02-01-2022 Searchable Packet — Cupertino City Council, February 1, 2022 (part 2 of 4)

141 City of Cupertino, 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan, Figure 3-7: Bikeway projects. 231
CC 02-01-2022
231 of 756
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-81

FINAL DRAFT
The VTA adopted the Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle Plan (CBP). The CBP guides the development of major bicycle facilities in the County by identifying Cross County Bicycle Corridors and other bicycle projects of countywide or intercity significance. The CBP maps one on-street Cross-County Bicycle Corridor (CCBC) along South Foothill Boulevard in the project area. This CCBC is not a high-priority corridor.

Transit Facilities
VTA operates bus services in the City of Cupertino and in the project vicinity. The closest bus stop is located within a 15-minute walk (about 300 feet to the east) to and from the project site, providing access to local bus route 51. Bus route 51 provides transportation between Moffett Field/Ames Center and West Valley. Bus route 51 operates from 6:14 a.m. to 6:20 p.m. and has a peak headway of 50 minutes to 1 hour depending on the stop and direction.142
Vehicles Miles Traveled
The project site currently contains a 2,400 square-foot commercial building, which generates an annual VMT of 1,387,000, or a daily VMT of 3,800.143
Daily Trips
The current land use generates approximately 1,829 gross average daily trips.144

DISCUSSION
a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Roadway Facilities
Operational Traffic
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, which took effect on July 1, 2020, contains new requirements for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts. As of July 1, 2020, impacts on auto delay or level of service are no longer be considered a significant impact under CEQA for land use projects.

VMT measures the overall effects of a project on the transportation system. VMT is the sum of all of the vehicle trips generated by a project multiplied by the lengths of their trips to and from the site on an

142 Operating hours consider earliest and latest stop at each bus lines closest stop to the project site. Headways are defined as the time interval between two transit vehicles traveling in the same direction over the same route. 143 Hexagon Transportation Consultants. January 2020. Trip Generation Study for a Residential Project on Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, CA.
144 Hexagon Transportation Consultants. January 2020. Trip Generation Study for a Residential Project on Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, CA.
232
CC 02-01-2022
232 of 756
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-82 OCTOBER 2021

FINAL DRAFT
average weekday. A vehicle driven 1 mile is 1 VMT. Therefore, a project with a higher VMT would have a greater environmental effect than a project with a lower VMT.

The trip lengths vary by the land use type and the trip purpose. For example, a trip from a residence to a job may be longer than the trip from a residence to a neighborhood school. The VMT values stated below represent the full length of a given trip, and are not truncated at city, county, or region boundaries.

Many factors affect travel behavior and trip lengths such as density of land use, diversity of land uses, design of the transportation network, distance to high-quality transit, and demographics. Low-density development separated from other land uses and located in areas with poor access to transit generates more automobile travel and higher VMT compared to development located in urban areas with more access to transit.

As previously discussed, development of the project would not exceed the 15 du/ac currently permitted in the General Plan or the 35 du/ac maximum that was evaluated in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would not directly result in any additional new population growth or employment growth beyond what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR. As stated in Section II, Air Quality, and Section, VII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed project is not considered a regionally significant project under CEQA Guidelines Section 15206 that would affect regional VMT and warrant intergovernmental review by ABAG and MTC.

The current land uses generate approximately 1,829 gross average daily weekday trips, 3,800 daily VMT, and 1,387,000 annual VMT. The proposed project would generate 85 gross daily weekday trips, 538 daily VMT, and 196,370 annual VMT. Therefore, the project would generate fewer daily trips and fewer VMT than existing conditions and would have a net benefit with respect to roadway facilities.

The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s (OPR) Technical Advisory On Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA
145 and the City’s White Paper SB 743 Implementation Decisions for the City of Cupertino146 provide guidance on evaluating transportation impacts for small projects, such as the proposed project. According to these guiding documents a project that generates less than 110 daily trips may be assumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact.147 This threshold is based on CEQA’s categorical exemption148 for existing facilities (Class 1), including additions to existing structures of up to 10,000 square feet, so long as the project is in an area where public infrastructure is available to allow for maximum planned development and the project is not in an environmentally sensitive area.

