Brentwood City Council
August 13, 2024

Sand Creek Sports Complex Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
60 May 2024
drainage system to connect to an existing 18-inch storm drain lateral on Sand Creek Road.

The bio-retention basins would be sized to provide for adequate treatment and management of all stormwater runoff. Furthermore, because the proposed project is consistent with the site’s current General Plan land use designation, the surrounding infrastructure has been designed and built to accommodate stormwater runoff associated with the proposed project, in addition to stormwater flows associated with existing development in the area.

Through the stormwater control measures proposed as part of the project, Phase 1 of the proposed project would adequately manage the stormwater runoff from the project site.

However, the proposed bio-retention basins would need to be maintained properly to ensure long-term proper functioning of the on-site stormwater management system. A long-term maintenance plan is needed to ensure that all proposed stormwater treatment BMPs function properly. Should the proposed water quality treatment facilities within the Phase 1 portion of the project not be maintained properly, a potentially significant impact could occur with respect to substantially altering the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site, creating or contributing runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, or providing substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.

Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact related to Phase 1 of the proposed project to a less-than-significant level.

X-8. Implement Mitigation Measures X-1 through X-7.
civ,d. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 06013C0353F, effective June 16, 2009, the project site is entirely located within Zone X.30 FEMA defines Zone X as an area located outside of the 100-year year floodplain. Therefore, the proposed project would not include any development within a Special Flood Hazard Area, and would not impede or redirect flood flows.

Tsunamis are defined as sea waves created by undersea fault movement. A tsunami poses little danger away from shorelines; however, when it reaches the shoreline, a high swell of water breaks and washes inland with great force. Waves may reach 50 feet in height on unprotected coasts. Historic records of the Bay Area used by one study indicate that nineteen tsunamis were recorded in San Francisco Bay during the period of 1868- 1968. Maximum wave height recorded at the Golden Gate tide gauge (where wave heights peak) was 7.4 feet. The available data indicate a standard decrease of original wave height from the Golden Gate to about half original wave height on the shoreline near Richmond, and to nil at the head of the Carquinez Strait. As Brentwood is several miles inland from the Carquinez Strait, the project site is not exposed to flooding risks from tsunamis and adverse impacts would not result.

A seiche is a long-wavelength, large-scale wave action set up in a closed body of water such as a lake or reservoir, whose destructive capacity is not as great as that of tsunamis.

Seiches are known to have occurred during earthquakes, but none have been recorded 30 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map 06013C0353F. Effective June 16, 2009.

Sand Creek Sports Complex Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
61 May 2024
in the Bay Area. In addition, the project is not located near a closed body of water.

Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to be impacted by seiches in the future.

Based on the above, the proposed project would not pose a risk related to the release of pollutants due to project inundation due to flooding, tsunami, or seiche, and a less-thansignificant impact would occur.

Sand Creek Sports Complex Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
62 May 2024
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Physically divide an established community?    
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
   
Discussion
a. A project risks dividing an established community if the project would introduce infrastructure or alter land use so as to change the land use conditions in the surrounding community, or isolate an existing land use. Surrounding existing land uses include Sand Creek, the Sand Creek Trail, undeveloped land, and single-family residences to the north; single-family residences to the east; single-family residences and a church/daycare to the south; and an apartment complex, and single-family residences to the west. The Phase 1 portion of the project site is currently undeveloped and the Phase 2 portion of the project site is developed with the LSCB. As such, the proposed project would not divide an established community. In addition, the proposed project is consistent with the project site’s General Plan land use and zoning designations. As such, buildout of the project site with recreational uses has generally been anticipated by the City. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact.
b. As discussed throughout this IS/MND, the proposed project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect because development of the project site would comply with all standards set in the City of Brentwood General Plan and General Plan EIR, as well as the City’s noise standards, applicable SWRCB regulations related to stormwater, and ECCC HCP/NCCP standards. The P and PF General Plan land use designations include existing and future park and recreation facilities of varying size, function, and location to serve the community. In addition, as discussed throughout this IS/MND, the proposed project would not result in any significant environmental effects that cannot be mitigated to a less-thansignificant level by the mitigation measures provided herein. The proposed project would not change the land uses surrounding the project site, nor would the proposed project conflict with the purposes of the land use and zoning designations of the project area.

Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.

Sand Creek Sports Complex Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
63 May 2024
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
   
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
   
Discussion
a,b. According to the City’s General Plan EIR, within the City limits, documented mineral resources include sand, gravel, coal, oil, and gas.31 Sediments throughout most of the City consist of young alluvial deposits. Historically, large amounts of sand were mined from the dune sands of the northern portion of the City; however, competition from sand and gravel pits in the Tracy and Livermore areas caused a gradual decline in production. As of January 1, 2013, three aggregate mines exist within Contra Costa County: the Byron Plant, Clayton Quarry, and Clayton Mine. In addition, Figure 3.6-6 in the 2014 Brentwood General Plan Update EIR does not show any existing active oil or gas wells on the project site. None of the three mines are located within the City of Brentwood planning area, and, thus, would not be adversely affected by the proposed project. Therefore, no impact to mineral resources would occur as a result of development of the project. 31 City of Brentwood. 2014 Brentwood General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. April 2014.

Sand Creek Sports Complex Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
64 May 2024
XIII. NOISE.

Would the project result in:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
   
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?    
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
   
Discussion
a. The following discussion is based primarily on information from an Environmental Noise Assessment (ENA) prepared for the proposed project by Saxelby Acoustics, LLC (Saxelby) (Appendix F).32 The following sections present information regarding sensitive noise receptors in proximity to the project site, the existing noise environment, and the potential for the proposed project to result in impacts during project construction and operation. The following terms are referenced in the sections below:
• Decibel (dB): A unit of sound energy intensity. An A-weighted decibel (dBA) is a decibel corrected for the variation in frequency response to the typical human ear at commonly encountered noise levels. All references to decibels (dB) in this report will be A-weighted unless noted otherwise.
• Day-Night Average Level (Ldn): The average sound level over a 24-hour day, with a +10 decibel weighing applied to noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) hours.
• Equivalent Sound Level (Leq): The average sound level over a given time-period. • Maximum Sound Level (Lmax): The maximum sound level over a given time-period.

Sensitive Noise Receptors
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others, and, thus, are referred to as sensitive noise receptors. Land uses often associated with sensitive noise receptors generally include residences, schools, libraries, hospitals, and passive recreational areas. Noise sensitive land uses are typically given special attention in order to achieve protection from excessive noise. In the vicinity of the project site, noise sensitive receptors include the single-family residences located to the north, west, and south, as well as the multi-family residences located to the southwest, with the nearest existing residence being located along the western and southwestern border of the project site.

Existing Noise Environment
In order to quantify the existing ambient noise environment in the project vicinity, Saxelby conducted continuous noise level measurements at two locations on the project site, as shown in Figure 6.
32 Saxelby Acoustics, LLC. Environmental Noise Assessment: Sand Creek Sports Complex. January 12, 2024.

Sand Creek Sports Complex Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
65 May 2024
Figure 6
Noise Measurement Sites

Sand Creek Sports Complex Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
66 May 2024
The ambient noise environment in the project vicinity is primarily defined by traffic noise along Sand Creek Road, as well as other local roadways. Table 4 below provides a summary of the noise measurement results.

Table 4
Existing Ambient Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity
Site Date Ldn
Daytime
Leq
Daytime
L50
Daytime
Lmax
Nighttime
Leq
Nighttime
L50
Nighttime
Lmax
LT‐1:

Western
Project
Boundary
5/27/23 60 61 45 75 43 38 56
5/28/23 52 52 42 73 42 39 57
5/29/23 52 50 44 70 44 40 59
LT‐2:

Northeastern
Project
Boundary
5/27/23 55 51 48 67 48 43 64
5/28/23 54 51 47 69 47 44 62
5/29/23 56 52 48 69 49 45 65
Notes:
• All values shown in dBA
• Daytime hours: 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM
• Nighttime Hours: 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM
Source: Saxelby Acoustics, 2024.

Standards of Significance
Both the City’s Municipal Code and General Plan include regulations related to the generation of noise. With regard to temporary construction noise, Policy N 1-15 of the Noise Element requires construction activities to comply with standard best practices as outlined in Action N 1E. Action N 1E states, in part, that construction activities are limited to 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday-Friday and 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday; construction is prohibited on Sundays and City holidays. In addition, Saxelby used the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) standards of significance to evaluate increases in the noise environment due to construction noise; Caltrans defines a significant increase due to noise as an increase of 12 dBA over existing ambient noise levels.

The Noise Element of the City’s General Plan establishes a land use compatibility criterion of 60 dB Ldn or less within outdoor activity areas of residential land uses impacted by transportation noise sources (e.g. traffic noise). General Plan Policy N I-2 requires that new development and infrastructure projects be consistent with the Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments standards (reproduced in Table 5 below) to ensure acceptable noise levels for existing and future development. Furthermore, General Plan Policy N1-13 requires stationary (non-transportation) noise sources to be below 55 Leq during daytime hours, and 45 Leq during nighttime hours at residential land uses.

In addition to the noise level standards described above, the City also provides the following criteria to determine the significance of transportation noise impacts:

Sand Creek Sports Complex Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
67 May 2024
• Where existing traffic noise levels are less than 60 dB Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, a 5.0 dB Ldn increase in roadway noise levels would be considered significant;
• Where existing traffic noise levels range between 60 and 65 dB Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, a 3.0 dB Ldn increase in roadway noise levels would be considered significant; and
• Where existing traffic noise levels are greater than 65 dB Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, a 1.5 dB Ldn increase in roadway noise levels would be considered significant.

Table 5
Land Use Compatibility for Exterior Noise Environment (Ldn) Land Use
Normally
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acceptable Unacceptable
Single-Family Residential ≤60 60-75 >75
Multi-Family Residential, Hotels,
and Motels ≤65 65-75 >75
Outdoor Sports and Recreation,
Neighborhood Parks and
Playgrounds
≤65 65-80 >80
Schools, Libraries, Museums,
Hospitals, Personal Care,
Meeting Halls, Churches
≤65 65-75 >75
Office Buildings, Business
Commercial, and Professional ≤67 70-80 >77
Industrial ≤70 70-80 >80
Source: City of Brentwood General Plan (Table N-1), July 2014.

Impact Analysis
The following sections provide an analysis of potential noise impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed project.

Construction Noise
During the construction phases of the proposed project, heavy-duty equipment would be used for grading, excavation, paving, and building construction, which would result in temporary noise level increases while in operation. Noise levels would vary depending on the type of equipment used, how the equipment is operated, and how well the equipment is maintained. In addition, noise exposure at any single point outside the project site would vary depending on the proximity of construction activities to that point. Standard construction equipment, such as graders, backhoes, loaders, and haul trucks would be used on-site.

Table 6 shows maximum noise levels associated with typical construction equipment.

Based on the table, activities involved in typical construction would generate maximum noise levels ranging from 76 to 90 dB Lmax at a distance of 50 feet. The closest noisesensitive receptor to the proposed project site would be located in the vicinity of LT-2 in Figure 6, approximately 440 feet northeast of the acoustic center of construction activity, where multiple pieces of heavy construction equipment would potentially operate at the project site.

Sand Creek Sports Complex Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
68 May 2024
Table 6
Construction Equipment Noise
Type of Equipment Maximum Level, dB at 50 feet
Auger Drill Rig 84
Backhoe 78
Compactor 83
Compressor (air) 78
Concrete Saw 90
Dozer 82
Dump Truck 76
Excavator 81
Generator 81
Jackhammer 89
Pneumatic Tools 85
Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide, January 2006.

According to the ENA, the maximum construction noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptor would be up to 71 dBA. The average daytime maximum noise level in the vicinity of the sensitive receptors, as measured at LT-2, was measured to be 67 dBA. Therefore, pursuant to the Caltrans standards of significance of criteria defined above, because construction activities would not result in an increase of greater than 12 dBA over existing ambient noise levels, a significant impact related to construction noise would not occur.

Although construction activities are temporary in nature and would occur during normal daytime working hours, construction-related noise could result in sleep interference at existing noise-sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the construction if construction activities were to occur outside the normal daytime hours. Pursuant to Action N 1E of the General Plan, construction activities are limited to 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday-Friday and 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday; construction is prohibited on Sundays and City holidays.

Without compliance with the aforementioned regulations, a potentially significant impact could occur.

Project Operational Noise
Operations associated with the proposed development would generate noise primarily associated with vehicle traffic along the local roadways as well as stationary sources at the project site. Such noise sources are discussed in the sections below.

Traffic Noise
As discussed above, the City considers that a significant impact would occur where existing traffic noise levels are less than 60 dBA Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noisesensitive uses and project-related traffic would result in a 5.0 dBA increase in the roadway noise levels. Where existing traffic noise levels range between 60 dBA and 65 dBA Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, a 3.0 dBA increase in roadway noise levels would be considered significant. Finally, where existing traffic noise levels are greater than 65 dBA Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, a 1.5 dBA increase in roadway noise levels would be considered significant.

In order to asses noise impacts due to project-related traffic increases on the local roadway network, Saxelby predicted traffic noise levels at sensitive receptors for existing and future, as well as project and no-project conditions. Existing and cumulative traffic noise levels were calculated using the Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic

Sand Creek Sports Complex Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
69 May 2024
Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD-77-108) and project-generated traffic was calculated using the project trip generation volumes provided for the proposed project by Fehr & Peers (Appendix C).33 The modeled traffic noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptor along each roadway segment in the project area under existing and cumulative conditions are presented in Table 7 and Table 8, respectively.

Table 7
Predicted Traffic Noise Level and Project‐Related Traffic Noise Level Increases
Roadway Segment
Predicted Exterior Noise Level
(dBA Ldn) at Closest Sensitive
Receptors
Existing No
Project
Existing +
Project Change
Sand Creek Road East of Linden Street 52.0 52.1 0.1
Sand Creek Road West of Linden Street 60.6 60.7 0.1
Fairview Avenue North of Sand Creek Road 57.8 57.8 0.0
Sand Creek Road East of Fairview Avenue 61.0 61.1 0.1
Fairview Avenue South of Sand Creek Road 56.0 56.1 0.1
Sand Creek Road West of Western Project
Driveway 59.1 59.2 0.1
Source: Saxelby Acoustics, 2024.

Table 8
Cumulative Traffic Noise Level and Project‐Related Traffic Noise Level Increases
Roadway Segment
Predicted Exterior Noise Level
(dBA Ldn) at Closest Sensitive
Receptors
Cumulative
No Project
Cumulative
+ Project Change
Sand Creek Road East of Linden Street 53.4 53.4 0.0
Sand Creek Road West of Linden Street 62.0 62.1 0.1
Fairview Avenue North of Sand Creek Road 58.8 58.9 0.1
Sand Creek Road East of Fairview Avenue 62.4 62.5 0.1
Fairview Avenue South of Sand Creek Road 57.1 57.1 0.0
Sand Creek Road West of Western Project
Driveway 60.5 60.6 0.1
Source: Saxelby Acoustics, 2024.

As shown in the tables above, under both existing and cumulative conditions, the proposed project would result in a maximum traffic noise level increase of 0.1 dBA.

Because the applicable minimum significance threshold is an increase of 1.5 dBA in roadway noise levels, project related traffic would not result in a substantial permanent increase in noise levels, and the impact would be less than significant.

On-Site Noise Sources
The primary new noise sources associated with implementation of the project would consist of outdoor recreational noise associated with the proposed sports complex and parking lot traffic circulation. The ENA calculated operational noise based on the 33 Fehr & Peers. Draft Transportation Impact Assessment Sand Creek Sports Complex Site. December 2023.

Sand Creek Sports Complex Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
70 May 2024
assumption that noise-generating operations would occur during daytime (7:00 AM to 10:00 PM) hours only. It should be noted that morning activities, such as tournament preparation, would be anticipated to begin as early as 6:00 AM; however, noise-generating operations, especially tournaments, would not begin prior to 7:00 AM. Similarly, noisegenerating operations, such as on-site tournaments, would end at or before 10:00 PM, onsite lights would stay on until 11:00 PM to allow visitors to leave the site safely. The following is a list of additional assumptions for each operational component of the proposed project used for the noise modeling based on data from similar operations:
• Multi-Use Fields: The proposed synthetic turf multi-use field has the capability to hold either three full-sized soccer fields, six small kid’s soccer fields, three lacrosse fields, or softball practice areas. Phase 2 of the project would add two more fullsize soccer fields for a total of five. The loudest Leq and Lmax values are expected to occur during soccer tournaments utilizing the full sized fields. Based upon measurements taken at various facilities, soccer tournament games produced noise levels up to 58 dBA Leq and 76 dBA Lmax at 200 feet as measured from the center of the field to sidelines opposite of spectators. The multi-use fields were modeled as operating concurrently during a peak hour.
• Tennis Courts: Tennis courts are expected to produce noise levels of up to 52 dBA Leq and 62 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from the center of the court. • Pickleball Courts: Pickleball gameplay is expected to produce noise levels of approximately 61 dBA Leq at 25 feet from the edge of the end of a single court and 56 dBA Leq at 25 feet from the edge of the side of a single court. Maximum (Lmax) noise levels for a typical pickleball game were found to be 81 dBA at 25 feet. • Multi-Use Courts: The proposed multi-use hard courts are expected to be used for pickleball, futsal, roller hockey, basketball, and volleyball. Saxelby conservatively assumed typical noise levels similar to pickleball gameplay and that gameplay could occur continuously at this noise level on all courts during a peak hour of activity.
• Play Area: Recreational activity in the play area would be expected to produce noise levels of approximately 55 dBA Leq and 67 dBA Lmax at 50 feet as measured from the center of the playground area.
• On-Site Circulation: The project is projected to generate up to 580 trips in the evening peak hour, two of which could be heavy trucks. Parking lot movements are predicted to generate a sound exposure level (SEL) of 71 dBA SEL at 50 feet for cars and 85 dBA SEL at 50 feet for trucks.

Using the assumptions established above and in accordance with applicable standards, Saxelby calculated the maximum noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors resulting from operation of the proposed project. Figure 7 shows the maximum noise levels resulting from operation of only Phase 1 of the proposed project, and Figure 8 shows the maximum noise levels resulting from operation of both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the project.

Based on the City’s noise level standards presented above and the existing ambient noise levels summarized in Table 4, a significant impact would occur if the proposed project would generate noise levels greater than 55 dBA Leq and 70 dBA Lmax at the sensitive receptors to the west, and 55 dBA Leq and 67 dBA Lmax at the receptors to the east.

Sand Creek Sports Complex Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
71 May 2024
Figure 7
Phase 1 Maximum Noise Levels (dBA Lmax)

Sand Creek Sports Complex Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
72 May 2024
Figure 8
Phase 1 and Phase 2 Maximum Noise Levels (dBA Lmax)
PHASE 2

Sand Creek Sports Complex Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
73 May 2024
As shown in Figure 7, Phase 1 of the proposed project would expose nearby residences to noise levels between 55 to 59 dBA Lmax at the receptors to the west and up to 65 dBA Lmax at the receptors to the east. As such, operations of Phase 1 of the proposed project would generate noise levels below the applicable threshold of 67 dBA Lmax, and a lessthan-significant impact would occur.

However, as shown in Figure 8, operation of Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the project are predicted to expose nearby residences to noise levels up to 65 dBA Lmax at receptors to the east and 75 dBA Lmax at receptors to the west. Such noise levels would exceed the adjusted noise standard of 70 dBA Lmax at the residences to the west. In order to reduce noise levels at the existing residences to the west of the project site, Saxelby recommends the installation of a sound wall. Figure 9 shows the required location of the sound barrier and Table 9 summarizes the noise levels resulting from full buildout of the proposed project with the sound barrier incorporated.

Table 9
Phase 1 and Phase 2 Noise Levels with Noise Barrier (dBA) Receptor1
Project
Leq/Lmax
Ambient
Leq/Lmax
Ambient
Plus
Project
Leq
Increase
to
Ambient
Leq
Increase
Threshold
Leq
Complies
with
Standards?
1 46/64 50/70 51.5 1.5 >3.0 Yes
2 47/66 50/70 51.8 1.8 >3.0 Yes
3 50/69 50/70 53.0 3.0 >3.0 Yes
4 48/62 50/70 52.1 2.1 >3.0 Yes
5 49/65 52/67 53.8 1.8 >3.0 Yes
6 48/64 52/67 53.5 1.5 >3.0 Yes
Note: Receptor numbers correspond to those shown in Figure 9.

Source: Saxelby Acoustics, 2024.

As shown in Table 9, following incorporation of a sound barrier into the project design, noise levels associated with operation of both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the proposed project would be reduced below the applicable thresholds.

Conclusion
Although compliance with the City’s standards on new noise-sensitive receptors is not a CEQA consideration, it is noted that Saxelby concluded that the proposed recreational activity areas are predicted to be exposed to exterior transportation noise levels of up to approximately 63 dBA Ldn, which is below the 65 dBA limit for outdoor sports and recreation areas established by the City of Brentwood.

However, as described above, should the project not comply with the noise regulations discussed above during construction activities, or should the proposed project not include the construction of a sound barrier along the western corner of the project site the proposed project could result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies, and a potentially significant impact could occur.

Sand Creek Sports Complex Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
74 May 2024
Figure 9
Phase 1 and Phase 2 Noise Levels with Noise Barrier (dBA Lmax)

Sand Creek Sports Complex Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
75 May 2024
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.

XIII-1. Construction activities shall be limited to 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM MondayFriday and 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday. Construction shall be prohibited on Sundays and City holidays. These criteria shall be included in the grading plan. Exceptions to allow expanded construction activities shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis as determined by the Chief Building Official and/or City Engineer, and shall not be allowed on any date or time that would violate the City’s applicable noise standards.

XIII-2. The project contractor shall ensure that the following construction noise BMPs are met on-site during all phases of construction:
• All equipment driven by internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers, air-inlet silencers where appropriate, and any other shrouds, shields, or other noise-reducing features in good operating condition that meet or exceed original factory specifications. Mobile or fixed “package” equipment (e.g., arc welders, air compressors) shall be equipped with shrouds and noise- control features that are readily available for that type of equipment.
• All mobile or fixed noise-producing equipment used on the project site that are regulated for noise output by a federal, state, or local agency shall comply with such regulations while in the course of project activity.
• The construction contractor shall utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.
• At all times during project grading and construction, stationary noise-generating equipment shall be located as far as practicable from sensitive receptors and placed so that emitted noise is directed away from residences.
• Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited.
• Construction staging areas shall be established at locations that would create the greatest distance between the constructionrelated noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction activities, to the extent feasible.
• Construction site and access road speed limits shall be established and enforced during the construction period.
• The use of noise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only. • Neighbors located adjacent to the construction site shall be notified of the construction schedule in writing.
• The construction contractor shall designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall be responsible for determining the cause of the noise

Sand Creek Sports Complex Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
76 May 2024
complaint (e.g., starting too early, poor muffler, etc.) and instituting reasonable measures as warranted to correct the problem. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site.

Construction noise BMPs shall be included in the grading plan for review and approval by the Community Development Director prior to grading permit issuance.

XIII-3. Prior to Improvement Plan approval, the Improvement Plans for Phase 2 of the proposed project shall indicate that development of Phase 2 includes construction of an eight-foot-tall barrier at the western and southwestern boundaries of the project site, as shown in Figure 9 of the IS/MND prepared for the proposed project. The barrier height shall be relative to the residential building pads or the soccer field elevation, whichever is greater.

Nose barrier walls shall be constructed of concrete panels, concrete masonry units, earthen berms, or any combination of the foregoing materials that achieve the required total height. Inclusion of the foregoing requirements on the Phase 2 Improvement Plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director.
b. Similar to noise, vibration involves a source, a transmission path, and a receiver. However, noise is generally considered to be pressure waves transmitted through air, whereas vibration usually consists of the excitation of a structure or surface. As with noise, vibration consists of an amplitude and frequency. A person’s perception of the vibration depends on their individual sensitivity to vibration, as well as the amplitude and frequency of the source and the response of the system which is vibrating.

