biologist. In general, minimum avoidance zones for active nests should be implemented as follows: 1) ground or low-shrub nesting non-raptors – 300 feet (91 meters); 2) burrowing owl – as appropriate based on nest location, existing surrounding activity, and evaluation of owl behavior. Coordination with CDFW may be warranted. 3) Sensitive raptors (e.g., prairie falcon, golden eagle) – 0.5 miles (0.8 kilometers); 3) other raptors – 500 feet (152 meters).

5. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? There are no biological resources on the site which are protected by local policies. Impacts from conflicts with local policies will not occur. No additional mitigation measures are recommended.

6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

The project does not conflict with any Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. No additional mitigation measures are recommended.

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 184-260-09
January 2025
9 REFERENCES
Baldwin, B. G., Goldman, D. H., Keil, D. J., Patterson, R., Rosatti, T. J., & Wilken, D. H. (Eds.). (2012).

The Jepson manual: Vascular plants of California (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1568 pp.

CDFG. (2009). Protocols for surveying and evaluating impacts to special status native plant populations and natural communities. Sacramento, CA: Author. 7 pp.

CDFG. (2012). Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. Sacramento, CA: Author.

CNDDB. (2024). Occurrence for U.S. Geologic Survey 7.5 minute quadrangles. Sacramento, CA: CDFW California Endangered Species Act of 1970, C.F.G.C § 2050 et seq. (2024).

California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, 13 P.R.C. § 21000 et seq. (2024).

California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 Guidelines, 14 C.C.R. § 15000 et seq. (2024).

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). (2023). Inventory of rare and endangered plants (Online edition, v8-01a) 7.5 minute quadrangles and corresponding plant species accounts. Sacramento, CA: Author.

California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977, C.F.G.C § 1904 et seq. (2024).

Clean Water Act of 1972, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. (2014).

Cypher, B., Phillips, S.E., Westall, T., Tennant, E.N., Saslaw, L., Kelly, E., Van Horn Job, C. (2021).

Conservation of endangered Tipton kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides): status surveys, habitat suitability, and conservation recommendations. California Fish and Wildlife Special CESA Issue:382-397.

Dunn, J. L., & Alderfer, J., (Eds.). (2008). Field guide to the birds of western North America. Washington, DC: National Geographic Society. 447 pp.

Ehrlich, P. R., Dobkin, D. S., & Wheye, D. (1988). The birder’s handbook: A field guide to the natural history of North American birds. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, Inc. 785 pp.

Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. (2024).

Harris, J. H., & Stearns, D. M. (1991). Population density, census methods, habitat relationships, and home range of the San Joaquin antelope squirrel, 1988–89. California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Bird and Mammal Section, Report 91-02. Oakland, CA: CDFG. Retrieved from http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=2953
Jennings, M. R., Hayes, M. P., & Metro Washington Park Zoo. (1994). Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California (Final report to the California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Contract No. 8023). Rancho Cordova, CA: CDFG. 255 pp.

Jepson Flora project (Eds.). (2015). Jepson eFlora. Retrieved from http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/IJM.html Luce, B. (2005). Eumops perotis: Western mastiff bat. In C. Chambers & M. Herder, (Eds.), Species accounts. Portland, OR: Western Bat Working Group. 5 pp. Retrieved from http://www.wbwg.org/speciesinfo/species_accounts/molossidae/eupe.pdf Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 184-260-09
January 2025
10 Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, 16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq. (2024).

Nafis, G. (2000–2021a). North American legless lizards - Anniella. A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of California. Retrieved from http://www.californiaherps.com/lizards/pages/a.pulchra.html Nafis, G. (2000–2021b). San Joaquin coachwhip – Coluber flagellum ruddocki. A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of California. Retrieved from
http://www.californiaherps.com/snakes/pages/c.f.ruddocki.html Nafis, G. (2000–2021c). Blainville’s horned lizard – Phrynosoma blainvillii. A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of California. Retrieved from http://www.californiaherps.com/lizards/pages/p.blainvillii.html Native Fish and Wildlife Endangered Species, 32 Fed. Reg. 4001 (Mar. 11, 1967). Retrieved from http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr18.pdf
Papenfuss, T. J., Parham, J. F. (2013). Four new species of California legless lizards (Anniella). Breviora 536, 1–17. Retrieved from
http://mczbase.mcz.harvard.edu/specimen_images/publications/Breviora_536.pdf Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, C.W.A. § Section 13000 et seq. (2023).

Reid, F. A. (2006). Mammals of North America (Peterson field guide). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. 579 pp.

Sherwin, R. (2005). Antrozous pallidus: Pallid bat. In D. A. Rambaldini, (Eds.). Species accounts.

Portland, OR: Western Bat Working Group. 5 pp. Retrieved from http://www.wbwg.org/speciesinfo/species_accounts/vespertilonidae/anpa.pdf Shuford, W. D., Gardali, T., (with Comrack, L.A.). (Eds.). (2008). California bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Sacramento, CA: CDFG.

Stebbins, R. C. (1985). A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians (Peterson field guide), (2nd ed.).

Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. 336 pp.

Stebbins, R. C. (2003). A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians (Peterson field guide), (3rd ed.).

Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. 533 pp.

Twisselmann, E. C. (1967). A flora of Kern County, California. The Wasmann Journal of Biology, 25, 1– 395.

Uptain, C. E. (1989). Survey for Tipton kangaroo rats (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides) on the proposed Delano prison site, Kern County, California (Prepared for the California Department of Corrections).

Sacramento, CA: 11 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (1996). California condor recovery plan, third revision. Portland, OR: Author. 62 pp.

USFWS. (1998). Recovery plan for upland species of the San Joaquin Valley, California. Portland, OR:

Author. Retrieved from http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/980930a.pdf USFWS. (2011). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service standardized recommendations for protection of the endangered San Joaquin kit fox prior to or during ground disturbance. Sacramento, CA: Author. 9 pp.

Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/Survey-ProtocolsGuidelines/Documents/kitfox_standard_rec_2011.pdf Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 184-260-09
January 2025
11 USFWS. (2013). California condor recovery program population size and distribution, December 31, 2013 overview page. Retrieved from
http://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Region_8/NWRS/Zone_1/Hopper_Mountain_Complex/Hopper_Mounta in/Sections/News/News_Items/PDFs/2013-12-31.pdf
USFWS. (2023a). Federal endangered and threatened species that may occur in or may be affected by project in the counties and/or USGS 7 ½ minute quads you requested: quadrangle [August]. Author.

Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es_species/Lists/es_species_lists-form.cfm USFWS. (2023b). National Wetlands Inventory Website [August]. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
Williams, D. F. (1980). Distribution and population status of the San Joaquin antelope squirrel and giant kangaroo rat. (Nongame Wildlife Investigation Final Report E-W-4). Sacramento, CA: CDFG. 48 pp.

Williams, D. F. (1986). Mammalian species of special concern in California (Prepared for the State of California, The Resources Agency Department of Fish and Game). Turlock, CA: CSUS. 112 pp. Retrieved from http://esrp.csustan.edu/resources/publications/pdf/mammalian_scc_ca_esrp5.pdf Zeiner, D. C., Laudenslayer, W. F., Jr., Mayer, K. E., & White, M., (Eds.). (1990a). California’s wildlife volume II birds (California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System). Sacramento, CA: CDFG.

Zeiner, D. C., Laudenslayer, W. F., Jr., Mayer, K. E., & White, M., (Eds.). (1990b). California’s wildlife volume III mammals (California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System). Sacramento, CA:

CDFG.

APPENDIX A

PROJECT VICINTY AND SITE
Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 184-260-09
January 2025
Figure A-1. Aerial photograph of the project and vicinity (Google Earth Pro 2024).

Bakersfield
Project Site
Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 184-260-09
January 2025
14 Figure A-2. Aerial photograph of the project, vicinity, and biological resources observed during the field study (Google Earth Pro 2024).

Legend
Known den
Natal den
Potential den
1000 ft
N
➤
Image © 2024 Airbus
Image © 2024 Airbus
Image © 2024 Airbus
Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 184-260-09
January 2025
Figure A-3 Soil map of the project site (USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service 2024).

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 184-260-09
January 2025
Figure A-4. Photograph of the project site taken from the NE corner facing W (23Dec24).

Figure A-5. Photograph of the project site taken from near the NW corner facing S (23Dec24).

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 184-260-09
January 2025
17 Figure A-6. Photograph of the project site from near the SW corner facing N (23Dec24).

Figure A-7. Photograph of the project site taken from the SE corner facing N (23Dec24).

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 184-260-09
January 2025
Figure A-8. Photograph of one of the San Joaquin kit fox known dens (23Dec24).

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 184-260-09
January 2025
Figure A-9. Photograph of San Joaquin kit fox pup scat in front of a natal den entrance (23Dec24).

APPENDIX B

SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT AND ANIMAL EVALUATION
Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 184-260-09
January 2025
Table B-1: Special-status Plants That May Occur in the Vicinity of the Project.

Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State/CNPS Description Blooming Period
Field Study
Results/Potential for
Occurrence
Astragalus hornii var.
hornii
Horn’s milk vetch
S/-/1B.1 Annual herb in the Fabaceae found in meadows and seeps and on playas and lake margins on alkaline soils between 197 and 2,790 feet (60–850 meters) in elevation. Known
from occurrences in the Southern San Joaquin Valley, the Tehachapi Mountains and the Western Transverse Ranges
in Kern, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino Counties.

May to October Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.

Atriplex cordulata var.
cordulata
Heartscale
S/-/1B.2 Herbaceous annual in the Chenopodiaceae found in chenopod scrub, meadows and weeps, and valley and
foothill grasslands in sandy, saline or alkaline soils below 1,837 feet (560 meters) in elevation. Known to occur in the Great Central Valley from Kern County north to Southern Butte County.

April to October Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.

Atriplex coronata var.
vallicola
Lost Hills crownscale
S/-/1B.2 Herbaceous annual in the Chenopodiaceae found in chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grasslands, and vernal pool habitats on alkaline soils between 165 and 2,085 feet (50–635 meters) in elevation. Known to occur in Fresno, Kern, Kings, Merced, Monterey, San Benito, San Luis
Obispo, and Tulare Counties.

April to September Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.

Atriplex tularensis
Bakersfield smallscale
-/E/1A Annual herb in the Chenopodiaceae found in chenopod scrub habitat between 295 and 655 feet (90–200 meters) in elevation. Known to occur in the Kern County.

June to October Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.

Calochortus striatus
Alkali mariposa-lily
S/-/1B.2 Bulbiferous perennial herb in the Liliaceae found in chaparral, chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps, and
Mojavean desert scrub in alkaline and mesic soils between 230 and 5235 feet (70–1,595 meters). Known to occur in
the Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Tulare Counties.

April to June Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.

Caulanthus californicus
California jewelflower
E/E/1B.1 Annual herb in the Brassicaceae family found in chenopod scrub, pinyon and juniper woodland, and valley and foothill grassland habitats on sandy soils between 200 and 3,280 feet (61 – 1000) in elevation.

February to May Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 184-260-09
January 2025
22 Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State/CNPS Description Blooming Period
Field Study
Results/Potential for
Occurrence
Chloropyron molle ssp.
hispidum
Hispid bird’s-beak
S/-/1B.1 Hemiparasitic annual herb in the Orobanchaceae family found in meadows and sweeps, playas, and valley and
foothill grasslands on alkaline soils below 510 feet (155 meters) in elevation.

June to September Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.

Delphinium recurvatum
Recurved larkspur
S/-/1B.2 Perennial herb in the Ranunculaceae family found in chenopod scrub, cismontane woodland, and valley and
foothill grassland habitats below 2,590 feet (790 meters) in elevation. Known to occur in Kern and Tulare Counties.

March to June Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.

Diplacus pictus
Calico monkeyflower
S/-/1B.2 Annual herb in the Phrymaceae family found in broadleafed upland forest and cismontane woodland habitats in
disturbed areas and granitic soils between 330 and 4,690 feet (100-1,430 meters) in elevation. Known to occur in Kern and Tulare Counties.

March to May Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.

Eremalche parryi ssp.
kernensis
Kern mallow
E/-/1B.2 Annual herb in the Malvaceae family found in chenopod scrub, pinyon and juniper woodland, and valley and foothill grassland habitats in clay, dry, openings, and sandy soils often at the edge of balds between 230 and 4,230 feet (70 – 1,290 meters) in elevation. Known to occur in Kern,
Kings, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Tulare, and
Ventura Counties.

January to May Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.

Eschscholzia lemmonii
ssp. kernensis
Tejon poppy
S/-/1B.1 Annual herb in the Papaveraceae family found in valley foothill and grasslands and chenopod scrub, generally on loose, calcareous soils between 525 and 3,280 feet (200– 1,000 meters) in elevation. Known to occur in Kern and San Luis Obispo Counties.

Sometimes February,
March to May
Not Observed/Not
Expected. Expected
elevation range is higher
than the project site.

Imperata brevifolia
California satintail
-/-/2B.1 Perennial, rhizomatous herb in the Poaceae family found in chaparral, coastal sage scrub, meadow and seeps,
Mojavean desert scrub, and riparian scrub habitats on
mesic and alkaline soils below 3,985 feet (1,215 meters).

Known to occur in Butte, Lake, Fresno, Tulare, Inyo, Kern, Santa Barbara, Ventura, San Bernadino, Orange,
Riverside, San Diego and Imperial Counties.

September to May Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.

Lasthenia glabrata ssp.
coulteri
Coulter’s goldfields
S/-/1B.1 Annual herb in the Asteraceae family found in vernal pools, marshes and swamps, playas, and saline places at
elevations below 4,005 feet (1,220 meters). Known to occur in Colusa, Kern, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Solano, Tehama, Tulare, Ventura, and Yolo Counties.

February to June Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 184-260-09
January 2025
23 Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State/CNPS Description Blooming Period
Field Study
Results/Potential for
Occurrence
Layia leucopappa
Comanche Point layia
S/-/1B.1 Annual herb in the Asteraceae family found in chenopod scrub and valley and foothill grassland habitats between 330 and 1,150 feet (100 – 350 meters) in elevation. Known to occur in Kern County.

March to April Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.

Monolopia congdonii
San Joaquin woollythreads
E/-/1B.2 Annual herb in the Asteraceae family found in chenopod scrub and valley and foothill grassland habitats on sandy soils between 195 and 2,625 feet (60 – 800 meters) in
elevation. Known to occur in Fresno, Kern, Kings, San
Benito, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Tulare
Counties.

February to May Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.

Navarretia setiloba
Piute Mountains
navarretia
S/-/1B.1 Annual herb in the Polemoniaceae family found in cismontane woodland, pinyon and juniper woodlands, and
valley and foothill grasslands in gravelly loam and
sometimes clay soils between 935 and 6,890 feet (285–
2,100 meters) in Kern, Los Angeles, and Tulare Counties.

April to July Not Observed/Not
Expected. Expected
elevation range is higher
than the project site.

Opuntia basilaris var.
treleasei
Bakersfield cactus
E/E/1B.1 Perennial stem succulent in the Cactaceae family found in chenopod scrub, cismontane woodland, and valley and
foothill grasslands between 330 and 4,755 feet (100–1450 meters) in elevation. Known to occur in the Southeast San Joaquin Valley and Southern Sierra Nevada Foothills in
Kern County.

April to May Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.

Puccinellia simplex
California alkali grass
S/-/1B.2 Annual herb in the Poaceae family found in chenopod scrub, meadows and seep, valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pool habitats on alkaline, flats, lake margins, and vernally mesic soils between 5 and 3050 feet (2–930 meters) in Alameda, Butte, Colusa, Contra Costa, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Kings, Lake, Los Angeles, Madera, Merced,
Napa, San Bernardino, San Luis Obispo, Santa Clara,
Santa Cruz, Solano, Stanislaus, Tulare, and Yolo Counties.

March to April Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.

Stylocline citroleum
Oil neststraw
S/-/1B.1 Annual herb in the Asteraceae family found in chenopod scrub, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland on clay soils between 165 and 1,310 feet (50 – 400 meters) in elevation. Known to occur in Kern and San Diego Counties.

March to April Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.

Stylocline masonii
Mason’s neststraw
S/-/1B.1 Annual herb in the Asteraceae family found in chenopod scrub and valley and foothill grasslands on sandy soils between 330 and 3,935 feet (100–1,200 meters) in
elevation. Known from locations in Kern, Los Angeles,
Monterey, and San Luis Obispo Counties.

March to May Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 184-260-09
January 2025
24 Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State/CNPS Description Blooming Period
Field Study
Results/Potential for
Occurrence
Tortula californica
California screw moss
S/-/1B.2 Moss in the Pottiaceae family found in chenopod scrub and valley and foothill grassland habitats in sandy soils between 35 and 4790 feet (10–1460 meters) in Kern, Los Angeles, Modoc, Monterey, Riverside, San Diego, Santa Barbara,
and Ventura Counties.

Does not flower Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.

STATUS: Federal and State Listing Code
D Delisted
E Federally or State-listed Endangered
T Federally or State-listed Threatened
S BLM Sensitive
CNPS
1A Plants presumed extirpated in California, and either rare or extinct elsewhere 1B.1 Plants considered rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; seriously threatened in California 1B.2 Plants considered rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; fairly threatened in California 2B.1 Plants considered rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere; seriously threatened in California Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 184-260-09
January 2025
25 Table B-2: Special-status Animals That May Occur in the Vicinity of the Project.

Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Federal/State General Habitat Survey Results/Regional or Nearest Occurrence* Invertebrates
Bombus crotchii
Crotch’s bumble bee
-/C Occurs in grasslands and shrublands in the
Mediterranean region, Pacific coast, western desert,
and adjacent foothills throughout California’s southwest region. Food plant genera include but is not limited to Antirrhinum, Clarkia, Eriogonum. and Phacelia.

Not Observed/Not Expected. No known
records in the vicinity of the project.

Marginal habitat present on the project.

Branchinect lynchi
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
T/- Found in vernal pools throughout California. Exist as cysts during the dry season and reproduce when pools
are filled with water again.

Not Present. No suitable habitat present.

Danaus plexippus
Monarch butterfly
PT/- Occur for migration between San Diego and British
Colombia. Asclepias spp. are used for egg laying
throughout the range.

Not Observed/Not Expected. No known
records in the vicinity of the project.

Marginal habitat present on the project.

Desmocerus californicus dimorphus
Valley elderberry longhorn beetle
T/- Central Valley riparian forest; nearly always found on or close to its host plant, elderberry (Sambucus species).

Not Present. No suitable habitat for the
species. No host plants present on the
project or vicinity.

Amphibians
Spea hammondii
Western spadefoot toad
PT/ CSC Central valley and adjacent foothills, Coast Ranges from Point Conception south to the Mexico border;
valley-foothill grasslands and valley-foothill hardwood, shallow temporary pools used for breeding, below
4,472 feet (1,363 meters).

Not Observed/Not Expected. No known
records in the vicinity of the project.

Marginal habitat present on the project.

Reptiles
Actinemys marmorata
Northwestern pond turtle PT/CSC
Completely aquatic requiring calm waters such as pools
or streams with vegetation banks or logs for basking.

Will utilize upland habitat up to about 0.5 km from
water.

Not Present. No suitable habitat present.

Anniella grinnelli
Bakersfield legless lizard -/CSC
Found in sparsely vegetated areas of beach dunes,
chaparral, pine-oak woodlands, desert scrub, sandy
washes, and stream terraces with sycamores,
cottonwoods, or oaks in warm moist soils under cover.