145 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Technical Advisory On Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, December 2018.
146 City of Cupertino White Paper SB 743 Implementation Decisions for the City of Cupertino, Appendix E: Appendix E, Small Project Screening for SB 743, February 2021.
147 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Technical Advisory On Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, December 2018, page 12 and City of Cupertino White Paper SB 743 Implementation Decisions for the City of Cupertino, Appendix E: Small Project Screening for SB 743, February 2021, pages 138 and 139. 148 Section 15300 of the CEQA Guidelines, Categorical Exemptions, states that Section 21084 of the Public Resources Code requires these Guidelines to include a list of classes of projects which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and which shall, therefore, be exempt from the provisions of CEQA. 233
CC 02-01-2022
233 of 756
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-83

FINAL DRAFT
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(e)(2).) Typical project types for which trip generation increases relatively linearly with building footprint (i.e., general office building, single tenant office building, office park, and business park) generate or attract an additional 110 to 124 average daily trips or 836 VMT per 10,000 square feet. A 20-unit housing project generates an equivalent number of VMT to a 10,000-square-foot non-residential.149 Therefore, absent substantial evidence otherwise, OPR and the City determined that it is reasonable to conclude that the addition of 20 housing units or 10,000 square feet of non-residential space could be considered a less-than-significant impact.

Furthermore, the OPR’s Technical Advisory On Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA also recognizes that for redevelopment projects on infill sites, such as the proposed project, where a project replaces existing VMT-generating land uses, if the replacement leads to a net overall decrease in VMT, the project would lead to a less-than-significant transportation impact.150 This is consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b), which states that projects that decrease VMT in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less-than-significant transportation impact.

On February 16, 2021, the City adopted CMC Chapter 17.08, Evaluation of Transportation Impacts Under the California Environmental Quality Act, which provides screening criteria and VMT thresholds for land- use development projects, transportation projects, and other projects pursuant to the CEQA. CMC Chapter 17.08 went into effect on April 1, 2021. Under CMC Chapter 17.08, a project would be screened out from more detailed VMT analysis if the project is consistent with applicable General Plan policies and supported by substantial evidence demonstrating cumulative VMT is declining. Project screening may be used for projects that meet one or more of the following criteria:
 A project located within one-quarter mile of a High-Quality Transit Corridor or transit stop as defined by CEQA;
 Local-serving retail of 50,000 square feet or less; or  Land-use projects consisting of 100 percent affordable housing.

Under CMC Chapter 17.08, a project would have a significant impact if:
 The total project generated VMT per service population would exceed the City’s target VMT reduction of 14.4 percent below the citywide baseline VMT rate, and  If the project increases total countywide VMT compared to baseline conditions.

As described in Section X, Land Use and Planning, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and applicable policies. The proposed project, an infill redevelopment project currently served by existing public infrastructure and not in an environmentally sensitive area, would generate less than 836 daily VMT (i.e., 538 VMT), which as described above is equivalent to the standards applied to a project qualifying for

149 Using statewide average data from the 2012 California Household Travel Survey (CHTS), the amount of daily VMT associated with 10,000 square feet of non-residential space is 836 VMT. Also using statewide average CHTS data, this level of VMT is associated with 20 housing units.
150 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Technical Advisory On Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, page 17, December 2018.
234
CC 02-01-2022
234 of 756
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-84 OCTOBER 2021

FINAL DRAFT
a CEQA exemption. The proposed project would generate significantly fewer VMT than existing conditions (proposed 538 daily VMT and 196,370 annual VMT compared to existing 3,800 daily VMT and 1,387,000 annual VMT), which demonstrates a contribution to a decline in cumulative VMT. Accordingly, the proposed project would meet the standards to be screened out from detailed VMT evaluation under the City’s standards as well as CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b), and transportation impacts during operation of the proposed project would be less than significant.

Construction Traffic
Demolition and construction would take place over a 10-month period, which is anticipated to begin in June 2021 and end in March 2022, subject to regulatory approval. During this period, the project would result in changes to existing transportation conditions. New traffic would be generated by construction employees and construction activities, including haul trucks. Construction traffic is temporary and would generate fewer daily VMT than existing conditions and the projected VMT during project operation.