Vibration is measured in terms of acceleration, velocity, or displacement. A common practice is to monitor vibration in terms of peak particle velocities (PPV) in inches per second (in/sec). Standards pertaining to perception as well as damage to structures have been developed for vibration levels defined in terms of PPV. Human and structural response to different vibration levels is influenced by a number of factors, including ground type, distance between source and receptor, duration, and the number of perceived vibration events. According to the vibration level thresholds developed by Caltrans, the threshold for architectural damage to structures is 0.20 in/sec PPV and continuous vibrations of 0.10 in/sec PPV, or greater, would likely cause annoyance to sensitive receptors.

The proposed project would not involve any uses or operations that would generate substantial groundborne vibration. The primary vibration-generating activities associated with the proposed project would occur during grading, placement of underground utilities, and construction of the proposed on-site structures and recreational amenities. Table 10 below shows the typical vibration levels produced by construction equipment. As shown therein, construction vibration levels anticipated for the project are less than the 0.2 in/sec PPV threshold at distances of 26 feet. Sensitive receptors which could be impacted by construction related vibrations, especially vibratory compactors/rollers, are located further than 26 feet from typical construction activities. As such, construction vibrations at the nearby sensitive receptors are not predicted to exceed acceptable levels. In addition, construction activities would be temporary in nature and would likely occur during normal daytime working hours.

Sand Creek Sports Complex Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
77 May 2024
Table 10
Vibration Levels for Various Construction Equipment
Type of
Equipment
PPV at 25 feet
(inches/second)
PPV at 50 feet
(inches/second)
PPV at 100 feet
(inches/second)
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.031 0.011
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.027 0.010
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.000
Auger/drill Rigs 0.089 0.031 0.011
Jackhammer 0.035 0.012 0.004
Vibratory Hammer 0.070 0.025 0.009
Vibratory Compactor/roller 0.210
(<0.20 at 26 feet) 0.074 0.026
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines. Federal Transit Administration.

May 2006.

Based on the above, the proposed project would not expose people to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels, and a less-thansignificant impact would occur. c. The nearest public airport to the site is Byron Airport, which is located approximately 10 miles southeast of the site. In addition, a private airfield (Funny Farm Airfield) is located approximately four miles east of the project site. The project site is not covered by an existing airport land use plan. Given that the project site is not located within two miles of a public or private airport, the proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels associated with airports. Thus, no impact would occur.

Sand Creek Sports Complex Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
78 May 2024
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through of
roads or other infrastructure)?
   
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
   
Discussion
a. The proposed project would include the development of a Sports Complex, which would not result in direct population growth. Furthermore, the project site has been anticipated for recreational development. Although operation of the proposed project would require employees, even if all employees were new to the region, such an increase in population would not be substantial. As such, the proposed project would not result in indirect population growth due to generating a need for a workforce that would be housed within the City. Therefore, the proposed project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth either directly or indirectly, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
b. The proposed project would not result in the destruction of any permanent or temporary residences because the Phase 1 portion of the project site is currently vacant and undeveloped, and the Phase 2 area consists of the LSCB. As such, the proposed project would not displace a substantial number of existing housing or people and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Sand Creek Sports Complex Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
79 May 2024
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES.

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

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Fire protection?    
b. Police protection?    
c. Schools?    
d. Parks?    
e. Other Public Facilities?    
Discussion
a-c,e. The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD) provides fire protection services to the City. The CCCFPD operates out of 36 fire stations located throughout the jurisdictional area.34 The project site is located approximately 2.7 miles from the nearest fire station, located at 201 John Muir Parkway. The proposed project would adhere to Chapter 15.06, the Fire Code, of the City’s Municipal Code. Chapter 15.06 requires the proposed project to adhere to all fire protection codes established by the CCCFPD, which would reduce the risk of fire at the project site, and, thus, reduce potential for the project to increase demand for fire protection services. In addition, the proposed project would provide emergency vehicle access for the CCCFPD and police to the site from Sand Creek Roads through two driveways.

The proposed project would be serviced by the Brentwood Police Department, located at 9100 Brentwood Boulevard. The General Plan includes a goal to maintain a ratio of 1.5 to

2.5 sworn officers per 1,000 residents.35 Because the proposed project would not result in an increase in population, the project would not affect the City’s existing ratio of sworn officers to residents.

As discussed above, the proposed project would not induce population growth, and, thus, would not significantly increase demand for schools or other public facilities. Furthermore, any small increase in demand resulting from buildout of the proposed project could be accommodated by the existing facilities. In addition, as discussed above in greater detail, the proposed project is consistent with the site’s General Plan land use and zoning designations. As such, buildout of the site, including associated demand on fire and police facilities, has been anticipated by the City and analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Based on the above, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact related to the need for new or physically altered fire protection, police protection, school facilities, or other public facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts.
d. Parks and recreation services within the City are provided by the City’s Parks and Recreation Department. Further discussion of impacts upon parks and recreation services 34 Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. Station Address. Available at: https://cccfpd.org/station-address/.

Accessed July 2023. 35 City of Brentwood. General Plan Update [pg. 3-5]. July 2014.

Sand Creek Sports Complex Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
80 May 2024
can be found in Section XVI, Recreation, of this IS/MND. As described therein, the proposed project almost entirely consists of recreational uses, and is consistent with the site’s General Plan land use and zoning designations. As such, buildout of the site has been anticipated by the City and analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and a less-thansignificant impact would occur.

Sand Creek Sports Complex Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
81 May 2024
XVI. RECREATION.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
   
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
   
Discussion
a,b. The proposed project consists of the development of five multi-use sports fields and other recreational facilities including a playground, multi-use sports courts, a pump track, and game tables. As such, rather than increase the use of existing recreational facilities such that physical deterioration of the facilities would occur, the proposed project would offer an alternative to the existing facilities available in the City. In addition, the proposed project would contribute towards Policy CSF 2-2 of the City’s General Plan, which establishes a standard of five acres of community or neighborhood recreational or park facility per 1,000 residents to ensure adequate recreational open space for the community. Furthermore, the physical effects on the environment resulting from project buildout are evaluated throughout this IS/MND. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur.

Sand Creek Sports Complex Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
82 May 2024
XVII. TRANSPORTATION.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
   
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?    
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
   
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?    
Discussion
a. The law has changed with respect to how transportation-related impacts may be addressed under CEQA. Previously, lead agencies used a performance metric entitled ‘level of service’ (LOS) to assess the significance of such impacts, with greater levels of congestion considered to be more significant than lesser levels. Enacted as part of SB 743 (2013), Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)(1), directed the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare, develop, and transmit to the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency for certification and adoption proposed CEQA Guidelines addressing “criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas. Those criteria shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.”
Pursuant to SB 743, the Natural Resources Agency promulgated CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 in late 2018. SB 743 became effective in early 2019. Subdivision (a) of that section provides that “[g]enerally, vehicle miles traveled is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. For the purposes of this section, ‘vehicle miles traveled’ (VMT) refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized travel. Except as provided in subdivision (b)(2) below (regarding roadway capacity), a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact.”36
Please refer to Question ‘b’ for a discussion of VMT.

Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Facilities
The proposed project’s potential impacts related to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities are discussed below. The following discussion is based primarily on a TIA prepared for the project by Fehr & Peers (Appendix C).37
36 Subdivision (b)(2) of Section 15064.3 (“transportation projects”) provides that “[t]ransportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. For roadway capacity projects, agencies have discretion to determine the appropriate measure of transportation impact consistent with CEQA and other applicable requirements. To the extent that such impacts have already been adequately addressed at a programmatic level, such as in a regional transportation plan EIR, a lead agency may tier from that analysis as provided in Section 15152.” 37 Fehr & Peers. Draft Transportation Impact Assessment Sand Creek Sports Complex Site. December 2023.

Sand Creek Sports Complex Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
83 May 2024
Bicycle Facilities
Pedestrian facilities generally include sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals.

Roadways in the City of Brentwood that have been developed to their ultimate width generally provide sidewalks on both sides of the street. In addition, the City of Brentwood currently includes 19 miles of Class I bicycle paths and 63 miles of other bike lanes.

The City has developed bicycle and pedestrian trail facilities across the City. Other local agencies have likewise contributed to such infrastructure. The Sand Creek Trail is a Class I multiuse trail that runs parallel to the project site’s northern border and extends from SR 4 in the west to Minnesota Avenue in the east. Class II bike lanes run along both sides of Sand Creek Road and Fairview Avenue in the project vicinity. Class II and Class III bike facilities are proposed on multiple other roadways in the expanded project vicinity, as described in the 2018 Contra Costa County Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.38 Overall, existing bicycle facilities provide connectivity between the project site and nearby destinations.

Section 17.620.013 of the City’s Municipal Code requires that any public or semipublic facility must provide a total number of bicycle parking spaces equivalent to five percent of the total vehicle parking spaces in the lot. While Phase 1B of the proposed project would include the development of a pump track which would include bicycle parking spaces, the total number of on-site bicycle parking spaces has not yet been determined. At full buildout, the proposed project would include 437 vehicle parking spaces. As such, the proposed project will incorporate a minimum of 22 bicycle parking spaces, pursuant to Section 17.620.013 of the City’s Municipal Code.

Overall, bicycle access to the project site is considered adequate and would not result in any significant impacts to existing or proposed bicycle facilities.

Pedestrian Facilities
The street network within the project vicinity provides a fairly complete network of sidewalks and pedestrian accommodations. Sidewalks exist on both sides of the surrounding roadways, including Sand Creek Road, Linden Street, and Fairview Avenue.

Crosswalks and pedestrian push-button actuated signals are provided at the nearby intersection of Sand Creek Road and Fairview Avenue. Pedestrian access to the project site would be provided from sidewalks on the foregoing streets, as well as from the Sand Creek Trail.

Pursuant to General Plan Policy CIR 2-3, new development within the City of Brentwood is required to construct on-site sidewalks, paths, and trails consistent with the City’s parks, trails, and recreation goals and policies and the Contra Costa County Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Additionally, General Plan Policies CIR 2-1 and 2-2 require new development within the City to incorporate sidewalks and enhanced pedestrian crossing facilities, and incorporate bicycle facilities on new collector and arterial streets in order to establish and maintain a system of interconnected bicycle and pedestrian system facilities consistent with the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.

The proposed project includes improvements to the Sand Creek Trail north of the project site, including planting restoration and the addition of bike racks, seating, and picnic tables. In addition, the proposed project would include the development of a new traffic 38 Contra Coast County Transportation Authority. 2018 Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. July 2018.

Sand Creek Sports Complex Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
84 May 2024
signal located at the intersection of Sand Creek Road and Linden Street. The new traffic signal would be developed at a new driveway allowing ingress and egress to and from the project site. Although final design plans have not been completed for the signalized intersection, the currently available site plan does not show crosswalks or other pedestrian improvements at the Sand Creek Road/Linden Street intersection. Project construction would create a need for pedestrians to cross Sand Creek Road at Linden Street intersection. According to the TIA, the absence of pedestrian improvements at the Sand Creek Road/Linden Street intersection could result in a safety hazard.

Transit Facilities
Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority (Tri Delta Transit) provides transit service in eastern Contra Costa County, serving the communities of Brentwood, Antioch, Oakley, Concord, Discovery Bay, Bay Point, and Pittsburg. In addition to the regular transit service to the project area, Tri Delta Transit provides dial-a-ride door-to-door service within Eastern Contra Costa County for people with disabilities and senior citizens. Currently, 15 routes operate on weekdays, with five routes operating on weekends. Two routes, Route 385 and Route 395, serve the project area. Route 385 runs between the Antioch Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station and the Brentwood Park & Ride, operating on weekdays only with one-hour headways from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM. In the project vicinity, Route 385 operates along Sand Creek Road with a stop adjacent to the project site at the intersection of Sand Creek Road and Fairview Avenue. Route 395 runs between the Antioch BART Station and the Streets of Brentwood Mall, operating on weekdays and weekends with one-hour headways from 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Route 395 operates along Sand Creek Road with a stop at the Streets of Brentwood Mall, approximately 0.5-mile west of the project site.

A project is considered to have a significant impact on transit if the project conflicts with existing transit facilities, or is expected to generate additional transit trips beyond the capacity of the existing transit system. The project site is located adjacent to an existing bus stop, and does not proposed any features which could conflict with existing or planned transit facilities. In addition, the TIA determined that the proposed project would not result in increases in ridership on local or regional transit facilities that would exceed the capacity of existing bus services. Therefore, the TIA concluded that transit access to the project site is adequate and would not result in any significant impacts to the nearby transit network.

Conclusion
Based on the above and the TIA prepared for the project, the proposed project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, and bicycle facilities. However, the TIA determined that the absence of pedestrian improvements at the Sand Creek Road/Linden Street intersection could result in a safety hazard. Without the development of such improvements, the proposed project could conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including pedestrian facilities, and a potentially significant impact could occur.

Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.

Sand Creek Sports Complex Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
85 May 2024
XVII-1. Prior to Improvement Plan approval, the Improvement Plans shall indicate that as part of the project’s installation of a traffic signal at the Sand Creek Road/Linden Street intersection, crosswalks and pedestrian actuated signal heads shall be installed on all four approaches. b. Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines provides specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts. Pursuant to Section 15064.3, analysis of VMT attributable to a project is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized travel. Although the City of Brentwood has not yet established any standards or thresholds regarding VMT, Section 15064.3(b) of the CEQA Guidelines defines the criteria for analyzing transportation impacts. In addition, VMT methodology and implementation guidelines were adopted by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) in July 2020.

The TIA prepared for the proposed project by Fehr & Peers evaluated the project-related VMT using the adopted CCTA VMT methodology. As discussed above, the City of Brentwood has not yet established any standards or thresholds regarding VMT, thus CCTA standards were used. The Governor’s OPR Technical Advisory also provides guidance for implementing VMT as a metric for determining the transportation impact for land use projects.

The CCTA guidelines include a screening process that describes five scenarios in which a project would be exempted from a VMT analysis requirement: 1) projects exempt from CEQA analysis, 2) small projects, 3) local serving projects, 4) projects in transit priority areas, and 5) projects in low VMT areas. It should be noted that even if a project satisfies one or more of the screening criteria, lead agencies may still require a VMT analysis if evidence exists that the project has characteristics that might lead to a significant amount of VMT. During weekdays, the proposed project would primarily draw users and customers from a relatively small geographic area that would lead to short-distance trips and trips that are linked to other destinations; as such, the TIA determined that the project is a localserving use on weekdays, and, thus, meets the established screening criteria related to VMT. Therefore, based on both CCTA and OPR guidance, the proposed project can be assumed to have a less than significant impact related to VMT during a typical weekday.

However, because the proposed project would host regional tournaments on weekends, and vehicle trips will be drawn from a broader regional geography, the project is considered a regional-serving use on weekends. Based on CCTA guidance, the applicable significance standard for a regional-serving use is as follows: Regional-Serving Projects should use the metric of total study area VMT and should define a VMT study area over which to evaluate that metric. The project generated VMT constitutes a significant impact if the baseline project generated total VMT per service population is higher than 85 percent of the existing countywide average total VMT per service population.

In order to assess the VMT per service population of the proposed project, the TIA compiled the following data: daily trip generation of regional tournament events, automobile occupancy of vehicles traveling to regional tournament events, and trip length of vehicles traveling to regional tournament events.

Estimates of trip generation on weekends when the site hosts regional tournaments of maximum attendance were calculated using the anticipated levels of attendance,

Sand Creek Sports Complex Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
86 May 2024
automobile occupancy, and peak periods of arrival and departure. The proposed project is anticipated to host six to 12 regional tournaments per year. The weekend daily trip generation and automobile occupancy of vehicles traveling to regional tournament events is presented in Table 11, below. As shown therein, a total of 6,265 daily trips, with 580 total vehicle trips during the peak hour, are expected on a weekday when a regional tournament is hosted on-site.

Table 11
Weekend Regional Tournament Vehicle Trip Generation
Estimates
Use
Maximum
Attendees1
Average
Vehicle
Occupancy2 Daily3
Peak Hour
In Out Total
Soccer
Complex 550

2.5 4,753 220 220 440
Other
Uses 175 1,512 70 70 140
Total
Project
Trips
-- 6,265 290 290 580
Notes:

1. Maximum attendees calculated assuming a five-field complex, which includes 550 people associated with the proposed soccer fields leaving the site and entering the site in a given hour.

Also assumes full complex fills and empties in single peak hour.

2. Average Vehicle Occupancy assumption from Federal Highway Administration Managing Travel for Planned Special Events – Event Operations Planning (2017).

3. Daily trips calculated based on peak hour generation using the proportion between weekend peakhour and daily generation rates (ITE land use category 488 – Soccer Complex).

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2023.

In addition to the weekend daily trip generation and average vehicle occupancy data presented above, Fehr & Peers gathered trip length data from weekend summer regional tournaments at facilities similar to the proposed project. The TIA determined that the average one-way trip length to a regional tournament event at facilities similar to the proposed project was approximately 21.5 miles. Using the foregoing information, Fehr & Peers calculated project-generated VMT per service population. In addition, using the CCTA Travel Demand Model for 2023 baseline conditions, the countywide VMT per service population was assessed, as well as the relevant CEQA significance threshold of 85 percent of the countywide average. A comparison of project-generated VMT to the applicable threshold is presented in Table 12, below.

Table 12
Weekend Tournament VMT Assessment
Countywide VMT per
Service Population
85 Percent of the
Countywide VMT per
Service Population
Project VMT per
Service Population

29.3 24.9 17.2
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2023.

As illustrated in Table 12, the proposed project’s weekend tournament VMT per service population would be 17.2, which is less than 24.9, the applicable CEQA significance

Sand Creek Sports Complex Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
87 May 2024
threshold of 85 percent of the countywide average. Therefore, based on CCTA significance thresholds, the project would produce a less-than-significant impact on VMT.

As such, the proposed project would be consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(2), a less-than-significant impact would occur. c,d. Site access would be provided by two new access points on Sand Creek Road. The main full movement access point at the intersection of Sand Creek Road and Linden Street would be signalized as part of the proposed project. The other proposed driveway, located in the southwestern portion of the project site, would include stop control on the project’s approach and would only permit right turn in/right turn out movements. In addition to the existing sidewalks and bike lanes on Sand Creek Road and Fairview Avenue, the complex would be accessible to bicyclists and pedestrians from Sand Creek Trail to the north.

The TIA determined that the proposed unsignalized driveway currently meets the necessary sign distance for driveways pursuant to the requirements of the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) Highway Design Manual, and, thus, development of such would not increase on-site vehicle hazards. In addition, although the exact width of access points and internal roadways has not yet been determined, the proposed circulation system would be designed consistent with applicable City of Brentwood design standards and would provide adequate width and turn radii at and along the two proposed driveways and parking aisles to allow for two-way circulation, including circulation of larger vehicles such as emergency trucks, garbage trucks, and delivery trucks. As such, the TIA determined that based on the current design of the two new access points, which would provide emergency vehicle access to the project site, and given compliance with required roadway design standards, adequate emergency vehicle access would be provided at the project site.

Based on the above, the proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment), and would not result in inadequate emergency access. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur.

Sand Creek Sports Complex Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
88 May 2024
XVIII.TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k).
   
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
   
Discussion
a,b. As discussed in Section V, Cultural Resources, of this IS/MND, the Cultural Resources Study prepared for the proposed project included a record search of the NWIC. Origer determined that known cultural resources are not present within the Phase 1 portion of the project site. A pedestrian survey was also conducted by Origer and did not identify any indications of such resources. In addition, the Basin IS/MND determined that such resources are not present within the Phase 2 portion of the project site In compliance with AB 52 (PRC Section 21080.3.1), on March 6, 2024, the City provided formal notification letters to the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, Guidiville Indian Rancheria, Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area, Nashville Enterprise Miwok-Maidu-Nishinam Tribe, North Valley Yokuts Tribe, Ohlone Indian Tribe, Tule River Indian Tribe, Wilton Rancheria, Wuksache Indian/Eshom Valley Band, and the Confederated Villages of Lisjan. Requests to consult were not received during the required consultation period.

Based on the history of disturbance at the entire project site as a result of past agricultural uses and the development of the LSCB within the Phase 2 area of the site, as well as the lack of identified tribal cultural resources at the site, known tribal cultural resources are not expected to occur within the site. Furthermore, the Phase 2 area of the project site was subject to grading activities during the development of the LSCB. Any previously unknown tribal cultural resources would have been encountered during such activities; thus, tribal cultural resources are unlikely to be present within the LSCB. Nevertheless, the possibility exists that development of Phase 1 of the proposed project and off-site improvements could result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource if previously unknown tribal cultural resources are uncovered during grading or other ground-disturbing activities. Thus, a potentially significant impact to tribal cultural resources could occur.

Sand Creek Sports Complex Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
89 May 2024
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact related to Phase 1 of the proposed project to a less-than-significant level.

XVIII-1. Implement Mitigation Measures V-1, V-2, and V-3.

XVIII-2. If tribal cultural resources are discovered during project-related construction activities, all ground disturbances within a minimum of 50 feet of the find shall be halted until a qualified professional archaeologist can evaluate the discovery. The archaeologist shall examine the resources, assess their significance, and recommend appropriate procedures to the lead agency to either further investigate or mitigate adverse impacts. If the find is determined by the lead agency in consultation with the Native American tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project site to be a tribal cultural resource and the discovered archaeological resource cannot be avoided, then applicable mitigation measures for the resource shall be discussed with the geographically affiliated tribe. Applicable mitigation measures that also take into account the cultural values and meaning of the discovered tribal cultural resource, including confidentiality if requested by the tribe, shall be completed (e.g., preservation in place, data recovery program pursuant to Public Resources Code §21083.2[i]). During evaluation or mitigative treatment, ground disturbance and construction work could continue on other parts of the project site.

Sand Creek Sports Complex Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
90 May 2024
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No Impact
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or
storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
   
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple dry
years?
   
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
   
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
   
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
   
Discussion
a-c. Water supply, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities necessary to serve the proposed project are described in the following sections.

Water Supply
The primary source of raw water supply to the City of Brentwood is provided by the Sacramento/San Joaquin Rivers Delta, and is then treated at the City of Brentwood Water Treatment Plant. Buildout of the City’s planning area, including the project site, is accounted for in the City’s Urban Water Management Plan, which provides a detailed analysis of the City’s water distribution system. The City also has an adopted Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that includes improvements necessary to provide safe and reliable water delivery throughout the City based on projected growth and associated increases in demand on the City’s distribution system.

A six-inch potable water service line with appurtenances (valves, fittings, etc.) would be constructed to serve on-site facilities and would connect with the existing eight-inch water main near the Sand Creek Road and Linden Street intersection with a four-way valve cluster with a water meter at the right-of-way line. In compliance with General Plan Policy IF 2-6, which encourages the use of City-provided recycled water for landscaping irrigation within City parks to offset the use of potable water, the proposed project would also connect to an existing recycled water service lateral located near the Sand Creek Road and Linden Street intersection to serve on-site facilities.

According to the City’s 2020 UWMP, adequate water supplies would be available to accommodate buildout of the City under normal year, single year, and multiple-dry year

Sand Creek Sports Complex Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
91 May 2024
demand scenarios.39 As the proposed project is consistent with the site’s zoning and land use designations, buildout of the project site with recreational uses was considered in the City’s UWMP, the City’s growth projections, and the associated water demand projections which were determined to be 26 million gallons per day in 2040. Therefore, the proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded offsite water facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects, and sufficient water supplies would be available to serve the proposed project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years.

Wastewater Conveyance and Treatment
The Public Works Department’s Wastewater Division operates and maintains the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), a tertiary treatment plant that provides recycled water for a variety of landscape and industrial uses. According the City of Brentwood General Plan Update EIR,40 the WWTP has an average dry weather flow capacity of 5 million gallons per day (mgd) and was designed to be expandable to an average dry weather flow capacity of 10 mgd. The WWTP is also currently being expanded to accommodate an average dry weather flow capacity of 6.4 mgd. The expansion is expected to be completed in Spring 2025.
41 After being treated, wastewater is normally
discharged into Marsh Creek or recycled for irrigation.