Not Observed/Not Expected. Suitable
habitat absent from the site. Potential
habitat in the project vicinity.

Anniella spp.

California legless lizard -/CSC
Found in coastal dunes, chaparral, pine-oak
woodlands, desert scrub, and sandy washes in warm
moist loose soils, below 5,085 feet (1550 meters).

Not Observed/Not Expected. Suitable
habitat absent from the site. Potential
habitat in the project vicinity.

Arizona elegans occidentalis
California glossy snake -/CSC Found in low elevation scrub, grasslands and chaparral habitats.

Not Present. No suitable habitat present.

Gambelia sila
Blunt-nosed leopard lizard (BNLL) E/E,SFP
Found only in the San Joaquin Valley, adjacent Carrizo
Plain, Elkhorn Plain, Cuyama Valley, and Panoche
Valley; inhabits sparsely vegetated plains, lower canyon slopes, on valley floors, and washes; open grassland,
Not Present. No suitable habitat present.

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 184-260-09
January 2025
26 Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Federal/State General Habitat Survey Results/Regional or Nearest Occurrence* saltbush scrub, and alkali sink are more common
habitat types.

Masticophis flagellum
ruddocki
San Joaquin coachwhip -/CSC
Found in the San Joaquin Valley in open, dry habitats.

Associated with valley grassland and saltbush scrub
habitats containing small mammal burrows which are
used for refugia and oviposition sites.

Not Present. No suitable habitat present.

Phrynosoma blainvillii
Coast horned lizard
-/CSC
Inhabits valley-foothill hardwood, coniferous and
riparian, as well as pine-cypress, juniper, and annual
grasslands, in Sierra Nevada below 3,937 feet (1,200
meters) and in mountains of Southern California and
into the adjacent valleys.

Not Present. No suitable habitat present.

Birds
Agelaius tricolor
Tricolored blackbird
S/CSC
Forages in grasslands, wetlands, rice fields, croplands, and weedy uplands dominated by mustards and
thistles, etc.; breeds in marshes containing heavy
growth of bulrushes, cattails, and blackberries; found
throughout the Central Valley.

Not Present/Low Probability of
Occurrence in the Project Vicinity. No
suitable nesting habitat on the site.

Potential for marginal foraging habitat in
farmlands in the vicinity of the project.

Athene cunicularia
Burrowing owl
-/C
Inhabits dry, open grasslands, rolling hills, desert floors, prairies, savannas, agricultural land, and other areas of open, bare ground. These owls will also inhabit open
areas near human habitation, such as airports, golf
courses, shoulders of roads, railroad embankments,
and the banks of irrigation ditches and reservoirs.

Not Observed/Moderate Probability of
Occurrence in the Project Vicinity.

Suitable habitat for nesting and foraging
in the vicinity of the project. No burrowing
owls or owl burrows observed.

Buteo swainsoni
Swainson’s hawk
-/T
Riparian and sometimes large isolated trees used for
nesting; grasslands and agricultural lands used for
foraging; in California, breeds primarily in the
Sacramento Valley, with occasional nesting to the south through Kern County; migrate through the Central and
San Joaquin Valleys to their wintering grounds in South America.

Not Observed/Low Probability of
Occurrence in the Project Vicinity. No
suitable nesting sites on the project. Low
suitable foraging habitat exists across the
row-crop farmland south of metropolitan
Bakersfield.

Charadrius nivosus nivosus
Western snowy plover
T/CSC
Nests, feeds, and takes cover on sandy or gravelly
beaches along the coast, on estuarine salt ponds, alkali lakes, and at the Salton Sea. On the Pacific coast, it
nests on barren to sparsely vegetated sand beaches,
dry salt flats in lagoons, dredge spoils deposited on
beach or dune habitat, levees and flats at saltevaporation ponds, and river bars.

Not Present. No suitable wintering
habitat or foraging habitat exists on the
project.

Coccyzus americanus occidentalis
Western yellow-billed cuckoo T/E
Nests in walnut and almond orchards in California,
natural nesting habitat is in cottonwood-tree willow
riparian forest. Known populations of breeding western
Not Present. No suitable nesting habitat
exists on the project for this species. The
site represents poor foraging habitat.

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 184-260-09
January 2025
27 Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Federal/State General Habitat Survey Results/Regional or Nearest Occurrence* yellow-billed cuckoo are several disjunct locations in
California, Arizona, and western New Mexico.

Dendrocygna bicolor
Fulvous whistling duck -/CSC
Nests in fresh emergent wetlands and quiet riverine
waters. Uncommon to fairly common in the San
Joaquin Valley, April to November.

Not Present. No suitable nesting habitat
exists on the project for this species. The
site represents poor foraging habitat.

Elanus leucurus
White tailed kite
-/SFP
Associated habitats include open grasslands,
savannahs, agriculture, wetlands, oak woodland and
riparian areas with associated open space.

Not Observed/Low Probability of
Occurrence in the Project Vicinity. No
suitable nesting sites on the project.

Suitable foraging habitat exists across the
row-crop farmland south of metropolitan
Bakersfield.

Eremophila alpestris actica
California horned lark
-/WL
Resident throughout California from the coast to the
deserts up to alpine dwarf-shrub habitat above tree line Not Observed/Moderate Probability of
Occurrence in the Project Vicinity.

Horned lark occur throughout the
southern San Joaquin Valley and
undoubtedly forage in the project vicinity.

Gymnogyps californianus
California condor

E/E,SFP
Forages over large expanses of land including but not
limited to, grasslands, foothills, coastal mountain
ranges. Nests on cliff faces, large trees or manmade
structures.

Not Present/Low Probability of
Occurrence in the Project Vicinity. No
suitable nesting habitat on the site.

Potential for marginal foraging habitat in
farmlands in the vicinity of the project.

Plegadis chihi
White-faced ibis -/WL
Nesting associated with large emergent wetlands. Will
forage in a variety of wet meadows, irrigated pastures, flooded pond edges and wet cropland.

Not Present. No suitable nesting habitat
exists on the project for this species. The
site represents poor foraging habitat.

Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus
Yellow-headed blackbird
-/CSC
Yellow-headed blackbirds are found in freshwater
marshes during the summer. They particularly like to
live among cattails, tule, and bulrush. During migration and over winter months, the yellow-headed blackbird is
found in open, cultivated lands, in fields, and in
pastures.

Not Present. No suitable nesting habitat
exists on the project for this species. The
site represents poor foraging habitat.

Mammals
Ammospermophilus nelsoni
San Joaquin antelope squirrel S/T
Found in grasslands or open shrublands; formerly more
extensive, current range includes southwestern portion
of the San Joaquin Valley and in adjacent valleys to the west.

Not Present. Beyond the current
published range of the species.

Dipodomys ingens
Giant kangaroo rat
E/E
Western side of the San Joaquin Valley, including the
Carrizo Plain and the Panoche Valley; grassland and
shrub-land habitats with sparse vegetative cover and
soils that are well-drained, fine sandy loams with gentle slopes.

Not Present. Beyond the current
published range of the species.

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 184-260-09
January 2025
28 Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Federal/State General Habitat Survey Results/Regional or Nearest Occurrence* Dipodomys nitratoides brevinasus
Short-nosed kangaroo rat
E/E
Found in arid communities on the valley floor portions
of Kern, Tulare, and Kings counties in scrub and
grassland communities in level to near-level terrain with alluvial fan-floodplain soil (fine sands and sandy loams) with sparse grasses and woody vegetation such as
iodine bush, saltbush, seep weed, and mesquite.

Not Present. Beyond the published
range of the species.

Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides
Tipton kangaroo rat
E/E
Found in arid communities on the valley floor portions
of Kern, Tulare, and Kings counties in scrub and
grassland communities in level to near-level terrain with alluvial fan-floodplain soil (fine sands and sandy loams) with sparse grasses and woody vegetation such as
iodine bush, saltbush, seep weed, and mesquite.

Low Probability of Occurrence. Habitat
suitable for Dipodomys sp. The project is
not within the southwest focus area of the
previous Habitat Conservation Plan. Low
quality habitat about 0.5 miles east of the
project. Burrows typical of kangaroo rat
were observed scattered across the
project. Small mammal trapping would be
required to determine species
occupation.

Eumops perotis californicus
Western mastiff bat
S/CSC
Open, semi-arid to arid habitats, including conifer and deciduous woodlands, annual and perennial
grasslands, chaparral, desert scrub, and urban areas;
roosts in cliff faces, as well as high buildings, trees, and tunnels; uncommon resident in southwestern San
Joaquin Valley.

No Roosting Sites Present. No known
occurrences in the vicinity of the project.

Information on some bat species
indicates foraging may occur over 10’s of
miles from roosting sites. Impacts not
expected.

Onychomys torridus tularensis
Tulare grasshopper mouse
S/CSC
Found in valley grasslands habitats, blue oak savanna,
desert associations dominated by annual grasses and
California ephedra, alkali sink scrub, saltbush scrub,
and upper Sonoran shrub associations, dominated by
ephedra.

Not Observed/Not Expected. Beyond
the current published range of the
species.

Perognathus inornatus inornatus
San Joaquin pocket mouse
S/-
Found in west-central California in the Upper
Sacramento Valley, Tehama County, southward
through the San Joaquin and Salinas valleys and
contiguous areas to the Mojave Desert in Los Angeles,
Kern and extreme western San Bernardino counties.

Inhabits dry, open, grassy or weedy areas and annual
grasslands, savannas, and desert-scrub associations
with sandy washes or finely textured soils.

Not Observed/Not Expected. Beyond
the current published range of the
species.

Sorex ornatus relictus
Buena Vista Lake shrew
E/CSC
Formerly occupied marshlands of the San Joaquin
Valley and the Tulare Basin. Its range has become
much restricted due to the loss of lakes and sloughs in the area. It has been recorded from the Kern Lake
Preserve area and the Kern National Wildlife Refuge.

Current distribution is unknown but likely to be very
restricted due to the loss of habitat.

Not Present. No suitable habitat present.

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 184-260-09
January 2025
29 Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Federal/State General Habitat Survey Results/Regional or Nearest Occurrence* Taxidea taxus
American badger -/CSC
Uncommon resident found through California; in less
disturbed grassland and shrubland habitats in San
Joaquin Valley.

Not Present No suitable habitat.

Vulpes macrotis mutica
San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF)
E/T
Found in valley saltbush scrub, valley sink scrub,
Interior Coast Range saltbush scrub, upper Sonoran
sub-shrub scrub, non-native grassland, and valley
sacaton grassland in the Central Valley and adjacent
foothills and valleys, infrequently to the outer Coast
Ranges; generally not found in densely wooded areas,
wetland areas, or areas subject to frequent periodic
flooding.

Present. Three SJKF known dens, one
natal den, and one potential den were
observed during the field study.

Communication with the state and federal
agencies is recommended prior to initial
ground disturbance to fully comply with
FESA, CESA, and CEQA.

STATUS:

Federal
S Listed as a BLM Sensitive Species
D Delisted
E Listed as Endangered
PT Proposed as Threatened
T Listed as Threatened
C Candidate for Endangered Status
State
CSC California Department of Fish and Wildlife Designated Species of Special Concern
D Delisted
E Listed as Endangered
SFP California Department of Fish and Wildlife Designated Fully Protected
T Listed as Threatened
C Candidate for Endangered Status
Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 184-260-09
January 2025
30 Figure B-1. CNDDB special-status plant species occurrences within a 10-mile radius of the project (CDFW 2024).

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 184-260-09
January 2025
31 Figure B-2. CNDDB special-status bird species occurrences within a 10-mile radius of the project (CDFW 2024).

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 184-260-09
January 2025
32 Figure B-3. CNDDB special-status amphibian and reptile species occurrences within a 10-mile radius of the project (CDFW 2024).

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 184-260-09
January 2025
33 Figure B-4. CNDDB special-status mammal species occurrences within a 10-mile radius of the project (CDFW 2024).

APPENDIX C

PLANTS AND ANIMALS OBSERVED ON THE PROJECT

FIELD STUDY CONDUCTED
23 December 2024
Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 184-260-09
January 2025
Table C-1. Vascular plant species observed during the field study conducted on the project site.

Scientific Name Common Name
Anacardiaceae
Pistacia chinensis Chinese pistache
Asteraceae
Laennecia coulteri Coulter’s horseweed
Matricaria discoidea Pineappleweed
Boraginaceae
Amsinckia spp. Fiddleneck
Brassicaceae
Sisymbrium irio London rocket
Chenopodiaceae
Salsola tragus Russian thistle
Geraniaceae
Erodium cicutarium Redstem filaree
Malvaceae
Malva parviflora Cheeseweed
Poaceae
Bromus diandrus Ripgut brome
Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens Red brome
Table C-2. Vertebrate animal species observed during the field study conducted on the project site.

Scientific Name Common Name
Birds
Calypte anna Anna’s hummingbird
Corvus corax Common raven
Passerculus sandwichensis Savannah sparrow
Zenaida macroura Mourning dove
A

PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY

SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TAFT HIGHWAY AND ASHE ROAD,

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
Submitted to:

McIntosh and Associates
10800 Stockdale Highway, Suite 103
Bakersfield, California 93311
Keywords:

Gosford Quadrangle, City of Bakersfield,
California Environmental Quality Act
Submitted by:

Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates
1405 Sutter Lane
Bakersfield, California 93309
Author:

Scott M. Hudlow
December 2024
2 Management Summary
At the request of the McIntosh and Associates, a Phase I Cultural Resource Survey was conducted on a 27.97-acre parcel, which is located at the southwest corner of Taft Highway and Ashe Road, City of Bakersfield, California.

The Phase I Cultural Resource Survey consisted of an archaeological survey and a cultural resource record search.

No cultural resources were identified. No further work is required. If archaeological resources are encountered during the course of construction, a qualified archaeologist should be consulted for further evaluation.

If human remains or potential human remains are observed during construction, work in the vicinity of the remains will cease, and the remains will be treated in accordance with the provisions of State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5.

The protection of human remains follows California Public Resources Codes, Sections 5097.94, 5097.98, and 5097.99.
3 Table of Contents
Management Summary............................................................................................... 2 Table of Contents......................................................................................................... 3 List of Figures ................................................................................................................. 3

1.0 Introduction....................................................................................................... 4

2.0 Project Location................................................................................................ 4

3.0 Record Search .................................................................................................. 4

4.0 Environmental Background.............................................................................. 4

5.0 Prehistoric Archaeological Context ................................................................ 4

6.0 Ethnographic Background............................................................................... 8

7.0 Historical Overview. ........................................................................................ 10

8.0 Field Procedures and Methods...................................................................... 12

9.0 Report of Findings. .......................................................................................... 12

10.0 Management Recommendations ................................................................ 12

11.0 References ...................................................................................................... 13 Appendix I................................................................................................................... 15 Appendix II.................................................................................................................. 19 List of Figures
1 Project Area Location Map ............................................................................. 5 2 Project Area, View to the Southwest............................................................... 7 3 Project Area, View to the North....................................................................... 7 4 1.0 Introduction
At the request of McIntosh and Associates, Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates conducted a Phase I Cultural Resource Survey in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act for a proposed multiple-family residential project. The 27.97-acre tract is located at the southwest corner of Taft Highway and Ashe Road in the City of Bakersfield, California. The Phase I Cultural Resource Survey consisted of a pedestrian survey and a cultural resource record search.

2.0 Project Location
The project area is in the City of Bakersfield. It is a portion of the NE ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 4, T.31S., R.27E., Mount Diablo Baseline and Meridian, as displayed on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Gosford 7.5-minute quadrangle map (Figure 1). The proposed multiple-family residential project is located at the southwest corner of Taft Highway and Ashe Road in the City of Bakersfield, California.

3.0 Record Search
A record search of the project area and the environs within one half-mile was conducted at the Southern San Joaquin Information Center. Scott M.

Hudlow conducted the record search, RS# 24-563, on December 18, 2024. The record search revealed that ten cultural resource surveys have been conducted within one half-mile of the project area, including one cultural resource survey which has been conducted within the current project area (Hudlow 2005). Four cultural resources have been identified within one half-mile of the current project area. Each previously identified cultural resource was a historic structure, including a previously identified residence within the project area (Appendix II). However, the house previously identified within the project area is not extant and probably burned in a fire.

4.0 Environmental Background
The project area is located at an elevation of 350 feet above mean sea level in the Great Central Valley, south of the Kern River. The Great Central Valley is composed of two valleys-the Sacramento Valley and the San Joaquin Valley. The former agricultural and house parcel is covered in wet grasses.

Construction mounds are present on the property. Shade trees are still evident (Figures 2 and 3).

5.0 Prehistoric Archaeological Context
Limited archaeological research has been conducted in the southern San Joaquin Valley. Thus, consensus on a generally agreed upon regional cultural chronology has yet to be developed. Most cultural sequences can be 5 Figure 1
Project Area Location Map
6 summarized into several distinct time periods: Early, Middle, and Late.

Sequences differ in their inclusion of various "horizons," "technologies," or "stages." A prehistoric archaeological summary of the southern San Joaquin Valley is available in Moratto (Moratto 1984).

Despite the preoccupation with chronological issues in most of the previous research, most suggested chronological sequences are borrowed from other regions with minor modifications based on sparse local data.

The following chronology is based on Parr and Osborne's Paleo-Indian, Proto-Archaic, Archaic, Post-Archaic periods (Parr and Osborne 1992:44-47).

Most existing chronologies focus on stylistic changes of time-sensitive artifacts such as projectile points and beads rather than addressing the socioeconomic factors, which produced the myriad variations. In doing so, these attempts have encountered similar difficulties. These cultural changes are implied as environmentally determined, rather than economically driven.

Paleo-Indians, who roamed the region approximately 12,000 years ago, were highly mobile individuals. Their subsistence is assumed to have been primarily big game, which was more plentiful 12,000 years ago than in the late twentieth century. However, in the Great Basin and California, Paleo people were also foragers who exploited a wide range of resources. Berries, seeds, and small game were also consumed. Their technology was portable, including manos (Parr and Osborne 1992:44). The paleo period is characterized by fluted Clovis and Folsom points, which have been identified throughout North America. The Tulare Lake region in Kings County has yielded several PaleoIndian sites, which have included fluted points, scrapers, chipped crescents, and Lake Mojave-type points (Morratto 1984:81-2).

The Proto-Archaic period, which dates from approximately 11,000 to 8,000 years ago, was characterized by a reduction in mobility and conversely an increase in sedentism. This period is classified as the Western Pluvial Lake Tradition or the Proto-Archaic, of which the San Dieguito complex is a major aspect (Moratto 1984: 90-99; Warren 1967). An archaeological site along Buena Vista Lake in southwestern Kern County displays a similar assemblage to the San Dieguito type site. Claude Warren proposes that a majority of Proto-Archaic southern California could be culturally classified as the San Dieguito Complex (Warren 1967). The Buena Vista Lake site yielded manos, millingstones, large stemmed and foliate points, a mortar, and red ochre. During this period, subsistence patterns began to change. Hunting focused on smaller game and plant collecting became more integral. Large stemmed, lancelote (foliate) projectile points represents lithic technology. Millingstones became more prevalent. The increased sedentism possibly began to create regional stylistic and cultural differences not evident in the paleo period.