During demolition and construction, vehicle, equipment, and materials would be staged and stored on a portion of the project site. The construction site and staging areas would be clearly marked, and construction fencing would be installed to prevent disturbance and safety hazards. No staging would occur in the public right-of-way. Therefore, no hazards for vehicle, pedestrians, and/or cyclists in the area would occur during this phase.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Class II bike lanes currently exist on both sides of South Foothill Boulevard and on the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard along the length of the project site The proposed project would include the extension of a new Class II bike lane along the southern side of Stevens Creek Boulevard along the length of the project site.
151 The proposed project would include construction of sidewalks along the perimeter of the project site, alongside Stevens Creek Boulevard, Camino Vista Drive, and South Foothill Boulevard.

Figures 3-4 and 3-5 show site perspectives of the proposed site along with placement of the proposed sidewalks. These sidewalks would provide pedestrian access to the site. Pedestrians would also have access to the site via the existing crosswalks on Stevens Creek Boulevard connecting to South Foothill Drive.

Transit Facilities
VTA operates bus services in the City of Cupertino and in the project vicinity. The closest bus stop is located within 300 feet of the project site, providing access to local bus route 51. The VTA has not established policies or significance criteria related to transit vehicle delay. The 28 residents that would result from construction and operation of the proposed project are anticipated to come from Cupertino and surrounding Bay Area communities and would not introduce new riders to the VTA operated bus

151 Class II Bikeways are bike lanes for bicyclists that are generally adjacent to the outer vehicle travel lanes and have special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Class III Bike Routes are designated roadways for bicycle use by signs or other markings may or may not include additional pavement width for cyclists. 235
CC 02-01-2022
235 of 756
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-85

FINAL DRAFT
services that serve the project area. Therefore, the new transit trips generated by the proposed project are not expected to create a significant demand in excess of the capacity of the transit service that is currently provided.

Conclusion
In summary, the nine-unit residential project would be expected to generate 1,744 fewer daily vehicle trips and 3,262 fewer daily VMT than the existing use. The proposed project would not displace modify or interfere with any sidewalk, bicycle lanes, or sidewalks. In addition, the project would not generate a demand for transit that would exceed the capacity of the system. Therefore, the project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding pedestrian, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities.

Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? As discussed in criterion (a), above, the existing 2,400 square foot convenience market on-site has a daily VMT of 3,800 and an annual VMT of 1,387,000. The proposed nine-unit residential project would produce an approximate daily VMT of 538 and annual VMT of 196,370. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a daily reduction of 3,262 VMT and annual reduction of 57,670 VMT for the project site.

The proposed project would reduce VMT from the existing conditions at the project site by 86 percent.

Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) and impacts would be less than significant.
c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The project proposes a two-way, two-lane entrance/exit circulation pattern with the access points on Camino Vista Drive and South Foothill Boulevard. Entering and exiting the project site via these access points would be accomplished through left or right turns. Access to the project site would not modify the existing three-way (or “t”) intersection at Stevens Creek Boulevard/Camino Vista Drive or the intersection at Stevens Creek Boulevard/South Foothill Boulevard. The proposed project would not create a significant impact on the expected left-turn or right-turn queues at the study intersections.

The proposed project would not modify any design features to a public road or introduce a potentially unsafe feature that would increase hazards. No impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures would be required.
d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? The proposed project is located in a predominately residential neighborhood with residential driveways and neighborhood streets adjacent and in close proximity to the project site. Emergency access would occur the same way that standard vehicle access would occur for the proposed project. Emergency access to the proposed internal roadway on the project site would be from Camino Vista Drive to the west off of 236
CC 02-01-2022
236 of 756
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-86 OCTOBER 2021

FINAL DRAFT
Stevens Creek Boulevard and from South Foothill Boulevard to the east. The internal roadway would have a two-way, two-lane entrance/exit circulation pattern between these two access points on South Foothill Boulevard and Camino Vista Drive. Drivers could enter or exist via left or right turns onto South Foothill Boulevard or Camino Vista Drive. The project access points would not modify the existing three-way intersection at Stevens Creek Boulevard/Camino Vista Drive or the four-way intersection at Stevens Creek Boulevard/South Foothill Boulevard.