The recreational uses associated with the proposed project are not anticipated to generate a substantial amount of wastewater. In addition, the proposed project is consistent with the site’s General Plan land use and zoning designations. As such, buildout of the site has been anticipated and impacts to wastewater systems has been previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Because adequate long-term wastewater treatment capacity is available to serve full build-out of the project, the project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded off-site wastewater facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. In addition, adequate wastewater treatment capacity is available to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.

Stormwater Drainage
As discussed previously, development of the Phase 2 portion of the project site with the LSCB was previously analyzed in the Basin IS/MND; this analysis assumes that all activity analyzed in the Basin IS/MND has been completed in compliance with the requirements included therein. However, the Phase 1 area of the project site is currently undeveloped, vacant land consisting primarily of disced vegetation. Although a large portion of the project site would remain permeable, completion of the proposed project would increase site runoff due to the introduction of impervious surfaces to the site. As discussed in further detail in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this IS/MND, the proposed project has several options for the storm drain runoff. Two existing 18-inch storm drain laterals are available on Sand Creek Road which discharge into the City’s storm drain collection system, and one 18-inch storm drain lateral is available onsite near the existing access road which discharges into Sand Creek. Phase 1 of the proposed project shall be designed to distribute on-site storm drain runoff by connecting to these laterals. All such on-site 39 City of Brentwood. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021, revised December 2021. 40 City of Brentwood. Public Draft Environmental Impact Report for the 2014 Brentwood General Plan Update. April 2014. 41 City of Brentwood. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021, revised December 2021.

Sand Creek Sports Complex Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
92 May 2024
stormwater infrastructure would be designed in compliance with all City stormwater requirements. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate runoff in excess of the City’s existing stormwater system’s capacity.

Electric Power, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications
The proposed project would include new connections to existing electric power and telecommunications facilities located in the project vicinity, and would not include the development of natural gas facilities. Thus, substantial expansion of off-site utilities would not be required to serve the proposed residential development, and associated environmental effects would not occur.

Conclusion
Based on the above, the proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. In addition, sufficient water supplies would be available to serve the project and adequate wastewater treatment capacity is available to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur. d,e. The City of Brentwood provides solid waste collection, disposal, recycling, and yard waste services to the City, including the project site. Solid waste and recyclables from the City are taken to the Solid Waste Transfer Station located at 2301 Elkins Way, in the northeastern area of the City. Solid waste is transferred from the Transfer Station to the Keller Canyon Landfill in Pittsburg. Keller Canyon Landfill covers 2,600 acres of land; 244 acres are permitted for disposal. Keller Canyon Landfill currently handles 2,500 tons of waste per day, although the permit for the site allows up to 3,500 tons of waste per day to be managed at the facility. According to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), the Keller Canyon Landfill has a remaining capacity of 63,408,410 cubic yards (CY) out of a total permitted capacity of 75,018,280 CY, or 85 percent remaining capacity.42 Furthermore, pursuant to the CALGreen Code, at least 65 percent diversion of construction waste is required for projects permitted after January 1, 2017. Because the project would only create a temporary increase in the amount of waste during construction activities, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to solid waste generation during construction.

In addition, given the proposed project is consistent with the site’s General Plan land use and zoning designations, solid waste associated with operations of the proposed project has been anticipated by the City.

Based on the above, the proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals and would comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
42 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). Facility/Site Summary Details: Keller Canyon Landfill (07-AA-0032). Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/4407?siteID=228. Accessed July 2023.

Sand Creek Sports Complex Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
93 May 2024
XX. WILDFIRE.

If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones,
would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No Impact
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?    
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
   
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
   
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
   
Discussion
a-d. State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) do not occur within the vicinity of the Brentwood Planning Area. According to the CAL FIRE, the project site is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ).
43 Only a few communities within Contra Costa
County have portions categorized as a "Very High" FHSZ by CalFire. This CEQA topic only applies to areas within a SRA or Very High FHSZ; therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to substantial risk or hazards related to wildfires.
43 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. FHSZ Viewer. Available at: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.

Accessed July 2023.

Sand Creek Sports Complex Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
94 May 2024
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
   
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
   
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
   
Discussion
a. As discussed in Section IV, Biological Resources, of this IS/MND, while a limited potential exists for special-status species to occur on-site, compliance with the ECCC HCP/NCCP and implementation of Mitigation Measures IV-2 through IV-4 would ensure that any impacts related to special-status species would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

The project site does not contain any known historic or prehistoric resources. Thus, implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to have the potential to result in impacts related to historic or prehistoric resources. Nevertheless, Mitigation Measures V1 through V-3 would ensure that in the event that prehistoric resources are discovered within the project site, such resources would be protected in compliance with the requirements of CEQA and other State standards.

Considering the above, the proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce or impact the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause fish or wildlife populations to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur. b. The proposed project, in conjunction with other development within the City of Brentwood, could incrementally contribute to cumulative impacts in the area. However, as demonstrated in this IS/MND, all potential environmental impacts that could occur as a result of project implementation would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through compliance with the mitigation measures included in this IS/MND, as well as applicable General Plan policies, Municipal Code requirements, and other applicable local and State regulations.

Therefore, when viewed in conjunction with other closely related past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects, development of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts in the City of

Sand Creek Sports Complex Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
95 May 2024
Brentwood, and the project’s incremental contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
c. As described in this IS/MND, the proposed project would comply with all applicable General Plan policies, Municipal Code requirements, other applicable local and State regulations, in addition to the mitigation measures included herein. In addition, the proposed project is consistent with the project site land use and zoning designations, and thus substantial effects on human being is not anticipated to result from implementation of the project. As discussed in Section III, Air Quality, Section VII, Geology and Soils, Section IX, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section XIII, Noise, of this IS/MND, construction activities and operational activities may result in a potentially significant impact. However, mitigation measures are included to reduce any potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact.

APPENDIX A

ILLUMINATION SUMMARY

PROJECT SUMMARY
Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the written consent of Musco ENGINEERED DESIGN By: B Thompson · File #226709A · 14-Apr-23 Sports Lighting, LLC. ©1981, 2023 Musco Sports Lighting, LLC.

Sand Creek Soccer
Brentwood,CA
LighƟng System
Pole / Fixture Summary
Pole ID Pole Height Mtg Height Fixture Qty Luminaire Type Load Circuit P1-P2 50' 50' 2 TLC-LED-550 1.08 kW D
P3 50' 50' 2 TLC-LED-550 1.08 kW D
50' 2 TLC-LED-550 1.08 kW E
P4 50' 50' 2 TLC-LED-550 1.08 kW E
50' 2 TLC-LED-550 1.08 kW D
P5-P6 50' 50' 2 TLC-LED-550 1.08 kW E
P7-P10 50' 50' 2 TLC-LED-550 1.08 kW F
S1 90' 90' 5 TLC-LED-1200 5.85 kW A
90' 4 TLC-LED-1200 4.68 kW B
90' 2 TLC-LED-1500 2.82 kW B
90' 1 TLC-LED-1500 1.41 kW A
S2 90' 90' 3 TLC-LED-1200 3.51 kW A
90' 2 TLC-LED-1200 2.34 kW B
90' 2 TLC-LED-1500 2.82 kW B
90' 2 TLC-LED-1500 2.82 kW A
S3 90' 90' 3 TLC-LED-1200 3.51 kW B
90' 5 TLC-LED-1500 7.05 kW C
90' 3 TLC-LED-1500 4.23 kW B
S5-S6 70' 70' 1 TLC-LED-1200 1.17 kW A
70' 3 TLC-LED-1500 4.23 kW A
S9 90' 90' 5 TLC-LED-1500 7.05 kW C
90' 4 TLC-LED-1500 5.64 kW B
S11-S12 70' 70' 1 TLC-LED-1200 1.17 kW C
70' 3 TLC-LED-1500 4.23 kW C
18 81 88.29 kW
Circuit Summary
Circuit Description Load Fixture Qty
A Soccer 24.39 kW 19
B Soccer 2 26.04 kW 20
C Soccer 3 24.9 kW 18
D Multipurpose 1 4.32 kW 8
E Multipurpose 2 4.32 kW 8
F Pickleball 4.32 kW 8
Fixture Type Summary
Type Source Wattage Lumens L90 L80 L70 Quantity
TLC-LED-1200 LED 5700K - 75 CRI 1170W 150,000 >120,000 >120,000 >120,000 21 TLC-LED-550 LED 5700K - 75 CRI 540W 67,000 >120,000 >120,000 >120,000 24 TLC-LED-1500 LED 5700K - 75 CRI 1410W 181,000 >120,000 >120,000 >120,000 36 Single Luminaire Amperage Draw Chart
Driver (.90 min power factor) Max Line Amperage Per Luminaire Single Phase Voltage 208
(60)
220
(60)
240
(60)
277
(60)
347
(60)
380
(60)
480
(60)
TLC-LED-1200 6.9 6.5 6.0 5.2 4.2 3.8 3.0
TLC-LED-550 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.4 1.9 - 1.4
TLC-LED-1500 8.4 7.9 7.3 6.3 5.0 4.6 3.6
Light Level Summary
Calculation Grid Summary
Illumination Grid Name Calculation Metric Ave Min Max Max/Min Ave/Min Circuits Fixture Qty Multipurpose 1 Horizontal Illuminance 34.6 29 43 1.49 1.19 D 8 Multipurpose 2 Horizontal Illuminance 32.5 26 38 1.48 1.25 E 8 Pickleball Horizontal Illuminance 34.8 28 47 1.71 1.24 F 8 Roadway Spill Horizontal 0.03 0 0.50 0.00 A,B,C,D,E, F 81 Roadway Spill Max Candela (by Fixture) 981 12.9 8569 662.94 75.86 A,B,C,D,E, F 81

PROJECT SUMMARY
Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the written consent of Musco ENGINEERED DESIGN By: B Thompson · File #226709A · 14-Apr-23 Sports Lighting, LLC. ©1981, 2023 Musco Sports Lighting, LLC.

Sand Creek Soccer
Brentwood,CA
Calculation Grid Summary
Illumination Grid Name Calculation Metric Ave Min Max Max/Min Ave/Min Circuits Fixture Qty Roadway Spill Max Vertical Illuminance Metric 0.07 0 0.91 0.00 A,B,C,D,E, F 81 Soccer 1 Horizontal Illuminance 31.3 27 39 1.45 1.16 A 19 Soccer 2 Horizontal Illuminance 30.8 26 36 1.39 1.18 B 20 Soccer 3 Horizontal Illuminance 31.6 26 38 1.46 1.22 C 18

ILLUMINATION SUMMARY
Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the written consent of Musco ENGINEERED DESIGN By: B Thompson · File #226709A · 14-Apr-23 Sports Lighting, LLC. ©1981, 2023 Musco Sports Lighting, LLC.

S5 S6
31 30
29 29
31 39
36 34
33 33
33 35
38 31
34 36
34 33
33 30
30 33
35 32
31 35
35 32
28 31
29 29
31 32
29 27
30 28
27 29
33 29
28 32
29 27
29 31
28 31
34 30
29 32
34 32
30 34
33 29
29 28
29 27
32 35
29 30
33 28
30 33
34 28
29 37
33 130'
98'
128'
98'
125'
178'
112'
196'
S2
S1
SCALE IN FEET 1 : 50
0' 50' 100'

EQUIPMENT LIST FOR AREAS SHOWN
Pole Luminaires

QTY LOCATION SIZE GRADE

ELEVATION

MOUNTING
HEIGHT

LUMINAIRE
TYPE
QTY /
POLE
THIS
GRID
OTHER
GRIDS
1 S1 90' - 90'
90'
TLC-LED-1500
TLC-LED-1200
3 9
1 5
2 4
1 S2 90' - 90'
90'
TLC-LED-1500
TLC-LED-1200
4 5
2 3
2 2
2 S5-S6 70' - 70'
70'
TLC-LED-1200
TLC-LED-1500
1 3
1 3
0 0
4 TOTALS 29 19 10
Pole locaƟon(s) dimensions are relaƟve
to 0,0 reference point(s)
Sand Creek Soccer
Brentwood,CA

GRID SUMMARY
Name: Soccer 1
Size: 330' x 210'
Spacing: 30.0' x 30.0'
Height: 3.0' above grade

ILLUMINATION SUMMARY

MAINTAINED HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES
EnƟre Grid
Guaranteed Average: 30
Scan Average: 31.32
Maximum: 39
Minimum: 27
Avg / Min: 1.18
Guaranteed Max / Min: 2.5
Max / Min: 1.45
UG (adjacent pts): 1.27
CU: 0.69
No. of Points: 77

LUMINAIRE INFORMATION
Applied Circuits: A
No. of Luminaires: 19
Total Load: 24.39 kW
Guaranteed Performance: The ILLUMINATION described above is guaranteed per your Musco Warranty document and
includes a 0.95 dirt depreciaƟon factor.

Field Measurements: Individual Įeld measurements may vary from computer-calculated predicƟons and should be taken in accordance with IESNA RP-6-15.

Electrical System Requirements: Refer to Amperage
Draw Chart and/or the "Musco Control System Summary"
for electrical sizing.

InstallaƟon Requirements: Results assume ± 3%
nominal voltage at line side of the driver and structures located within 3 feet (1m) of design locaƟons.

ILLUMINATION SUMMARY
Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the written consent of Musco ENGINEERED DESIGN By: B Thompson · File #226709A · 14-Apr-23 Sports Lighting, LLC. ©1981, 2023 Musco Sports Lighting, LLC. 30 32
30 27
31 36
29 33
36 32
29 28
29 29
33 36
32 29
29 29
31 30
34 32
31 30
32 34
30 34
32 30
30 34
35 34
34 31
29 29
32 31
30 32
31 29
28 29
27 27
30 30
29 29
29 26
29 29
30 32
32 31
29 33
29 30
32 34
34 31
31 34
29 27
30 31
29 S3
113'
238'
122'
107'
126'
137'
117'
224'
S2
S1
S9
SCALE IN FEET 1 : 50
0' 50' 100'

EQUIPMENT LIST FOR AREAS SHOWN
Pole Luminaires

QTY LOCATION SIZE GRADE

ELEVATION

MOUNTING
HEIGHT

LUMINAIRE
TYPE
QTY /
POLE
THIS
GRID
OTHER
GRIDS
1 S1 90' - 90'
90'
TLC-LED-1500
TLC-LED-1200
3 9
2 4
1 5
1 S2 90' - 90'
90'
TLC-LED-1500
TLC-LED-1200
4 5
2 2
2 3
1 S3 90' - 90'
90'
TLC-LED-1500
TLC-LED-1200
3/5*
3 3
3 5
0 1 S9 90' - 90' TLC-LED-1500 9 4 5
4 TOTALS 41 20 21
* This structure uƟlizes a back-to-back mounƟng conĮguraƟon Pole locaƟon(s) dimensions are relaƟve
to 0,0 reference point(s)
Sand Creek Soccer
Brentwood,CA

GRID SUMMARY
Name: Soccer 2
Size: 330' x 210'
Spacing: 30.0' x 30.0'
Height: 3.0' above grade

ILLUMINATION SUMMARY

MAINTAINED HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES
EnƟre Grid
Guaranteed Average: 30
Scan Average: 30.75
Maximum: 36
Minimum: 26
Avg / Min: 1.18
Guaranteed Max / Min: 2.5
Max / Min: 1.39
UG (adjacent pts): 1.23
CU: 0.64
No. of Points: 77

LUMINAIRE INFORMATION
Applied Circuits: B
No. of Luminaires: 20
Total Load: 26.04 kW
Guaranteed Performance: The ILLUMINATION described above is guaranteed per your Musco Warranty document and
includes a 0.95 dirt depreciaƟon factor.

Field Measurements: Individual Įeld measurements may vary from computer-calculated predicƟons and should be taken in accordance with IESNA RP-6-15.

Electrical System Requirements: Refer to Amperage
Draw Chart and/or the "Musco Control System Summary"
for electrical sizing.

InstallaƟon Requirements: Results assume ± 3%
nominal voltage at line side of the driver and structures located within 3 feet (1m) of design locaƟons.

ILLUMINATION SUMMARY
Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the written consent of Musco ENGINEERED DESIGN By: B Thompson · File #226709A · 14-Apr-23 Sports Lighting, LLC. ©1981, 2023 Musco Sports Lighting, LLC.

S12 S11
32 36
29 27
31 35
28 29
37 36
35 36
33 28
28 31
33 34
32 30
29 30
30 32
33 36
36 31
30 29
28 31
38 38
29 31
32 28
28 32
34 29
29 31
30 27
28 30
26 33
36 33
27 27
30 27
33 31
32 28
29 34
34 38
37 33
30 31
36 36
32 37
33 30
32 33
30 130'
90'
116'
224'
118'
106'
130'
90'
S9
S3
SCALE IN FEET 1 : 50
0' 50' 100'

EQUIPMENT LIST FOR AREAS SHOWN
Pole Luminaires

QTY LOCATION SIZE GRADE

ELEVATION

MOUNTING
HEIGHT

LUMINAIRE
TYPE
QTY /
POLE
THIS
GRID
OTHER
GRIDS
1 S3 90' - 90'
90'
TLC-LED-1500
TLC-LED-1200
3/5*
3 5
0 3
3 1 S9 90' - 90' TLC-LED-1500 9 5 4
1 S11 70' - 70'
70'
TLC-LED-1500
TLC-LED-1200
3 1
3 1
0 0
1 S12 70' - 70'
70'
TLC-LED-1200
TLC-LED-1500
1 3
1 3
0 0
4 TOTALS 28 18 10
* This structure uƟlizes a back-to-back mounƟng conĮguraƟon Pole locaƟon(s) dimensions are relaƟve
to 0,0 reference point(s)
Sand Creek Soccer
Brentwood,CA

GRID SUMMARY
Name: Soccer 3
Size: 330' x 210'
Spacing: 30.0' x 30.0'
Height: 3.0' above grade

ILLUMINATION SUMMARY

MAINTAINED HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES
EnƟre Grid
Guaranteed Average: 30
Scan Average: 31.63
Maximum: 38
Minimum: 26
Avg / Min: 1.21
Guaranteed Max / Min: 2.5
Max / Min: 1.46
UG (adjacent pts): 1.33
CU: 0.68
No. of Points: 77

LUMINAIRE INFORMATION
Applied Circuits: C
No. of Luminaires: 18
Total Load: 24.9 kW
Guaranteed Performance: The ILLUMINATION described above is guaranteed per your Musco Warranty document and
includes a 0.95 dirt depreciaƟon factor.

Field Measurements: Individual Įeld measurements may vary from computer-calculated predicƟons and should be taken in accordance with IESNA RP-6-15.

Electrical System Requirements: Refer to Amperage
Draw Chart and/or the "Musco Control System Summary"
for electrical sizing.

InstallaƟon Requirements: Results assume ± 3%
nominal voltage at line side of the driver and structures located within 3 feet (1m) of design locaƟons.

ILLUMINATION SUMMARY
Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the written consent of Musco ENGINEERED DESIGN By: B Thompson · File #226709A · 14-Apr-23 Sports Lighting, LLC. ©1981, 2023 Musco Sports Lighting, LLC. 30 29
31 34
30 30
30 35
39 39
35 32
35 38
41 39
37 33
34 37
38 36
33 33
32 34
33 31
30 33
32 33
33 32
31 33
32 36
38 37
35 34
32 38
42 43
39 37
29 35
40 42
39 34
30 33
33 34
33 33
P1 P2
P3
P441'
56'
40'
56'
31'
63'
41'
57'
SCALE IN FEET 1 : 20
0' 20' 40'

EQUIPMENT LIST FOR AREAS SHOWN
Pole Luminaires

QTY LOCATION SIZE GRADE

ELEVATION

MOUNTING
HEIGHT

LUMINAIRE
TYPE
QTY /
POLE
THIS
GRID
OTHER
GRIDS
2 P1-P2 50' - 50' TLC-LED-550 2 2 0
2 P3-P4 50' - 50' TLC-LED-550 4 2 2
4 TOTALS 12 8 4
Pole locaƟon(s) dimensions are relaƟve
to 0,0 reference point(s)
Sand Creek Soccer
Brentwood,CA

GRID SUMMARY
Name: MulƟpurpose 1
Size: 90' x 60'
Spacing: 10.0' x 10.0'
Height: 3.0' above grade

ILLUMINATION SUMMARY

MAINTAINED HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES
EnƟre Grid
Scan Average: 34.56
Maximum: 43
Minimum: 29
Avg / Min: 1.19
Max / Min: 1.49
UG (adjacent pts): 1.26
CU: 0.42
No. of Points: 60

LUMINAIRE INFORMATION
Applied Circuits: D
No. of Luminaires: 8
Total Load: 4.32 kW
Guaranteed Performance: The ILLUMINATION described above is guaranteed per your Musco Warranty document and
includes a 0.95 dirt depreciaƟon factor.

Field Measurements: Individual Įeld measurements may vary from computer-calculated predicƟons and should be taken in accordance with IESNA RP-6-15.

Electrical System Requirements: Refer to Amperage
Draw Chart and/or the "Musco Control System Summary"
for electrical sizing.

InstallaƟon Requirements: Results assume ± 3%
nominal voltage at line side of the driver and structures located within 3 feet (1m) of design locaƟons.

ILLUMINATION SUMMARY
Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the written consent of Musco ENGINEERED DESIGN By: B Thompson · File #226709A · 14-Apr-23 Sports Lighting, LLC. ©1981, 2023 Musco Sports Lighting, LLC. 30 29
34 36
38 34
31 35
37 37
35 31
34 36
36 33
30 27
35 34
32 29
27 26
33 30
28 29
31 30
32 29
29 33
34 34
33 32
35 37
38 35
31 34
36 38
36 31
28 31
35 38
35 29
26 26
32 37
35 26
P5 P6 40'
55'
49'
33'
39'
87'
40'
55'
P3
P4
SCALE IN FEET 1 : 20
0' 20' 40'

EQUIPMENT LIST FOR AREAS SHOWN
Pole Luminaires

QTY LOCATION SIZE GRADE

ELEVATION

MOUNTING
HEIGHT

LUMINAIRE
TYPE
QTY /
POLE
THIS
GRID
OTHER
GRIDS
2 P3-P4 50' - 50' TLC-LED-550 4 2 2
2 P5-P6 50' - 50' TLC-LED-550 2 2 0
4 TOTALS 12 8 4
Pole locaƟon(s) dimensions are relaƟve
to 0,0 reference point(s)
Sand Creek Soccer
Brentwood,CA

GRID SUMMARY
Name: MulƟpurpose 2
Size: 90' x 60'
Spacing: 10.0' x 10.0'
Height: 3.0' above grade

ILLUMINATION SUMMARY

MAINTAINED HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES
EnƟre Grid
Scan Average: 32.52
Maximum: 38
Minimum: 26
Avg / Min: 1.25
Max / Min: 1.48
UG (adjacent pts): 1.34
CU: 0.39
No. of Points: 60

LUMINAIRE INFORMATION
Applied Circuits: E
No. of Luminaires: 8
Total Load: 4.32 kW
Guaranteed Performance: The ILLUMINATION described above is guaranteed per your Musco Warranty document and
includes a 0.95 dirt depreciaƟon factor.

Field Measurements: Individual Įeld measurements may vary from computer-calculated predicƟons and should be taken in accordance with IESNA RP-6-15.

Electrical System Requirements: Refer to Amperage
Draw Chart and/or the "Musco Control System Summary"
for electrical sizing.

InstallaƟon Requirements: Results assume ± 3%
nominal voltage at line side of the driver and structures located within 3 feet (1m) of design locaƟons.