The Archaic period persisted in California for the next 4000 years. In 1959, Warren and McKusiak proposed a three-phase chronological sequence based on a small sample of burial data for the Archaic period (Moratto 1984:189; Parr 7 Figure 2
Project Area, View to the Southwest
Figure 3
Project Area, View to the North
8 and Osborne 1992:47). It is distinguished by increased sedentism and extensive seed and plant exploitation. Millingstones, shaped through use, were abundant. Bedrock manos and metates were the most prevalent types of millingstones (Parr and Osborne 1992:45). The central valley began to develop distinct cultural variations, which can be distinguished by different regions throughout the valley, including Kern County.

In the Post-Archaic period enormous cultural variations began manifesting themselves throughout the entire San Joaquin Valley. This period extends into the contact period in the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Sedentary village life was emblematic of the Post-Archaic period, although hunting and gathering continued as the primary subsistence strategy.

Agriculture was absent in California, partially due to the dense, predictable, and easily exploitable natural resources. The ancestral Yokuts have possibly been in the valley for the last three thousand years, and by the eighteenth century were the largest pre-contact population, approximately 40,000 individuals, in California (Moratto 1984).

6.0 Ethnographic Background
The Yokuts are a Penutian-speaking, non-political cultural group.

Penutian speakers inhabit the San Joaquin Valley, the Bay Area, and the Central Sierra Nevada Mountains. The Yokuts are split into three major groups, the Northern Valley Yokuts, the Southern Valley Yokuts, and the Foothill Yokuts.

The southern San Joaquin Valley in the Bakersfield and associated Kern County area was home to the Yokuts tribelet, Yawelmani. The tribelets averaged 350 people in size, had a special name for themselves, and spoke a unique dialect of Yokuts. Land was owned collectively and every group member enjoyed the right to utilize food resources. The Yawelmani inhabited a strip of the southeastern San Joaquin Valley, north of the Kern River to the Tehachapi Mountains on the south, and from the mountains on the east, to approximately the old south fork of the Kern River on the west (Wallace 1978:449; Parr and Osborne 1992:19). The Yawelmani were the widest ranging of the Yokuts tribelets.

The Southern Valley Yokuts had a mixed economy emphasizing fishing, hunting, fowling, and collecting shellfish, roots, and seeds. Fish were the most prevalent resource and was a productive activity throughout the entire year.

Fish were caught in many different manners, including nets, conical basket traps, catching with bare hands, shooting with bows and arrows, and stunning fish with mild floral toxins. Geese, ducks, mud hens and other waterfowl were caught in snares, long-handled nets, stuffed decoys, and brushing brush to trick the birds to fly low into waiting hunters. Mussels were gathered and steamed on beds of tule. Turtles and dogs were consumed (Wallace 1978:449-450).

Wild seeds and roots provided a large portion of the Yokuts’ diet. Tule seeds, grass seeds, fiddleneck, alfilaria were also consumed. Acorns, the staple 9 crop for many California native cultures, were not common in the San Joaquin Valley. Acorns were traded into the area. Land mammals, such as rabbits, ground squirrels, antelope and tule elk, were not taken often (Wallace 1978:450).

The Yokuts occupied permanent structures in permanent villages for most of the year. During the late and early summer, families left for several months to gather seeds and plant foods, shifting camp locations when changing crops.

Several different types of fiber-covered structures were common in Yokuts settlements. The largest was a communal tule mat-covered, wedge-shaped structure, which could house upward of ten individuals. These structures were established in a row, with the village chief’s house in the middle and his messenger’s houses were located at the ends of the house row. Dance houses and assembly buildings were located outside the village living area (Nabokov and Easton 1989:301).

The Yokuts also built smaller, oval, single-family tule dwellings. These houses were covered with tall mohya stalks or with sewn tule mats. Bent-pole ribs that met a ridgepole held by two crotched poles framed these small houses. The Yokuts also built a cone-shaped dwelling, which was framed with poles tied together with a hoop and then covered with tule or grass. These cone-shaped dwellings were large enough to contain multiple fireplaces (Nabokov and Easton 1989:301). Other structures included mat-covered granaries for storing food supplies, and a dirt-covered, communally owned sweathouse.

Clothing was minimal, men wore a breechclout or were naked. Women wore a narrow-fringed apron. Cold temperatures brought out rabbitskin or mud hen blankets. Moccasins were worn in certain places; however, most people went barefoot. Men wore no head coverings, but women wore basketry caps when they carried burden baskets on their heads. Hair was worn long. Women wore tattoos from the corners of the mouth to the chin; both men and women had ear and nose piercings. Bone, wood or shell ornaments were inserted (Wallace 1978:450-451).

Tule dominated the Yokut’s material culture. It was used for many purposes, including sleeping mats, wall coverings, cradles, and basketry.

Ceramics are uncommon to Yokuts culture as is true throughout most California native cultures. Basketry was common to Yokuts culture. Yokuts made cooking containers, conical burden baskets, flat winnowing trays, seed beaters, and necked water bottles. Yokuts also manufactured wooden digging sticks, fire drills, mush stirrers, and sinew-backed bows. Knives, projectile points, and scraping tools were chipped from imported lithic materials including obsidian, chert, and chalcedony. Stone mortars and pestles were secured in trade.

Cordage was manufactured from milkweed fibers, animal skins were tanned, and awls were made from bone. Marine shells, particularly olivella shells, were used in the manufacture of money and articles of personal adornment. Shells were acquired from the Chumash along the coast (Wallace 1978:451-453). 10 The basic social and economic unit was the nuclear family. Lineages were organized along patrilineal lines. Yokuts fathers transmitted totems, particular to each paternal lineage, to each of his children. The totem was an animal or bird that no member would kill or eat and that was dreamed of and prayed to. The mother’s totem was not passed to her offspring but was treated with respect. Families sharing the same totem formed an exogamous lineage.

The lineage had no formal leader nor did it own land. The lineage was a mechanism for transmitting offices and performing ceremonial functions. The lineages formed two moieties, East and West, which consisted of several different lineages. Moieties were customarily exogamous. Children followed the paternal moiety. Certain official positions within the villages were associated with certain totems. The most important was the Eagle lineage from which the village chief was appointed. A member of the Dove lineage functioned as the chief’s assistant. He supervised food distribution and gave commands during ceremonies. Another hereditary position was common to the Magpie lineage, was that of spokesman or crier.

7.0 Historical Overview
The city of Bakersfield was settled in the 1860s, soon after California joined the United States after the passage of the Compromise of 1850. The Compromise of 1850 allowed California to join the Union as a free state even though a major portion of the state lied beneath the Missouri Compromise line and was potentially subject to southern settlement and slavery. Americans had long been visiting and working in California prior to the admission of California into the Union.

European exploration of the region begins in the 1770s with the Spanish.

In 1772, Pedro Fages arrived in the San Joaquin Valley searching for army deserters. Father Francisco Garces, a Jesuit priest, soon visited the vicinity in 1776. The Spanish empire collapsed in 1820, and California became Mexican territory. American exploration of the San Joaquin Valley begins in the 1820s with Jedediah Smith, Kit Carson, and Joseph Walker looking for commercial opportunities. The United States government began exploring California in the 1830s. Soon, the Americans will be searching for intercontinental railroad routes to link the eastern and western halves of the continent.

The defeat of the Mexicans during the Mexican-American War and the subsequent discovery of gold will drastically alter the complicated political realities of the west. The Mexican-American War was ostensible fought to settle a boundary dispute with the Mexicans over the western boundary of the newlyannexed state of Texas, which had fought a successful rebellion against the Mexican Army in the mid-1830s. The Republic of Texas was an independent country for nine years until Texas was annexed by the United States in 1845. The outcome of the Mexican-American War was that Mexico rescinded its claims to much of the American southwest, in 1848, bringing these territories into the United States, including California.
11 In January 1848, the discovery of gold in Coloma, California changed the settlement of California, forever. In the summer of 1849, when the gold strike was publicly announced, the overnight settlement of California began. The Mexican population of California was small and limited to the coasts and a few of southern California’s interior valleys. A sizable native population settled the remainder of California; Bakersfield and Kern County was Yokuts territory. The Gold Rush tipped the balance of native communities throughout California, as many of California’s natives were decimated.

Many areas experienced smaller gold rushes, including the Kern River Valley, when gold was discovered in Keyesville in 1853. The gold was soon played and the true future of the region was soon identified, farming, as the gold prospectors came down from the mountains. Kern Island, a median point along the Kern Delta, between the mouth of the Kern River and Kern Lake, was settled in 1860. Soon, Col. Thomas Baker bought the property from the original owner, Christian Bohna and the settlement of Bakersfield began in earnest.

Col. Baker was lured to California by the prospects of gold but was tamed by the farming. He was a practicing lawyer and surveyor and was slowly moving west from Ohio. He participated in Iowa’s territorial government and served in both the California senate and assembly before arriving in the area in the 1840s and 1850s. Col. Baker realized he had to drain the Kern Delta to manufacture usable farmland, and he also improved his land, creating one of the only transit locations between Los Angeles and Visalia in the 1860s.

Baker laid out the town and began the process of draining, diverting, and controlling the Kern River. In 1873, Bakersfield was incorporated and was the first city in the newly-created Kern County, which was previously a portion of Tulare County. In 1874, Bakersfield got a rail link with the establishment of the Southern Pacific line over the Tehachapi Pass. The train station was located in Sumner, a spite town that was established by the Southern Pacific about a mile east of downtown Bakersfield, now located in east Bakersfield. Bakersfield could now flourish as an agricultural community, producing fruits and grains.

The city of Bakersfield expanded to the north in the early twentiethcentury toward the Kern River, after its 1898 reincorporation. The city centered along Chester Avenue, which was the main north/south thoroughfare. The community of Sumner lied to the east, and the surrounding area in all directions was farmland. The city of Bakersfield was a small community at the turn of the century, slightly less than 5,000 people lived in Bakersfield; an additional 17,000 people lived in Kern County (Maynard 1997:43). Bakersfield was a quiet city in the center of a farming region.

However, the discovery of the Kern River oil field in May 1899 quickly changed the face of the region. Bakersfield quickly became the center of a California oil boom, which made over the community. The population more than doubled in less than ten years, bringing prosperity to the area (Maynard 12 1997:43). Many people recognized that prosperity could not only be achieved through working in oil, but also through providing necessary services, such as milk products and lodging. The city of Bakersfield grew tremendously.

Between 1900 and 1950, Bakersfield and the greater Kern County region grew tremendously under the influence of two economic forces, agriculture and oil. By 1950, Bakersfield was a mid-sized city of approximately 50,000. It sported minor league baseball, had a regional airport, and was a major link along Route 99, which connected northern and southern California. In the late 1960s, Bakersfield was beginning to change again, as the Kern County Land Company was sold to Tenneco West, and Bakersfield began to suburbanize.

8.0 Field Procedures and Methods
On December 18, 2024, Scott M. Hudlow (for qualifications see Appendix I) conducted a pedestrian archaeological survey of the entire proposed project area. Hudlow surveyed in north/south transects across the entire lot in 15-meter (33 feet) intervals. All archaeological material more than fifty years of age or earlier encountered during the inventory was recorded.

9.0 Report of Archaeological Findings
No cultural resources were identified. However, a house was previously located in the northeast corner of the property. The heavily overgrown house lot displays signs of a fire.

10.0 Management Recommendations
At the request of the McIntosh and Associates, a Phase I Cultural Resource Survey was conducted on a 27.97-acre parcel, which is located at the southwest corner of Taft Highway and Ashe Road, City of Bakersfield, California.

The Phase I Cultural Resource Survey consisted of an archaeological survey and a cultural resource record search.

No cultural resources were identified. No further work is required. If archaeological resources are encountered during the course of construction, a qualified archaeologist should be consulted for further evaluation.

If human remains or potential human remains are observed during construction, work in the vicinity of the remains will cease, and the remains will be treated in accordance with the provisions of State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The protection of human remains follows California Public Resources Codes, Sections 5097.94, 5097.98, and 5097.99. 13 11.0 References
Hudlow, Scott M.
2005 A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for a Residential Project at Taft Highway and Ashe Road, City of Bakersfield, California. Report on file, Southern San Joaquin Information Center, California State University, Bakersfield, Bakersfield, California.

Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.

Nabokov, Peter and Robert Easton
1989 Native American Architecture. Oxford University Press, New York, New York.

Parr, Robert E. and Richard Osborne
1992 Route Adoption Study for Highway 58, Kern County, California.

Report on file, Southern San Joaquin Archaeological Information Center, California State University, Bakersfield, Bakersfield, California.

Wallace, William J.
1978 "Southern Valley Yokuts" in Handbook of North American Indians.

Vol. 8, California, Robert F. Heizer, ed. Washington, D.C.:

Smithsonian Institution, pp. 437-445.

Warren, Claude N. and M. B. McKusiak
1959 A Burial Complex from the southern San Joaquin Valley. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, Archaeological Survey Annual Report, 1959: 17-26.

Warren, Claude N.
1967 "The San Dieguito Complex: A Review and Hypothesis" American Antiquity 32(2): 168-185.
14 15
Appendix I
16 17
Scott M. Hudlow
1405 Sutter Lane
Bakersfield, California 93309
(661) 834-9183
Education
The George Washington University
M.A. American Studies, 1993
Specialization in Historical Archaeology
and Architectural History
University of California, Berkeley
B.A. History, 1987
B.A. Anthropology, 1987
Specialization in Historical Archaeology
and Colonial History
Public Service
3/94-12/02 Historic Preservation Commission. City of Bakersfield, Bakersfield, California 93305.
7/97-12/01 Newsletter Editor. California History Action, newsletter for the California Council for the Promotion of History.

Relevant Work Experience
8/96- Adjutant Faculty. Bakersfield College, 1801 Panorama Drive, Bakersfield, California, 93305. Teach History 17A, Introduction to American History and Anthropology 5, Introduction to North American Indians.

Owner, Sole Proprietorship. Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates. 1405 Sutter Lane, Bakersfield California 93309. Operate small cultural resource management business. Manage contracts, respond to RFP's, bill clients, manage temporary employees. Conduct Phase I archaeological and architectural surveys for private and public clients; including the cultural resource survey, documentary photography, measured drawings, mapping of structures, filing of survey forms, historic research, assessing impact and writing reports. Evaluated archaeological and architectural sites and properties in lieu of their eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places in association with Section 106 and 110 requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act).

Full resume is available upon request.
18 19
Appendix II
20 21
22 Project No: 346-14

TRAFFIC STUDY
GPA/ZC SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TAFT HIGHWAY (SR 119) & ASHE ROAD

BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:

MCINTOSH & ASSOCIATES
October 2023
(Updated May 2025)
Prepared by:
1800 30TH STREET, SUITE 260
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301
__________________________________________
John D. Schuler, RCE 51825
Traffic Study 346-14
Residential & Commercial Development
Taft Hwy (SR 119) & Ashe Rd i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pg
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP ..................................................................................................................................... 2 FIGURE 2: LOCATION MAP .................................................................................................................................. 3 FIGURE 3: SITE PLAN ............................................................................................................................................ 4 STUDY APPROACH ................................................................................................................................................ 5 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 5 TABLE 1: COUNTY WIDE VMT ............................................................................................................................ 6 TABLE 2: VMT ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................... 6 OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................... 6 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION AND DESIGN HOUR VOLUMES..................................................................... 9 TABLE 3: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ............................................................................................................ 9 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT .......................................................................................................... 9 TABLE 4: PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION ........................................................................................................ 10 EXISTING AND FUTURE TRAFFIC .................................................................................................................... 10 FIGURE 4: PROJECT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC .................................................................................................... 11 FIGURE 5: 2023 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ............................................................................................................. 12 FIGURE 6: 2023+PROJECT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC .......................................................................................... 13 FIGURE 7: 2043 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ............................................................................................................. 14 FIGURE 8: 2043+PROJECT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC .......................................................................................... 15 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................ 16 TABLE 5a: PM INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ..................................................................................... 17 TABLE 5b:AM INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ..................................................................................... 18 ROADWAY CAPACITY ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................... 19 TABLE 6a: ROADWAYADT & CAPACITY ........................................................................................................ 19 TABLE 6b: ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE ................................................................................................... 20 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................ 21 TABLE 7a: TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS, WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR .................................................. 21 TABLE 7b: TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS, WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR ................................................. 21 IMPROVEMENTS .................................................................................................................................................. 22 TABLE 8: FUTURE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AND LOCAL MITIGATION ................................. 22 TABLE 9: FUTURE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS AND LOCAL MITIGATION ......................................... 23 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................................... 24 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................................ 26 APPENDIX .............................................................................................................................................................. 27 Traffic Study 346-14
Residential & Commercial Development
Taft Hwy (SR 119) & Ashe Rd 1

INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study is to provide an evaluation of the potential traffic impacts of a proposed 28- acre Commercial and Residential development located on the southwest corner of Taft Highway (SR 119) & Ashe Road in the City of Bakersfield, California. Traffic impacts were evaluated for vehicle miles travelled (VMT) in accordance with current CEQA requirements. A vicinity map, location map, and site plan are presented in Figures 1 through 3 respectively.

Additionally, this study provides an operational analysis of the existing and future street system with the addition of project traffic, for the purpose of evaluating consistency with the City’s General Plan goals relating to intersection and roadway level of service.

A. Project Description, Existing and Proposed Land Use and Zoning The 28-acre site currently has a land use designation and zoning for multi-family residential, R-2. The project is for a proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) and zone change to 5.96 acres of retail commercial and 23 acres of R-3 multi-family residential.

B. Existing Site Uses and Site Access
The project site is currently vacant land. As currently planned, access to the proposed development would be provided along Taft Highway (SR 119) and Ashe Road.

C. Existing Uses in Vicinity of the Site
The project site lies in the southwest area of the City of Bakersfield in which the surrounding land uses include residential to the north and east and agricultural land uses to the south and west.

Traffic Study 346-14
Residential & Commercial Development
Taft Hwy (SR 119) & Ashe Rd 2
FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP

Traffic Study 346-14
Residential & Commercial Development
Taft Hwy (SR 119) & Ashe Rd 3
FIGURE 2: LOCATION MAP
Traffic Study 346-14
Residential & Commercial Development
Taft Hwy (SR 119) & Ashe Rd 4
FIGURE 3: SITE PLAN
Traffic Study 346-14
Residential & Commercial Development
Taft Hwy (SR 119) & Ashe Rd 5

STUDY APPROACH
In 2013 the State of California approved legislation (SB 743) to change the primary basis of evaluation of traffic impacts in CEQA from Level of Service (LOS) to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 was approved in December 2018, and became effective in early 2019.

Section 15064.3 required agencies to begin implementing the new VMT requirement no later than July 1, 2020. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released a Technical Advisory On Evaluating Transportation Impacts In CEQA in December 2018, which provides guidelines and recommendations for VMT evaluation and thresholds. As of October 2023, the City of Bakersfield has not finalized or adopted any policies or thresholds for VMT analysis, therefore the OPR Technical Advisory was used as the basis for this evaluation.

In addition to the VMT evaluation this study also provides an operational analysis of the existing and future street system with the addition of project traffic. The operation analysis includes LOS analysis for peak hour intersection and daily roadway operations. The purpose of the operational analysis is to evaluate consistency with the City’s General Plan goals relating to intersection and roadway level of service and identify potential LOS or geometric deficiencies.

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) ANALYSIS
The Technical Advisory provides initial screening criteria and thresholds of significance for the VMT evaluation. The VMT evaluation is limited to automobiles and light trucks. Given the project is mixeduse, individual components of the project are evaluated separately for VMT. The OPR TA recommends usage of VMT per capita as the VMT metric to evaluate residential land uses, and net change in total VMT to evaluate retail land uses. A 15% reduction in VMT per capita is recommended for residential land uses.