All circulation aisles would be 20 feet wide, and the turning radii would be adequate for emergency and service vehicles. The SCCFD and City of Cupertino Building Division coordinate the review of building permits. All access driveways would be designed in accordance with City of Cupertino standards and would have to be reviewed and approved by SCCFD.

Project plans include approved fire and emergency access through all phases of construction and operation. Compliance with the provisions of the Cupertino Fire Code and the Cupertino Building Code would ensure that adequate access would be provided. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures would be required.

XVI. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the proposed project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) 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:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code Section 5020.1(k), or
ii) 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 Resource Code Section 5024.1.

In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of the Public Resource Code Section 5024.1 for the
purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall
consider the significance to a
California Native
American tribe.
   
237
CC 02-01-2022
237 of 756
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-87

FINAL DRAFT

GENERAL PLAN EIR
As described above in Section IV, Cultural Resources, the General Plan EIR addressed impacts to cultural resources associated with associated with buildout of the General Plan including the redevelopment of the project site with up to 19 dwelling units and a 30-foot height maximum at a program level. The impacts were found to be less than significant, and no mitigation measures were required. The cultural resources study prepared for the General Plan EIR consists of archival research at the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University, examination of the library and files, field inspection, and contact with the Native American community. The cultural resources study addressed impacts associated with archeological resources, including those of Native Americans. As shown in Table 4.4-2, Cultural Resources
in the Project Study Area and Vicinity, and on Figure 4.4-1, Cultural Resources, of the General Plan EIR, there are no identified cultural resources, including those affiliated with Native Americans, present on the project site.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
CEQA Sections 21074 and 21084.2 contain CEQA standards of significance that relate to Native American consultation and added “tribal cultural resources” to the specific cultural resources protected under CEQA. CEQA sections 21080.3.1 requires the CEQA lead agency to begin consultation with any California Native American Tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project if the Tribe requests in writing, to be informed by the lead agency through formal notification of the proposed projects in the area. The consultation is required before the determination of whether a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or EIR is required. In addition, CEQA Section 21080.3.1 includes time limits for certain responses regarding consultation. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21084.3, public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resources.

Information shared by tribes as a result of consultation shall be documented in a confidential file, as necessary, and made part of a lead agency’s administrative record. The City of Cupertino has not received a request from any Tribes in the geographic area with which it is traditionally and culturally affiliated with or otherwise to be notified about projects in the city.

CEQA Section 21074.3(a) defines a tribal cultural resource as a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of size and scope, sacred place, and object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that is either included or eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historic Resources or included a local register of historical resources, or if the City, acting as the lead agency, supported by substantial evidence, chooses at its discretion to treat the resource as a tribal cultural resource.

DISCUSSION
a) Would the proposed 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 238
CC 02-01-2022
238 of 756
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-88 OCTOBER 2021

FINAL DRAFT
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:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or ii) 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 Resource Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of the Public Resource Code Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance to a California Native American tribe? The discussion in Section IV, Cultural Resources, is applicable to impacts to tribal cultural resources. As discussed under criteria (b) and (c) in Section IV, Cultural Resources, no known archeological resources, ethnographic sites, or Native American remains are located on the project site. As discussed under criterion (b), implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-1 would reduce impacts to unknown archaeological deposits, including tribal cultural resources, to a less-than-significant level. As discussed under criterion (c), compliance with State and federal regulations would reduce the likelihood of disturbing or discovering human remains, including those of Native Americans. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-1, which is not a General Plan EIR mitigation measure, and compliance with State and federal regulations related to the protection of human remains would reduce impacts to tribal cultural resources to a less-than-significant level.

Impact TRC-1: The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse impact to an unknown Tribal Cultural Resource.

Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Implement Mitigation Measure CULT-1.

XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the proposed project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
   
b) Have insufficient 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?
   
239
CC 02-01-2022
239 of 756
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-89

FINAL DRAFT
Would the proposed project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
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 statutes and regulations related to solid waste?    