ILLUMINATION SUMMARY
Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the written consent of Musco ENGINEERED DESIGN By: B Thompson · File #226709A · 14-Apr-23 Sports Lighting, LLC. ©1981, 2023 Musco Sports Lighting, LLC. 28 30 30 30 30 28
31 36 39 39 36 32
32 40 44 44 39 32
34 39 41 41 39 35
32 33 32 32 34 33
31 30 28 28 30 31
33 33 30 30 32 32
36 38 37 37 38 35
36 43 46 46 43 36
31 40 47 47 40 30
31 36 40 39 35 30
29 29 30 30 29 28

1.34 P8
P10
P9
34' P7
56'
34'
62'
34'
62'
34'
57'
SCALE IN FEET 1 : 20
0' 20' 40'

EQUIPMENT LIST FOR AREAS SHOWN
Pole Luminaires

QTY LOCATION SIZE GRADE

ELEVATION

MOUNTING
HEIGHT

LUMINAIRE
TYPE
QTY /
POLE
THIS
GRID
OTHER
GRIDS
4 P7-P10 50' - 50' TLC-LED-550 2 2 0
4 TOTALS 8 8 0
Pole locaƟon(s) dimensions are relaƟve
to 0,0 reference point(s)
Sand Creek Soccer
Brentwood,CA

GRID SUMMARY
Name: Pickleball
Size: 114' x 64'
Spacing: 10.0' x 10.0'
Height: 3.0' above grade

ILLUMINATION SUMMARY

MAINTAINED HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES
EnƟre Grid
Scan Average: 34.83
Maximum: 47
Minimum: 28
Avg / Min: 1.26
Max / Min: 1.71
UG (adjacent pts): 1.34
CU: 0.51
No. of Points: 72

LUMINAIRE INFORMATION
Applied Circuits: F
No. of Luminaires: 8
Total Load: 4.32 kW
Guaranteed Performance: The ILLUMINATION described above is guaranteed per your Musco Warranty document and
includes a 0.95 dirt depreciaƟon factor.

Field Measurements: Individual Įeld measurements may vary from computer-calculated predicƟons and should be taken in accordance with IESNA RP-6-15.

Electrical System Requirements: Refer to Amperage
Draw Chart and/or the "Musco Control System Summary"
for electrical sizing.

InstallaƟon Requirements: Results assume ± 3%
nominal voltage at line side of the driver and structures located within 3 feet (1m) of design locaƟons.

ILLUMINATION SUMMARY
Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the written consent of Musco ENGINEERED DESIGN By: B Thompson · File #226709A · 14-Apr-23 Sports Lighting, LLC. ©1981, 2023 Musco Sports Lighting, LLC.

S5 S6
S2 S1
S3
S12 S11
S9
P1 P2
P3 P4
P5 P6
P8
P10 P9
P7

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.1 0.4

0.5 0.1

0.1 0.1

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0
SCALE IN FEET 1 : 200
0' 200' 400'

EQUIPMENT LIST FOR AREAS SHOWN
Pole Luminaires

QTY LOCATION SIZE GRADE

ELEVATION

MOUNTING
HEIGHT

LUMINAIRE
TYPE
QTY /
POLE
THIS
GRID
OTHER
GRIDS
8 P1-P2
P5-P10
50' - 50' TLC-LED-550 2 2 0
2 P3-P4 50' - 50' TLC-LED-550 4 4 0
1 S1 90' - 90'
90'
TLC-LED-1500
TLC-LED-1200
3 9
3 9
0 0
1 S2 90' - 90'
90'
TLC-LED-1500
TLC-LED-1200
4 5
4 5
0 0
1 S3 90' - 90'
90'
TLC-LED-1500
TLC-LED-1200
3/5*
3 8
3 0
0 3 S5-S6, S12 70' - 70'
70'
TLC-LED-1200
TLC-LED-1500
1 3
1 3
0 0
1 S9 90' - 90' TLC-LED-1500 9 9 0
1 S11 70' - 70'
70'
TLC-LED-1500
TLC-LED-1200
3 1
3 1
0 0
18 TOTALS 81 81 0
* This structure uƟlizes a back-to-back mounƟng conĮguraƟon Pole locaƟon(s) dimensions are relaƟve
to 0,0 reference point(s)
Sand Creek Soccer
Brentwood,CA

GRID SUMMARY
Name: Roadway Spill
Spacing: 30.0'
Height: 3.0' above grade

ILLUMINATION SUMMARY

HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES
EnƟre Grid
Scan Average: 0.0341
Maximum: 0.50
Minimum: 0.00
No. of Points: 44

LUMINAIRE INFORMATION
Applied Circuits: A, B, C, D, E, F
No. of Luminaires: 81
Total Load: 88.29 kW
Guaranteed Performance: The ILLUMINATION described
above is guaranteed per your Musco Warranty
document.

Field Measurements: Individual Įeld measurements may vary from computer-calculated predicƟons and should be taken in accordance with IESNA RP-6-15.

Electrical System Requirements: Refer to Amperage
Draw Chart and/or the "Musco Control System Summary"
for electrical sizing.

InstallaƟon Requirements: Results assume ± 3%
nominal voltage at line side of the driver and structures located within 3 feet (1m) of design locaƟons.

ILLUMINATION SUMMARY
Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the written consent of Musco ENGINEERED DESIGN By: B Thompson · File #226709A · 14-Apr-23 Sports Lighting, LLC. ©1981, 2023 Musco Sports Lighting, LLC.

S5 S6
S2 S1
S3
S12 S11
S9
P1 P2
P3 P4
P5 P6
P8
P10 P9
P7

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.3 0.8

0.9 0.1

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0.1 0.1

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0
SCALE IN FEET 1 : 200
0' 200' 400'

EQUIPMENT LIST FOR AREAS SHOWN
Pole Luminaires

QTY LOCATION SIZE GRADE

ELEVATION

MOUNTING
HEIGHT

LUMINAIRE
TYPE
QTY /
POLE
THIS
GRID
OTHER
GRIDS
8 P1-P2
P5-P10
50' - 50' TLC-LED-550 2 2 0
2 P3-P4 50' - 50' TLC-LED-550 4 4 0
1 S1 90' - 90'
90'
TLC-LED-1500
TLC-LED-1200
3 9
3 9
0 0
1 S2 90' - 90'
90'
TLC-LED-1500
TLC-LED-1200
4 5
4 5
0 0
1 S3 90' - 90'
90'
TLC-LED-1500
TLC-LED-1200
3/5*
3 8
3 0
0 3 S5-S6, S12 70' - 70'
70'
TLC-LED-1200
TLC-LED-1500
1 3
1 3
0 0
1 S9 90' - 90' TLC-LED-1500 9 9 0
1 S11 70' - 70'
70'
TLC-LED-1500
TLC-LED-1200
3 1
3 1
0 0
18 TOTALS 81 81 0
* This structure uƟlizes a back-to-back mounƟng conĮguraƟon Pole locaƟon(s) dimensions are relaƟve
to 0,0 reference point(s)
Sand Creek Soccer
Brentwood,CA

GRID SUMMARY
Name: Roadway Spill
Spacing: 30.0'
Height: 3.0' above grade

ILLUMINATION SUMMARY

MAX VERTICAL FOOTCANDLES
EnƟre Grid
Scan Average: 0.0749
Maximum: 0.91
Minimum: 0.00
No. of Points: 44

LUMINAIRE INFORMATION
Applied Circuits: A, B, C, D, E, F
No. of Luminaires: 81
Total Load: 88.29 kW
Guaranteed Performance: The ILLUMINATION described
above is guaranteed per your Musco Warranty
document.

Field Measurements: Individual Įeld measurements may vary from computer-calculated predicƟons and should be taken in accordance with IESNA RP-6-15.

Electrical System Requirements: Refer to Amperage
Draw Chart and/or the "Musco Control System Summary"
for electrical sizing.

InstallaƟon Requirements: Results assume ± 3%
nominal voltage at line side of the driver and structures located within 3 feet (1m) of design locaƟons.

ILLUMINATION SUMMARY
Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the written consent of Musco ENGINEERED DESIGN By: B Thompson · File #226709A · 14-Apr-23 Sports Lighting, LLC. ©1981, 2023 Musco Sports Lighting, LLC.

S5 S6
S2 S1
S3
S12 S11
S9
P1 P2
P3 P4
P5 P6
P8
P10 P9
P7
56 51
44 108
108
225
3883
8569
6106
550
2533
1813
1842
2091
2775
3047
1394
1036
854
633
1041
1230
1054
529
88 216
301
303
243
157
20 21
22 21
21 19
16 14
13 21
26 27
22 17
SCALE IN FEET 1 : 200
0' 200' 400'

EQUIPMENT LIST FOR AREAS SHOWN
Pole Luminaires

QTY LOCATION SIZE GRADE

ELEVATION

MOUNTING
HEIGHT

LUMINAIRE
TYPE
QTY /
POLE
THIS
GRID
OTHER
GRIDS
8 P1-P2
P5-P10
50' - 50' TLC-LED-550 2 2 0
2 P3-P4 50' - 50' TLC-LED-550 4 4 0
1 S1 90' - 90'
90'
TLC-LED-1500
TLC-LED-1200
3 9
3 9
0 0
1 S2 90' - 90'
90'
TLC-LED-1500
TLC-LED-1200
4 5
4 5
0 0
1 S3 90' - 90'
90'
TLC-LED-1500
TLC-LED-1200
3/5*
3 8
3 0
0 3 S5-S6, S12 70' - 70'
70'
TLC-LED-1200
TLC-LED-1500
1 3
1 3
0 0
1 S9 90' - 90' TLC-LED-1500 9 9 0
1 S11 70' - 70'
70'
TLC-LED-1500
TLC-LED-1200
3 1
3 1
0 0
18 TOTALS 81 81 0
* This structure uƟlizes a back-to-back mounƟng conĮguraƟon Pole locaƟon(s) dimensions are relaƟve
to 0,0 reference point(s)
Sand Creek Soccer
Brentwood,CA

GRID SUMMARY
Name: Roadway Spill
Spacing: 30.0'
Height: 3.0' above grade

ILLUMINATION SUMMARY

CANDELA (PER FIXTURE)
EnƟre Grid
Scan Average: 980.9286
Maximum: 8568.53
Minimum: 12.93
No. of Points: 44

LUMINAIRE INFORMATION
Applied Circuits: A, B, C, D, E, F
No. of Luminaires: 81
Total Load: 88.29 kW
Guaranteed Performance: The ILLUMINATION described
above is guaranteed per your Musco Warranty
document.

Field Measurements: Individual Įeld measurements may vary from computer-calculated predicƟons and should be taken in accordance with IESNA RP-6-15.

Electrical System Requirements: Refer to Amperage
Draw Chart and/or the "Musco Control System Summary"
for electrical sizing.

InstallaƟon Requirements: Results assume ± 3%
nominal voltage at line side of the driver and structures located within 3 feet (1m) of design locaƟons.

EQUIPMENT LAYOUT
Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the written consent of Musco ENGINEERED DESIGN By: B Thompson · File #226709A · 14-Apr-23 Sports Lighting, LLC. ©1981, 2023 Musco Sports Lighting, LLC.

Soccer 1
330' x 210'
S5 S6 130'
98'
128'
98'
125'
178'
112'
196'
Soccer 2
330' x 210'
S2 S1
S3
113'
238'
122'
107'
126'
137'
117'
224'
Soccer 3
330' x 210'
S12 S11
S9
130'
90'
116'
224'
118'
106'
130'
90'
Multipurpose 1
90' x 60'
P1 P2
P3 P441'
56'
40'
56'
31'
63'
41'
57' Multipurpose 2
90' x 60'
P5 P6 40'
55'
49'
33'
39'
87'
40'
55'
Pickleball
114' x 64'
P8
P10 P9
P7 34'
56'
34'
62'
34'
62'
34'
57'
SCALE IN FEET 1 : 200
0' 200' 400'
Pole locaƟon(s) dimensions are relaƟve
to 0,0 reference point(s)
Sand Creek Soccer
Brentwood,CA

EQUIPMENT LAYOUT
INCLUDES:
· MulƟpurpose 1
· MulƟpurpose 2
· Pickleball
· Soccer 1
· Soccer 2
· Soccer 3
Electrical System Requirements: Refer to Amperage
Draw Chart and/or the "Musco Control System Summary"
for electrical sizing.

InstallaƟon Requirements: Results assume ± 3%
nominal voltage at line side of the driver and structures located within 3 feet (1m) of design locaƟons.

EQUIPMENT LIST FOR AREAS SHOWN
Pole Luminaires

QTY LOCATION SIZE
GRADE

ELEVATION

MOUNTING
HEIGHT

LUMINAIRE
TYPE
QTY /
POLE
8 P1-P2
P5-P10
50' - 50' TLC-LED-550 2
2 P3-P4 50' - 50' TLC-LED-550 4
1 S1 90' - 90'
90'
TLC-LED-1500
TLC-LED-1200
3 9
1 S2 90' - 90'
90'
TLC-LED-1500
TLC-LED-1200
4 5
1 S3 90' - 90'
90'
TLC-LED-1500
TLC-LED-1200
3/5*
3 1 S9 90' - 90' TLC-LED-1500 9
1 S11 70' - 70'
70'
TLC-LED-1500
TLC-LED-1200
3 1
3 S12
S5-S6
70' - 70'
70'
TLC-LED-1200
TLC-LED-1500
1 3
18 TOTALS 81
* This structure uƟlizes a back-to-back mounƟng conĮguraƟon

SINGLE LUMINAIRE AMPERAGE DRAW CHART
Driver
(.90 min power factor)
Line Amperage Per Luminaire
(max draw)
Single Phase Voltage 208
(60)
220
(60)
240
(60)
277
(60)
347
(60)
380
(60)
480
(60)
TLC-LED-1200 6.9 6.5 6.0 5.2 4.2 3.8 3.0
TLC-LED-550 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.4 1.9 - 1.4
TLC-LED-1500 8.4 7.9 7.3 6.3 5.0 4.6 3.6

APPENDIX B

AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS MODELING RESULTS

Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
1 / 44
Sand Creek Sports Complex 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

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated

3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated

3.5. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
2 / 44

3.9. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated

3.11. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated

3.13. Architectural Coating (2024) - Unmitigated

3.15. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated

3.17. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
3 / 44

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
4 / 44

5.3.1. Unmitigated

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

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
5 / 44

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
6 / 44

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

8. User Changes to Default Data

Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
7 / 44

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Sand Creek Sports Complex
Construction Start Date 6/1/2024
Operational Year 2026
Lead Agency City of Brentwood
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.00
Precipitation (days) 20.6
Location 37.94450337799999, -121.72667184242526
County Contra Costa
City Brentwood
Air District Bay Area AQMD
Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area
TAZ 1302
EDFZ 1
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.21

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

Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
8 / 44
City Park 12.1 Acre 12.1 0.00 381,600 381,600 — The landscaped area conservatively
includes all five sports
fields
Parking Lot 437 Space 3.93 0.00 0.00 — — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.41 3.71 36.0 33.7 0.06 1.60 19.8 21.4 1.47 10.1 11.6 — 6,778 6,778 0.27 0.06 0.76 6,803 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.60 1.49 12.1 14.3 0.03 0.53 0.12 0.53 0.49 0.03 0.49 — 2,531 2,531 0.10 0.02 0.01 2,540 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.09 1.00 8.65 10.1 0.02 0.38 2.25 2.63 0.35 1.01 1.36 — 1,808 1,808 0.07 0.01 0.08 1,814 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.20 0.18 1.58 1.85 < 0.005 0.07 0.41 0.48 0.06 0.18 0.25 — 299 299 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 300

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
9 / 44
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 4.41 3.71 36.0 33.7 0.06 1.60 19.8 21.4 1.47 10.1 11.6 — 6,778 6,778 0.27 0.06 0.76 6,803 2025 1.50 1.40 11.3 14.2 0.03 0.46 0.00 0.46 0.42 0.00 0.42 — 2,531 2,531 0.10 0.02 0.00 2,540 2026 1.43 1.34 10.7 14.1 0.03 0.40 0.00 0.40 0.37 0.00 0.37 — 2,531 2,531 0.10 0.02 0.00 2,539 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.60 1.49 12.1 14.3 0.03 0.53 0.12 0.53 0.49 0.03 0.49 — 2,531 2,531 0.10 0.02 0.01 2,540 2025 1.50 1.40 11.3 14.2 0.03 0.46 0.00 0.46 0.42 0.00 0.42 — 2,531 2,531 0.10 0.02 0.00 2,540 2026 1.43 1.34 10.7 14.1 0.03 0.40 0.00 0.40 0.37 0.00 0.37 — 2,531 2,531 0.10 0.02 0.00 2,539 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.09 0.96 8.65 8.64 0.02 0.38 2.25 2.63 0.35 1.01 1.36 — 1,642 1,642 0.07 0.01 0.08 1,648 2025 1.07 1.00 8.09 10.1 0.02 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.30 0.00 0.30 — 1,808 1,808 0.07 0.01 0.00 1,814 2026 0.73 0.69 5.49 7.23 0.01 0.21 0.00 0.21 0.19 0.00 0.19 — 1,296 1,296 0.05 0.01 0.00 1,301 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.20 0.18 1.58 1.58 < 0.005 0.07 0.41 0.48 0.06 0.18 0.25 — 272 272 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 273 2025 0.20 0.18 1.48 1.85 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.06 — 299 299 0.01 < 0.005 0.00 300 2026 0.13 0.13 1.00 1.32 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.03 — 215 215 0.01 < 0.005 0.00 215

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
10 / 44
Unmit. 22.5 21.7 11.2 116 0.24 0.17 21.0 21.2 0.16 5.33 5.49 0.56 24,351 24,351 1.45 1.12 84.5 24,807 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 21.2 20.2 13.3 117 0.22 0.17 21.0 21.2 0.16 5.33 5.49 0.56 22,749 22,750 1.73 1.25 2.19 23,169 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 7.44 7.31 4.40 39.0 0.08 0.06 7.35 7.41 0.06 1.86 1.92 0.56 8,197 8,197 0.62 0.43 12.9 8,352 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.36 1.33 0.80 7.12 0.01 0.01 1.34 1.35 0.01 0.34 0.35 0.09 1,357 1,357 0.10 0.07 2.14 1,383

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 22.5 21.4 11.2 116 0.24 0.17 21.0 21.2 0.16 5.33 5.49 — 24,239 24,239 1.37 1.12 84.5 24,692 Area 0.00 0.30 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 83.9 83.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 84.7 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 27.9 27.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.2 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.56 0.00 0.56 0.06 0.00 — 1.96 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 22.5 21.7 11.2 116 0.24 0.17 21.0 21.2 0.16 5.33 5.49 0.56 24,351 24,351 1.45 1.12 84.5 24,807 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 21.2 19.9 13.3 117 0.22 0.17 21.0 21.2 0.16 5.33 5.49 — 22,637 22,637 1.66 1.25 2.19 23,054

Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
11 / 44
Area — 0.30 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 83.9 83.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 84.7 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 27.9 27.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.2 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.56 0.00 0.56 0.06 0.00 — 1.96 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 21.2 20.2 13.3 117 0.22 0.17 21.0 21.2 0.16 5.33 5.49 0.56 22,749 22,750 1.73 1.25 2.19 23,169 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 7.44 7.00 4.40 39.0 0.08 0.06 7.35 7.41 0.06 1.86 1.92 — 8,085 8,085 0.54 0.42 12.9 8,238 Area 0.00 0.30 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 83.9 83.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 84.7 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 27.9 27.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.2 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.56 0.00 0.56 0.06 0.00 — 1.96 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 7.44 7.31 4.40 39.0 0.08 0.06 7.35 7.41 0.06 1.86 1.92 0.56 8,197 8,197 0.62 0.43 12.9 8,352 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.36 1.28 0.80 7.12 0.01 0.01 1.34 1.35 0.01 0.34 0.35 — 1,339 1,339 0.09 0.07 2.14 1,364 Area 0.00 0.06 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 13.9 13.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.0 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 4.62 4.62 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.67 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.01 0.00 — 0.32 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 1.36 1.33 0.80 7.12 0.01 0.01 1.34 1.35 0.01 0.34 0.35 0.09 1,357 1,357 0.10 0.07 2.14 1,383

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated

Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
12 / 44
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

4.34 3.65 36.0 32.9 0.05 1.60 — 1.60 1.47 — 1.47 — 5,296 5,296 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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.24 0.20 1.97 1.80 < 0.005 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 — 290 290 0.01 < 0.005 — 291 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.08 1.08 — 0.55 0.55 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.04 0.04 0.36 0.33 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 48.0 48.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 48.2 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.20 0.20 — 0.10 0.10 — — — — — — —

Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
13 / 44
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 157 157 < 0.005 0.01 0.66 160 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.97 7.97 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 8.09 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.32 1.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.34 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
14 / 44
Off-Road 4.19 3.52 34.3 30.2 0.06 1.45 — 1.45 1.33 — 1.33 — 6,598 6,598 0.27 0.05 — 6,621 Equipment
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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.52 0.43 4.23 3.72 0.01 0.18 — 0.18 0.16 — 0.16 — 813 813 0.03 0.01 — 816 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.13 1.13 — 0.45 0.45 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.09 0.08 0.77 0.68 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 135 135 0.01 < 0.005 — 135 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.21 0.21 — 0.08 0.08 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 180 180 < 0.005 0.01 0.76 183 Page 195 of 777 Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
15 / 44
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20.5 20.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 20.8 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.39 3.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.44 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.5. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.44 1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
16 / 44
Off-Road
Equipment

0.20 0.17 1.58 1.85 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 — 338 338 0.01 < 0.005 — 339 Onsite
truck

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

0.04 0.03 0.29 0.34 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 55.9 55.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 56.1 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
17 / 44
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.35 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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.35 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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.96 0.80 7.46 9.31 0.02 0.31 — 0.31 0.28 — 0.28 — 1,713 1,713 0.07 0.01 — 1,719 Onsite
truck

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

0.18 0.15 1.36 1.70 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.05 — 0.05 — 284 284 0.01 < 0.005 — 285 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
18 / 44
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

1.28 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 0.00

Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
19 / 44
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Off-Road
Equipment

1.28 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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.65 0.55 5.03 6.62 0.01 0.19 — 0.19 0.18 — 0.18 — 1,224 1,224 0.05 0.01 — 1,229 Onsite
truck

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

0.12 0.10 0.92 1.21 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 203 203 0.01 < 0.005 — 203 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
20 / 44
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.01 0.85 7.81 10.0 0.01 0.39 — 0.39 0.36 — 0.36 — 1,512 1,512 0.06 0.01 — 1,517 Paving — 0.29 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

1.01 0.85 7.81 10.0 0.01 0.39 — 0.39 0.36 — 0.36 — 1,512 1,512 0.06 0.01 — 1,517 Paving — 0.29 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
21 / 44
Off-Road
Equipment

0.10 0.08 0.75 0.96 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 145 Paving — 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.02 0.01 0.14 0.18 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 24.0 24.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.1 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 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 135 135 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.57 137 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 123 123 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 125 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.0 12.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 12.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.98 1.98 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.01 Page 202 of 777 Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
22 / 44
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.13. Architectural Coating (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.17 0.14 0.91 1.15 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.15 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.02 0.02 0.10 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.2 15.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.2 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.51 2.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.52

Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
23 / 44
Architect
Coatings
— < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.15. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
24 / 44
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Off-Road
Equipment

0.15 0.13 0.88 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.15 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.15 0.13 0.88 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.15 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.11 0.09 0.63 0.81 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 95.4 95.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 95.7 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.10 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.02 0.02 0.12 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.8 15.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.8 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
25 / 44
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.17. 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 TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
26 / 44
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.15 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
— 0.15 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.15 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
— 0.15 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.08 0.06 0.46 0.61 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 71.8 71.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 72.1 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.08 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.01 0.08 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.9 11.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.9 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
27 / 44
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
28 / 44
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park 22.5 21.4 11.2 116 0.24 0.17 21.0 21.2 0.16 5.33 5.49 — 24,239 24,239 1.37 1.12 84.5 24,692 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 22.5 21.4 11.2 116 0.24 0.17 21.0 21.2 0.16 5.33 5.49 — 24,239 24,239 1.37 1.12 84.5 24,692 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park 21.2 19.9 13.3 117 0.22 0.17 21.0 21.2 0.16 5.33 5.49 — 22,637 22,637 1.66 1.25 2.19 23,054 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 21.2 19.9 13.3 117 0.22 0.17 21.0 21.2 0.16 5.33 5.49 — 22,637 22,637 1.66 1.25 2.19 23,054 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park 1.36 1.28 0.80 7.12 0.01 0.01 1.34 1.35 0.01 0.34 0.35 — 1,339 1,339 0.09 0.07 2.14 1,364 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1.36 1.28 0.80 7.12 0.01 0.01 1.34 1.35 0.01 0.34 0.35 — 1,339 1,339 0.09 0.07 2.14 1,364

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
29 / 44
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 83.9 83.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 84.7
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 83.9 83.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 84.7 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 83.9 83.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 84.7
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 83.9 83.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 84.7 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 13.9 13.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.0 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 13.9 13.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.0

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
30 / 44
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.28 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.00 0.00 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 0.00 0.30 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
31 / 44
Consum
Products
— 0.28 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — 0.30 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.05 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.00 0.00 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 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 27.9 27.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.2 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 27.9 27.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.2

Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
32 / 44
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 27.9 27.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.2 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 27.9 27.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.2 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 4.62 4.62 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.67 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 4.62 4.62 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.67

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.56 0.00 0.56 0.06 0.00 — 1.96 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.56 0.00 0.56 0.06 0.00 — 1.96 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.56 0.00 0.56 0.06 0.00 — 1.96 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
33 / 44
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.56 0.00 0.56 0.06 0.00 — 1.96 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.01 0.00 — 0.32 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.01 0.00 — 0.32

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
34 / 44
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

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

Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
35 / 44

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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

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

Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
36 / 44
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
37 / 44
Remove — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
38 / 44
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Site Preparation Site Preparation 6/1/2024 6/28/2024 5.00 20.0 — Grading Grading 7/1/2024 8/30/2024 5.00 45.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 10/21/2024 9/18/2026 5.00 500 — Paving Paving 9/2/2024 10/18/2024 5.00 35.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 11/4/2024 10/2/2026 5.00 500 —

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 Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36

Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
39 / 44
Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

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 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 0.00 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 0.00 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT

Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
40 / 44
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 0.00 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

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

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 3,675 1,225 10,279

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 — — 30.0 0.00 —
Grading — — 135 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.93

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

5.7. Construction Paving

Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
41 / 44
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
City Park 0.00 0%
Parking Lot 3.93 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2024 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
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 City Park 602 6,265 6,265 810,295 2,860 29,767 29,767 3,849,899 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

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)
0 0.00 3,675 1,225 10,279 Page 222 of 777
Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
42 / 44

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
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) City Park 0.00 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Parking Lot 150,078 204 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) City Park 0.00 10,121,004
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
City Park 1.04 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —

Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
43 / 44

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 City Park Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
City Park Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 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

5.16. 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

Sand Creek Sports Complex Custom Report, 1/24/2024
44 / 44

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

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

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

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

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases Demolition is not required. Based on typical construction practices, architectural coating assumed to start two weeks after the start of building construction and last for the same number of days.