The OPR TA provides multiple screening criteria for land use VMT evaluation. The residential component of the project does not screen out. The retail element of the project is approximately 25,000 square feet, which is below the “local serving retail” threshold of 50,000 square feet, and therefore screens out as less than significant.

The regional transportation model, maintained by the Kern Council of Governments (KernCOG), was used to estimate baseline VMT for existing conditions. The KernCOG model is developed for use in adoption of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). The KernCOG model contains “gateway” points to State transportation model data and the VMT scripts within the KernCOG model account for Statewide travel, to assure that the model does not terminate at Traffic Study 346-14
Residential & Commercial Development
Taft Hwy (SR 119) & Ashe Rd 6
TAZ or jurisdictional boundaries. The model run and VMT analysis were prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. using a model baseline year of 2015 (see appendix for LSA report).

Per capita VMT for residential trips for the project and county wide values are shown in Table 1. The project VMT per capita for residential trips and the assumed City threshold and comparison are shown in Table 2.

Table 1
Project and County Wide VMT Per Capita
Table 2
Regional and Project VMT per capita Comparison
From Table 2, the project VMT is 17.29 miles per capita, assuming an average of 3 persons per dwelling unit. This value is 20.9% greater than the OPR recommended threshold, therefore, based on the OPR TA the project’s residential component will have a significant VMT impact.

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS
The study area includes a total of 9 intersections along Taft Highway (SR 119) and Ashe Road. The scope of the study was developed in association with the City of Bakersfield Public Works department.

Traffic Study 346-14
Residential & Commercial Development
Taft Hwy (SR 119) & Ashe Rd 7
Roadway Descriptions
Akers Road is designated as a collector. Within the study area, it exists as a two-lane roadway with curb and gutter. Akers Road currently provides access to residential and agricultural areas north and south of McKee Road, respectively.

Ashe Road is an arterial which extends south from Stockdale Highway approximately midway between Gosford Road and New Stine Road. It currently operates as a fully improved four-lane roadway within the study area and provides access to residential and commercial land uses.

Berkshire Road is an east-west collector that exists as a two-lane roadway with various stages of widening between Gosford Road and Stine Road. Berkshire Road provides access to residential neighborhoods and agricultural areas.

Gosford Road is an arterial which extends south from Stockdale Highway midway between Old River Road and Ashe Road. It operates with two lanes within the study area and provides access to residential and commercial land uses. Gosford Road continues north of Stockdale Highway as Coffee Road.

Gosford Road/Coffee Road is one of four north-south arterials that cross the Kern River west of State Route 99, and therefore, serves as a major north-south corridor in western metropolitan Bakersfield.

McCutchen Road is an arterial which extends west from Stine Road along the Hosking Avenue alignment. It currently exists as a two-lane rural/urban road and provides access to residential and agricultural areas.

McKee Road is an east-west collector which currently exists as a two-lane roadway at various stages of widening adjacent to development from west of Ashe Road to Wible Road. It provides access to residential neighborhoods within the study area.

Mountain Ridge Drive a future roadway, is designated as a collector. It will extend south from Panama Land midway between Ashe Road and Stine Road and will provide access from residential areas to eastwest arterials.

Panama Lane is designated as an arterial. It extends east from State Route 43 near Interstate 5 through the southern metropolitan Bakersfield area and provides access from agricultural, residential and commercial areas to north-south arterials and collectors and State Routes 43 and 99.

Traffic Study 346-14
Residential & Commercial Development
Taft Hwy (SR 119) & Ashe Rd 8
Stine Road is a north-south arterial which currently exists at full improvement width north of Panama Lane and at various stages of widening adjacent to development south of Panama Lane. Stine Road provides access from residential and commercial areas to east-west arterials and from southern metropolitan Bakersfield to central Bakersfield via New Stine Road and California Avenue.

Taft Highway, an east-west roadway, is designated as an expressway west of State Route 99 (State Route 119) and as an arterial east of State Route 99. It currently exists as a two- to four-lane roadway at various stages of widening adjacent to development between State Route 99 and Gosford Road.

Within the project vicinity, Taft Highway provides access from the communities of Greenfield, Pumpkin Center, and southwest Bakersfield.

Wible Road is a north-south arterial located adjacent to State Route 99. It currently operates as a two- to four-lane roadway in the vicinity of the project. It provides access to residential, commercial and industrial land uses within the study area.

Traffic Study 346-14
Residential & Commercial Development
Taft Hwy (SR 119) & Ashe Rd 9

PROJECT TRIP GENERATION AND DESIGN HOUR VOLUMES
The trip generation and design hour volumes for the residential development were calculated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 11th Edition. Trip generation and design hour volumes for all land uses are shown in Table 3.

The ADT, AM and PM peak hour rate equations, and peak hour directional splits for ITE Land Use Code 220 (Multi-Family Housing Low Rise), 822 (Strip Retail Plaza) 934 (Fast-Food Restaurant w/Drive-Thru), 912 (Drive-in Bank) and 945 (Convenience Store/Gas Station) were used to estimate the project traffic. The peak hour of adjacent street traffic is from 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM.

Table 3
Project Trip Generation
ITE Development Variable ADT ADT Rate In Out Rate In Out Code Type RATE % Split/ % Split/ % Split/ % Split/
Trips Trips Trips Trips
220 499 eq 3274 eq 24% 76% eq 63% 37%
Dwelling Units =6.41*499+75.31 178 43 135 235 148 87
822 8.648 eq 595 eq 60% 40% eq 50% 50%
1000 sq ft GLA =42.2*8.648+229.68 26 16 10 70 35 35
934 3.2 467.48 1496 44.61 51% 49% 33.03 52% 48%
1000 sq ft GFA 467.48*X 143 73 70 106 55 51
934 3.255 467.48 1522 44.61 51% 49% 33.03 52% 48%
1000 sq ft GFA 467.48*X 145 74 71 108 56 52
912 4.2 100.35 421 9.95 58% 42% 21.01 50% 50%
1000 sq ft GFA 100.35*X 42 24 18 88 44 44
945 16 257.13 4114 27.04 50% 50% 22.76 50% 50%
Vehicle Fueling Positions 257.13*X 433 216 217 364 182 182 sub-total 11,422 446 521 520 451
Adjustments
Capture 13% 1,485 58 68 68 59
Pass-by¹ 40% 3,259 161 154 149 146
Total 6,678 227 299 303 246
Fast-Food Restaurant
w/Drive-Thru
General Information Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips ¹Retail developments only
Convenience Store/Gas
Station
Multifamily Housing
(Low Rise)
Strip Retail Plaza
Fast-Food Restaurant
w/Drive-Thru
Drive-in Bank

TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
The project trip distribution in Table 4 represents the most likely travel routes for traffic accessing the project. Project traffic distribution was estimated based on a review of the potential draw from population centers within the region and the types of land uses involved. These assumptions were used to distribute project traffic as shown in Figure 4.

Traffic Study 346-14
Residential & Commercial Development
Taft Hwy (SR 119) & Ashe Rd 10
Table 4
Project Trip Distribution
Direction Percent
North 45%
East 30%
South 5%
West 20%

EXISTING AND FUTURE TRAFFIC
Weekday peak hour turning movements were counted at the following intersections in May 2023 (see Appendix for count data).
 Panama Lane & Ashe Road
 Berkshire Road & Ashe Road
 McCutchen Road & Ashe Road
 McKee Road & Ashe Road
 Taft Highway (SR 119) & Gosford Road
 Taft Highway (SR 119) & Ashe Road
 Taft Highway (SR 119) & Mountain Ridge Drive
 Taft Highway (SR 119) & Stine Road
 Taft Highway (SR 119) & Akers Road
Traffic counts were conducted between the hours of 7:00 to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 6:00 PM and are shown in Figure 5. The scope of intersections was approved by the City of Bakersfield Public Works.

Existing + Project peak hour volumes are shown in Figure 6.

Annual growth rates ranging between 0.61% to 5.75% were applied to existing traffic volumes to estimate future traffic volumes for the year 2043. These growth rates were estimated based on a review of existing and approved future developments in the vicinity of the project and KernCOG traffic model data. Future peak hour volumes are shown in Figures 7 and 8.

Traffic Study 346-14
Panama Ln
St ni e Rd
Ashe Rd
McCutchen Rd
McKee Rd
Hosking Rd
Taft Hwy
(SR 119)
Gosford Rd
Harris Rd
Berkshire Rd
Akers Rd
Mtn R di ge Dr
1 18
0 0
0240
9 1915
0 0
10 PM
1 14
0 0
0180
102318
0 0
8 AM
2 20
0 0
0520
7 4316
0 0
8 PM
2 15
0 0
0400
8 5120
0 0
6 AM
3 23
0 0
0800
9 6619
0 0
12 PM
3 17
0 0
0610
11 7923
0 0
9 AM
4 20
0 0
10 15
0 1
9416
0 0
1 PM
4 15
0 0
0870
1 113
20 0
0 1
AM
5 7
22 20
0020
00 10
0 31
0 PM
5 9
27 24
0015
008
0 22
0 AM
6 45
46 0
68680
335537
56 37
37 PM
6 34
34 0
52510
366745
67 45
31 AM
7 0
68 0
1800
500
15 55
4 PM
7 0
51 0
1400
300
18 68
4 AM
8 0
51 0
1400
300
11 41
3 PM
8 0
38 0
1000
300
14 51
3 AM
9 0
25 0
2100
500
17 20
4 PM
9 0
18 0
1600
400
21 25
5 AM
Map data ©2025 Google
Residential & Commercial Development
Taft Hwy (SR 119) & Ashe Rd
11 PROJECT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
FIGURE 4
N

NOT TO SCALE
LEGEND

STUDY INTERSECTION
Traffic Study 346-14
Panama Ln
St ni e Rd
Ashe Rd
McCutchen Rd
McKee Rd
Hosking Rd
Taft Hwy
(SR 119)
Gosford Rd
Harris Rd
Berkshire Rd
Akers Rd
Mtn R di ge Dr
1 198
804
175
99394228
113
305
61 144
648
102
PM
1 94
542
168
73246130
96 314
71 64
490
83 AM
2 6
3 151
0380203
3 386
11 0
2 1
PM
2 9
3 148
4254168
5 336
31 2
1 2
AM
3 24
178
88 11113257 60 249
14 56
267
126
PM
3 6
174
113
4216457
66 204
4 48
166
35 AM
4 26
11 107
39228136
9 217
21 11
2 9
PM
4 8
2 129
112675
3 160
17 3
4 3
AM
5 66
59 31
2046155
11 275
63 17
52 9
PM
5 32
49 62
2125438
7 299
56 22
66 10
AM
6 16
321
77 374858
9 6316
80 454
10 PM
6 7
298
35 552544
143910
24 262
12 AM
7 63
369
58 241644
221837
37 465
33 PM
7 47
279
35 231285
4027
111
9 299
10 AM
8 4
439
67 422149
1234
9 30
509
9 PM
8 4
293
90 757103
1 15
3 104
371
18 AM
9 2
490
55 30220
012
68 492
1 PM
9 3
296
31 94037
002
44 430
0 AM
Map data ©2025 Google
Residential & Commercial Development
Taft Hwy (SR 119) & Ashe Rd
12 2023 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
FIGURE 5
N

NOT TO SCALE
LEGEND

STUDY INTERSECTION
Traffic Study 346-14
Panama Ln
St ni e Rd
Ashe Rd
McCutchen Rd
McKee Rd
Hosking Rd
Taft Hwy
(SR 119)
Gosford Rd
Harris Rd
Berkshire Rd
Akers Rd
Mtn R di ge Dr
1 216
804
175
99418228
122324
76 144
648
112
PM
1 108
542
168
73264130
106337
89 64
490
91 AM
2 26
3 151
0432203
10 429
27 0
2 9
PM
2 24
3 148
4294168
13 387
51 2
1 8
AM
3 47
178
88 11113337 69 315
33 56
267
138
PM
3 23
174
113
4222557
77 283
27 48
166
44 AM
4 46
11 107
39343136
10 311
37 11
2 10
PM
4 23
2 129
121375
4 273
37 3
4 4
AM
5 73
81 51
2046175
11 275
73 17
83 9
PM
5 41
76 86
2125453
7 299
64 22
88 10
AM
6 61
367
77 158
16 105 42
118
53 136
491
47 PM
6 41
332
35 1077644
50 106
55 91
307
43 AM
7 63
437
58 421644
271837
52 520
37 PM
7 47
330
35 371285
4327
111
27 367
14 AM
8 4
490
67 562149
1534
9 41
550
12 PM
8 4
331
90 857103
4 15
3 118
422
21 AM
9 2
515
55 51220
512
85 512
5 PM
9 3
314
31 1037
10 402
65 455
5 AM
Map data ©2025 Google
Residential & Commercial Development
Taft Hwy (SR 119) & Ashe Rd
13 2023+PROJECT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
FIGURE 6
N

NOT TO SCALE
LEGEND

STUDY INTERSECTION
Traffic Study 346-14
Panama Ln
St ni e Rd
Ashe Rd
McCutchen Rd
McKee Rd
Hosking Rd
Taft Hwy
(SR 119)
Gosford Rd
Harris Rd
Berkshire Rd
Akers Rd
Mtn R di ge Dr
1 253
1027
223
132862304
278750150
287
1289
203
PM
1 120
692
215
97538173
236772175
127
975
165
AM
2 11
5 273
0934499
7 949
27 0
4 2
PM
2 16
5 267
10624413
12 826
76 4
2 4
AM
3 95
707
350
23464200
176729
41 154
736
347
PM
3 24
691
449
76296103
193597
12 132
458
96 AM
4 39
17 161
48278166
17 408
40 17
3 14
PM
4 12
3 194
115492
6 301
32 5
6 5
AM
5 103
92 49
3170584
17 421
96 30
92 16
PM
5 50
77 97
3238958
11 458
86 39
117
18 AM
6 25
503
121
6990108
28 193
49 142
806
18 PM
6 11
467
55 1034782
43 119
31 43
465
21 AM
7 130
762
120
372467
407055
58 728
52 PM
7 97
576
72 3518130
72 104165
14 468
16 AM
8 39
802
122
5220361
46 132
35 58
991
87 PM
8 39
535
164
9368127
4 5812
203
723
174
AM
9 4
885
99 51334
01 17
124
899
2 PM
9 5
535
56 159063
00 17
80 786
0 AM
Map data ©2025 Google
Residential & Commercial Development
Taft Hwy (SR 119) & Ashe Rd
14 2043 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
FIGURE 7
N

NOT TO SCALE
LEGEND

STUDY INTERSECTION
Traffic Study 346-14
Panama Ln
St ni e Rd
Ashe Rd
McCutchen Rd
McKee Rd
Hosking Rd
Taft Hwy
(SR 119)
Gosford Rd
Harris Rd
Berkshire Rd
Akers Rd
Mtn R di ge Dr
1 271
1027
223
132886304
287769165
287
1289
213
PM
1 134
692
215
97556173
246795193
127
975
173
AM
2 31
5 273
0986499
14 992
43 0
4 10
PM
2 31
5 267
10664413
20 877
96 4
2 10
AM
3 118
707
350
23544200
185795
60 154
736
359
PM
3 41
691
449
76357103
204676
35 132
458
105
AM
4 59
17 161
48393166
18 502
56 17
3 15
PM
4 27
3 194
124192
7 414
52 5
6 6
AM
5 110
114
69 31705104
17 421106
30 123
16 PM
5 59
104
121
3238973
11 458
94 39
139
18 AM
6 70
549
121
137158108
61 248
86 198
843
55 PM
6 45
501
55 1559882
79 186
76 110
510
52 AM
7 130
830
120
552467
457055
73 783
56 PM
7 97
627
72 4918130
75 104165
32 536
20 AM
8 39
853
122
6620361
49 132
35 69
1032
90 PM
8 39
573
164
10368127
7 5812
217
774
177
AM
9 4
910
99 72334
51 17
141
919
6 PM
9 5
553
56 175063
40 17
101
811
5 AM
Map data ©2025 Google
Residential & Commercial Development
Taft Hwy (SR 119) & Ashe Rd
15 2043+PROJECT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
FIGURE 8
N

NOT TO SCALE
LEGEND

STUDY INTERSECTION
Traffic Study 346-14
Residential & Commercial Development
Taft Hwy (SR 119) & Ashe Rd 16

INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
A capacity analysis of the study intersections was conducted using Synchro software from Trafficware.

This software utilizes the 2010 capacity analysis methodology in the Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual.
 Existing (2023)
 Existing (2023) + Project
 Future (2043)
 Future (2043) + Project
Criteria for intersection level of service (LOS) are shown in the tables below.

LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA

UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
Average Control Delay
(sec/veh) Level of Service Expected Delay to Minor
Street Traffic
≤ 10 A Little or no delay
> 10 and ≤ 15 B Short traffic delays
> 15 and ≤ 25 C Average traffic delays
> 25 and ≤ 35 D Long traffic delays
> 35 and ≤ 50 E Very long traffic delays
> 50 F Extreme delays

LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA

SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Volume/Capacity Control Delay (sec/veh) Level of Service < 0.60 ≤ 10 A

0.61 - 0.70 > 10 and ≤ 20 B

0.71 - 0.80 > 20 and ≤ 35 C

0.81 - 0.90 > 35 and ≤ 55 D

0.91 - 1.00 > 55 and ≤ 80 E
> 1.0 > 80 F
Traffic Study 346-14
Residential & Commercial Development
Taft Hwy (SR 119) & Ashe Rd 17
Level of service for the study intersections is presented in Tables 5a and 5b. The level of service goal for roadway facilities in Kern County is LOS “C” within the metropolitan Bakersfield area and LOS “D” outside the metro area. Intersection delays are shown for all intersections that operate below LOS “C”.