GENERAL PLAN EIR
Chapter 4.14, Utilities and Services Systems, of the General Plan EIR, addressed the impacts to water supply, wastewater, and solid waste associated with buildout of the General Plan including the redevelopment of the project site with up to 19 dwelling units and a 30-foot height maximum at a program level. Impacts were found to be less than significant with mitigation. The City is required to implement General Plan Mitigation Measures UTIL-6a through UTIL-6c, and UTIL-8, which were previously adopted and incorporated into the General Plan, to ensure impacts related to wastewater and solid waste are less than significant. General Plan Mitigation Measures UTIL-6a through UTIL-6c require the City to work with the Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD) to increase the available citywide treatment and transmission capacity, identify appropriate and current wastewater generation rates that are approved by CSD and establish a monitoring and tracking system for wastewater generation to better understand the City’s need for potential capacity upgrades from CSD. General Plan Mitigation Measure UTIL-8 requires the City to continue current recycling and zero-waste practices, monitor solid waste generation, and seek new landfill sites to replace the Altamont and Newby Island landfills, at such time that these landfills are closed. These mitigation measures, which were previously adopted by the City and incorporated into the General Plan, will be implemented by the City.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The existing conditions for each of the utility providers is listed below:
 The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) is the primary water resources agency for Santa Clara County. The project site is within the San José Water (SJW) service area until 2022. SJW would supply water to the project site. Water supply for the SJW is a combination of groundwater from wells in the Santa Clara Groundwater Basin, treated water purchased from SCVWD, and local mountain surface water from the Santa Cruz Mountains.
 Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD) provides sanitary sewer services for the project site. Wastewater would be treated at the San José /Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant (SJ/SCWPCP).  Recology South Bay (Recology) would provide curbside recycling, garbage, and compost and yard waste service to the residents of the project. The City has a contract with Newby Island Sanitary 240
CC 02-01-2022
240 of 756
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-90 OCTOBER 2021

FINAL DRAFT
Landfill (NISL)152 until 2023, which, according to CalRecycle, had a remaining capacity of 21,200,000 cubic yards as of October 31, 2014, and permitted maximum disposal capacity of 4,000 tons per day.153 The landfill is scheduled to operate until 2041. In 2019, the landfill accepted 582,174 tons of waste, which equates to approximately 1,940 tons/day.154 This results in a residual capacity of about 2,060 tons/day.
 Electricity and natural gas would be supplied to the project site via infrastructure maintained by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). Electricity would be supplied by Silicon Valley Clean Energy.  Telephone service would be provided by AT&T and other providers. Cable television service would be available from numerous providers, including Comcast.

DISCUSSION
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Water Treatment Facilities
The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) operates three treatment plants. The Rinconada Water Treatment Plant, which serves the project site, draws water from the South Bay Aqueduct and the San Luis Reservoir, which is treated and supplied to residential and commercial water dealers, such as SJW , which serves the site. The plant can provide up to 80 million gallons of water per day. The water treatment plant is currently under renovation to modernize the system and will result in an increased capacity of 100 million gallons per day as well as improved water quality and greater seismic stability. 155
As discussed in the General Plan EIR and criterion b) below, buildout of the General Plan including the proposed project would not result in insufficient water supplies from SJW under normal year conditions or during single-dry year and multiple-dry years, with the proposed and existing water conservation regulations and measures in place. Therefore, implementation of the project would not require any new water treatment facilities or improvements other than those currently under construction.

Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Wastewater from the project site would be discharged to the CSD sewer collection system, which then conveys it to the SJ/SCWPCP , which is jointly owned by the cities of San José and Santa Clara. The NPDES permit for this facility (NPDES No. CA0037842) is currently in the process of being renewed by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB (Tentative Order No. R2-2020-XXXX). The NPDES permit currently allows dry

152 City of Cupertino, Garbage and Recycling Services Fact Sheet, http://www.recyclestuff.org/Guides/CityGuideCupertino.pdf, accessed June 8, 2020. 153 CalRecycle website, http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/43-AN-0003/Detail/, accessed July 15, 2020. 154 Assuming 300 operational days/year; the landfill is open six days a week. 155 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2020. Rinconada Water Treatment Plant. Accessed at https://www.valleywater.org/node/98 on January 11, 2021. 241
CC 02-01-2022
241 of 756
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-91