Operations: Vehicle Data The trip rates have been updated based on a project-specific Transportation Analysis.

APPENDIX C

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Draft
Transportation Impact Assessment
Prepared for:

The City of Brentwood and
Raney Planning and Mangement
Sand Creek Sports
Complex Site
100 Pringle Avenue
Suite 600
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
December 2023
Prepared by

DRAFT
Sand Creek Sports
Complex Site
Transportation Impact Assessment
Prepared for:

The City of Brentwood and
Raney Planning and Management
December 2023
WC23-3990

Table of Contents

1. Introduction............................................................................................................................... 1 Project Description ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Analysis Locations and Scenarios .......................................................................................................................................... 5 Analysis Methods ......................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Signalized Intersections..................................................................................................................................................... 5 Unsignalized Intersections ............................................................................................................................................... 6 Significance Criteria – Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................................. 7 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Report Organization ................................................................................................................................................................... 9

2. Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................. 10 Roadway System ........................................................................................................................................................................10 Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ..........................................................................................................................10 Existing Transit Service .............................................................................................................................................................11 Existing Traffic Counts ..............................................................................................................................................................12 Existing Operations Assessment ..........................................................................................................................................12 Intersection Operations ...................................................................................................................................................12 Signal Warrants ..................................................................................................................................................................12

3. Project Characteristics ............................................................................................................ 15 Project Description ....................................................................................................................................................................15 Project Trip Generation ............................................................................................................................................................16 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment ........................................................................................................................17

4. Existing with Project Conditions ........................................................................................... 20 Existing With Project Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................................20 Analysis of Existing with Project Conditions....................................................................................................................20 Intersection Operations ...................................................................................................................................................20 Signal Warrants ..................................................................................................................................................................20

5. Cumulative Traffic Conditions ............................................................................................... 22 Cumulative Traffic Forecasts ..................................................................................................................................................22 Analysis of Cumulative Conditions ......................................................................................................................................25 Intersection Operations ...................................................................................................................................................25

6. Environmental Assessment .................................................................................................... 26

Vehicle Miles Traveled..............................................................................................................................................................26 CCTA VMT Guidelines ......................................................................................................................................................27 Project VMT Assessment.................................................................................................................................................28 Pedestrian System Impacts ....................................................................................................................................................29 Bicycle System Impacts ............................................................................................................................................................30 Transit System Impacts ............................................................................................................................................................31 Emergency Vehicle Access Impacts ....................................................................................................................................31 Hazards ..........................................................................................................................................................................................32

7. Site Plan Review...................................................................................................................... 33 Site Access and Circulation ....................................................................................................................................................33 Parking............................................................................................................................................................................................33

8. Summary of Findings.............................................................................................................. 34 Appendices
Appendix A: Traffic Counts
Appendix B: LOS Calculation Worksheets
Appendix C: Signal Warrant Worksheets

List of Figures
Figure 1: Project Site and Study Intersections ......................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2A: Conceptual Project Site Plan Phase 1 .................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2B: Conceptual Project Site Plan Phase 2 ..................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 3: Existing Peak Hour Intersection Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Control ......................... 14 Figure 4: Project Trip Distribution.............................................................................................................................................. 18 Figure 5: Project Trip Assignment .............................................................................................................................................. 19 Figure 6: Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Control .................................. 21 Figure 7: Cumulative without Project Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Control .................... 23 Figure 8: Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Control ........................... 24 List of Tables
Table 1: Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria ............................................................................................................................. 6 Table 2: Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria ....................................................................................................................... 6 Table 3: Existing Conditions Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary............................................................................. 13 Table 4: Vehicle Trip Generation Estimates, Weekday ........................................................................................................ 16 Table 5: Vehicle Trip Generation Estimates, Weekend (Regional Tournament) ....................................................... 17 Table 6: Existing with Project Conditions Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary ................................................... 20 Table 7: Cumulative Conditions Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary ..................................................................... 25 Table 8: Weekend Tournament Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment (VMT) .............................................................. 29 Table 9: ITE Project Off-Street Parking Demand ................................................................................................................... 33

Draft Transportation Impact Assessment
Sand Creek Sports Complex Site
December 2023
1 1. Introduction
This report presents the analysis and findings of the Draft Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) prepared for the proposed Sand Creek Sports Complex project in the City of Brentwood, California. This section discusses the TIA’s purpose, analysis locations and scenarios, analysis methods, criteria used to identify significant impacts, and report organization.

The study’s purpose is to evaluate the potential transportation impacts of the Sand Creek Sports Complex project. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines were updated in 2020 per Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) to require the use of VMT to evaluate a project’s environmental effect on the transportation system. The passage of SB 743 includes the elimination of automobile delay, LOS, and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining a project’s significant impacts to the transportation system. However, lead agencies may elect to utilize LOS for informational purposes or non-CEQA analysis. This report summarizes the project’s effect on VMT for CEQA purposes and LOS analysis for informational/non-CEQA analysis to ensure consistency with the goals of the City of Brentwood’s General Plan (City of Brentwood, Adopted July 2014).

Project Description
The currently undeveloped project site is situated in the northwest corner of the Sand Creek Road and Fairview Avenue intersection, as shown on Figure 1. The current proposal seeks to build a new sports complex that would initially include three lighted, artificial turf fields as well as additional amenities such as pickleball courts, multi-use sport courts, a playground, and a pump track, among other amenities. A later expansion of the complex would include two artificial turf fields on the western portion of the site.

This TIA evaluates the transportation related effects of buildout of the entire project, including both phases. A conceptual project site plan for Phase 1 of the sports complex is shown in Figure 2A while Phase 2 is shown on Figure 2B. All vehicular access to the site would be provided via Sand Creek Road.

The project would install a new traffic signal at the intersection of Linden Street and Sand Creek Road, which would be the site’s primary access point.

The sports fields will serve local sports groups and facilitate regional tournaments. Fields will be rented out individually; some rentals would be recurring reservations, while others would be reserved for tournaments and events. Approximately six regional tournaments, with a maximum attendance of 550 people, will occur per year. Most tournaments would be scheduled on Saturdays and Sundays between 8 AM and 10 PM.

Sand Creek
Sand Creek
Cornell Dr
Rampart Way
Shady Willow Ln
Nassau Ln
Apricot Way
Water St
Diamond Springs Ln
Wildcat Ln
San Jose Ave
Mill Creek Way
Portofino Dr
Fiorita Way
Strathaven Pl
Montclair Pl
Sunflower Ln
Sciortino Ct
Bauer Rd
Camden Ct
Sage Ct
Orchid Dr
Stonewood Dr
Blossom
Dr Breakwater Way
Jasmine Pl
Meadow Brook Dr
Windy Vale Ln
Country Glen Ln
Somersby Way
Carlisle Dr
Linden St
Highland Way
Sand Creek Trl
Sand Creek Trl
Sand Creek Rd
Sand Creek Rd
Fairview
Ave Fairview
Ave
Minnesota Ave Minnesota Ave
1 2
WC23-3990_1_StudyArea
Project Site and Study Intersections
Figure 1
Project Site # Study Intersection

WC23-3990_2A_SitePlanPh1
Project Site Plan Phase 1
Figure 2A
Site Plan Source: Verde Design Inc.

WC23-3990_2B_SitePlanPh2
Project Site Plan Phase 2
Figure 2B
Site Plan Source: Verde Design Inc.

Draft Transportation Impact Assessment
Sand Creek Sports Complex Site
December 2023
5 Analysis Locations and Scenarios
Potential project violations of the City’s established level of service policies at study area roadway facilities were determined by measuring the effect project traffic would have on intersections in the vicinity of the project site during the weekday morning (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and evening (4:00 to 6:00 PM) peak periods. As shown on Figure 1, the following intersections were selected based on a review of the project location, estimates of the added traffic from the project, consultation with City staff, and locations of planned roadways in the area:

1. Sand Creek Road at Linden Street

2. Sand Creek Road at Fairview Avenue
The following scenarios were evaluated:
• Existing – Existing (2023) conditions based on recent traffic counts. • Existing with Project – Existing (2023) conditions with project-related traffic. • Cumulative – Forecast year 2040 without project traffic conditions based on the CCTA Travel Model, reflecting buildout of the City’s General Plan.
• Cumulative with Project – Cumulative (2040) conditions with project-related traffic.

Analysis Methods
The operations of roadway facilities are described with the term “level of service” (LOS). LOS is a qualitative description of traffic flow from a vehicle driver’s perspective based on factors such as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels of service are defined, ranging from LOS A (freeflow conditions) to LOS F (over capacity conditions). LOS E corresponds to operations “at capacity.” When volumes exceed capacity, stop-and-go conditions result, and operations are designated LOS F.

Signalized Intersections
Traffic conditions at signalized intersections were evaluated using methods developed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB), as documented in the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM 6th) for vehicles. The HCM method calculates control delay at an intersection based on inputs such as traffic volumes, lane geometry, signal phasing and timing, pedestrian crossing times, and peak hour factors. Control delay is defined as the delay directly associated with the traffic control device (i.e., a stop sign or a traffic signal) and specifically includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. The relationship between LOS and control delay is summarized in Table 1.

Draft Transportation Impact Assessment
Sand Creek Sports Complex Site
December 2023
6 Table 1: Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria
Level of
Service Description Delay in Seconds
A Progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. < 10.0 B Progression is good, cycle lengths are short, or both. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay.
> 10.0 to

20.0 C
Higher congestion may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping.
> 20.0 to

35.0 D
The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. > 35.0 to

55.0 E
This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios.

Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences.
> 55.0 to

80.0 F
This level is considered unacceptable with oversaturation, which is when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. This level may also occur at high V/C ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be contributing factors to such delay levels.
> 80.0
Source: Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (Transportation Research Board).

Unsignalized Intersections
For unsignalized (all-way stop-controlled and side street stop-controlled) intersections, the HCM 6th method for unsignalized intersections was used. With this method, operations are defined by the average control delay per vehicle (measured in seconds). The control delay incorporates delay associated with deceleration, acceleration, stopping, and moving up in the queue. Table 2 summarizes the relationship between LOS and delay for unsignalized intersections. At side street stop-controlled intersections, the delay is calculated for each stop-controlled movement, the left turn movement from the major street, as well as the intersection average. The intersection average delay and highest movement/approach delay are reported for side street stop-controlled intersections.

Table 2: Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria
Level of Service Description Delay in Seconds
A Little or no delays ≤ 10.0
B Short traffic delays > 10.0 to 15.0
C Average traffic delays > 15.0 to 25.0
D Long traffic delays > 25.0 to 35.0
E Very long traffic delays > 35.0 to 50.0
F Extreme traffic, delays where intersection capacity exceeded > 50.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (Transportation Research Board).

Draft Transportation Impact Assessment
Sand Creek Sports Complex Site
December 2023
7 Significance Criteria – Environmental Impacts
For this study, based on the updated Appendix G of the State of California’s Environmental Checklist Form, a significant transportation related impact could occur if the project would A. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

B. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b). Specifically, cause substantial additional VMT per capita, per service population, or other appropriate efficiency measure.

C. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).

D. Result in inadequate emergency access.

Regulatory Setting
In addition to the environmental significance standards described above, the City of Brentwood has established policies related to roadway levels of service. These policies are described in the City’s General Plan and other regional policy documents. As part of the City of Brentwood’s 2014 Adopted General Plan, the following are the Routes of Regional Significance identified within the study area by the East County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance.

1. Fairview Avenue (suburban arterial)

2. Sand Creek Road (suburban arterial)
These routes must maintain the Multimodal Transportation Service Objective (MTSO) set forth by the East County Action Plan, produced by the TRANSPLAN Committee and Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA). The General Plan and East County Action Plan outlines the following:
• For freeway Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives, the delay index should not exceed 2.5 during the peak hour. HOV lane utilization should exceed 600 vehicles per lane in the peak direction during the peak hour. This applies to SR 4 freeway segments. • For signalized suburban arterial routes, intersection levels of service should be maintained at LOS D or better.
• For non-signalized rural roads, roadway levels of service should be maintained at LOS D or better.

Other policies from the 2014 Adopted General Plan include the following:

Policy CIR I-5: Maintain LOS D or better operation at intersections within Brentwood that are not on designated Routes of Regional Significance, and LOS E or better operation at intersections in the Downtown Specific Plan area. At unsignalized intersections, levels of service shall be determined for both controlled movements and for the overall intersection. Controlled movements operating at LOS E or LOS F are allowable if the intersection is projected to operate at

Draft Transportation Impact Assessment
Sand Creek Sports Complex Site
December 2023
8 LOS C or better overall, and/or if the “Peak Hour” signal warrant outlined in the CA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices remains unmet.

Policy CIR I-6: Intersections may be exempted from the LOS standards established in Policy CIR I-5 in cases where the City Council finds that the infrastructure improvements needed to maintain vehicle LOS (such as roadway or intersection widening) would be in conflict with goals of improving multimodal circulation or would lead to other potentially adverse environmental impacts. For those locations where the City allows a reduced motor vehicle LOS or queuing standard, additional multimodal improvements may be required in order to reduce impacts to mobility.

The following thresholds will be considered in the evaluation of the project from a transportation perspective:

1. Would the operations of a signalized study intersection decline from LOS D (an average delay of 55 seconds for signalized intersections) or better to LOS E or F, based on the HCM 2010 LOS method with the addition of project traffic;

2. Would the project deteriorate already unacceptable (LOS E or F) operations at a signalized intersection by adding traffic;

3. Would the operations of an unsignalized study intersection decline from an acceptable level to an unacceptable level with the addition of project traffic, and would the installation of a traffic signal at an unsignalized intersection, based on the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Peak Hour Signal Warrant (Warrant 3), be warranted;

4. Would the project increase traffic volumes on a street beyond the expected capacity limits and would the increase in traffic be noticeable to existing residents;

5. Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks;

6. Would the project substantially increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicycles, or pedestrians due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) that does not comply with Caltrans design standards or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment);

7. Would construction traffic from the project have a significant, though temporary, impact on the environment, or would project construction substantially affect traffic flow and circulation, parking, and pedestrian safety;

8. Would the project fundamentally conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle routes); or

9. Would the project generate parking demand that is inconsistent with adopted municipal code requirements or otherwise cause parking deficiencies that impact uses outside the project area.

Draft Transportation Impact Assessment
Sand Creek Sports Complex Site
December 2023
9 Report Organization
This report is divided into eight chapters as described below:
• Chapter 1 – Introduction discusses the purpose and organization of the report. • Chapter 2 – Existing Conditions describes the transportation system in the project vicinity, including the surrounding roadway network, morning and evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes, existing bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities, and intersection operations. • Chapter 3 – Project Characteristics presents relevant project information, such as the project components and project trip generation, distribution, and assignment. • Chapter 4 – Existing with Project Traffic Conditions addresses the existing conditions with the project and discusses project vehicular impacts.
• Chapter 5 – Cumulative Traffic Conditions addresses the cumulative conditions without and with the project and discusses project vehicular impacts. • Chapter 6 – Environmental Assessment discusses the project’s potential impacts regarding transportation related environmental topics, including vehicle miles traveled, pedestrian facilities, bicycle facilities, transit facilities, emergency vehicle access, and hazards. • Chapter 7 – Site Plan Review discusses the operations and review of the project’s proposed site plan, including an assessment of the adequacy of the proposed parking supply. • Chapter 8 – Summary of Findings provides a summary of the report’s findings and recommendations.

Draft Transportation Impact Assessment
Sand Creek Sports Complex Site
December 2023
10 2. Existing Conditions
This chapter describes transportation facilities in the study area, including the surrounding roadway network, and transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the project site. Existing intersection operations are also described.

Roadway System
The currently undeveloped project site is located on the north side of Sand Creek Road, west of Fairview Avenue. Brentwood is in eastern Contra Costa County, adjacent to the cities of Antioch and Oakley, located northwest and north, respectively. Land uses surrounding the project site are primarily residential.

Regional access to the site is provided by State Route 4. Local access to the site is provided by Sand Creek Road and Fairview Avenue. The following roadways provide access to the site and are most likely to experience direct transportation impacts, if any, from the proposed project.

State Route 4 (SR 4) is an east-west freeway, connecting eastern Contra Costa County with the San Francisco Bay Area and California’s Central Valley. In eastern Contra Costa County, SR 4 currently provides four travel lanes in each direction west of State Route 160; three travel lanes in each direction from State Route 160 to Laurel Road; two travel lanes in each direction from Laurel Road to Balfour Road; and a single travel lane in each direction from Balfour Road through Brentwood and beyond. State Route 4 is a designated Route of Regional Significance.

Sand Creek Road is an east-west local roadway that runs along the southern boundary of the site. The roadway currently provides two travel lanes in each direction, plus turn pockets at intersections. The roadway has a posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour (mph). The roadway provides direct access to the site. The street has Class II bicycle facilities and continuous sidewalks in both directions. A connection to the Sand Creek Trail is provided west of the signal-controlled intersection at Fairview Avenue.

Fairview Avenue is a north-south roadway located east of the project site. The roadway provides two travel lanes in both directions, plus turn pockets at intersections. The roadway has a posted speed limit of 45 mph south of Sand Creek Road and 35 mph north of Sand Creek Road. The street has Class II bicycle facilities and continuous sidewalks in both directions.

Linden Street is a north-south residential roadway located south of the project site. The roadway has one travel lane in each direction and a posted speed limit of 25 mph. The street has continuous sidewalks on both sides of the road and does not have designated bicycle facilities.

Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Pedestrian facilities in the study area include sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals. The street network within the study are provides a fairly complete network of sidewalks and pedestrian accommodations, including Sand Creek Road, Linden Street, and Fairview Avenue. At signalized

Draft Transportation Impact Assessment
Sand Creek Sports Complex Site
December 2023
11 intersections in the area, crosswalks and pedestrian push-button actuated signals are provided. Bicycle facilities include the following:
• Bike paths (Class I) – Bike paths provide a separate right-of-way and are designated for the exclusive use of people riding bicycles and walking with minimal cross-flow traffic. Such paths can be well situated along creeks, canals, and rail lines. Class I bikeways can also offer opportunities not provided by the road system by serving as both recreational areas and/or desirable commuter routes.
• Bike lanes (Class II) – Bike lanes provide designated street space for bicyclists, typically adjacent to the outer vehicle travel lanes. Bike lanes include special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bike lanes may be enhanced with painted buffers between vehicle lanes and/or parking, and green paint at conflict zones (such as driveways or intersections). • Bike routes (Class III) – Bike routes provide enhanced mixed-traffic conditions for bicyclists through signage, striping, and/or traffic calming treatments, and offer continuity to a bikeway network. Bike routes are typically designated along gaps between bike trails or bike lanes, or along low-volume, low-speed streets.
• Separated Bikeway (Class IV) – Separated bikeways, also referred to as cycle tracks or protected bikeways, are facilities for the exclusive use of bicycles which are physically separated from vehicle traffic. Separated bikeways were recently adopted by Caltrans in 2015. Types of separation may include, but are not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, physical barriers, or on-street parking.

The City of Brentwood currently has 19 miles of Class I bicycle paths and 63 miles of other bike lanes. In the immediate study area, there are Class II bike lanes along Sand Creek Road and Fairview Avenue. The Sand Creek Trail is a Class I facility bordering the project site to the north. It extends from SR 4 in the west to Minnesota Avenue in the east.

Existing Transit Service
Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority (Tri Delta Transit) provides transit service in eastern Contra Costa County, serving the communities of Brentwood, Antioch, Oakley, Concord, Discovery Bay, Bay Point and Pittsburg.

Currently, 15 routes operate on weekdays, with five routes operating on weekends. Two routes currently serve the area near the project site—Route 385 and Route 395. In the project’s vicinity, Route 385 operates along Sand Creek Road with a stop adjacent to the site at Sand Creek Road and Fairview Avenue.

Route 395 runs along Sand Creek Road with a stop at the Streets of Brentwood Mall, 0.5 miles west of the project site.

Route 385 operates on weekdays only with one-hour headways from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM. The services run between the Antioch BART Station and the Brentwood Park n Ride.

Draft Transportation Impact Assessment
Sand Creek Sports Complex Site
December 2023
12 Route 395 operates on weekdays and weekends with one-hour headways from 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM. The service runs between the Antioch BART Station and the Streets of Brentwood Mall.

Existing Traffic Counts
Weekday morning (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and afternoon (4:00 to 6:00 PM) peak period intersection turning movement counts were collected at the study intersections, including separate counts of pedestrians and bicyclists, in May 2023. Counts were collected on a clear weather day when local schools were in session.

Peak hour intersection volumes are summarized in Figure 3 along with existing lane configurations and traffic controls. The morning peak period is typically between 7:45 and 8:45 AM while the afternoon peak hour is typically from 4:30 to 5:30 PM. The traffic count data collection worksheets are provided in Appendix A.

Signal timing data was collected from the City of Brentwood. Field observations took place to confirm existing signal timing, traffic patterns, queue lengths, lane geometries, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian facilities at the study locations to inform the existing baseline conditions.