Table 5a
PM Intersection Level of Service
# Intersection Control
Type 2023 2023+ Project 2043 2043+ Project
2043+
Project
w/Mitigation
1 Ashe Rd & Pamama Ln Signal C C D
(38.8)
D
(43.9) -
2 Ashe Rd & Berkshire Rd AWSC F
(55.8)
F
(88.2)
F
(>300)
F
(>300) -
Signal - - - - C
3 Ashe Rd & McCutchen Rd AWSC F
(82.1)
F
(136.9)
F
(>300)
F
(>300) -
Signal - - - - C
4 Ashe Rd & McKee Rd Signal C C C C -
5 Gosford Rd & Taft Hwy
(SR 119) Signal E (62.5)
E
(70.9)
F
(216.6)
F
(228.0) C
6 Ashe Rd & Taft Hwy (SR
119) Signal C C C C -
7 Mountain Ridge Dr & Taft
Hwy (SR 119)
NB
SB
D
(33.6)
E
(38.4)
F
(63.8)
F
(54.7)
F
(>300)
F
(>300)
F
(>300)
F
(>300)
-
-
Signal - - - - C
8 Stine Rd & Taft Hwy (SR
119) Signal B C F (142.4)
F
(158.6) C
9 Akers Rd & Taft Hwy (SR
119)
NB
SB
C
C
E
(35.9)
C
D
(29.6)
F
(>300)
F
(>300)
F
(>300)
-
-
Signal - - - - C
Traffic Study 346-14
Residential & Commercial Development
Taft Hwy (SR 119) & Ashe Rd 18
Table 5b
AM Intersection Level of Service
# Intersection Control
Type 2023 2023+ Project 2043 2043+
Project
2043+
Project
w/Mitigation
1 Ashe Rd & Pamama Ln Signal B B C C -
2 Ashe Rd & Berkshire Rd AWSC C D
(29.3)
F
(>300)
F
(>300) -
Signal - - - - C
3 Ashe Rd & McCutchen
Rd
AWSC D
(27.6)
F
(67.2)
F
(>300)
F
(>300) -
Signal - - - - C
4 Ashe Rd & McKee Rd Signal C C C C -
5 Gosford Rd & Taft Hwy
(SR 119) Signal D (43.2)
D
(43.9)
F
(81.8)
F
(121.7) C
6 Ashe Rd & Taft Hwy (SR
119) Signal B C C C -
7 Mountain Ridge Dr &
Taft Hwy (SR 119)
NB
SB
D
(26.1)
E
(45.76)
F
(50.1)
F
(99.1)
F
(>300)
F
(>300)
F
(>300)
F
(>300)
-
-
Signal - - - - C
8 Stine Rd & Taft Hwy (SR
119) Signal C C F (108.9)
F
(177.0) C
9 Akers Rd & Taft Hwy
(SR 119)
NB
SB
B
C
D
(30.3)
C
C
F
(288.8)
F
(154.7)
F
(>300)
-
-
Signal - - - - B
Traffic Study 346-14
Residential & Commercial Development
Taft Hwy (SR 119) & Ashe Rd 19

ROADWAY ANALYSIS
Published ADT information and future projected traffic, as shown in Table 6a, were used to calculate the volume-to-capacity ratios shown in Table 6b.

A volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c) of greater than 0.80 corresponds to a LOS of less than “C”, as defined in the Highway Capacity Manual. As mentioned previously, a level of service “C” is an accepted standard in the City of Bakersfield within the metropolitan Bakersfield areas. A significant impact is generally defined as a condition where the addition of project traffic reduces the LOS to below LOS C, or where the pre-existing condition of the roadway is below LOS C, and the LOS degrades below the pre-existing level of service with the addition of the project.

Table 6a
Roadway ADT & Capacity
Street 2023 Project 2023+ 2043 2043+ Existing Mitigated 2023 ADT Project ADT Project Capacity Capacity
Taft Hwy (SR 119):

Gosford Rd to Ashe Rd 7943 1260 9203 14097 15357 30000 - Taft Hwy (SR 119):

Ashe Rd to Mountain Ridge Rd 8017 1890 9907 15616 17506 40000 - Taft Hwy (SR 119):

Mountain Ridge Rd to Stine Rd 10476 1432 11908 20406 21838 15000 30000 Taft Hwy (SR 119):

Stine Rd to Akers Rd 10296 1081 11377 16871 17952 15000 30000 Ashe Rd:

Berkshire Rd to Panama Ln 7595 1103 8698 9397 10500 40000 - Ashe Rd:

McCutchen Rd to Berkshire Rd 7677 1701 9378 11748 13449 15000 30000 Ashe Rd:

McKee Rd to McCutchen Rd 3823 2405 6228 5681 8086 15000 - Ashe Rd:

Taft Hwy (SR 119) to McKee Rd 3814 2845 6659 5396 8241 15000 - ¹2023 Data not available, data grown out to 2023
Traffic Study 346-14
Residential & Commercial Development
Taft Hwy (SR 119) & Ashe Rd 20
Table 6b
Roadway Level of Service
Street v/c(Ex) v/c(Ex) v/c(Fut) v/c(Fut) v/c(Mit)
2023 2023+Proj 2043 2043+Proj 2043+Proj
Taft Hwy (SR 119):

Gosford Rd to Ashe Rd 0.26 0.31 0.47 0.51 -
Taft Hwy (SR 119):

Ashe Rd to Mountain Ridge Rd 0.20 0.25 0.39 0.44 -
Taft Hwy (SR 119):

Mountain Ridge Rd to Stine Rd 0.70 0.79 1.36 1.46 0.73
Taft Hwy (SR 119):

Stine Rd to Akers Rd 0.69 0.76 1.12 1.20 0.60
Ashe Rd:

Berkshire Rd to Panama Ln 0.19 0.22 0.23 0.26 -
Ashe Rd:

McCutchen Rd to Berkshire Rd 0.51 0.63 0.78 0.90 0.45
Ashe Rd:

McKee Rd to McCutchen Rd 0.25 0.42 0.38 0.54 -
Ashe Rd:

Taft Hwy (SR 119) to McKee Rd 0.25 0.44 0.36 0.55 -
Traffic Study 346-14
Residential & Commercial Development
Taft Hwy (SR 119) & Ashe Rd 21

TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS
Peak hour signal warrants were evaluated for the four unsignalized intersections within the study based on the 2014 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2014 CA MUTCD). Peak hour signal warrants assess delay to traffic on minor street approaches when entering or crossing a major street. Signal warrant analysis results are shown in Tables 7a and 7b.

Table 7a
Traffic Signal Warrants
Weekday PM Peak Hour
Major Minor Major Minor Major Minor Major Minor
Street Street Street Street Street Street Street Street Total High Total High Total High Total High
Approach Approach Warrant Approach Approach Warrant Approach Approach Warrant Approach Approach Warrant # Intersection Vol Vol Met Vol Vol Met Vol Vol Met Vol Vol Met 2 Ashe Rd at
Berkshire Rd 983 160 YES 1105 186 YES 2416 289 YES 2541 313 YES 3 Ashe Rd at
McCutchen Rd 739 381 YES 879 465 YES 2389 946 YES 2431 1045 YES 7 Mountain Ridge Dr at
Taft Hwy (SR 119) 1025 84 NO 1169 108 NO 1850 165 YES 1999 172 YES 9 Akers Rd at
Taft Hwy (SR 119) 1108 52 NO 1182 75 NO 2013 88 NO 2091 115 YES 2023 2023+Project 2043 2043+Project
Table 7b
Traffic Signal Warrants
Weekday AM Peak Hour
Major Minor Major Minor Major Minor Major Minor
Street Street Street Street Street Street Street Street Total High Total High Total High Total High
Approach Approach Warrant Approach Approach Warrant Approach Approach Warrant Approach Approach Warrant # Intersection Vol Vol Met Vol Vol Met Vol Vol Met Vol Vol Met 2 Ashe Rd at
Berkshire Rd 798 160 NO 909 180 YES 1961 288 YES 2070 308 YES 3 Ashe Rd at
McCutchen Rd 542 274 NO 695 314 YES 1850 802 YES 1879 908 YES 7 Mountain Ridge Dr at
Taft Hwy (SR 119) 679 178 NO 809 188 YES 1243 341 YES 1372 350 YES 9 Akers Rd at
Taft Hwy (SR 119) 804 131 NO 871 149 NO 1462 222 YES 1532 239 YES 2023 2023+Project 2043 2043+Project
It is important to note that a signal warrant defines the minimum condition under which signalization of an intersection might be warranted. Meeting this threshold does not suggest traffic signals are required, but rather, that other traffic factors and conditions be considered in order to determine whether signals are truly justified.

It is also noted that signal warrants do not necessarily correlate with level of service. An intersection may satisfy a signal warrant condition and operate at or above an acceptable level of service or operate below an acceptable level of service and not meet signal warrant criteria.

Traffic Study 346-14
Residential & Commercial Development
Taft Hwy (SR 119) & Ashe Rd 22

IMPROVEMENTS
Intersection and roadway improvements needed by the year 2043 to maintain or improve the operational level of service of the street system in the vicinity of the project are shown in Tables 8 and 9, respectively. The Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) Program is a fee imposed on new development and contains a Regional Transportation Facilities List and a Transportation Impact Fee Schedule. The Facilities List includes many of the facilities needed to maintain a Level of Service (LOS) C or better for new growth or to prevent the degradation of facilities which are currently operating below LOS C. The Fee Schedule sets forth the fees to be collected from new development to mitigate the need for the facilities.

Table 8
Future Intersection Improvements and Local Mitigation
# Intersection Total Improvements
Required by 2043
Local Mitigation
(Improvements not covered
by RTIF or adjacent
development)
2 Ashe Rd & Berkshire Rd Signal -
3 Ashe Rd & McCutchen
Rd Signal -
5 Gosford Rd & Taft Hwy
(SR 119)
Change NBTRL to NBT
Add NBL, NBR
Change SBTRL to SBT
Add SBL, SBR
-
7 Mountain Ridge Dr &
Taft Hwy (SR 119) Signal -
8 Stine Rd & Taft Hwy (SR
119) Add EBT, WBT -
9 Akers Rd & Taft Hwy
(SR 119) Signal -
Notes: NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, L = Left-Turn Lane, WB = Westbound, T = Through Lane, EB = Eastbound, R = Right-Turn Lane 1Striping only. Pavement is widened to accommodate the additional lanes.

Traffic Study 346-14
Residential & Commercial Development
Taft Hwy (SR 119) & Ashe Rd 23
Table 9
Future Roadway Improvements and Local Mitigation
Intersection Total Improvements
Required by 2043
Local Mitigation
(Improvements not covered
by RTIF or adjacent
development)
Taft Hwy (SR 119):

Mountain Ridge Rd to
Stine Rd
Add Two Lanes -
Taft Hwy (SR 119):

Stine Rd to Akers Rd Add Two Lanes -
Ashe Rd:

McCutchen Rd to
Berkshire Rd
Add Two Lanes -
Traffic Study 346-14
Residential & Commercial Development
Taft Hwy (SR 119) & Ashe Rd 24

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the potential traffic impacts of the proposed residential development located along Panama Lane east of Gosford Road in Bakersfield, CA. The study included both level of service (LOS) and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analyses.

Level of Service Analysis
In 2023, prior to the addition of project traffic, the following intersections operate below an acceptable level of service: Ashe Road & Berkshire Road, Ashe Road & McCutchen Road, Gosford Road & Taft Highway (SR 119), and Mountain Ridge Drive & Taft Highway (SR 119). With the addition of project traffic, the intersection of Akers Road & Taft Highway (SR 119) is anticipated to operate below an acceptable level of service.

In 2043, prior to the addition of project traffic, the following intersection is anticipated to operate below an acceptable level of service: Ashe Road & Panama Lane and Stine Road & Taft Highway (SR 119).

All remaining intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at an acceptable level of service.

Roadway Capacity
All roadway segments are anticipated to operate at an acceptable level of service in the year 2023, prior to and with the addition of project traffic.

In 2043, the following roadway segments are anticipated to operate below an acceptable level of service:

Taft Highway (SR 119) from Mountain Ridge Road to Stine Road, and Taft Highway (SR 119) from Stine Road to Akers Road. With the addition of project traffic, the roadway segment of Ashe Road from McCutchen Road to Berkshire Road is anticipated to operate below an acceptable level of service. All remaining roadway segments are anticipated to continue to operate at an acceptable level of service.

VMT
The project’s per capita VMT is 20.9% greater than the assumed threshold and therefore, based upon the OPR TA, will have a significant impact for VMT. In order to mitigate these VMT impacts, we recommend that this project include residential dwellings that are EV-capable, promoting the use of electric vehicles. “EV-capable” means the developer will install a dedicated circuit within the service panel and provide a receptacle or blank cover labeled as “EV READY.” Traffic Study 346-14
Residential & Commercial Development
Taft Hwy (SR 119) & Ashe Rd 25
Conclusion
Based on the City of Bakersfield’s standards for determining whether project traffic impacts level of service standards for intersections and roadways, the mitigation measures identified in Tables 8 and 9 are anticipated to be needed in order to bring level of service up to standards for the listed facilities by the year 2043. Mitigation measures will be accomplished through improvements identified in the Regional Transportation Impact Fee program and the project is expected to pay into the fee program.

Traffic Study 346-14
Residential & Commercial Development
Taft Hwy (SR 119) & Ashe Rd 26

REFERENCES

1. Annual Traffic Census, KernCOG

2. Kern County General Plan, approved September 22, 2009

3. Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board

4. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, 2014 Edition, Federal Highway Administration (FHA)

5. Trip Generation, 11th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Traffic Study 346-14
Residential & Commercial Development
Taft Hwy (SR 119) & Ashe Rd 27

APPENDIX

CARLSBAD
CLOVIS
IRVINE

LOS ANGELES

PALM SPRINGS

POINT RICHMOND

RIVERSIDE

ROSEVILLE

SAN LUIS OBISPO
1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200, Riverside, California  92507     951.781.9310     www.lsa.net

MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 10, 2023
TO: Linda J Hakimi, P.E.

FROM: Ambarish Mukherjee, P.E., AICP
SUBJECT: Taft and Ash Rd. Mixed Use Project Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis Memorandum LSA has prepared this Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Memorandum (Memo) for the proposed Taft and Ash Rd. Mixed Use development (project) located at the southwest corner of Taft Hwy. and Ash Rd., in the City of Bakersfield (city). The project proposes development of approximately 28 acres into 499 multi family dwelling units and maximum of 20,000 square feet (SF) retail. Based on LSA’s understanding the project would require a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and a Zone Change (ZC).

BACKGROUND
On December 28, 2018, the California Office of Administrative Law cleared the revised California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines for use. Among the changes to the guidelines was removal of vehicle delay and level of service from consideration under CEQA. With the adopted guidelines, transportation impacts are to be evaluated based on a project generated VMT.

The city is yet to adopt Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) guidelines and so, the VMT analysis was conducted using the methodology and significant threshold criteria identified in the California Governor’s Office of Research and Planning (OPR) Technical Advisory (TA), dated December 2018.

As described above, the project includes residential and retail land uses. Given the project is mixed‐ use, individual components of the project would be evaluated separately for VMT. The OPR TA recommends usage of VMT per capita as the VMT metric to evaluate residential land uses. As per the OPR TA, a region should be defined based on where majority of the trips start or end within that region. Typically, it is the county boundary within which majority of those trips are contained.

Additionally, given the project is near the border of the city, project trips may travel beyond the city.

Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, Kern County (County) has been considered as the region.

Also, based on OPR TA recommendations, the threshold for determining VMT impacts has been considered as 15 percent below the region’s current baseline VMT per capita. Therefore, the project will have a significant VMT impact if the project VMT per capita is greater than 85% of baseline Kern County VMT per capita.

Similarly, the OPR TA recommends use of net change in total VMT to evaluate retail projects. If the total regional VMT is greater under “with project” condition compared to “no project” condition, the project retail use would have a significant VMT impact. 7/9/23 (P:\20231423_TaftAsh_MixedUse\Traffic\TaftAsh_MixedUse_VMTMemo_07‐10‐2023.docx)   2 Additionally, the OPR TA recommends using screening criterion from the TA to determine whether a project or a project component could be screened out from a detailed VMT analysis.

Project Screening Determination
The TA provides multiple screening criteria for land use projects based on project trip generation and project land use type. The project was compared with screening criteria established in the OPR TA to check if the project or project components can be screened out. Following is a brief description about the project in relation with project screening criteria:
 Daily Vehicle Trip thresholds:  The OPR TA established 110 or less weekday daily trips as the screening threshold. Therefore, if the project trip generation is less than 110 daily trips based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, latest edition, the project can be screened out of a detailed VMT analysis. Based on ITE trip generation manual 11th edition, the project generates more than 110 daily trips and therefore the project cannot be screened out using this criterion.  Local serving retail: The OPR TA provides a screening criterion for local serving retail land uses of less than 50,000 SF. The retail component of the project is 20,000 SF and therefore the retail component of the project can be screened out of a detailed VMT analysis.

As such, the residential component of the project could not be screened out of VMT analysis.

Therefore, a detailed VMT analysis was conducted to assess the project’s VMT impact.

Detailed VMT Analysis Methodology
The Kern Council of Governments’ (Kern COG’s) San Joaquin Valley Model Improvement Program Phase 2 (VMIP II) Travel Demand Model (Kern COG TDM) is the regional travel demand model which was used to evaluate project VMT. Numerical value for the County’s VMT per capita threshold was estimated using LSA’s “no project” model run. The baseline (2015) regional VMT per capita was calculated to be 16.8 using Kern COG VMIP II model. Therefore, as per the OPR TA the threshold for VMT per capita would be 14.30 (15 percent below the region’s current baseline VMT per capita).

To estimate project VMT metric, the model’s socioeconomic database under baseline (2015) conditions was updated with project land uses. Even though, retail component of the project was screened out of VMT analysis, the retail use was included in “with project” model run to appropriately account for internal capture of trips between residential and retail uses of the project.

The following is a detailed description of the VMT analysis:

Project Traffic Analysis Zone Update
The first step in preparation of this analysis was to update the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) in the model that includes the project area. VMIP II includes capability for addition of new zones or TAZ splits. The project should be isolated to estimate its VMT and therefore two new TAZs were created to include project residential and retail land uses. LSA converted the project land uses into model socioeconomic categories.  The Kern COG TDM socioeconomic database for baseline (2015) scenario was updated with project socioeconomic data for the newly created project TAZs. 7/9/23 (P:\20231423_TaftAsh_MixedUse\Traffic\TaftAsh_MixedUse_VMTMemo_07‐10‐2023.docx)   3 Model Runs and Project VMT Estimation
Model run was conducted for this updated “with project” model scenario after incorporating project land uses as described above. Project VMT was estimated from VMIP II model run and estimated project VMT was divided by the estimated project population to develop the project VMT per capita.

VMT Analysis
Project VMT Impact
As previously mentioned, the baseline (2015) conditions regional VMT per capita was obtained from the Kern COG TDM model “no project” model run. The regional VMT per capita is 16.8. Further, as stated above, 15 percent below the baseline regional VMT per capita was considered as the threshold which results in a numerical value of VMT threshold of 14.3. Table A shows the regional threshold and project VMT per capita rate. As shown in Table A, the project VMT per capita is 17.3 which is greater than the significant threshold by 20.9 percent. As such, based on the OPR TA and the methodology described in this memorandum, the project will have a significant VMT impact.

Detailed VMT calculation for the project is included in Appendix A.

Table A: Baseline (2015) Regional and Project VMT per capita Comparison 2015
Taft and Ash Mixed Use
(residential use)
City of Bakersfield
Threshold * Difference % Difference
VMT per capita 17.29 14.30 3.00   20.9%
* Estimated using “No project” VMIP II base year (2015) model runs Conclusion
Based on the VMT analysis as shown in above table A, the project constitutes a significant impact for VMT.