FINAL DRAFT
weather discharges of up to 167 million gallons per day (mgd) with full tertiary treatment. The plant is designed to route fully treated secondary effluent in excess of the filtration design capacity around the filters (250 mgd) during extreme wet weather flow events and recombine it with filter effluent prior to disinfection. As discussed below in criterion (c), future demands from the proposed project would not exceed the design or permitted capacity of the SJ/SCWPCP that serves the project site. Future wastewater treatment demand was assessed in consultation with the City of Cupertino and includes consideration of development in the city through the 2040 buildout horizon of the General Plan. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not require any improvements not already considered and the impact of the proposed project on SJ/SCWPCP would be less than significant.

Stormwater Drainage
Municipal stormwater discharges in the City of Cupertino are subject to the Waste Discharge Requirements of the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP; Order Number R2-2015-0049, as amended by Order No. R2-2019-0004) and NPDES Permit No. CAS612008. As previously discussed in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project would be subject to Provision C.3 guidelines for stormwater control. Through C.3 compliance, the proposed project would minimize runoff from the project site as described in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality. The project also would comply with CMC Chapter 9.18, described in Section 3.1.4.2, Zoning, which implements the requirements of the NPDES permit issued to the City. Additionally, the project would submit am SMP to the City for review and approval prior to the start of construction that describes the stormwater treatment measures that would be implemented to reduce stormwater runoff to the City’s storm drain system.

The project site is within an area where the storm drains are deficient in conveying the water from a 10- year storm based on the 2018 Storm Drain Master Plan. The lines on Stevens Creek Boulevard and South Foothill Boulevard adjacent to the project site are currently under capacity and designated as high priority for replacement.
156 The proposed project would provide one bioretention area for the project site. This would collect runoff from roof areas, parking lots, sidewalks, and streets for treatment and flow control prior to discharge into the internal storm drain system, which connects to the City’s storm drain system at the southwest corner of the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and South Foothill Boulevard. The on-site stormwater treatment area would exceed the C.3 requirements of the MRP . In addition, to ensure that the stormwater runoff from the site does not exceed the capacity of the City’s storm drain system, a hydrology and hydraulics report will be prepared for submittal and review by the Director of Public Works prior to the start of construction.

The proposed project would not require the expansion of existing stormwater facilities or the construction of new facilities, the construction of which could otherwise have significant impacts. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required.

156 Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers. 2018. Cupertino Storm Drain Master Plan. 242
CC 02-01-2022
242 of 756
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-92 OCTOBER 2021

FINAL DRAFT
Other Utility Facilities
Other utility facilities that serve the project site include electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities. PG&E would supply natural gas and electricity infrastructure and Silicon Valley Clean Energy would provide electricity to the project site. AT&T and other providers would provide telephone service. Cable television service would be available from various providers, including Comcast.

The proposed project is an infill development project that would result in an increase in land use intensity in a portion of the city that has access to existing infrastructure and services, which was accounted for in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would include appropriate on-site infrastructure to connect to the existing PG&E and telecommunication systems and would not require new off-site facilities and distribution infrastructure or capacity enhancing alterations to any existing facilities. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? As described in the General Plan EIR in Chapter 4.14, the water supply for the City of Cupertino at project buildout year 2022 would be 13,078 acre-feet
157 per year (afy) and at General Plan buildout year 2040 would be 16,984 afy. Buildout associated with the General Plan would result in sufficient water supplies from SJW under normal year conditions or during single-dry year and multiple-dry years, with the proposed and existing water conservation regulations and measures. The Water Supply Evaluation prepared for the General Plan EIR included new development on the project site at a greater number of units than proposed under the project (19 new units compared to nine net new units and one accessory unit); therefore, water supply impacts were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR.

The proposed project’s water demand was calculated using Cupertino Sanitary District’s Flow Modeling Analysis.
158 For the residential component of the project, a total indoor residential water demand of 155 gallons/day/unit was calculated. The irrigation demand was based on the Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) as per the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. This conservatively assumes that all the pervious area at the site will be irrigated; actual irrigation water usage will most likely be less than the calculated amount. The results are provided in Table 4-9.