Existing Operations Assessment
Intersection Operations
Existing operations were evaluated using the methods described in Section 1 for the weekday AM and PM peak hours at the study intersections. The results of this assessment are summarized in Table 3. The analysis was based on the volumes, lane configurations, and traffic control presented in Figure 3.

Observed peak hour factors1 were used at all intersections for the existing analysis. Pedestrian and bicycle activity was also factored into the analysis. Detailed intersection LOS calculation worksheets are presented in Appendix B. As shown, all signalized and unsignalized study intersections currently operate within the overall level of service standards set by the City of Brentwood and CCTA.

Signal Warrants
To assess the need for signalization of stop-controlled intersections, the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) (Federal Highway Administration, 2009) presents nine signal warrants. The Peak Hour Volume Warrant was used in this study as a supplemental analysis tool to assess operations at 1 The peak hour factor is the relationship between the peak 15-minute flow rate and the full hourly volume: PHF = Hourly volume / (4 x (volume during the peak 15 minutes of flow)). The analysis level of served is based on peak rates of flow occurring within the peak hour because substantial short term fluctuations typically occurring during an hour.

Draft Transportation Impact Assessment
Sand Creek Sports Complex Site
December 2023
13 unsignalized intersections.2 The existing unsignalized study intersection at Sand Creek Road and Linden Street does not currently meet traffic signal warrants. Signal warrant worksheets are presented in Appendix C.

Table 3: Existing Conditions Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Delay2, 3 LOS
1 Sand Creek Road/Linden Street SSSC AM
PM

1.8 (38.3)

0.6 (29.3)
A (E)
A (D)
2 Sand Creek Road/Fairview Avenue Signal AM
PM

28.1 24.8
C
C
Notes: Bold text indicates potentially unacceptable intersection operations.

1. Signal = Signalized intersection; SSSC = Side street stop-controlled intersections; traffic on the main street does not stop while traffic on the side street is controlled by a stop sign.

2. Average intersection delay is calculated for all signalized intersections using the HCM 6th method for vehicles.

3. For SSSC intersections, average delay or LOS is listed first followed by the delay or LOS for the worst approach in parentheses.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2023.
2 Unsignalized intersection warrant analysis is intended to examine the general correlation between existing conditions and the need to install new traffic signals. Existing peak-hour volumes are compared against a subset of the standard traffic signal warrants recommended in the MUTCD and associated State guidelines. This analysis should not serve as the only basis for deciding whether and when to install a signal. To reach such a decision, the full set of warrants should be investigated based on field-measured traffic data and a thorough study of traffic and roadway conditions by an experienced engineer. Furthermore, the decision to install a signal should not be based solely on the warrants because the installation of signals can lead to certain types of collisions. The responsible State or local agency should undertake regular monitoring of actual traffic conditions and accident data and conduct a timely re-evaluation of the full set of warrants in order to prioritize and program intersections for signalization.

Sand Creek
Sand Creek
Rampart Way
Nassau Ln
Apricot Way
Water St
Diamond Springs Ln
Wildcat Ln
an Jose Ave
Mill Creek Way
Fiorita Way
Strathaven Pl
Montclair Pl
Sunflower Ln
Sciortino Ct
Bauer Rd
Camden Ct
Sage Ct
Orchid Dr
Stonewood Dr
Blossom
Dr Breakwater Way
Jasmine Pl
Meadow Brook Dr
Windy Vale Ln
Country Glen Ln
Somersby Way
Carlisle Dr
Linden St
Highland Way
Sand Creek Trl
Sand Creek Rd
Sand Creek Rd
Fairview
Ave Fairview
Ave
Minnesota Ave Minnesota Ave
1 2
Project Site and Study Intersections
Figure 1
Intersection
WC23-3990_X_Volumes
Project Site # Study Intersection
XX (YY) AM (PM) Peak Hour Trac Volumes Signalized Intersection STOP Stop Sign Existing Peak Hour Intersection Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls Figure 3
22 (9)
52 (28)
882 (1,121)
20 (34)
936 (916)
76 (21)

1. Linden St/Sand Creek Rd
198 (163)215 (209)
207 (137)
34 (58)
737 (818)
163 (273) 60 (33) 218 (186)
82 (85)
50 (88)
754 (741)
164 (125)

2. Fairview Ave/Sand Creek Rd
Sand Creek Rd Sand Creek Rd Fairvie
w
Ave
Linden St
STOP
C
G
E
ACC
A
ACF

CCF FCA ACCF
0 (0)0 (0)
0 (0)
6 (35)
0 (0)
0 (0) 1 (4) 0 (0)
5 (23)
0 (3)
5 (33)
0 (0)

1. Linden St/Sand Creek Rd
2 (1
4)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (5)
2 (9)
2 (9) 1 (7) 0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
2 (15)
0 (0)

2. Fairview Ave/Sand Creek Rd
Sand Creek Rd
Driveway Linden St
Sand Creek Rd
Fairvie
w
Ave
ACE
D
BF
ACE
AC

ACF CF ACF ACCF
6 (35)
3 (17)
1 (4)

3. West Driveway/Sand Creek Rd
Sand Creek Rd
West Driveway
POTS

CC F CC
Project Trip Assignment
Figure 5
# Project Driveway
3 Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls Figure 6
22 (9)
0 (0)
52 (28)
6 (35)
882 (1,121)
20 (34) 1 (4) 0 (0)
5 (23)
936 (919)
76 (21)

1. Linden St/Sand Creek Rd
200 (177)
215 (209)
207 (137)
35 (63)
739 (827)
165 (282) 61 (40)
218 (186)
82 (85)
50 (88)
756 (756)
164 (125)

2. Fairview Ave/Sand Creek Rd
Sand Creek Rd
Driveway Linden St
Sand Creek Rd
Fairvie
w
Ave
ACE
D
BF
AC

ACF CF ACF ACCF
5 (33)
ACE
Cumulative Peak Hour Intersection Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls Figure 7
25 (13)58 (39)
1,247 (1,537)
23 (40)
1,311 (1,287)
89 (25)

1. Linden St/Sand Creek Rd
221 (227)240 (291)
231 (190)
40 (68)
1,074 (1,189)
191 (319) 76 (41) 277 (231)
104 (106)
59 (103)
1,103 (1,044)
192 (146)

2. Fairview Ave/Sand Creek Rd
Sand Creek Rd Sand Creek Rd Fairvie
w
Ave
STOP
C
G
E
ACC
A
ACF

CCF FCA ACCF
Linden St
Cumulative Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls Figure 8
25 (13)
0 (0)
58 (39)
6 (35)
1,247 (1,537)
23 (40)
1 (4)0 (0)5 (23)
1,311 (1,290)
89 (25)

1. Linden St/Sand Creek Rd
223 (241)240 (291)231 (190)
41 (73)
1,076 (1,198)
193 (328) 77 (48) 277 (231)
104 (106)
59 (103)
1,105 (1,059)
192 (146)

2. Fairview Ave/Sand Creek Rd
Sand Creek Rd
Driveway Linden St
Sand Creek Rd
Fairvie
w
Ave
ACE
D
BF
AC

ACF CF ACF ACCF
5 (33)
ACE

Draft Transportation Impact Assessment
Sand Creek Sports Complex Site
December 2023
15 3. Project Characteristics
This chapter provides an overview of the proposed project’s components and addresses the expected project trip generation, distribution, and assignment characteristics, allowing for an evaluation of project impacts on the surrounding roadway network. The amount of traffic associated with the project was estimated using a three-step process:

1. Trip Generation – The amount of vehicle traffic entering/exiting the project site was estimated.

2. Trip Distribution – The direction trips would use to approach and depart the site was projected.

3. Trip Assignment – Trips were then assigned to specific roadway segments and intersection turning movements.

Project Description
The Sand Creek Sports Complex project seeks to build a new sports complex that would initially include three lighted, artificial turf fields as well as additional amenities such as pickleball courts, multi-use sport courts, a playground, and a pump track, among other amenities. A later expansion of the complex would include two artificial turf fields on the western portion of the site. This TIA evaluates the transportation related effects of buildout of the entire project, including both phases. A conceptual project site plan for Phase 1 of the sports complex is shown in Figure 2A while Phase 2 is shown on Figure 2B. All vehicular access to the site would be provided via Sand Creek Road. The project would install a new traffic signal at the intersection of Linden Street and Sand Creek Road which would be the site’s primary access point.

The sports fields will serve local sports groups and facilitate regional tournaments. Fields will be rented out individually; some rentals would be recurring reservations, while others would be reserved for tournaments and events. During general weekday field use such as practices and league games, 50 people are expected to be on site per field, with a total visitor potential of 250 people when all 5 fields are in use.

During general weekday conditions, the complex will be used for practices and games that run from 4 PM to 9 PM.

Approximately six regional tournaments, with a maximum attendance of 550 people, will occur per year.

Most tournaments would be scheduled on Saturdays and Sundays between 8 AM and 10 PM. In tournament conditions, there will be additional teams and spectators on-site that will not be playing, as they will be awaiting the start of their next game or leaving a completed game. This additional group of people is expected to be 50% of the total participants and spectators engaged in the play described above (275). Therefore, the total number of participants and spectators on site at any one time may be 825 for tournament soccer games. Other uses of the facility, including pickleball, multi-use sport courts, pump track, and group picnic areas have potential to add another 175 users in the complex at any given time from dawn to dusk.

Draft Transportation Impact Assessment
Sand Creek Sports Complex Site
December 2023
16 Project Trip Generation
Trip generation refers to the process of estimating the amount of vehicular traffic a project would add to the surrounding roadway system. Weekday estimates were created for the daily condition and for the peak one-hour period during the morning and evening peaks when traffic volumes generated by the project are expected to be highest. Project trip generation was estimated using rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition) for weekdays and weekends, as presented in Table 4 and Table 5, respectively. The weekday trip generation is based on rates from the ITE Manual’s land use code 488 “Soccer Complex,” and other applicable uses, which describe the types of activities expected on site.

The proposed project (five turf fields and additional amenities) is expected to generate approximately 602 daily weekday trips including 19 morning peak hour and 115 evening peak hour trips, as summarized in Table 4. Trip generation estimates for the sports complex were divided into several relevant land uses to represent the various uses included in the proposed project.

Estimates of trip generation on weekends when the site hosts regional tournaments of maximum attendance were calculated using the anticipated levels of attendance, automobile occupancy, and peak periods of arrival and departure. As previously mentioned, the site expects to host up to six regional tournaments per year. The results of these weekend trip generation calculations are presented in Table 5.

As presented in Table 5, a total of 6,265 daily trips with 590 total vehicle trips during the peak hour are expected on a weekend day when a regional tournament is hosted.

The intersection level of service analysis focuses on operations during the weekday morning and evening peak hours, which represent typical operating conditions. The assessment of project effects on VMT are calculated both for a typical weekday condition and for a weekend tournament day.

Table 4: Vehicle Trip Generation Estimates, Weekday
Use Size Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Soccer Complex1 5 Fields 357 3 2 5 54 28 82
Tennis Courts2 3 Courts 91 3 2 5 6 7 13
Pump Track2 2 Court Equivalents 61 2 1 3 4 4 8
Activity Courts2 3 Court Equivalents 91 3 2 5 6 7 13
Public Park3 7.88 Acres 6 0 0 0 1 0 1
Total Project Trips 602 11 8 19 70 45 115

1. ITE land use category 488 – Soccer Complex (Adj Streets, 7-9A; 4-6P):

Daily: (T) = 71.33 (X)
AM Peak Hour: T = 0.99(X); Enter = 61%; Exit = 39%
PM Peak Hour: T = 16.43(X); Enter = 66%; Exit = 34%

2. ITE land use category 490 – Tennis Court (Adj Streets, 7-9A; 4-6P):

Daily: (T) = 30.32 (X)
AM Peak Hour: T = 1.60(X); Enter = 50%; Exit = 50%

Draft Transportation Impact Assessment
Sand Creek Sports Complex Site
December 2023
17 PM Peak Hour: T = 4.21(X); Enter = 50%; Exit = 50%
Notes: ITE does not include land uses for Activity Courts and Pump Tracks. Trip generation rates for these land uses are assumed to be equivalent to Tennis Courts. ITE does not include the AM Peak Hour equation for land use category 490, so the equation was interpolated to be 38% of the PM Peak Hour.

3. ITE land use category 411 – Public Park (Adj Streets, 7-9A; 4-6P):

Daily: (T) = 0.78 (X)
AM Peak Hour: T = 0.02(X); Enter = 59%; Exit = 41%
PM Peak Hour: T = 0.11(X); Enter = 55%; Exit = 45%
Source: Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition), ITE, 2021; Fehr & Peers, 2023.

Table 5: Vehicle Trip Generation Estimates, Weekend (Regional Tournament) Use Maximum
Attendees1
Average
Vehicle
Occupancy2
Daily3
Peak Hour4
In Out Total
Soccer Complex 550

2.5 4,753 220 220 440
Other Uses 175 1,512 70 70 140
Total Project Trips 6,265 290 290 580

1. Maximum attendance assuming a five-field complex, which includes 550 active participants. Assumes full complex fills and empties in single peak hour.

2. Average Vehicle Occupancy assumption from Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Managing Travel for Planned Special Events – Event Operations Planning (2017)

3. Daily trips calculated based on peak hour generation using the proportion between weekend peak-hour and daily generation rates (ITE land use category 488 – Soccer Complex)

4. Peak Hour: T = Maximum Attendees / Average Vehicle Occupancy; Enter = 50%; Exit = 50% Source: Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition), ITE, 2021; Fehr & Peers, 2023.

Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
Project trip distribution refers to the directions of approach and departure that vehicles would take to access and leave the site. Estimates of project trip distribution were developed based on access to important links in the roadway network, such as State Route 4. A select zone analysis from the CCTA’s Travel Demand Model was also performed as an input to the project’s trip distribution. Project distribution percentages are presented in Figure 4.

Project trips were then assigned to the roadway network based on the directions of approach and departure, as shown in Figure 5.

Sand Creek
Sand Creek
Cornell Dr
Rampart Way
Shady Willow Ln
Nassau Ln
Apricot Way
Water St
Diamond Springs Ln
Wildcat Ln
San Jose Ave
Mill Creek Way
Portofino Dr
Fiorita Way
Strathaven Pl
Montclair Pl
Sunflower Ln
Sciortino Ct
Bauer Rd
Camden Ct
Sage Ct
Orchid Dr
Stonewood Dr
Blossom
Dr Breakwater Way
Jasmine Pl
Meadow Brook Dr
Windy Vale Ln
Country Glen Ln
Somersby Way
Carlisle Dr
Linden St
Highland Way
Sand Creek Trl
Sand Creek Trl
Sand Creek Rd
Sand Creek Rd
Fairview
Ave Fairview
Ave
Minnesota Ave Minnesota Ave
1 2
50%
20%
20% 10%
WC23-3990_4_TripDistro
Project Trip Distribution
Figure 4
Project Site # Study Intersection XX% Project Trip Distribution

Sand Creek
Sand Creek
Rampart Way
Nassau Ln
Apricot Way
Water St
Diamond Springs Ln
Wildcat Ln
an Jose Ave
Mill Creek Way
Fiorita Way
Strathaven Pl
Montclair Pl
Sunflower Ln
Sciortino Ct
Bauer Rd
Camden Ct
Sage Ct
Orchid Dr
Stonewood Dr
Blossom
Dr Breakwater Way
Jasmine Pl
Meadow Brook Dr
Windy Vale Ln
Country Glen Ln
Somersby Way
Carlisle Dr
Linden St
Highland Way
Sand Creek Trl
Sand Creek Rd
Sand Creek Rd
Fairview
Ave Fairview
Ave
Minnesota Ave Minnesota Ave
1 2
Project Site and Study Intersections
Figure 1
Intersection
WC23-3990_X_Volumes
Project Site # Study Intersection
XX (YY) AM (PM) Peak Hour Trac Volumes Signalized Intersection STOP Stop Sign Existing Peak Hour Intersection Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls Figure 3
22 (9)
52 (28)
882 (1,121)
20 (34)
936 (916)
76 (21)

1. Linden St/Sand Creek Rd
198 (163)215 (209)
207 (137)
34 (58)
737 (818)
163 (273) 60 (33) 218 (186)
82 (85)
50 (88)
754 (741)
164 (125)

2. Fairview Ave/Sand Creek Rd
Sand Creek Rd Sand Creek Rd Fairvie
w
Ave
Linden St
STOP
C
G
E
ACC
A
ACF

CCF FCA ACCF
0 (0)0 (0)
0 (0)
6 (35)
0 (0)
0 (0) 1 (4) 0 (0)
5 (23)
0 (3)
5 (33)
0 (0)

1. Linden St/Sand Creek Rd
2 (1
4)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (5)
2 (9)
2 (9) 1 (7) 0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
2 (15)
0 (0)

2. Fairview Ave/Sand Creek Rd
Sand Creek Rd
Driveway Linden St
Sand Creek Rd
Fairvie
w
Ave
ACE
D
BF
ACE
AC

ACF CF ACF ACCF
6 (35)
3 (17)
1 (4)

3. West Driveway/Sand Creek Rd
Sand Creek Rd
West Driveway
POTS

CC F CC
Project Trip Assignment
Figure 5
# Project Driveway
3 Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls Figure 6
22 (9)
0 (0)
52 (28)
6 (35)
882 (1,121)
20 (34) 1 (4) 0 (0)
5 (23)
936 (919)
76 (21)

1. Linden St/Sand Creek Rd
200 (177)
215 (209)
207 (137)
35 (63)
739 (827)
165 (282) 61 (40)
218 (186)
82 (85)
50 (88)
756 (756)
164 (125)

2. Fairview Ave/Sand Creek Rd
Sand Creek Rd
Driveway Linden St
Sand Creek Rd
Fairvie
w
Ave
ACE
D
BF
AC

ACF CF ACF ACCF
5 (33)
ACE
Cumulative Peak Hour Intersection Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls Figure 7
25 (13)58 (39)
1,247 (1,537)
23 (40)
1,311 (1,287)
89 (25)

1. Linden St/Sand Creek Rd
221 (227)240 (291)
231 (190)
40 (68)
1,074 (1,189)
191 (319) 76 (41) 277 (231)
104 (106)
59 (103)
1,103 (1,044)
192 (146)

2. Fairview Ave/Sand Creek Rd
Sand Creek Rd Sand Creek Rd Fairvie
w
Ave
STOP
C
G
E
ACC
A
ACF

CCF FCA ACCF
Linden St
Cumulative Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls Figure 8
25 (13)
0 (0)
58 (39)
6 (35)
1,247 (1,537)
23 (40)
1 (4)0 (0)5 (23)
1,311 (1,290)
89 (25)

1. Linden St/Sand Creek Rd
223 (241)240 (291)231 (190)
41 (73)
1,076 (1,198)
193 (328) 77 (48) 277 (231)
104 (106)
59 (103)
1,105 (1,059)
192 (146)

2. Fairview Ave/Sand Creek Rd
Sand Creek Rd
Driveway Linden St
Sand Creek Rd
Fairvie
w
Ave
ACE
D
BF
AC

ACF CF ACF ACCF
5 (33)
ACE

Draft Transportation Impact Assessment
Sand Creek Sports Complex Site
December 2023
20 4. Existing with Project Conditions
This section evaluates the effects of the proposed project on the existing roadway network.

Existing With Project Traffic Volumes
The project traffic volumes on Figure 5 were added to the existing traffic volumes from Figure 3 to estimate the Existing with Project traffic volumes, as shown on Figure 6. The intersection of Sand Creek Road and Linden Street would be signalized as part of the proposed project.

Analysis of Existing with Project Conditions
Intersection Operations
Existing with Project intersection operations were evaluated using the methods described in Section 1.

The Existing with Project analysis results are presented in Table 6, based on the traffic volumes presented in Figure 6. In the existing baseline condition, all study intersections operate within the City’s overall level of service standard.

The addition of project traffic would increase delay at the study intersections. However, it would not result in operations at intersections worsening to deficient service levels.

Signal Warrants
To assess the need for signalization of stop-controlled intersections, the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control (MUTCD) (Federal Highway Administration, 2009) presents nine signal warrants. The Peak Hour Volume Warrant was used in this study as a supplemental analysis tool to assess operations at unsignalized intersections. The signal warrant is not met for either study intersection with the addition of project traffic for AM or PM weekday peak conditions. However, the signal warrant would be met at the Sand Creek Road and Linden Street intersection with the addition of project traffic under weekend peak conditions.

Table 6: Existing with Project Conditions Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary Intersection Control1 Peak
Hour
Existing Conditions Existing with Project Conditions
Delay2, 3 LOS Delay2, 3 LOS
1 Sand Creek Road/
Linden Street Signal AMPM

1.8 (38.3)

0.6 (29.3)
A (E)
A (D)

3.5 3.8
A
A
2 Sand Creek Road/
Fairview Avenue Signal AMPM

28.1 24.8
C
C

28.3 25.1
C
C

1. Signal = Signalized intersection; SSSC = Side street stop-controlled intersections; traffic on the main street does not stop while traffic on the side street is controlled by a stop sign.

2. Average intersection delay is calculated for all signalized intersections using the HCM 6th method for vehicles.

3. For SSSC intersections, average delay or LOS is listed first followed by the delay or LOS for the worst approach in parentheses.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2023.

Sand Creek
Sand Creek
Rampart Way
Nassau Ln
Apricot Way
Water St
Diamond Springs Ln
Wildcat Ln
an Jose Ave
Mill Creek Way
Fiorita Way
Strathaven Pl
Montclair Pl
Sunflower Ln
Sciortino Ct
Bauer Rd
Camden Ct
Sage Ct
Orchid Dr
Stonewood Dr
Blossom
Dr Breakwater Way
Jasmine Pl
Meadow Brook Dr
Windy Vale Ln
Country Glen Ln
Somersby Way
Carlisle Dr
Linden St
Highland Way
Sand Creek Trl
Sand Creek Rd
Sand Creek Rd
Fairview
Ave Fairview
Ave
Minnesota Ave Minnesota Ave
1 2
Project Site and Study Intersections
Figure 1
Intersection
WC23-3990_X_Volumes
Project Site # Study Intersection
XX (YY) AM (PM) Peak Hour Trac Volumes Signalized Intersection STOP Stop Sign Existing Peak Hour Intersection Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls Figure 3
22 (9)
52 (28)
882 (1,121)
20 (34)
936 (916)
76 (21)

1. Linden St/Sand Creek Rd
198 (163)215 (209)
207 (137)
34 (58)
737 (818)
163 (273) 60 (33) 218 (186)
82 (85)
50 (88)
754 (741)
164 (125)

2. Fairview Ave/Sand Creek Rd
Sand Creek Rd Sand Creek Rd Fairvie
w
Ave
Linden St
STOP
C
G
E
ACC
A
ACF

CCF FCA ACCF
0 (0)0 (0)
0 (0)
6 (35)
0 (0)
0 (0) 1 (4) 0 (0)
5 (23)
0 (3)
5 (33)
0 (0)

1. Linden St/Sand Creek Rd
2 (1
4)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (5)
2 (9)
2 (9) 1 (7) 0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
2 (15)
0 (0)

2. Fairview Ave/Sand Creek Rd
Sand Creek Rd
Driveway Linden St
Sand Creek Rd
Fairvie
w
Ave
ACE
D
BF
ACE
AC

ACF CF ACF ACCF
6 (35)
3 (17)
1 (4)

3. West Driveway/Sand Creek Rd
Sand Creek Rd
West Driveway
POTS

CC F CC
Project Trip Assignment
Figure 5
# Project Driveway
3 Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls Figure 6
22 (9)
0 (0)
52 (28)
6 (35)
882 (1,121)
20 (34) 1 (4) 0 (0)
5 (23)
936 (919)
76 (21)

1. Linden St/Sand Creek Rd
200 (177)
215 (209)
207 (137)
35 (63)
739 (827)
165 (282) 61 (40)
218 (186)
82 (85)
50 (88)
756 (756)
164 (125)

2. Fairview Ave/Sand Creek Rd
Sand Creek Rd
Driveway Linden St
Sand Creek Rd
Fairvie
w
Ave
ACE
D
BF
AC

ACF CF ACF ACCF
5 (33)
ACE
Cumulative Peak Hour Intersection Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls Figure 7
25 (13)58 (39)
1,247 (1,537)
23 (40)
1,311 (1,287)
89 (25)

1. Linden St/Sand Creek Rd
221 (227)240 (291)
231 (190)
40 (68)
1,074 (1,189)
191 (319) 76 (41) 277 (231)
104 (106)
59 (103)
1,103 (1,044)
192 (146)

2. Fairview Ave/Sand Creek Rd
Sand Creek Rd Sand Creek Rd Fairvie
w
Ave
STOP
C
G
E
ACC
A
ACF

CCF FCA ACCF
Linden St
Cumulative Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls Figure 8
25 (13)
0 (0)
58 (39)
6 (35)
1,247 (1,537)
23 (40)
1 (4)0 (0)5 (23)
1,311 (1,290)
89 (25)

1. Linden St/Sand Creek Rd
223 (241)240 (291)231 (190)
41 (73)
1,076 (1,198)
193 (328) 77 (48) 277 (231)
104 (106)
59 (103)
1,105 (1,059)
192 (146)

2. Fairview Ave/Sand Creek Rd
Sand Creek Rd
Driveway Linden St
Sand Creek Rd
Fairvie
w
Ave
ACE
D
BF
AC

ACF CF ACF ACCF
5 (33)
ACE

Draft Transportation Impact Assessment
Sand Creek Sports Complex Site
December 2023
22 5. Cumulative Traffic Conditions
This section discusses Cumulative traffic conditions both without and with the project. The future conditions analysis considers development within the City of Brentwood as described in the Brentwood General Plan EIR and supplemented by a check of traffic forecasts for the study area in the 2040 Contra Costa County Travel Demand Model.