ATTACHMENTS
Appendix A: VMT Calculation Worksheet
2015 Project Kern County*
Households 499 263,000
Total Population 1,525 836,131
Homebased (HB) VMT 26,373 14,063,261
HB VMT per capita 17.3 16.8
* Estimated using "no project" base year (2015) VMIP II model run Appendix A ‐ VMT Calculation Worksheet
Taft and Ash Mixed Use, Bakersfield ‐ VMT Analysis
P:\20231423_TaftAsh_MixedUse\Traffic\taft_ash_vmt.xlsx (7/7/2023) HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM 2023 1: Ashe Rd & Pamama Ln 05/01/2025
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 144 648 102 198 804 175 113 305 61 228 394 99 Future Volume (veh/h) 144 648 102 198 804 175 113 305 61 228 394 99 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
Initial Q, veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj (A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Lanes Open During Work Zone
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 153 689 109 215 874 190 120 324 65 245 424 106 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Opposing Right Turn Influence Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap, veh/h 317 1575 437 317 1575 442 297 745 299 370 827 332 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Prop Arrive On Green 0.10 0.31 0.31 0.10 0.31 0.31 0.09 0.21 0.21 0.12 0.23 0.23 Unsig. Movement Delay
Ln Grp Delay, s/veh 26.7 16.8 15.9 31.8 17.7 17.2 26.6 21.1 20.0 29.8 20.6 19.7 Ln Grp LOS C B B C B B C C C C C B
Approach Vol, veh/h 951 1279 509 775
Approach Delay, s/veh 18.3 20.0 22.2 23.4
Approach LOS B B C C
Timer: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Case No 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 16.6 10.0 22.6 9.6 18.0 10.0 22.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green (Gmax), s 5.0 30.5 4.0 31.5 5.0 30.5 4.0 31.5 Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 Max Q Clear (g_c+l1), s 6.4 6.8 5.9 8.5 4.1 8.3 4.7 10.6 Green Ext Time (g_e), s 0.0 1.5 0.0 3.5 0.0 2.1 0.0 4.7 Prob of Phs Call (p_c) 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.92 1.00 Prob of Max Out (p_x) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.03 Left-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 1 3 5 7
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 3183 3183 3183 3183
Through Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 2 4 6 8
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 3554 5106 3554 5106
Right-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 12 14 16 18
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 1429 1416 1426 1433
Left Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 1 0 3 0 5 0 7 0
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM 2023 1: Ashe Rd & Pamama Ln 05/01/2025
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Lane Assignment L (Prot) L (Prot) L (Prot) L (Prot)
Lanes in Grp 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 245 0 215 0 120 0 153 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 1591 0 1591 0 1591 0 1591 0
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 4.4 0.0 3.9 0.0 2.1 0.0 2.7 0.0
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 4.4 0.0 3.9 0.0 2.1 0.0 2.7 0.0 Perm LT Sat Flow (s_l), veh/h/ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Shared LT Sat Flow (s_sh), veh/h/ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Perm LT Eff Green (g_p), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Serve Time (g_u), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Q Serve Time (g_ps), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Time to First Blk (g_f), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Serve Time pre Blk (g_fs), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop LT Inside Lane (P_L) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 370 0 317 0 297 0 317 0
V/C Ratio (X) 0.66 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.48 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 370 0 317 0 370 0 317 0
Upstream Filter (I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 25.4 0.0 26.1 0.0 25.7 0.0 25.6 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.3 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.9 0.0 1.1 0.0
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 29.8 0.0 31.8 0.0 26.6 0.0 26.7 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 1.4 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.9 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 1.6 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.9 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.21 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.12 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Middle Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8
Lane Assignment T T T T
Lanes in Grp 0 2 0 3 0 2 0 3
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 324 0 689 0 424 0 874
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 1777 0 1702 0 1777 0 1702
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 4.8 0.0 6.5 0.0 6.3 0.0 8.6
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 4.8 0.0 6.5 0.0 6.3 0.0 8.6 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 745 0 1575 0 827 0 1575
V/C Ratio (X) 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.56
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 1920 0 2844 0 1920 0 2844
Upstream Filter (I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 20.7 0.0 16.6 0.0 20.1 0.0 17.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 21.1 0.0 16.8 0.0 20.6 0.0 17.7 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 1.6 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 2.7 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM 2023 1: Ashe Rd & Pamama Ln 05/01/2025
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 1.7 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 2.7 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 0 12 0 14 0 16 0 18
Lane Assignment R R R R
Lanes in Grp 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 65 0 109 0 106 0 190
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 1429 0 1416 0 1426 0 1433
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 2.3 0.0 3.5 0.0 3.7 0.0 6.4
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 2.3 0.0 3.5 0.0 3.7 0.0 6.4 Prot RT Sat Flow (s_R), veh/h/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prot RT Eff Green (g_R), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop RT Outside Lane (P_R) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 299 0 437 0 332 0 442
V/C Ratio (X) 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.43
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 772 0 788 0 771 0 798
Upstream Filter (I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 19.7 0.0 15.6 0.0 19.1 0.0 16.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.7
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 20.0 0.0 15.9 0.0 19.7 0.0 17.2 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.9 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.6 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.9 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.7 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.22 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 20.6
HCM 7th LOS C
HCM 7th AWSC PM 2023
2: Ashe Rd & Berkshire Rd 05/01/2025
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh55.8
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 2 1 6 3 151 3 386 11 203 380 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 2 1 6 3 151 3 386 11 203 380 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.86 0.86 0.86 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 4 2 7 4 178 3 415 12 236 442 0
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 2 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 1 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 10.5 12.3 19.2 91.5

HCM LOS B B C F
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 1% 0% 4% 35% 0%
Vol Thru, % 97% 67% 2% 65% 100%
Vol Right, % 3% 33% 94% 0% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 400 3 160 583 0
LT Vol 3 0 6 203 0
Through Vol 386 2 3 380 0
RT Vol 11 1 151 0 0
Lane Flow Rate 430 6 188 678 0
Geometry Grp 4a 2 2 5 5
Degree of Util (X) 0.66 0.012 0.318 1.106 0
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.75 7.418 6.345 5.875 5.699
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 632 485 570 624 0
Service Time 3.75 5.418 4.345 3.575 3.399
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.68 0.012 0.33 1.087 0
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 19.2 10.5 12.3 91.5 8.4
HCM Lane LOS C B B F F
HCM 95th-tile Q 4.9 0 1.4 20.5 0
HCM 7th AWSC PM 2023
3: Ashe Rd & McCutchen Rd 05/01/2025
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh82.1
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 56 267 126 24 178 88 60 249 14 111 257 13 Future Vol, veh/h 56 267 126 24 178 88 60 249 14 111 257 13 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.91 0.91 0.91 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 65 310 147 30 223 110 64 265 15 122 282 14
Number of Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 2 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 2 2 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 1 1 2
HCM Control Delay, s/veh61.1 76.6 55.3 135.1

HCM LOS F F F F
Lane NBLn1NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 19% 0% 17% 0% 8% 29%
Vol Thru, % 81% 0% 83% 0% 61% 67%
Vol Right, % 0% 100% 0% 100% 30% 3%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 309 14 323 126 290 381
LT Vol 60 0 56 0 24 111
Through Vol 249 0 267 0 178 257
RT Vol 0 14 0 126 88 13
Lane Flow Rate 329 15 376 147 363 419
Geometry Grp 5 5 5 5 4b 4b
Degree of Util (X) 0.889 0.037 0.991 0.355 0.978 1.173
Departure Headway (Hd) 10.374 9.536 10.165 9.339 10.484 10.087 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 352 378 361 388 348 360
Service Time 8.074 7.236 7.865 7.039 8.484 8.18
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.935 0.04 1.042 0.379 1.043 1.164
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 57.2 12.6 78.2 17.1 76.6 135.1 HCM Lane LOS F B F C F F
HCM 95th-tile Q 8.6 0.1 11.3 1.6 10.8 16.9
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM 2023 4: Ashe Rd & Mckee Rd 05/01/2025
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 11 2 9 26 11 107 9 217 21 136 228 39 Future Volume (veh/h) 11 2 9 26 11 107 9 217 21 136 228 39 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
Initial Q, veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj (A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Lanes Open During Work Zone
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 18 3 15 31 13 127 10 231 22 170 285 49 Peak Hour Factor 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.80 0.80 0.80 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Opposing Right Turn Influence Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap, veh/h 26 28 138 39 16 160 340 540 422 632 873 681
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Prop Arrive On Green 0.02 0.10 0.10 0.02 0.11 0.11 0.21 0.29 0.29 0.39 0.47 0.47 Unsig. Movement Delay
Ln Grp Delay, s/veh 70.6 0.0 37.0 72.1 0.0 46.9 28.5 28.4 16.0 19.2 16.1 13.4 Ln Grp LOS E D E D C C B B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 36 171 263 504
Approach Delay, s/veh 53.8 51.4 27.3 16.9
Approach LOS D D C B
Timer: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Assigned Phs 2 1 3 4 6 5 8 7
Case No 3.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 2.0
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 30.5 39.2 6.7 13.7 46.5 23.2 14.4 5.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green (Gmax), s 26.0 20.5 7.5 18.0 42.0 4.5 21.0 4.5 Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.3 4.0 4.1 4.3 4.1 Max Q Clear (g_c+l1), s 11.0 8.4 3.7 2.9 10.6 2.4 9.6 3.0 Green Ext Time (g_e), s 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 Prob of Phs Call (p_c) 1.00 0.99 0.54 0.99 1.00 0.22 0.99 0.36 Prob of Max Out (p_x) 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Left-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 1 3 5 7
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 1641 1641 1641 1641
Through Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 2 4 6 8
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 1870 271 1870 149
Right-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 12 14 16 18
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 1460 1355 1460 1459
Left Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 0 1 3 0 0 5 0 7
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM 2023 4: Ashe Rd & Mckee Rd 05/01/2025
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Lane Assignment L (Prot) L (Prot) L (Prot) L (Prot)
Lanes in Grp 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 170 31 0 0 10 0 18
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 1641 1641 0 0 1641 0 1641
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 6.4 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.0
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 6.4 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.0 Perm LT Sat Flow (s_l), veh/h/ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Shared LT Sat Flow (s_sh), veh/h/ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Perm LT Eff Green (g_p), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Serve Time (g_u), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Q Serve Time (g_ps), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Time to First Blk (g_f), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Serve Time pre Blk (g_fs), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop LT Inside Lane (P_L) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 632 39 0 0 340 0 26
V/C Ratio (X) 0.00 0.27 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.68
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 632 137 0 0 340 0 82
Upstream Filter (I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 19.0 43.7 0.0 0.0 28.4 0.0 44.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.2 28.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.5 Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 19.2 72.1 0.0 0.0 28.5 0.0 70.6 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 2.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.4 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 2.2 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.6 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.56 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.07 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Middle Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 2 0 0 4 6 0 8 0
Lane Assignment T T
Lanes in Grp 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 231 0 0 0 285 0 0 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 1870 0 0 0 1870 0 0 0
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 540 0 0 0 873 0 0 0
V/C Ratio (X) 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 540 0 0 0 873 0 0 0
Upstream Filter (I) 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 26.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 28.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM 2023 4: Ashe Rd & Mckee Rd 05/01/2025
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 12 0 0 14 16 0 18 0
Lane Assignment R T+R R T+R
Lanes in Grp 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 22 0 0 18 49 0 140 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 1460 0 0 1626 1460 0 1608 0
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.7 0.0 7.6 0.0
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.7 0.0 7.6 0.0 Prot RT Sat Flow (s_R), veh/h/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prot RT Eff Green (g_R), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop RT Outside Lane (P_R) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 1.00 0.00 0.91 0.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 422 0 0 166 681 0 176 0
V/C Ratio (X) 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.07 0.00 0.79 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 422 0 0 325 681 0 375 0
Upstream Filter (I) 0.97 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 15.8 0.0 0.0 36.7 13.2 0.0 39.1 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 7.8 0.0
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 16.0 0.0 0.0 37.0 13.4 0.0 46.9 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.0 2.8 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.0 3.2 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.03 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 27.1
HCM 7th LOS C
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM 2023 5: Gosford Rd & Taft Hwy (SR 119) 05/01/2025
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 17 52 9 66 59 31 11 275 63 55 461 20 Future Volume (veh/h) 17 52 9 66 59 31 11 275 63 55 461 20 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
Initial Q, veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj (A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Lanes Open During Work Zone
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1723 1737 1723 1723 1737 1723 1723 1737 1723 1723 1737 1723 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 20 61 11 87 78 41 13 316 72 66 555 24 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.83 0.83 0.83 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 11 2 2 11 2 2 11 2 2 11 2
Opposing Right Turn Influence Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap, veh/h 91 217 39 105 277 233 14 334 76 70 588 25
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Prop Arrive On Green 0.06 0.15 0.13 0.06 0.16 0.16 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.40 0.40 0.38 Unsig. Movement Delay
Ln Grp Delay, s/veh 54.9 0.0 47.6 94.0 46.4 44.8 74.4 0.0 0.0 55.9 0.0 0.0 Ln Grp LOS D D F D D E E
Approach Vol, veh/h 92 206 401 645
Approach Delay, s/veh 49.2 66.2 74.4 55.9
Approach LOS D E E E
Timer: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Assigned Phs 6 2 4 3 8 7
Case No 12.0 12.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 2.0
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 51.4 34.0 22.0 11.6 23.0 10.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Max Green (Gmax), s 46.0 28.0 16.0 5.0 17.0 4.0
Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1
Max Q Clear (g_c+l1), s 45.1 29.9 6.5 8.2 6.7 3.4
Green Ext Time (g_e), s 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0
Prob of Phs Call (p_c) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.48
Prob of Max Out (p_x) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Left-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 1 5 3 7
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 176 54 1641 1641
Through Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 6 2 4 8
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 1477 1324 1432 1737
Right-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 16 12 14 18
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 64 302 258 1460
Left Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 1 5 0 3 0 0 0 7
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM 2023 5: Gosford Rd & Taft Hwy (SR 119) 05/01/2025
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Lane Assignment L+T+R L+T+R L (Prot) L (Prot)
Lanes in Grp 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 645 401 0 87 0 0 0 20
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 1717 1680 0 1641 0 0 0 1641
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 43.1 27.9 0.0 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 43.1 27.9 0.0 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 Perm LT Sat Flow (s_l), veh/h/ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Shared LT Sat Flow (s_sh), veh/h/ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Perm LT Eff Green (g_p), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Serve Time (g_u), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Q Serve Time (g_ps), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Time to First Blk (g_f), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Serve Time pre Blk (g_fs), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop LT Inside Lane (P_L) 0.10 0.03 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 684 424 0 105 0 0 0 91
V/C Ratio (X) 0.94 0.95 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 692 424 0 105 0 0 0 91
Upstream Filter (I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 34.5 43.9 0.0 55.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 53.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 21.3 30.5 0.0 39.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 55.9 74.4 0.0 94.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 54.9 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 16.5 10.9 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 4.0 3.6 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 20.5 14.5 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.22 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Middle Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 6 2 4 0 0 0 8 0
Lane Assignment T
Lanes in Grp 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 1737 0
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 277 0
V/C Ratio (X) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 277 0
Upstream Filter (I) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.4 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM 2023 5: Gosford Rd & Taft Hwy (SR 119) 05/01/2025
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 16 12 14 0 0 0 18 0
Lane Assignment T+R R
Lanes in Grp 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 0 72 0 0 0 41 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 0 1690 0 0 0 1460 0
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 Prot RT Sat Flow (s_R), veh/h/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prot RT Eff Green (g_R), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop RT Outside Lane (P_R) 0.04 0.18 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 0 256 0 0 0 233 0
V/C Ratio (X) 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 0 256 0 0 0 233 0
Upstream Filter (I) 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 0.0 44.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.2 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 47.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.8 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 62.5
HCM 7th LOS E
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM 2023 6: Ashe Rd & Taft Hwy (SR 119) 05/01/2025
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 80 454 10 16 321 77 9 63 16 58 48 37 Future Volume (veh/h) 80 454 10 16 321 77 9 63 16 58 48 37 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
Initial Q, veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj (A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Lanes Open During Work Zone
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1723 1737 1723 1723 1737 1723 1723 1737 1723 1723 1737 1723 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 83 473 10 19 373 90 11 80 20 65 54 42 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.89 0.89 0.89 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 11 2 2 11 2 2 11 2 2 11 2
Opposing Right Turn Influence Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap, veh/h 130 978 822 421 1286 1081 0 138 116 0 113 95 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Prop Arrive On Green 0.08 0.56 0.56 0.26 0.74 0.74 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.07 0.07 Unsig. Movement Delay
Ln Grp Delay, s/veh 58.1 17.3 11.5 33.3 5.7 2.5 0.0 56.6 51.8 0.0 56.7 38.2 Ln Grp LOS E B B C A A E D E D
Approach Vol, veh/h 566 482 100 96
Approach Delay, s/veh 23.2 6.2 55.6 48.6
Approach LOS C A E D
Timer: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Assigned Phs 2 1 4 3 6 5 7 8
Case No 3.0 0.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 2.0 3.0
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.5 0.0 71.0 34.5 11.8 1.7 13.4 92.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green (Gmax), s 20.0 4.0 65.0 6.0 20.0 4.0 16.0 55.0 Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 4.1 0.0 4.0 4.1 4.2 0.0 4.1 4.1 Max Q Clear (g_c+l1), s 7.3 0.0 21.5 3.0 5.6 0.0 7.8 10.5 Green Ext Time (g_e), s 0.2 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 1.7 Prob of Phs Call (p_c) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.47 1.00 0.00 0.94 1.00 Prob of Max Out (p_x) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 Left-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 1 3 5 7
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1641 0 1641
Through Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 2 4 6 8
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 1737 1737 1737 1737
Right-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 12 14 16 18
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 1460 1460 1460 1460
Left Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 0 1 0 3 0 5 7 0
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM 2023 6: Ashe Rd & Taft Hwy (SR 119) 05/01/2025
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Lane Assignment L (Prot) L (Prot)
Lanes in Grp 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 0 0 19 0 0 83 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 0 0 1641 0 0 1641 0
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 5.8 0.0
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 5.8 0.0 Perm LT Sat Flow (s_l), veh/h/ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Shared LT Sat Flow (s_sh), veh/h/ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Perm LT Eff Green (g_p), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Serve Time (g_u), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Q Serve Time (g_ps), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Time to First Blk (g_f), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Serve Time pre Blk (g_fs), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop LT Inside Lane (P_L) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 0 0 421 0 0 130 0
V/C Ratio (X) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 0 0 421 0 0 248 0
Upstream Filter (I) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 53.1 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 58.1 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Middle Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 2 0 4 0 6 0 0 8
Lane Assignment T T T T
Lanes in Grp 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 80 0 473 0 54 0 0 373
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 1737 0 1737 0 1737 0 0 1737
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 5.3 0.0 19.5 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 8.5
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 5.3 0.0 19.5 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 8.5 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 138 0 978 0 113 0 0 1286
V/C Ratio (X) 0.58 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.29
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 321 0 978 0 321 0 0 1286
Upstream Filter (I) 1.00 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 52.8 0.0 15.6 0.0 53.6 0.0 0.0 5.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.8 0.0 1.7 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.6
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 56.6 0.0 17.3 0.0 56.7 0.0 0.0 5.7 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 2.2 0.0 6.8 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 2.2 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM 2023 6: Ashe Rd & Taft Hwy (SR 119) 05/01/2025
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 2.4 0.0 7.2 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 2.4 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.03 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 12 0 14 0 16 0 0 18
Lane Assignment R R R R
Lanes in Grp 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 20 0 10 0 42 0 0 90
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 1460 0 1460 0 1460 0 0 1460
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 1.5 0.0 0.4 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 1.5
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 1.5 0.0 0.4 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 1.5 Prot RT Sat Flow (s_R), veh/h/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prot RT Eff Green (g_R), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop RT Outside Lane (P_R) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 116 0 822 0 95 0 0 1081
V/C Ratio (X) 0.17 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.08
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 270 0 822 0 270 0 0 1081
Upstream Filter (I) 1.00 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 51.1 0.0 11.4 0.0 35.1 0.0 0.0 2.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.2
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 51.8 0.0 11.5 0.0 38.2 0.0 0.0 2.5 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.47 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.08 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 21.2
HCM 7th LOS C
HCM 7th TWSC PM 2023
7: Mountain Ridge Dr & Taft Hwy (SR 119) 05/01/2025
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6.3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 37 465 33 63 369 58 22 18 37 44 16 24 Future Vol, veh/h 37 465 33 63 369 58 22 18 37 44 16 24 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 200 - 200 120 - 120 - - - 150 - 150
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 87 87 87 95 95 95 78 78 78 77 77 77
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 11 2 2 11 2 2 11 2 2 11 2
Mvmt Flow 43 534 38 66 388 61 28 23 47 57 21 31
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 449 0 0 572 0 0 1151 1202 534 1152 1179 388 Stage 1 - - - - - - 620 620 - 521 521 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 531 582 - 631 657 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.61 6.22 7.12 6.61 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.61 - 6.12 5.61 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.61 - 6.12 5.61 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.099 3.318 3.518 4.099 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1111 - - 1000 - - 175 177 546 175 183 660 Stage 1 - - - - - - 476 466 - 539 517 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 532 485 - 469 448 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1111 - - 1000 - - 133 159 546 124 165 660 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 133 159 - 124 165 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 458 448 - 503 483 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 453 453 - 391 431 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.58 1.14 33.58 38.38