Cumulative Traffic Forecasts
To assess future growth with planned development in the City of Brentwood and surrounding communities, several sources of data were reviewed, including the Contra Costa County Travel Demand Model (CCTA Model) and future projections from the City of Brentwood General Plan EIR (April 2014).

Growth rates from these sources, primarily the CCTA travel demand model, were used to develop Cumulative baseline traffic forecasts at the study intersections. The resulting Cumulative without Project forecasts are presented on Figure 7, which are representative of predicted conditions in 2040. The project volumes from Figure 5 were added to the Cumulative without Project traffic volumes to represent Cumulative with Project conditions, as presented on Figure 8.

Sand Creek
Sand Creek
Rampart Way
Nassau Ln
Apricot Way
Water St
Diamond Springs Ln
Wildcat Ln
an Jose Ave
Mill Creek Way
Fiorita Way
Strathaven Pl
Montclair Pl
Sunflower Ln
Sciortino Ct
Bauer Rd
Camden Ct
Sage Ct
Orchid Dr
Stonewood Dr
Blossom
Dr Breakwater Way
Jasmine Pl
Meadow Brook Dr
Windy Vale Ln
Country Glen Ln
Somersby Way
Carlisle Dr
Linden St
Highland Way
Sand Creek Trl
Sand Creek Rd
Sand Creek Rd
Fairview
Ave Fairview
Ave
Minnesota Ave Minnesota Ave
1 2
Project Site and Study Intersections
Figure 1
Intersection
WC23-3990_X_Volumes
Project Site # Study Intersection
XX (YY) AM (PM) Peak Hour Trac Volumes Signalized Intersection STOP Stop Sign Existing Peak Hour Intersection Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls Figure 3
22 (9)
52 (28)
882 (1,121)
20 (34)
936 (916)
76 (21)

1. Linden St/Sand Creek Rd
198 (163)215 (209)
207 (137)
34 (58)
737 (818)
163 (273) 60 (33) 218 (186)
82 (85)
50 (88)
754 (741)
164 (125)

2. Fairview Ave/Sand Creek Rd
Sand Creek Rd Sand Creek Rd Fairvie
w
Ave
Linden St
STOP
C
G
E
ACC
A
ACF

CCF FCA ACCF
0 (0)0 (0)
0 (0)
6 (35)
0 (0)
0 (0) 1 (4) 0 (0)
5 (23)
0 (3)
5 (33)
0 (0)

1. Linden St/Sand Creek Rd
2 (1
4)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (5)
2 (9)
2 (9) 1 (7) 0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
2 (15)
0 (0)

2. Fairview Ave/Sand Creek Rd
Sand Creek Rd
Driveway Linden St
Sand Creek Rd
Fairvie
w
Ave
ACE
D
BF
ACE
AC

ACF CF ACF ACCF
6 (35)
3 (17)
1 (4)

3. West Driveway/Sand Creek Rd
Sand Creek Rd
West Driveway
POTS

CC F CC
Project Trip Assignment
Figure 5
# Project Driveway
3 Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls Figure 6
22 (9)
0 (0)
52 (28)
6 (35)
882 (1,121)
20 (34) 1 (4) 0 (0)
5 (23)
936 (919)
76 (21)

1. Linden St/Sand Creek Rd
200 (177)
215 (209)
207 (137)
35 (63)
739 (827)
165 (282) 61 (40)
218 (186)
82 (85)
50 (88)
756 (756)
164 (125)

2. Fairview Ave/Sand Creek Rd
Sand Creek Rd
Driveway Linden St
Sand Creek Rd
Fairvie
w
Ave
ACE
D
BF
AC

ACF CF ACF ACCF
5 (33)
ACE
Cumulative Peak Hour Intersection Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls Figure 7
25 (13)58 (39)
1,247 (1,537)
23 (40)
1,311 (1,287)
89 (25)

1. Linden St/Sand Creek Rd
221 (227)240 (291)
231 (190)
40 (68)
1,074 (1,189)
191 (319) 76 (41) 277 (231)
104 (106)
59 (103)
1,103 (1,044)
192 (146)

2. Fairview Ave/Sand Creek Rd
Sand Creek Rd Sand Creek Rd Fairvie
w
Ave
STOP
C
G
E
ACC
A
ACF

CCF FCA ACCF
Linden St
Cumulative Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls Figure 8
25 (13)
0 (0)
58 (39)
6 (35)
1,247 (1,537)
23 (40)
1 (4)0 (0)5 (23)
1,311 (1,290)
89 (25)

1. Linden St/Sand Creek Rd
223 (241)240 (291)231 (190)
41 (73)
1,076 (1,198)
193 (328) 77 (48) 277 (231)
104 (106)
59 (103)
1,105 (1,059)
192 (146)

2. Fairview Ave/Sand Creek Rd
Sand Creek Rd
Driveway Linden St
Sand Creek Rd
Fairvie
w
Ave
ACE
D
BF
AC

ACF CF ACF ACCF
5 (33)
ACE

Sand Creek
Sand Creek
Rampart Way
Nassau Ln
Apricot Way
Water St
Diamond Springs Ln
Wildcat Ln
an Jose Ave
Mill Creek Way
Fiorita Way
Strathaven Pl
Montclair Pl
Sunflower Ln
Sciortino Ct
Bauer Rd
Camden Ct
Sage Ct
Orchid Dr
Stonewood Dr
Blossom
Dr Breakwater Way
Jasmine Pl
Meadow Brook Dr
Windy Vale Ln
Country Glen Ln
Somersby Way
Carlisle Dr
Linden St
Highland Way
Sand Creek Trl
Sand Creek Rd
Sand Creek Rd
Fairview
Ave Fairview
Ave
Minnesota Ave Minnesota Ave
1 2
Project Site and Study Intersections
Figure 1
Intersection
WC23-3990_X_Volumes
Project Site # Study Intersection
XX (YY) AM (PM) Peak Hour Trac Volumes Signalized Intersection STOP Stop Sign Existing Peak Hour Intersection Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls Figure 3
22 (9)
52 (28)
882 (1,121)
20 (34)
936 (916)
76 (21)

1. Linden St/Sand Creek Rd
198 (163)215 (209)
207 (137)
34 (58)
737 (818)
163 (273) 60 (33) 218 (186)
82 (85)
50 (88)
754 (741)
164 (125)

2. Fairview Ave/Sand Creek Rd
Sand Creek Rd Sand Creek Rd Fairvie
w
Ave
Linden St
STOP
C
G
E
ACC
A
ACF

CCF FCA ACCF
0 (0)0 (0)
0 (0)
6 (35)
0 (0)
0 (0) 1 (4) 0 (0)
5 (23)
0 (3)
5 (33)
0 (0)

1. Linden St/Sand Creek Rd
2 (1
4)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (5)
2 (9)
2 (9) 1 (7) 0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
2 (15)
0 (0)

2. Fairview Ave/Sand Creek Rd
Sand Creek Rd
Driveway Linden St
Sand Creek Rd
Fairvie
w
Ave
ACE
D
BF
ACE
AC

ACF CF ACF ACCF
6 (35)
3 (17)
1 (4)

3. West Driveway/Sand Creek Rd
Sand Creek Rd
West Driveway
POTS

CC F CC
Project Trip Assignment
Figure 5
# Project Driveway
3 Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls Figure 6
22 (9)
0 (0)
52 (28)
6 (35)
882 (1,121)
20 (34) 1 (4) 0 (0)
5 (23)
936 (919)
76 (21)

1. Linden St/Sand Creek Rd
200 (177)
215 (209)
207 (137)
35 (63)
739 (827)
165 (282) 61 (40)
218 (186)
82 (85)
50 (88)
756 (756)
164 (125)

2. Fairview Ave/Sand Creek Rd
Sand Creek Rd
Driveway Linden St
Sand Creek Rd
Fairvie
w
Ave
ACE
D
BF
AC

ACF CF ACF ACCF
5 (33)
ACE
Cumulative Peak Hour Intersection Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls Figure 7
25 (13)58 (39)
1,247 (1,537)
23 (40)
1,311 (1,287)
89 (25)

1. Linden St/Sand Creek Rd
221 (227)240 (291)
231 (190)
40 (68)
1,074 (1,189)
191 (319) 76 (41) 277 (231)
104 (106)
59 (103)
1,103 (1,044)
192 (146)

2. Fairview Ave/Sand Creek Rd
Sand Creek Rd Sand Creek Rd Fairvie
w
Ave
STOP
C
G
E
ACC
A
ACF

CCF FCA ACCF
Linden St
Cumulative Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls Figure 8
25 (13)
0 (0)
58 (39)
6 (35)
1,247 (1,537)
23 (40)
1 (4)0 (0)5 (23)
1,311 (1,290)
89 (25)

1. Linden St/Sand Creek Rd
223 (241)240 (291)231 (190)
41 (73)
1,076 (1,198)
193 (328) 77 (48) 277 (231)
104 (106)
59 (103)
1,105 (1,059)
192 (146)

2. Fairview Ave/Sand Creek Rd
Sand Creek Rd
Driveway Linden St
Sand Creek Rd
Fairvie
w
Ave
ACE
D
BF
AC

ACF CF ACF ACCF
5 (33)
ACE

Draft Transportation Impact Assessment
Sand Creek Sports Complex Site
December 2023
25 Analysis of Cumulative Conditions
Intersection Operations
Cumulative without and with project conditions were evaluated using the methods described in Section 1.

For the analysis of cumulative conditions, peak hour factors were left unchanged from the analysis of existing conditions; however, signal timings were optimized to accommodate changes in traffic volumes as the City of Brentwood regularly reviews traffic signal timings and adjusts to better accommodate travel patterns. The analysis results are presented in Table 7.

In both the cumulative baseline and with project conditions, neither of the study intersections are projected to operate at deficient service levels. Traffic generated by the proposed project would slightly increase delay at the Sand Creek Road/Fairview Avenue intersection.

Table 7: Cumulative Conditions Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary Intersection Control1 Peak
Hour
Cumulative Without
Project
Cumulative With
Project
Delay2, 3 LOS Delay2, 3 LOS
1 Sand Creek Road/Linden Street SSSC AM
PM

9.3 (294.2)

2.6 (136.7)
A (F)
A (F)

3.4 3.9
A
A
2 Sand Creek Road/Fairview Avenue Signal AM
PM

42.4 37.8
D
D

42.7 39.8
D
D
Notes: Bold text indicates potentially unacceptable intersection operations. Bold Italics indicates potential significant impact.

1. Signal = Signalized intersection; SSSC = Side Street stop-controlled intersections; traffic on the main street does not stop while traffic on the side street is controlled by a stop sign.

2. Average intersection delay is calculated for all signalized intersections using the HCM 6th method for vehicles.

3. For SSSC intersections, average delay or LOS is listed first followed by the delay or LOS for the worst approach in parentheses
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2023.

Draft Transportation Impact Assessment
Sand Creek Sports Complex Site
December 2023
26 6. Environmental Assessment
This section presents the results of the assessment of the project’s potential impacts regarding transportation related environmental topics including vehicle miles traveled, pedestrian facilities, bicycle facilities, transit facilities, emergency vehicle access, and hazards.

Vehicle Miles Traveled
On September 27, 2013, Senate Bill (SB) 743 was signed into law. The California state legislature found that with the adoption of the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375), the State had signaled its commitment to encourage land use and transportation planning decisions and investments that reduce vehicle miles traveled, and thereby contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions as required by the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32). In December 2018, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) finalized new CEQA guidelines (CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3), that identify vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) as the most appropriate criteria to evaluate a project’s transportation impacts.

The implementation of SB 743 eliminated the use of criteria such as auto delay, level of service, and similar measures of vehicle capacity of traffic congestion as the basis for determining significant impacts as part of CEQA compliance. Instead, the SB 743 VMT criteria promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and diversification of land uses.

In November 2017, OPR released a technical advisory outlining recommendations regarding the assessment of VMT, proposed thresholds of significance, and potential mitigation measures for lead agencies to use while implementing the required changes contained in SB 743. Also in November 2017, OPR released the proposed text for Section 15064.3, “Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts,” which summarized the criteria for analyzing transportation impacts for land use projects and transportation projects and directs lead agencies to “choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household, or in any other measure.” OPR recommends a per service population threshold should be adopted in most instances, and that a 15% reduction below that of existing development would be a reasonable threshold.

On July 15, 2020, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) adopted criteria, standards, and thresholds for the assessment of VMT (CCTA, Approval of the Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis Methodology for Land Use Projects in the Growth Management Program, July 15, 2020). The methods and thresholds adopted by CCTA follow the guidance and recommendations of OPR pertaining to the implementation of SB 743. Since the City of Brentwood has not formally adopted VMT criteria, standards, or thresholds at the time this report was prepared, this assessment follows current OPR and CCTA guidance related to VMT.

Draft Transportation Impact Assessment
Sand Creek Sports Complex Site
December 2023
27 CCTA VMT Guidelines
The CCTA’s guidance related to VMT impacts and thresholds is described below:
• Residential Projects should use the home-based VMT per capita metric to evaluate their project generated VMT estimates. The project generated home-based VMT per resident constitutes a significant impact if it is higher than 85% of the home-based VMT per resident in the subject municipality or unincorporated authority subregion (for areas outside of municipalities), or 85% of the existing countywide average home-based VMT per resident, whichever is less stringent. • Employment-Generating Projects should use the home-work VMT per worker metric for their project generated VMT estimates. The project generated home-work VMT per worker constitutes a significant impact if it is higher than 85% of the home-work VMT per worker in the subject municipality or unincorporated authority subregion (for areas outside of municipalities), or 85% of the existing Bay Area region-wide average home-work VMT per worker, whichever is less stringent.
• Regional-Serving Projects should use the metric of total study area VMT and should define a VMT study area over which to evaluate that metric. The project generated VMT constitutes a significant impact if the baseline project generated total VMT per service population is higher than 85% of the existing countywide average total VMT per service population. • Other Uses and Projects need to be analyzed using a methodology developed by the lead agency specifically for the project, taking into account the specific methodologies and thresholds identified in Approval of the Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis Methodology for Land Use Projects in the Growth Management Program, CCTA, July 15, 2020.
• Mixed-Use Projects may be analyzed using a combination of techniques.

CCTA guidance defines the following criteria that lead agencies can apply to screen projects out of conducting project-level VMT analysis:
• CEQA Exemption – Any project that is exempt from CEQA is not required to conduct a VMT analysis.
• Small projects – Small projects can be presumed to cause a less-than-significant VMT impact.

Small projects are defined as having 10,000 square feet or less of non-residential space or 20 residential units or less, or otherwise generating less than 836 VMT per day. • Local-Serving Uses – Projects that consist of Local-Serving Uses can generally be presumed to have a less-than-significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary, since these types of projects will primarily draw users and customers from a relatively small geographic area that will lead to short-distance trips and trips that are linked to other destinations. • Projects Located in Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) – Projects located within a TPA can be presumed to have a less-than-significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. • Projects Located in Low VMT Areas – Residential and employment-generating projects located within a low VMT-generating area can be presumed to have a less-than-significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. A Low VMT area is defined as follows:

Draft Transportation Impact Assessment
Sand Creek Sports Complex Site
December 2023
28 ◦ For housing projects: Cities, towns, and unincorporated portions within Contra Costa that have existing home-based VMT per capita that is 85% or less of the existing countywide average.
◦ For employment-generating projects: Cities, towns, and unincorporated portions within Contra Costa that have existing home-work VMT per worker that is 85% or less of the existing regional average.

Project VMT Assessment
Based on the guidance published by both CCTA and OPR, the project can be assumed to have a less than significant impact related to VMT during a typical weekday. On weekdays, the project is a local-serving use and meets the established screening criteria related to VMT. Projects that consist of Local-Serving Uses can generally be presumed to have a less-than-significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary, since these types of projects will primarily draw users and customers from a relatively small geographic area that will lead to short-distance trips and trips that are linked to other destinations.

However, on weekends when the project hosts regional tournaments, the project does not satisfy the established screening criteria as it will be drawing trips from a broader regional geography. As a regional-serving use the applicable significance standard is as follows:
• Regional-Serving Projects should use the metric of total study area VMT and should define a VMT study area over which to evaluate that metric. The project generated VMT constitutes a significant impact if the baseline project generated total VMT per service population is higher than 85% of the existing countywide average total VMT per service population.

To assess the project’s VMT per service population, the following data were used:
• Daily trip generation of regional tournament events
• Automobile occupancy of vehicles traveling to regional tournament events • Trip length of vehicles traveling to regional tournament events The weekend daily trip generation and automobile occupancy of vehicles traveling to regional tournament events was previously assessed and presented in Table 5.

StreetLight “big” data collected at similar analogous regional sports facilities was assembled to estimate average trip lengths associated with these uses. StreetLight is a data vendor that uses anonymized and aggregated location data from global positioning systems (GPS) and mobile devices such as cellphones.

This data provides a variety of useful information including trip origin and destination zones as well as trip lengths. Specifically, trip length data was obtained during weekend summer regional tournaments at the following two locations:
• Mistlin Sports Park, 1201 East River Road, Ripon, CA
• Twin Creeks Sports Complex, 969 East Caribbean Drive, Sunnyvale, CA

Draft Transportation Impact Assessment
Sand Creek Sports Complex Site
December 2023
29 Both complexes host regionally attended youth sports events like those that would be held at the proposed project site. The average one-way trip length to a regional tournament event at these facilities was approximately 21.5 miles.

Table 8 presents the results of the VMT assessment for a weekend regional tournament at the facility, incorporating the data described above. Using the CCTA Travel Demand Model for 2023 baseline conditions, the countywide VMT per service population was assessed, as well as the relevant CEQA significance threshold of 85% of the countywide average.

Table 8: Weekend Tournament Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment (VMT) Countywide VMT/Service
Population1
85% Countywide VMT/Service
Population Project VMT/Service Population2

29.3 24.9 17.2

1. From CCTA Regional Travel Demand Model (2023 Baseline).

2. (Weekend Daily Trip Generation x Trip Length)/# of Attendees.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2023.

As illustrated in Table 8, the project’s weekend tournament VMT per service population of 17.2 is less than 85% of the countywide average (24.9). While vehicles may make longer journeys to events at the facility, the number of people in the average vehicle results in a project VMT per service population which is lower than the applicable standard.

Pedestrian System Impacts
The project would create a significant impact related to the pedestrian system if any of the following criteria are met:
• The project design would not provide or would eliminate adequate pedestrian connectivity to the area circulation system, or
• The project design would create hazardous conditions for pedestrians, or • The project conflicts with existing or planned pedestrian facilities.

Pedestrians can access the project from sidewalks on Sand Creek Road, Linden Street, and Fairview Avenue or via Sand Creek Trail. Pedestrian crosswalks and actuated pedestrian signal heads are provided at the Fairview Avenue/Sand Creek Road intersection.

The project would install a new traffic signal at the intersection of Sand Creek Road/Linden Street. While design plans have not yet been prepared for this installation, the project’s conceptual site plan does not show crosswalks or other pedestrian improvements at this intersection. With project construction, there will be a need for pedestrians to cross Sand Creek Road at this location, which in the absence of improvements could pose a safety hazard.

Draft Transportation Impact Assessment
Sand Creek Sports Complex Site
December 2023
30 Mitigation Measure TRANS-1: Provide Crosswalks and Pedestrian Signal Heads at Sand Creek Road/Linden Street Intersection
As part of the project’s installation of a traffic signal at the Sand Creek Road/Linden Street intersection, crosswalks and pedestrian actuated signal heads shall be installed on all four approaches.

Significance after Mitigation: Less-than-Significant.

Bicycle System Impacts
The project would create a significant impact related to the bicycle system if any of the following criteria are met:
• The project design would not provide or would eliminate adequate bicycle connectivity to the area circulation system; or
• The project design would create hazardous conditions for bicyclists; or • The project conflicts with existing or planned bicycle facilities.

There are several designated bicycle facilities in the study area in the form of Class II bike lanes on neighboring streets and the Class I separated Sand Creek Trail. Bicycles are not prohibited from utilizing any of the roadways in the vicinity of the project site. The project does not conflict with any existing or planned bicycle facilities. The project does not propose features that would be hazardous to bicycle travel.

The current site plans do not show designated bicycle parking. The City of Brentwood’s Municipal Code (Section 17.620.013) requires a minimum number of bicycle parking spaces equal to five percent of the total number of off-street vehicle parking spaces. The following improvements relative to bicycle facilities are recommended.

Improvement Recommendation #1 – Provide Secure Bicycle Parking – provide an adequate amount of secured on-site bicycle parking. While the City Code requires a minimum of 14 bicycle parking spaces (five percent of the 270 vehicle spaces included in the initial phase of the project), a secure bicycle parking corral with the capacity to accommodate 50 bicycles is recommended.

Improvement Recommendation #2 – Bike Path Safety – the following recommendations are provided for improving bike circulation:
▪ Install signage, markings, and striping at the junction of Sand Creek Trail and Sand Creek Road consistent with guidance from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices including the following signs, and others as appropriate:
▫ End Bike Route
▫ Stop
▫ Bike Route
▫ No Motor Vehicles

Draft Transportation Impact Assessment
Sand Creek Sports Complex Site
December 2023
31 Transit System Impacts
The project would create a significant impact related to transit service if either of the following criteria are met:
• The project generates a substantial increase in transit riders that cannot be adequately served by existing transit services; or,
• The project conflicts with existing or planned transit facilities.

As described in Section 2, the project site is served by local Tri Delta Transit bus routes. These bus lines provide connections to the Bay Area’s regional transit system via links to the Antioch BART Station. Bus stops for Route 385 are located adjacent to the site at the intersection of Sand Creek Road and Fairview Avenue, and Route 395 has stops west of the site at the Streets of Brentwood Mall.

The project proposes no features which conflict with existing or planned transit services. The project is not expected to result in increases in ridership on local or regional transit facilities that would exceed their capacity. Significant adverse project impacts related to transit were not identified.

Emergency Vehicle Access Impacts
The project would create a significant impact related to emergency vehicle access if the following criterion is met:
• The project incorporates design features that limit or result in inadequate emergency vehicle access.

Several factors determine whether a project has sufficient access for emergency vehicles, including the following:

1. Number of access points (both public and emergency access only)

2. Width of access points

3. Width of internal roadways
Emergency vehicle access to the project site would be provided via the two proposed vehicle access points on Sand Creek Road. The exact width of access points and internal roadways is not specified on the current site plan and further review by the City and Fire Department is recommended. The project design does not appear to pose any features that would limit emergency vehicle access to the site, and significant adverse project impacts related to emergency vehicle access were not identified.

Improvement Recommendation #3 – Fire Marshall Site Plan Review – site plans for both the interim and ultimate build out project designs shall be reviewed and approved by the local Fire Marshall to verify adequate emergency vehicle access in accordance with state and local requirements.

Draft Transportation Impact Assessment
Sand Creek Sports Complex Site
December 2023
32 Hazards
To be compliant with the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) Highway Design Manual, the proposed unsignalized project right-in/right-out driveway on Sand Creek Road must have a sight distance, or length of roadway visible to drivers, equal to the roadway’s design speed (5 mph higher than the speed limit) multiplied by a 7.5 second left turn time gap multiplied again by a constant of 1.47. In this case, with a design speed of 50 mph on Sand Creek Road, the necessary sight distance for driveways is 551.25 feet. The project’s proposed driveway currently meets this requirement.

Improvement Recommendation #4 – The final site plan for the project should be analyzed by the project’s Civil Engineer to ensure that adequate sight distance is maintained at all driveways.

No objects (landscaping, monument signs, etc.) greater than three feet in height should be allowed within the sight distance triangles at driveway intersections. Review available speed survey information from the City and adjust required sight distance if necessary.

Draft Transportation Impact Assessment
Sand Creek Sports Complex Site
December 2023
33 7. Site Plan Review
This section provides a review of site access, internal circulation, and parking based on the site plan presented on Figure 2A and Figure 2B. The currently undeveloped project site is located on the northwest corner of Sand Creek Road and Fairview Avenue, as shown on Figure 1. The project would build a new sports complex that would include five lighted, artificial turf fields as well as additional amenities such as pickleball courts, multi-use sport courts, a playground, and a pump track, among other amenities.

Site Access and Circulation
Vehicular access to the site would be provided by two new access points on Sand Creek Road. The main full movement access point at the intersection of Sand Creek Road and Linden Street will be signalized as part of the proposed project. The other driveway will have stop control on the project’s approach and only permit right turn in/right turn out movements. In addition to the sidewalks and bike lanes on Sand Creek Road and Fairview Avenue, the complex will be accessible to bicyclists and pedestrians from Sand Creek Trail.

The parking lot will be located on the complex’s southern side along Sand Creek Road. The lot provides 439 90-degree angled parking spaces that would allow visitors to park and access the complex’s various amenities.

Parking
The City of Brentwood’s Municipal Code (Section 17.620 Off Street Parking) does not include parking requirements for any uses proposed as part of the project. The project’s anticipated demand for off-street parking was calculated using rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition. This manual provides a collection of parking demand data observations made throughout the United States by land use type. Table 9 presents a summary of the forecast parking demand of the proposed uses based on ITE data. Based on ITE data, the mix of land uses included in the project would require 336 parking spots
Table 9: ITE Project Off-Street Parking Demand
Land Use Size Parking Demand/Unit Parking Demand
Soccer Complex 5 Fields 62.12 311
Tennis Courts 3 Courts

2.67 8
Pump Track 2 Court Equivalents 5
Activity Courts 3 Court Equivalents 8
Public Park 7.88 Acres 0.47 4
TOTAL PARKING DEMAND 336
Source: ITE Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition, 2018 The project’s proposed supply of 439 off street parking spaces would satisfy the anticipated parking demand.

Draft Transportation Impact Assessment
Sand Creek Sports Complex Site
December 2023
34 8. Summary of Findings
This report presents the analysis and findings of the Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) prepared for the proposed Sand Creek Sports Complex located in the City of Brentwood, California. The project proposes a new sports complex located northwest of the Sand Creek Road/Fairview Avenue intersection.

Vehicle access to the site would be provided via two driveways on Sand Creek Road. The project was found to generate approximately 602 daily vehicle trips with roughly 19 trips occurring during the morning peak hour and approximately 115 occurring in the afternoon peak hour. Per City of Brentwood requirements, traffic operations were assessed at two intersections surrounding the project site providing key points of access. Intersection operations were evaluated under Existing and Cumulative conditions both with and without project traffic. Project generated traffic was not found to result in violations of the City’s level of service policies.

The project’s effects on vehicle miles traveled, pedestrian facilities, bicycle facilities, transit facilities, emergency vehicle access, hazards, and parking were assessed. The project was not found to result in significant adverse impacts related to VMT, bicycle facilities, transit facilities, emergency vehicle access, or hazards. A potentially significant impact was identified related to the lack of pedestrian crossing facilities at the Sand Creek Road/Linden Street intersection. The following mitigation measure was developed that would reduce that impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure TRANS-1: Provide Crosswalks and Pedestrian Signal Heads at Sand Creek Road/Linden Street Intersection
As part of the project’s installation of a traffic signal at the Sand Creek Road/Linden Street intersection, crosswalks, and pedestrian actuated signal heads shall be installed on all four approaches.

Significance after Mitigation: Less-than-Significant.

In addition to this mitigation measure, the following recommendations were made to provide for adequate and efficient operations across all modes of travel.

Improvement Recommendation #1 – Site Plan Operations – the following recommendations are provided for improving site circulation:
▪ Install signage at the junction of the Sand Creek Trail with Sand Creek Road consistent with guidance from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices including the following signs, and others as appropriate:
▫ End Bike Route
▫ Stop
▫ Bike Route
▫ No Motor Vehicles

Draft Transportation Impact Assessment
Sand Creek Sports Complex Site
December 2023
35 Improvement Recommendation #2 – Provide Secure Bicycle Parking – provide an adequate amount of secured on-site bicycle parking. While the City Code requires a minimum of 14 bicycle parking spaces (five percent of the 270 vehicle spaces included in the initial phase of the project), a secure bicycle parking corral with the capacity to accommodate 50 bicycles is recommended.

Improvement Recommendation #3 – Fire Marshall Site Plan Review – site plans for both the interim and ultimate build out project designs shall be reviewed and approved by the local Fire Marshall to verify adequate emergency vehicle access in accordance with state and local requirements.

Improvement Recommendation #4 – The final site plan for the project should be analyzed by the project’s Civil Engineer to ensure that adequate sight distance is maintained at all driveways.

No objects (landscaping, monument signs, etc.) greater than three feet in height should be allowed within the sight distance triangles at driveway intersections. Review available speed survey information from the City and adjust required sight distance if necessary.

Appendix A:

Traffic Counts

National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location: Fairview Ave & Sand Creak Rd
City: Brentwood Project ID:

Control: Signalized Date:

NS/EW Streets:
1110111012101210

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 27 14 14 1 10 12 9 0 3 51 12 0 16 89 4 0 262
7:15 AM 25 10 20 3 9 21 15 0 1 105 18 0 33 102 7 1 370
7:30 AM 44 27 32 0 8 58 10 0 2 132 23 0 52 143 12 0 543 7:45 AM 35 40 36 4 16 80 15 0 2 200 46 0 55 190 11 0 730 8:00 AM 42 45 55 3 24 52 18 0 5 216 53 0 46 203 7 0 769 8:15 AM 56 59 55 3 25 46 14 0 17 188 39 0 37 166 15 0 720 8:30 AM 58 71 61 0 17 40 13 0 10 135 25 0 26 199 17 0 672 8:45 AM 43 32 37 1 14 25 16 0 8 135 23 0 30 119 15 0 498

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 330 298 310 15 123 334 110 0 48 1162 239 0 295 1211 88 1 4564 APPROACH %'s : 34.63% 31.27% 32.53% 1.57% 21.69% 58.91% 19.40% 0.00% 3.31% 80.19% 16.49% 0.00% 18.50% 75.92% 5.52% 0.06% PEAK HR : 7:45 AM 40 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 191 215 207 10 82 218 60 0 34 739 163 0 164 758 50 0 2891 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.823 0.757 0.848 0.625 0.820 0.681 0.833 0.000 0.500 0.855 0.769 0.000 0.745 0.933 0.735 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 1110111012101210

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 43 45 45 1 29 51 4 0 12 211 69 2 28 153 13 0 706 4:15 PM 36 49 44 2 24 59 11 0 8 176 72 0 26 157 25 0 689 4:30 PM 42 48 34 1 23 47 7 0 18 196 83 0 28 170 23 0 720 4:45 PM 40 49 38 1 25 47 9 0 15 198 67 0 28 158 18 0 693 5:00 PM 41 56 35 1 20 38 10 0 7 226 67 1 28 218 23 0 771 5:15 PM 36 56 30 3 17 54 7 0 17 199 56 0 41 198 24 0 738 5:30 PM 45 51 20 4 12 49 11 0 8 153 69 0 29 154 17 2 624 5:45 PM 37 55 29 4 24 51 11 0 10 175 62 0 23 125 14 0 620

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 320 409 275 17 174 396 70 0 95 1534 545 3 231 1333 157 2 5561 APPROACH %'s : 31.34% 40.06% 26.93% 1.67% 27.19% 61.88% 10.94% 0.00% 4.36% 70.46% 25.03% 0.14% 13.41% 77.37% 9.11% 0.12% PEAK HR : 4:30 PM 291 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 159 209 137 6 85 186 33 0 57 819 273 1 125 744 88 0 2922 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.946 0.933 0.901 0.500 0.850 0.861 0.825 0.000 0.792 0.906 0.822 0.250 0.762 0.853 0.917 0.000 Data - Totals
Fairview Ave Fairview Ave Sand Creak Rd Sand Creak Rd

0.820 0.811 0.854 0.949

AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

PM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
23-080161-002
5/16/2023
04:30 PM - 05:30 PM

0.947 0.961 0.938 0.955 0.889
07:45 AM - 08:45 AM

0.940

National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location: Fairview Ave & Sand Creak Rd
City: Brentwood Project ID:

Control: Signalized Date:

NS/EW Streets:
1110111012101210

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 0020000000000000 2
7:15 AM 0000000000100000 1
7:30 AM 0000000000000000 0
7:45 AM 0010000000000000 1
8:00 AM 0000000000201000 3
8:15 AM 0100100010000000 3
8:30 AM 2000000000000000 2
8:45 AM 1100000000000000 2

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 3 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 14
APPROACH %'s : 37.50% 25.00% 37.50% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 75.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 7:45 AM 40 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 21101000102010009
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 1110111012101210

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 0000000000000000 0
4:15 PM 0000000000000000 0
4:30 PM 0000000000000000 0
4:45 PM 0100000000200000 3
5:00 PM 0000000000000000 0
5:15 PM 0100000000001000 2
5:30 PM 0000020000002100 5
5:45 PM 0100010001000100 4

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 2 0 0 14
APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 66.67% 0.00% 60.00% 40.00% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 4:30 PM 291 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 02000000002010005
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 Data - Bikes
Fairview Ave Fairview Ave Sand Creak Rd Sand Creak Rd

0.500 0.250 0.375 0.250

AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

PM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
23-080161-002
5/16/2023
04:30 PM - 05:30 PM

0.417 0.500 0.250 0.250
07:45 AM - 08:45 AM

0.750

National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning
Movement Count Location: Fairview Ave & Sand Creak Rd Project ID:

City: Brentwood Date:

NS/EW Streets:

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
7:00 AM 10000000 1
7:15 AM 10000000 1
7:30 AM 10100000 2
7:45 AM 00000000 0
8:00 AM 10100000 2
8:15 AM 10100010 3
8:30 AM 20110000 4
8:45 AM 01200002 5

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 7 1 6 1 0 0 1 2 18
APPROACH %'s : 87.50% 12.50% 85.71% 14.29% 33.33% 66.67% PEAK HR : 7:45 AM 39 -1 -1 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 4 0 3 1 0 0 1 09
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.500 0.750 0.250 0.250
Headers NEB NWB SEB SWB ENS ESB WNB WSB

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
4:00 PM 00101000 2
4:15 PM 00000000 0
4:30 PM 00000000 0
4:45 PM 01000000 1
5:00 PM 20000020 4
5:15 PM 00000000 0
5:30 PM 00000000 0
5:45 PM 00400004 8

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 2 1 5 0 1 0 2 4 15
APPROACH %'s : 66.67% 33.33% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 33.33% 66.67% PEAK HR : 4:30 PM 288 -3 -3 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 05
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.250 0.250 0.250
Data - Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Fairview Ave Fairview Ave Sand Creak Rd Sand Creak Rd

0.500 0.250
07:45 AM - 08:45 AM

AM NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG

PM NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG
23-080161-002
5/16/2023

0.313 0.375 0.250
04:30 PM - 05:30 PM

0.563 0.500

Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 23-080161-002 Day:

City: Brentwood Date:

AM 60 218 82 0 AM
NOON 0000 NOON
PM 33 186 85 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
1110 1 88 0 50
2 744 0 758
001 01 125 0 164
34 0 57 1 TEV 2891 0 2922 0 000
739 0 819 2 PHF 0.94 0.95
163 0 273 1 0111

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 6 159 209 137 PM
NOON 0000 NOON
AM 10 191 215 207 AM
0 NONE
04:30 PM - 05:30 PM 354
Fairview Ave & Sand Creak Rd
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Fairview Ave Tuesday
SOUTHBOUND 5/16/2023

PEAK HOURS
4:00 PM - 06:00 PM
07:45 AM - 08:45 AM 299 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM

COUNT PERIODS
NONE
1041 0 1028
Totals (AM) 590 Total Bikes (AM)
Sand Creak Rd

EASTBOUND

WESTBOUND
Sand Creak Rd
1009 0 937

CONTROL
Signalized
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM)
0 555

NORTHBOUND
Fairview Ave
Totals (NOON) Total Bikes (NOON)

AM NOON PM
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM
0 0
0 2
0 1
00 310
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 20 400 1
0 0
2 1
0 0
000
020
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 0
2 1
0 1
001
211
88 744
273 125
819
57 3318685
159209137
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
50 758
163 164
739
34 6021882
191215207

National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location: Linden St & Sand Creek Rd
City: Brentwood Project ID:

Control: 1-Way Stop(NB) Date:

NS/EW Streets:
0100000012001200

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 1 0 3 118 0 0 194
7:15 AM 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 117 2 0 2 144 00 269
7:30 AM 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 151 3 0 8 187 0 0 365
7:45 AM 8 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 243 3 0 26 206 0 1 493
8:00 AM 3 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 248 4 0 31 237 0 1 545
8:15 AM 6 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 229 8 0 9 229 0 1 497
8:30 AM 5 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 159 5 0 7 258 0 0 444
8:45 AM 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 164 3 0 3 179 0 0 353

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 35 0 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 1378 29 0 89 1558 0 3 3160 APPROACH %'s : 33.98% 0.00% 66.02% 0.00% 0.00% 97.94% 2.06% 0.00% 5.39% 94.42% 0.00% 0.18% PEAK HR : 7:45 AM 40 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 22 0 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 879 20 0 73 930 0 3 1979 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.688 0.000 0.619 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.886 0.625 0.000 0.589 0.901 0.000 0.750 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0100000012001200

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 1 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 283 5 0 5 197 0 0 501
4:15 PM 7 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 250 3 0 10 194 00 472
4:30 PM 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 291 9 0 4 215 0 0 525
4:45 PM 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 284 9 0 7 200 0 0 506
5:00 PM 5 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 287 7 0 6 264 00 580
5:15 PM 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 258 9 0 4 233 0 0 513
5:30 PM 3 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 228 15 0 6 208 0 0 469
5:45 PM 4 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 237 8 0 5 168 0 0 429

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 24 0 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 2118 65 0 47 1679 0 0 3995 APPROACH %'s : 27.91% 0.00% 72.09% 0.00% 0.00% 97.02% 2.98% 0.00% 2.72% 97.28% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 4:30 PM 291 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 9 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 1120 34 0 21 912 0 0 2124 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.450 0.000 0.636 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.962 0.944 0.000 0.750 0.864 0.000 0.000 Data - Totals
Linden St Linden St Sand Creek Rd Sand Creek Rd

0.771 0.892 0.935

AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

PM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
23-080161-001
5/16/2023
04:30 PM - 05:30 PM

0.916 0.578 0.962 0.864
07:45 AM - 08:45 AM

0.908

National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location: Linden St & Sand Creek Rd
City: Brentwood Project ID:

Control: 1-Way Stop(NB) Date:

NS/EW Streets:
0100000012001200

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 0000000000000000 0
7:15 AM 0000000001000000 1
7:30 AM 0000000000000000 0
7:45 AM 0000000000000000 0
8:00 AM 0000000002000000 2
8:15 AM 0000000001000000 1
8:30 AM 0000000000000100 1
8:45 AM 0000000000000100 1

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 00000000040002006
APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 7:45 AM 40 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 00000000030001004
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.375 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0100000012001200

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 0000000000000000 0
4:15 PM 0000000000000000 0
4:30 PM 0000000000000000 0
4:45 PM 0000000001000000 1
5:00 PM 0000000000000000 0
5:15 PM 0000000000000000 0
5:30 PM 0010000000001000 2
5:45 PM 0000000000000000 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 00100000010010003
APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 4:30 PM 291 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 00000000010000001
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Data - Bikes
Linden St Linden St Sand Creek Rd Sand Creek Rd

0.375 0.250

AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

PM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
23-080161-001
5/16/2023
04:30 PM - 05:30 PM

0.250 0.250
07:45 AM - 08:45 AM

0.500

National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning
Movement Count Location: Linden St & Sand Creek Rd Project ID:

City: Brentwood Date:

NS/EW Streets:

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
7:00 AM 00010000 1
7:15 AM 00100000 1
7:30 AM 00000000 0
7:45 AM 00000000 0
8:00 AM 00000000 0
8:15 AM 00000000 0
8:30 AM 00210000 3
8:45 AM 00000000 0

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 05
APPROACH %'s : 60.00% 40.00%
PEAK HR : 7:45 AM 39 -1 -1 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 03
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.250 0.250
Headers NEB NWB SEB SWB ENS ESB WNB WSB

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
4:00 PM 00000000 0
4:15 PM 00000000 0
4:30 PM 00000000 0
4:45 PM 00000000 0
5:00 PM 00000000 0
5:15 PM 00000000 0
5:30 PM 00000000 0
5:45 PM 00000000 0

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
APPROACH %'s :

PEAK HR : 4:30 PM 288 -3 -3 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
PEAK HR FACTOR :

Data - Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Linden St Linden St Sand Creek Rd Sand Creek Rd

0.250
07:45 AM - 08:45 AM

AM NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG

PM NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG
23-080161-001
5/16/2023
04:30 PM - 05:30 PM

0.250

Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 23-080161-001 Day:

City: Brentwood Date:

AM 0000 AM
NOON 0000 NOON
PM 0000 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0000 0 000
2 912 0 930
000 01 21 0 73
000 1 TEV 1979 0 2124 0 003
879 0 1120 2 PHF 0.91 0.92
20 0 34 0 0010

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 9 0 28 PM
NOON 0000 NOON
AM 0 22 0 52 AM
0 NONE
04:30 PM - 05:30 PM 0
Linden St & Sand Creek Rd
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Linden St Tuesday
SOUTHBOUND 5/16/2023

PEAK HOURS
4:00 PM - 06:00 PM
07:45 AM - 08:45 AM 0 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM

COUNT PERIODS
NONE
1148 0 934
Totals (AM) 55 Total Bikes (AM)
Sand Creek Rd

EASTBOUND

WESTBOUND
Sand Creek Rd
952 0 921

CONTROL
1-Way Stop(NB)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM)
0 93

NORTHBOUND
Linden St
Totals (NOON) Total Bikes (NOON)

AM NOON PM
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM
0 0
0 0
0 0
00 210
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 00 000 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
000
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 1
0 0
3 0
000
000
0 912
34 21
1120
0 000
9028
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 930
20 73
879
0 000
22052

Appendix B:

LOS Calculation Worksheets

HCM 6th TWSC Sand Creek Sports Complex
1: Linden St & Sand Creek Rd Existing AM
Fehr & Peers Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.8
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 882 20 76 936 22 52
Future Vol, veh/h 882 20 76 936 22 52
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 3 3 0 3 3
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 160 - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 969 22 84 1029 24 57
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 994 0 1669 502
Stage 1 - - - - 983 -
Stage 2 - - - - 686 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.16 - 6.86 6.96
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.86 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.86 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.23 - 3.53 3.33
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 686 - 86 512
Stage 1 - - - - 321 -
Stage 2 - - - - 459 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 684 - 75 509
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 75 -
Stage 1 - - - - 320 -
Stage 2 - - - - 401 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.8 38.3

HCM LOS E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 187 - - 684 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.435 - - 0.122 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 38.3 - - 11 -
HCM Lane LOS E - - B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2 - - 0.4 -

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Sand Creek Sports Complex 2: Fairview Ave & Sand Creek Rd Existing AM
Fehr & Peers Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 34 737 163 164 754 50 198 215 207 82 218 60 Future Volume (veh/h) 34 737 163 164 754 50 198 215 207 82 218 60 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 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
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 36 784 58 174 802 23 211 229 63 87 232 13 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 59 1184 526 210 1484 659 249 438 364 163 347 292 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.34 0.34 0.12 0.42 0.42 0.14 0.24 0.24 0.09 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3526 1565 1767 3526 1565 1767 1856 1544 1767 1856 1560 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 36 784 58 174 802 23 211 229 63 87 232 13 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1763 1565 1767 1763 1565 1767 1856 1544 1767 1856 1560 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.7 16.4 2.2 8.3 14.8 0.7 10.1 9.3 2.8 4.1 10.1 0.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.7 16.4 2.2 8.3 14.8 0.7 10.1 9.3 2.8 4.1 10.1 0.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 59 1184 526 210 1484 659 249 438 364 163 347 292 V/C Ratio(X) 0.61 0.66 0.11 0.83 0.54 0.03 0.85 0.52 0.17 0.53 0.67 0.04 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 306 1629 723 306 1792 795 510 922 767 306 686 577 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 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 41.3 24.6 19.8 37.3 18.8 14.7 36.3 28.8 26.3 37.5 32.7 28.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.7 1.4 0.2 7.9 0.7 0.0 3.0 2.1 0.5 1.0 4.7 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 6.5 0.8 3.9 5.5 0.2 4.3 4.1 1.0 1.8 4.8 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.0 25.9 20.0 45.2 19.4 14.8 39.3 30.9 26.8 38.5 37.4 29.0 LnGrp LOS D C C D B B D C C D D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 878 999 503 332
Approach Delay, s/veh 26.3 23.8 33.9 37.3
Approach LOS C C C D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.3 34.6 16.2 21.5 6.9 41.9 12.0 25.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.3 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.0 40.0 25.0 32.0 15.0 44.0 15.0 43.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.3 18.4 12.1 12.1 3.7 16.8 6.1 11.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 9.4 0.2 2.3 0.0 10.5 0.1 3.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 28.1
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.

HCM 6th TWSC Sand Creek Sports Complex
1: Linden St & Sand Creek Rd Existing PM
Fehr & Peers Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.6
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1121 34 21 916 9 28
Future Vol, veh/h 1121 34 21 916 9 28
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 160 - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 1218 37 23 996 10 30
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1255 0 1781 628
Stage 1 - - - - 1237 -
Stage 2 - - - - 544 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.16 - 6.86 6.96
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.86 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.86 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.23 - 3.53 3.33
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 545 - 72 423
Stage 1 - - - - 235 -
Stage 2 - - - - 543 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 545 - 69 423
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 69 -
Stage 1 - - - - 235 -
Stage 2 - - - - 520 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.3 29.3

HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 188 - - 545 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.214 - - 0.042 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 29.3 - - 11.9 -
HCM Lane LOS D - - B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.8 - - 0.1 -