HCM LOS D E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Capacity (veh/h) 222 1111 - - 1000 - - 124 165 660
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.445 0.038 - - 0.066 - - 0.46 0.126 0.047 HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 33.6 8.4 - - 8.9 - - 56.5 30 10.7 HCM Lane LOS D A - - A - - F D B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.1 0.1 - - 0.2 - - 2.1 0.4 0.1
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM 2023 8: Stine Rd & Taft Hwy (SR 119) 05/01/2025
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 30 509 9 4 439 67 12 34 9 49 21 42 Future Volume (veh/h) 30 509 9 4 439 67 12 34 9 49 21 42 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
Initial Q, veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj (A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Lanes Open During Work Zone
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1723 1737 1723 1723 1737 1723 1723 1737 1723 1723 1737 1723 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 34 585 10 4 467 71 19 54 14 54 23 47 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 11 2 2 11 2 2 11 2 2 11 2
Opposing Right Turn Influence Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap, veh/h 170 713 599 65 601 505 44 126 33 102 44 89
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Prop Arrive On Green 0.10 0.41 0.41 0.04 0.35 0.35 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.15 0.15 0.11 Unsig. Movement Delay
Ln Grp Delay, s/veh 23.9 17.4 10.0 26.7 18.8 12.9 24.7 0.0 0.0 24.6 0.0 0.0 Ln Grp LOS C B A C B B C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 629 542 87 124
Approach Delay, s/veh 17.6 18.1 24.7 24.6
Approach LOS B B C C
Timer: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Assigned Phs 6 2 4 3 8 7
Case No 12.0 12.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.4 10.9 27.3 6.2 23.7 9.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Max Green (Gmax), s 18.0 18.0 42.0 4.0 42.0 4.0
Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 4.2 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.1
Max Q Clear (g_c+l1), s 6.1 4.8 19.0 2.1 15.7 3.1
Green Ext Time (g_e), s 0.3 0.2 2.3 0.0 2.0 0.0
Prob of Phs Call (p_c) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.06 1.00 0.42
Prob of Max Out (p_x) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Left-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 1 5 3 7
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 694 365 1641 1641
Through Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 6 2 4 8
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 296 1037 1737 1737
Right-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 16 12 14 18
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 604 269 1460 1460
Left Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 1 5 0 3 0 0 0 7
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM 2023 8: Stine Rd & Taft Hwy (SR 119) 05/01/2025
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Lane Assignment L+T+R L+T+R L (Prot) L (Prot)
Lanes in Grp 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 124 87 0 4 0 0 0 34
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 1594 1670 0 1641 0 0 0 1641
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 4.1 2.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 4.1 2.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 Perm LT Sat Flow (s_l), veh/h/ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Shared LT Sat Flow (s_sh), veh/h/ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Perm LT Eff Green (g_p), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Serve Time (g_u), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Q Serve Time (g_ps), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Time to First Blk (g_f), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Serve Time pre Blk (g_fs), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop LT Inside Lane (P_L) 0.44 0.22 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 235 203 0 65 0 0 0 170
V/C Ratio (X) 0.53 0.43 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 560 587 0 173 0 0 0 173
Upstream Filter (I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 22.8 23.3 0.0 26.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.8 1.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 24.6 24.7 0.0 26.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.9 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 1.3 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 1.4 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Middle Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 6 2 4 0 0 0 8 0
Lane Assignment T T
Lanes in Grp 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 0 585 0 0 0 467 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 0 1737 0 0 0 1737 0
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 0.0 17.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.7 0.0 Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 0.0 17.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.7 0.0 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 0 713 0 0 0 601 0
V/C Ratio (X) 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 0 1343 0 0 0 1343 0
Upstream Filter (I) 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 0.0 14.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.6 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 17.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.8 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM 2023 8: Stine Rd & Taft Hwy (SR 119) 05/01/2025
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 16 12 14 0 0 0 18 0
Lane Assignment R R
Lanes in Grp 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 0 10 0 0 0 71 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 0 1460 0 0 0 1460 0
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 Prot RT Sat Flow (s_R), veh/h/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prot RT Eff Green (g_R), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop RT Outside Lane (P_R) 0.38 0.16 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 0 599 0 0 0 505 0
V/C Ratio (X) 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 0 1129 0 0 0 1129 0
Upstream Filter (I) 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.8 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.9 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 18.9
HCM 7th LOS B
HCM 7th TWSC PM 2023
9: Akers Rd & Taft Hwy (SR 119) 05/01/2025
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 68 492 1 2 490 55 0 1 2 20 2 30
Future Vol, veh/h 68 492 1 2 490 55 0 1 2 20 2 30
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 70 - - 50 - 300 - - - - - 200
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 38 38 38 87 87 87
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 11 2 2 11 2 2 11 2 2 11 2
Mvmt Flow 74 535 1 2 533 60 0 3 5 23 2 34
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 592 0 0 536 0 0 1221 1280 535 1221 1221 533 Stage 1 - - - - - - 683 683 - 537 537 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 538 597 - 684 684 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.61 6.22 7.12 6.61 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.61 - 6.12 5.61 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.61 - 6.12 5.61 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.099 3.318 3.518 4.099 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 983 - - 1032 - - 157 159 545 157 173 547 Stage 1 - - - - - - 439 436 - 528 508 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 527 478 - 439 436 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 983 - - 1032 - - 134 147 545 141 160 547 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 134 147 - 141 160 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 406 403 - 527 507 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 491 477 - 399 403 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 1.09 0.03 17.93 22.03

HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h) 286 983 - - 1032 - - 142 547
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.028 0.075 - - 0.002 - - 0.178 0.063 HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 17.9 9 - - 8.5 - - 35.7 12
HCM Lane LOS C A - - A - - E B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.2 - - 0 - - 0.6 0.2
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM 2023+Project 1: Ashe Rd & Pamama Ln 05/01/2025
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 144 648 112 216 804 175 122 324 76 228 418 99 Future Volume (veh/h) 144 648 112 216 804 175 122 324 76 228 418 99 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
Initial Q, veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj (A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Lanes Open During Work Zone
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 153 689 119 235 874 190 130 345 81 245 449 106 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Opposing Right Turn Influence Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap, veh/h 312 1479 410 364 1563 439 307 782 315 364 846 340 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Prop Arrive On Green 0.10 0.29 0.29 0.11 0.31 0.31 0.10 0.22 0.22 0.11 0.24 0.24 Unsig. Movement Delay
Ln Grp Delay, s/veh 27.3 18.1 17.2 29.8 18.1 17.7 27.0 21.0 20.2 30.8 20.8 19.7 Ln Grp LOS C B B C B B C C C C C B
Approach Vol, veh/h 961 1299 556 800
Approach Delay, s/veh 19.4 20.2 22.3 23.7
Approach LOS B C C C
Timer: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Case No 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 17.5 11.0 21.7 9.9 18.6 10.0 22.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green (Gmax), s 5.0 30.5 5.0 30.5 5.0 30.5 4.0 31.5 Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 Max Q Clear (g_c+l1), s 6.5 7.1 6.3 8.8 4.4 8.7 4.8 10.8 Green Ext Time (g_e), s 0.0 1.7 0.0 3.5 0.0 2.2 0.0 4.7 Prob of Phs Call (p_c) 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.93 1.00 Prob of Max Out (p_x) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.03 Left-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 1 3 5 7
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 3183 3183 3183 3183
Through Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 2 4 6 8
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 3554 5106 3554 5106
Right-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 12 14 16 18
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 1430 1415 1427 1433
Left Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 1 0 3 0 5 0 7 0
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM 2023+Project 1: Ashe Rd & Pamama Ln 05/01/2025
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Lane Assignment L (Prot) L (Prot) L (Prot) L (Prot)
Lanes in Grp 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 245 0 235 0 130 0 153 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 1591 0 1591 0 1591 0 1591 0
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 4.5 0.0 4.3 0.0 2.4 0.0 2.8 0.0
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 4.5 0.0 4.3 0.0 2.4 0.0 2.8 0.0 Perm LT Sat Flow (s_l), veh/h/ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Shared LT Sat Flow (s_sh), veh/h/ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Perm LT Eff Green (g_p), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Serve Time (g_u), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Q Serve Time (g_ps), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Time to First Blk (g_f), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Serve Time pre Blk (g_fs), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop LT Inside Lane (P_L) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 364 0 364 0 307 0 312 0
V/C Ratio (X) 0.67 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.49 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 364 0 364 0 364 0 312 0
Upstream Filter (I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 26.0 0.0 25.9 0.0 26.0 0.0 26.1 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.8 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.9 0.0 1.2 0.0
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 30.8 0.0 29.8 0.0 27.0 0.0 27.3 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 1.5 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.9 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 1.7 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.22 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.12 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Middle Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8
Lane Assignment T T T T
Lanes in Grp 0 2 0 3 0 2 0 3
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 345 0 689 0 449 0 874
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 1777 0 1702 0 1777 0 1702
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 5.1 0.0 6.8 0.0 6.7 0.0 8.8
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 5.1 0.0 6.8 0.0 6.7 0.0 8.8 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 782 0 1479 0 846 0 1563
V/C Ratio (X) 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.56
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 1887 0 2712 0 1887 0 2795
Upstream Filter (I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 20.6 0.0 17.8 0.0 20.3 0.0 17.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 21.0 0.0 18.1 0.0 20.8 0.0 18.1 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 1.8 0.0 2.1 0.0 2.3 0.0 2.7 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM 2023+Project 1: Ashe Rd & Pamama Ln 05/01/2025
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 1.8 0.0 2.2 0.0 2.4 0.0 2.8 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.01 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 0 12 0 14 0 16 0 18
Lane Assignment R R R R
Lanes in Grp 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 81 0 119 0 106 0 190
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 1430 0 1415 0 1427 0 1433
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 2.9 0.0 4.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 6.5
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 2.9 0.0 4.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 6.5 Prot RT Sat Flow (s_R), veh/h/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prot RT Eff Green (g_R), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop RT Outside Lane (P_R) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 315 0 410 0 340 0 439
V/C Ratio (X) 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.43
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 759 0 751 0 758 0 785
Upstream Filter (I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 19.7 0.0 16.9 0.0 19.2 0.0 17.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.7
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 20.2 0.0 17.2 0.0 19.7 0.0 17.7 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.7 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.8 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.23 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 21.1
HCM 7th LOS C
HCM 7th AWSC PM 2023+Project
2: Ashe Rd & Berkshire Rd 05/01/2025
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh88.2
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 2 9 26 3 151 10 429 27 203 432 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 2 9 26 3 151 10 429 27 203 432 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.86 0.86 0.86 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 4 18 31 4 178 11 461 29 236 502 0
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 2 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 1 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 11.1 14 29.2 151.9

HCM LOS B B D F
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 2% 0% 14% 32% 0%
Vol Thru, % 92% 18% 2% 68% 100%
Vol Right, % 6% 82% 84% 0% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 466 11 180 635 0
LT Vol 10 0 26 203 0
Through Vol 429 2 3 432 0
RT Vol 27 9 151 0 0
Lane Flow Rate 501 22 212 738 0
Geometry Grp 4a 2 2 5 5
Degree of Util (X) 0.801 0.044 0.376 1.263 0
Departure Headway (Hd) 6.121 7.788 6.911 6.157 5.995
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 596 463 523 591 0
Service Time 4.121 5.788 4.911 3.895 3.733
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.841 0.048 0.405 1.249 0
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 29.2 11.1 14 151.9 8.7
HCM Lane LOS D B B F F
HCM 95th-tile Q 7.9 0.1 1.7 28.7 0
HCM 7th AWSC PM 2023+Project
3: Ashe Rd & McCutchen Rd 05/01/2025
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh136.9
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 56 267 138 47 178 88 69 315 33 111 337 13 Future Vol, veh/h 56 267 138 47 178 88 69 315 33 111 337 13 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.91 0.91 0.91 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 65 310 160 59 223 110 73 335 35 122 370 14
Number of Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 2 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 2 2 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 1 1 2
HCM Control Delay, s/veh69.6 116.1 110.8 246.9

HCM LOS F F F F
Lane NBLn1NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 18% 0% 17% 0% 15% 24%
Vol Thru, % 82% 0% 83% 0% 57% 73%
Vol Right, % 0% 100% 0% 100% 28% 3%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 384 33 323 138 313 461
LT Vol 69 0 56 0 47 111
Through Vol 315 0 267 0 178 337
RT Vol 0 33 0 138 88 13
Lane Flow Rate 409 35 376 160 391 507
Geometry Grp 5 5 5 5 4b 4b
Degree of Util (X) 1.114 0.088 1.017 0.399 1.096 1.448
Departure Headway (Hd) 11.282 10.446 11.494 10.66 11.901 11.121 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 327 345 319 340 309 329
Service Time 8.982 8.146 9.194 8.36 9.901 9.121
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.251 0.101 1.179 0.471 1.265 1.541
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 119.1 14.2 90.6 20.3 116.1 246.9 HCM Lane LOS F B F C F F
HCM 95th-tile Q 14 0.3 11.3 1.9 13.1 25.1
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM 2023+Project 4: Ashe Rd & Mckee Rd 05/01/2025
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 11 2 10 46 11 107 10 311 37 136 343 39 Future Volume (veh/h) 11 2 10 46 11 107 10 311 37 136 343 39 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
Initial Q, veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj (A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Lanes Open During Work Zone
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 18 3 17 55 13 127 11 331 39 170 429 49 Peak Hour Factor 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.80 0.80 0.80 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Opposing Right Turn Influence Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap, veh/h 26 21 117 68 16 161 18 1027 802 204 1240 968 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Prop Arrive On Green 0.02 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.11 0.11 0.01 0.55 0.55 0.12 0.66 0.66 Unsig. Movement Delay
Ln Grp Delay, s/veh 70.6 0.0 38.6 62.1 0.0 46.6 73.6 11.9 9.5 48.8 7.4 5.4 Ln Grp LOS E D E D E B A D A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 38 195 381 648
Approach Delay, s/veh 53.8 51.0 13.4 18.1
Approach LOS D D B B
Timer: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Case No 2.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 4.0
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.7 53.9 8.2 12.1 5.5 64.2 5.9 14.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green (Gmax), s 17.5 28.9 7.6 18.0 4.0 42.4 4.0 21.6 Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.3 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.3 Max Q Clear (g_c+l1), s 11.1 10.7 5.0 3.0 2.6 11.0 3.0 9.6 Green Ext Time (g_e), s 0.3 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.3 Prob of Phs Call (p_c) 0.99 1.00 0.75 0.99 0.24 1.00 0.36 1.00 Prob of Max Out (p_x) 0.17 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Left-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 1 3 5 7
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 1641 1641 1641 1641
Through Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 2 4 6 8
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 1870 243 1870 149
Right-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 12 14 16 18
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 1460 1379 1460 1459
Left Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 1 0 3 0 5 0 7 0
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM 2023+Project 4: Ashe Rd & Mckee Rd 05/01/2025
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Lane Assignment L (Prot) L (Prot) L (Prot) L (Prot)
Lanes in Grp 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 170 0 55 0 11 0 18 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 1641 0 1641 0 1641 0 1641 0
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 9.1 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 9.1 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.0 0.0 Perm LT Sat Flow (s_l), veh/h/ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Shared LT Sat Flow (s_sh), veh/h/ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Perm LT Eff Green (g_p), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Serve Time (g_u), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Q Serve Time (g_ps), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Time to First Blk (g_f), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Serve Time pre Blk (g_fs), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop LT Inside Lane (P_L) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 204 0 68 0 18 0 26 0
V/C Ratio (X) 0.83 0.00 0.81 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.68 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 319 0 139 0 73 0 73 0
Upstream Filter (I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.92 0.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 38.5 0.0 42.8 0.0 44.3 0.0 44.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.3 0.0 19.3 0.0 29.3 0.0 26.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 48.8 0.0 62.1 0.0 73.6 0.0 70.6 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 3.4 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.6 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 4.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 1.01 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.07 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Middle Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8
Lane Assignment T T
Lanes in Grp 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 331 0 0 0 429 0 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 1870 0 0 0 1870 0 0
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 1027 0 0 0 1240 0 0
V/C Ratio (X) 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 1027 0 0 0 1240 0 0
Upstream Filter (I) 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 11.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM 2023+Project 4: Ashe Rd & Mckee Rd 05/01/2025
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 0 12 0 14 0 16 0 18
Lane Assignment R T+R R T+R
Lanes in Grp 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 39 0 20 0 49 0 140
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 1460 0 1622 0 1460 0 1608
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 7.6
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 7.6 Prot RT Sat Flow (s_R), veh/h/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prot RT Eff Green (g_R), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop RT Outside Lane (P_R) 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.85 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.91 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 802 0 138 0 968 0 177
V/C Ratio (X) 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.79
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 802 0 324 0 968 0 386
Upstream Filter (I) 0.00 0.92 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 9.4 0.0 38.2 0.0 5.3 0.0 39.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 7.6
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 9.5 0.0 38.6 0.0 5.4 0.0 46.6 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.8 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 3.2 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.03 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 22.8
HCM 7th LOS C
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM 2023+Project 5: Gosford Rd & Taft Hwy (SR 119) 05/01/2025
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 17 83 9 73 81 51 11 275 73 75 461 20 Future Volume (veh/h) 17 83 9 73 81 51 11 275 73 75 461 20 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
Initial Q, veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj (A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Lanes Open During Work Zone
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1723 1737 1723 1723 1737 1723 1723 1737 1723 1723 1737 1723 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 20 98 11 96 107 67 13 316 84 90 555 24 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.83 0.83 0.83 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 11 2 2 11 2 2 11 2 2 11 2
Opposing Right Turn Influence Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap, veh/h 55 238 27 99 316 266 13 320 85 91 564 24
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Prop Arrive On Green 0.03 0.16 0.14 0.06 0.18 0.18 0.25 0.25 0.23 0.40 0.40 0.38 Unsig. Movement Delay
Ln Grp Delay, s/veh 58.8 0.0 49.0 131.2 44.0 42.8 84.1 0.0 0.0 65.1 0.0 0.0 Ln Grp LOS E D F D D F E
Approach Vol, veh/h 129 270 413 669
Approach Delay, s/veh 50.5 74.7 84.1 65.1
Approach LOS D E F E
Timer: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Assigned Phs 6 2 4 3 7 8
Case No 12.0 12.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 3.0
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 50.0 33.0 22.0 11.0 7.9 25.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Max Green (Gmax), s 44.0 27.0 16.0 5.0 4.0 17.0
Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1
Max Q Clear (g_c+l1), s 46.8 30.5 8.7 8.8 3.4 8.2
Green Ext Time (g_e), s 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3
Prob of Phs Call (p_c) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.48 1.00
Prob of Max Out (p_x) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Left-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 1 5 3 7
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 231 53 1641 1641
Through Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 6 2 4 8
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 1422 1280 1534 1737
Right-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 16 12 14 18
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 62 340 172 1460
Left Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 1 5 0 3 0 0 7 0
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM 2023+Project 5: Gosford Rd & Taft Hwy (SR 119) 05/01/2025
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Lane Assignment L+T+R L+T+R L (Prot) L (Prot)
Lanes in Grp 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 669 413 0 96 0 0 20 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 1714 1673 0 1641 0 0 1641 0
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 44.8 28.5 0.0 6.8 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 44.8 28.5 0.0 6.8 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 Perm LT Sat Flow (s_l), veh/h/ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Shared LT Sat Flow (s_sh), veh/h/ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Perm LT Eff Green (g_p), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Serve Time (g_u), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Q Serve Time (g_ps), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Time to First Blk (g_f), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Serve Time pre Blk (g_fs), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop LT Inside Lane (P_L) 0.13 0.03 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 680 418 0 99 0 0 55 0
V/C Ratio (X) 0.98 0.99 0.00 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 680 418 0 99 0 0 85 0
Upstream Filter (I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 34.7 43.5 0.0 54.4 0.0 0.0 54.8 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 30.4 40.5 0.0 76.8 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 65.1 84.1 0.0 131.2 0.0 0.0 58.8 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 17.0 11.1 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 5.7 4.7 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 22.7 15.8 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.25 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Middle Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 6 2 4 0 0 0 0 8
Lane Assignment T
Lanes in Grp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 107
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1737
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 316
V/C Ratio (X) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 316
Upstream Filter (I) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.92 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM 2023+Project 5: Gosford Rd & Taft Hwy (SR 119) 05/01/2025
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 16 12 14 0 0 0 0 18
Lane Assignment T+R R
Lanes in Grp 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 0 109 0 0 0 0 67
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 0 1706 0 0 0 0 1460
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 Prot RT Sat Flow (s_R), veh/h/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prot RT Eff Green (g_R), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop RT Outside Lane (P_R) 0.04 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 0 265 0 0 0 0 266
V/C Ratio (X) 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 0 265 0 0 0 0 266
Upstream Filter (I) 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.92 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 0.0 44.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 49.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.8 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 70.9
HCM 7th LOS E
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM 2023+Project 6: Ashe Rd & Taft Hwy (SR 119) 05/01/2025
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 136 491 47 61 367 77 42 118 53 58 116 105 Future Volume (veh/h) 136 491 47 61 367 77 42 118 53 58 116 105 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
Initial Q, veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj (A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Lanes Open During Work Zone
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1723 1737 1723 1723 1737 1723 1723 1737 1723 1723 1737 1723 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 142 511 49 71 427 90 53 149 67 65 130 118 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.89 0.89 0.89 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 11 2 2 11 2 2 11 2 2 11 2
Opposing Right Turn Influence Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap, veh/h 195 928 780 396 1142 960 0 209 176 0 193 162 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Prop Arrive On Green 0.12 0.53 0.53 0.24 0.66 0.66 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.11 0.11 Unsig. Movement Delay
Ln Grp Delay, s/veh 54.2 20.0 13.1 35.1 10.0 4.8 0.0 53.5 48.4 0.0 53.4 34.6 Ln Grp LOS D B B D A A D D D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 702 588 216 248
Approach Delay, s/veh 26.4 12.2 51.9 44.5
Approach LOS C B D D
Timer: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Assigned Phs 2 1 4 3 6 5 7 8
Case No 3.0 0.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 2.0 3.0
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.0 0.0 66.0 32.0 16.9 1.1 17.8 80.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green (Gmax), s 19.0 4.0 60.0 9.0 19.0 4.0 18.0 51.0 Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 4.1 0.0 4.0 4.1 4.2 0.0 4.1 4.1 Max Q Clear (g_c+l1), s 11.6 0.0 24.5 6.0 10.3 0.0 11.7 15.0 Green Ext Time (g_e), s 0.4 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 2.0 Prob of Phs Call (p_c) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.00 0.99 1.00 Prob of Max Out (p_x) 0.11 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.06 0.00 0.16 0.00 Left-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 1 3 5 7
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1641 0 1641
Through Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 2 4 6 8
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 1737 1737 1737 1737
Right-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 12 14 16 18
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 1460 1460 1460 1460
Left Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 0 1 0 3 0 5 7 0
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM 2023+Project 6: Ashe Rd & Taft Hwy (SR 119) 05/01/2025
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Lane Assignment L (Prot) L (Prot)
Lanes in Grp 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 0 0 71 0 0 142 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 0 0 1641 0 0 1641 0
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0 Perm LT Sat Flow (s_l), veh/h/ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Shared LT Sat Flow (s_sh), veh/h/ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Perm LT Eff Green (g_p), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Serve Time (g_u), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Q Serve Time (g_ps), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Time to First Blk (g_f), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Serve Time pre Blk (g_fs), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop LT Inside Lane (P_L) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 0 0 396 0 0 195 0
V/C Ratio (X) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 0 0 396 0 0 283 0
Upstream Filter (I) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.92 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.9 0.0 0.0 49.3 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.1 0.0 0.0 54.2 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Middle Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 2 0 4 0 6 0 0 8
Lane Assignment T T T T
Lanes in Grp 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 149 0 511 0 130 0 0 427
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 1737 0 1737 0 1737 0 0 1737
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 9.6 0.0 22.5 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 13.0 Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 9.6 0.0 22.5 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 13.0 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 209 0 928 0 193 0 0 1142
V/C Ratio (X) 0.71 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.37
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 314 0 928 0 314 0 0 1142
Upstream Filter (I) 1.00 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.96 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 49.1 0.0 17.8 0.0 49.5 0.0 0.0 9.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.4 0.0 2.2 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.9
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 53.5 0.0 20.0 0.0 53.4 0.0 0.0 10.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 4.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 4.0 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM 2023+Project 6: Ashe Rd & Taft Hwy (SR 119) 05/01/2025
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 4.2 0.0 8.5 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 4.3 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.07 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.05 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 12 0 14 0 16 0 0 18
Lane Assignment R R R R
Lanes in Grp 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 67 0 49 0 118 0 0 90
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 1460 0 1460 0 1460 0 0 1460
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 4.9 0.0 1.9 0.0 6.9 0.0 0.0 2.1
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 4.9 0.0 1.9 0.0 6.9 0.0 0.0 2.1 Prot RT Sat Flow (s_R), veh/h/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prot RT Eff Green (g_R), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop RT Outside Lane (P_R) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 176 0 780 0 162 0 0 960
V/C Ratio (X) 0.38 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.09
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 264 0 780 0 264 0 0 960
Upstream Filter (I) 1.00 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.96 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 47.0 0.0 13.0 0.0 28.7 0.0 0.0 4.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.2
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 48.4 0.0 13.1 0.0 34.6 0.0 0.0 4.8 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 1.7 0.0 0.6 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 1.8 0.0 0.6 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.7 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 1.50 0.00 0.10 0.00 1.72 0.00 0.00 0.12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 27.3
HCM 7th LOS C
HCM 7th TWSC PM 2023+Project
7: Mountain Ridge Dr & Taft Hwy (SR 119) 05/01/2025
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 9.9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 52 520 37 63 437 58 27 18 37 44 16 42 Future Vol, veh/h 52 520 37 63 437 58 27 18 37 44 16 42 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 200 - 200 120 - 120 - - - 150 - 150
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 87 87 87 95 95 95 78 78 78 77 77 77
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 11 2 2 11 2 2 11 2 2 11 2
Mvmt Flow 60 598 43 66 460 61 35 23 47 57 21 55
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 521 0 0 640 0 0 1320 1371 598 1321 1352 460 Stage 1 - - - - - - 717 717 - 593 593 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 603 654 - 729 760 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.61 6.22 7.12 6.61 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.61 - 6.12 5.61 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.61 - 6.12 5.61 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.099 3.318 3.518 4.099 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1045 - - 944 - - 134 140 502 134 144 601 Stage 1 - - - - - - 421 420 - 492 480 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 486 450 - 414 402 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1045 - - 944 - - 91 123 502 88 126 601 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 91 123 - 88 126 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 396 396 - 458 446 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 392 418 - 333 379 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.74 1.03 63.83 54.72

HCM LOS F F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Capacity (veh/h) 159 1045 - - 944 - - 88 126 601
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.663 0.057 - - 0.07 - - 0.648 0.165 0.091 HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 63.8 8.7 - - 9.1 - - 101.6 39.1 11.6 HCM Lane LOS F A - - A - - F E B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 3.8 0.2 - - 0.2 - - 3.1 0.6 0.3
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM 2023+Project 8: Stine Rd & Taft Hwy (SR 119) 05/01/2025
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 41 550 12 4 490 67 15 34 9 49 21 56 Future Volume (veh/h) 41 550 12 4 490 67 15 34 9 49 21 56 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
Initial Q, veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj (A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Lanes Open During Work Zone
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1723 1737 1723 1723 1737 1723 1723 1737 1723 1723 1737 1723 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 47 632 14 4 521 71 24 54 14 54 23 62 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 11 2 2 11 2 2 11 2 2 11 2
Opposing Right Turn Influence Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap, veh/h 320 809 680 306 794 667 39 87 23 74 32 85
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Prop Arrive On Green 0.20 0.47 0.47 0.19 0.46 0.46 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.12 0.12 0.10 Unsig. Movement Delay
Ln Grp Delay, s/veh 38.9 33.5 16.8 38.5 28.7 18.3 55.3 0.0 0.0 55.1 0.0 0.0 Ln Grp LOS D C B D C B E E
Approach Vol, veh/h 693 596 92 139
Approach Delay, s/veh 33.5 27.5 55.3 55.1
Approach LOS C C E E
Timer: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Assigned Phs 6 2 4 3 8 7
Case No 12.0 12.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.1 14.3 58.0 25.6 57.0 26.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Max Green (Gmax), s 18.0 18.0 52.0 4.0 51.0 5.0
Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 4.2 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.1
Max Q Clear (g_c+l1), s 11.9 8.2 37.5 2.2 29.0 4.8
Green Ext Time (g_e), s 0.2 0.1 2.3 0.0 2.2 0.0
Prob of Phs Call (p_c) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.12 1.00 0.78
Prob of Max Out (p_x) 0.21 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Left-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 1 5 3 7
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 614 436 1641 1641
Through Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 6 2 4 8
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 261 980 1737 1737
Right-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 16 12 14 18
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 705 254 1460 1460
Left Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 1 5 0 3 0 0 0 7
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM 2023+Project 8: Stine Rd & Taft Hwy (SR 119) 05/01/2025
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Lane Assignment L+T+R L+T+R L (Prot) L (Prot)
Lanes in Grp 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 139 92 0 4 0 0 0 47
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 1579 1669 0 1641 0 0 0 1641
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 9.9 6.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 9.9 6.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 Perm LT Sat Flow (s_l), veh/h/ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Shared LT Sat Flow (s_sh), veh/h/ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Perm LT Eff Green (g_p), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Serve Time (g_u), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Q Serve Time (g_ps), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Time to First Blk (g_f), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Serve Time pre Blk (g_fs), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop LT Inside Lane (P_L) 0.39 0.26 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 191 148 0 306 0 0 0 320
V/C Ratio (X) 0.73 0.62 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 272 288 0 306 0 0 0 320
Upstream Filter (I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 49.6 51.1 0.0 38.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.5 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 55.1 55.3 0.0 38.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.9 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 3.7 2.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 4.0 2.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Middle Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 6 2 4 0 0 0 8 0
Lane Assignment T T
Lanes in Grp 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 0 632 0 0 0 521 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 0 1737 0 0 0 1737 0
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 0.0 35.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 0.0 35.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.0 0.0 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 0 809 0 0 0 794 0
V/C Ratio (X) 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 0 809 0 0 0 794 0
Upstream Filter (I) 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 0.0 26.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.4 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 33.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.7 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 13.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM 2023+Project 8: Stine Rd & Taft Hwy (SR 119) 05/01/2025
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 14.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 16 12 14 0 0 0 18 0
Lane Assignment R R
Lanes in Grp 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 0 14 0 0 0 71 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 0 1460 0 0 0 1460 0
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 Prot RT Sat Flow (s_R), veh/h/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prot RT Eff Green (g_R), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop RT Outside Lane (P_R) 0.45 0.15 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 0 680 0 0 0 667 0
V/C Ratio (X) 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 0 680 0 0 0 667 0
Upstream Filter (I) 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 16.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.3 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.35 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 34.4
HCM 7th LOS C
HCM 7th TWSC PM 2023+Project
9: Akers Rd & Taft Hwy (SR 119) 05/01/2025
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 85 512 5 2 515 55 5 1 2 20 2 51
Future Vol, veh/h 85 512 5 2 515 55 5 1 2 20 2 51
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 70 - - 50 - 300 - - - - - 200
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 38 38 38 87 87 87
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 11 2 2 11 2 2 11 2 2 11 2
Mvmt Flow 92 557 5 2 560 60 13 3 5 23 2 59
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 620 0 0 562 0 0 1309 1368 559 1307 1311 560 Stage 1 - - - - - - 744 744 - 564 564 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 565 624 - 743 747 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.61 6.22 7.12 6.61 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.61 - 6.12 5.61 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.61 - 6.12 5.61 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.099 3.318 3.518 4.099 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 961 - - 1009 - - 136 141 528 137 152 528 Stage 1 - - - - - - 406 408 - 510 494 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 509 464 - 407 407 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 961 - - 1009 - - 108 127 528 120 137 528 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 108 127 - 120 137 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 367 369 - 509 493 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 450 463 - 362 368 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 1.29 0.03 35.86 21.62

HCM LOS E C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h) 138 961 - - 1009 - - 121 528
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.153 0.096 - - 0.002 - - 0.209 0.111 HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 35.9 9.1 - - 8.6 - - 42.4 12.7 HCM Lane LOS E A - - A - - E B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 0.3 - - 0 - - 0.7 0.4
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM 2043 1: Ashe Rd & Pamama Ln 05/01/2025
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 287 1289 203 253 1027 223 278 750 150 304 862 132 Future Volume (veh/h) 287 1289 203 253 1027 223 278 750 150 304 862 132 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
Initial Q, veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj (A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Lanes Open During Work Zone
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 1723 1870 1723 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 305 1371 216 275 1116 242 296 798 160 327 927 142 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Opposing Right Turn Influence Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap, veh/h 366 1614 448 336 1565 439 397 983 396 472 1067 429 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Prop Arrive On Green 0.12 0.32 0.32 0.11 0.31 0.31 0.12 0.28 0.28 0.15 0.30 0.30 Unsig. Movement Delay
Ln Grp Delay, s/veh 60.2 37.5 12.9 60.4 33.5 12.9 51.6 39.4 31.4 46.5 41.9 28.8 Ln Grp LOS E D B E C B D D C D D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1892 1633 1254 1396
Approach Delay, s/veh 38.4 35.0 41.2 41.7
Approach LOS D C D D
Timer: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Assigned Phs 2 1 4 3 5 6 7 8
Case No 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 32.8 19.5 37.0 15.0 17.0 35.3 16.0 36.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green (Gmax), s 30.5 11.0 32.5 9.0 11.0 30.5 10.0 31.5 Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.1 Max Q Clear (g_c+l1), s 23.8 12.2 28.2 10.8 11.4 27.7 11.8 22.2 Green Ext Time (g_e), s 2.4 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 4.3 Prob of Phs Call (p_c) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Prob of Max Out (p_x) 0.55 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.47 Left-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 1 3 5 7
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 3183 3183 3183 3183
Through Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 2 4 6 8
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 3554 5106 3554 5106
Right-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 12 14 16 18
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 1432 1416 1430 1433
Left Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 0 1 0 3 5 0 7 0
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM 2043 1: Ashe Rd & Pamama Ln 05/01/2025
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Lane Assignment L (Prot) L (Prot) L (Prot) L (Prot)
Lanes in Grp 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 0
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 327 0 275 296 0 305 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 1591 0 1591 1591 0 1591 0
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 10.2 0.0 8.8 9.4 0.0 9.8 0.0
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 10.2 0.0 8.8 9.4 0.0 9.8 0.0 Perm LT Sat Flow (s_l), veh/h/ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Shared LT Sat Flow (s_sh), veh/h/ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Perm LT Eff Green (g_p), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Serve Time (g_u), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Q Serve Time (g_ps), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Time to First Blk (g_f), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Serve Time pre Blk (g_fs), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop LT Inside Lane (P_L) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 472 0 336 397 0 366 0
V/C Ratio (X) 0.00 0.69 0.00 0.82 0.75 0.00 0.83 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 472 0 336 397 0 366 0
Upstream Filter (I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 42.1 0.0 45.7 44.0 0.0 45.1 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 4.3 0.0 14.7 7.5 0.0 15.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 46.5 0.0 60.4 51.6 0.0 60.2 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 3.8 0.0 3.3 3.5 0.0 3.6 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.8 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 3.9 0.0 4.4 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.51 0.49 0.00 0.56 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Middle Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 2 0 4 0 0 6 0 8
Lane Assignment T T T T
Lanes in Grp 2 0 3 0 0 2 0 3
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 798 0 1371 0 0 927 0 1116
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 1777 0 1702 0 0 1777 0 1702
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 21.8 0.0 26.2 0.0 0.0 25.7 0.0 20.2 Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 21.8 0.0 26.2 0.0 0.0 25.7 0.0 20.2 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 983 0 1614 0 0 1067 0 1565
V/C Ratio (X) 0.81 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.71
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 1108 0 1690 0 0 1108 0 1641
Upstream Filter (I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 35.2 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 34.5 0.0 32.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.2 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 1.4
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 39.4 0.0 37.5 0.0 0.0 41.9 0.0 33.5 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 8.7 0.0 9.9 0.0 0.0 10.2 0.0 7.7 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM 2043 1: Ashe Rd & Pamama Ln 05/01/2025
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.2 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 9.3 0.0 10.5 0.0 0.0 11.3 0.0 7.9 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.09 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.03 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 12 0 14 0 0 16 0 18
Lane Assignment R R R R
Lanes in Grp 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 160 0 216 0 0 142 0 242
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 1432 0 1416 0 0 1430 0 1433
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 9.5 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 9.1
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 9.5 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 9.1 Prot RT Sat Flow (s_R), veh/h/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prot RT Eff Green (g_R), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop RT Outside Lane (P_R) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 396 0 448 0 0 429 0 439
V/C Ratio (X) 0.40 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.55
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 446 0 469 0 0 446 0 461
Upstream Filter (I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 30.7 0.0 12.1 0.0 0.0 28.3 0.0 11.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.3
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 31.4 0.0 12.9 0.0 0.0 28.8 0.0 12.9 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 3.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 4.3 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 3.1 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 4.5 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.40 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.57 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 38.8
HCM 7th LOS D
HCM 7th AWSC PM 2043
2: Ashe Rd & Berkshire Rd 05/01/2025
Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh684.6
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 4 2 11 5 273 7 949 27 499 934 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 4 2 11 5 273 7 949 27 499 934 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.86 0.86 0.86 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 8 4 13 6 321 8 1020 29 580 1086 0
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 2 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 1 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 18.2 26.3 410.1 997.9