157 One acre-foot equals about 326,000 gallons, or enough water to cover an acre of land, about the size of a football field, one foot deep.
158 Mark Thomas & Co. Inc., December 6, 2019, Cupertino Sanitary District Flow Modeling Analysis Homestead Flume Outfall to City of Santa Clara.
243
CC 02-01-2022
243 of 756
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-93

FINAL DRAFT
TABLE 4-9 WATER DEMAND FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Development Type Water Demand Factora Size Water Demand Residential 155 gpd/unit 9 units 1,395 gpd
Irrigation Based on ETWU 10,608 sq ft of landscaping 326 gpd Total Water Demand 1,721 gpd
Notes: ETWU = Estimated Total Water Use
a. Water demand factor calculated as 60 gal/resident/day x 2.87 residents per unit x 10 percent reduction for new construction and low-flow fixtures Source: Mark Thomas & Company, Inc., 2019. Cupertino Sanitary District, Flow Modeling Analysis, Homestead Flume Outfall to City of Santa Clara.

The projected water demand for the project would be approximately 1,721 gpd or 1.93 afy. This is less than 0.01 percent of Cupertino’s water supply at the buildout year of 2040 and the project was accounted for in the General Plan at a higher density land use and thus a higher water demand rate. Accordingly, the water demand under the proposed project would not exceed the available water supply in 2022 at project buildout or General Plan buildout by year 2040 and impacts to water supply would be less than significant.
c) Would the project 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?
The calculated wastewater demand for the proposed project is provided in Table 4-10. The proposed project with nine housing units would generate approximately 1,323 gallons/day of wastewater, or 0.0011 mgd of wastewater. The wastewater demand calculations are based on the residential water demand factor of 155 gpd/unit and the assumption that 95 percent of the water demand would result in wastewater generation.

TABLE 4-10 WASTEWATER DEMAND FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Development Type Wastewater Demand Factor Size Wastewater Demand Residential 147 gpd/unit a 9 units 1,323 gpd
Notes:
a. Water demand factor of 155 gpd/unit x 95 percent (amount of water demand that becomes wastewater).

Source: Mark Thomas & Company, Inc, 2019. Cupertino Sanitary District, Flow Modeling Analysis, Homestead Flume Outfall to City of Santa Clara.

The wastewater demand under existing conditions was also calculated to determine the net increase in wastewater demand with implementation of the proposed project. Based on the CSD’s Flow Modeling Analysis, the wastewater demand factor for retail and commercial uses of 0.073 gpd per square foot, and assuming that the existing commercial buildings total 2,400 square feet, the current wastewater demand would be 175 gpd or approximately 0.0002 mgd of wastewater . The proposed project would generate up 244
CC 02-01-2022
244 of 756
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-94 OCTOBER 2021

FINAL DRAFT
to 1,323 gpd or approximately 0.0011 mgd of wastewater .159 Therefore, the proposed project would increase wastewater generation at the site by 1,148 gpd or 0.0011 mgd of wastewater .160 However, the project wastewater demand would be much less than was assumed for the proposed buildout of the site in the General Plan, which presumed 19 new units for a wastewater demand of 2,793 gpd. These wastewater demand calculations are conservative, because no credit is taken for water conservation measures that would be applicable with new construction, thus reducing the amount of wastewater generated.

The SJ/SCWPCP’s projected peak wet weather capacity stated in The San Jose Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant Master Plan, November 2013, is 450 mgd. The proposed project’s wastewater generation (0.0011 mgd) and the existing wastewater generated in the SJ/SCWPCP’s service area (110 mgd) would not exceed the SJ/SCWPCP’s current total peak wet weather capacity of 450 mgd. The ADWF capacity is 167 mgd pursuant to the most recent National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for
the SJ/SCWPCP (Order No. R2-2014-0034, NPDES No. CA0037842). Combined, the proposed project’s wastewater generation (0.0011 mgd) and the existing wastewater generated (110 mgd) would not exceed the SJ/SCWCP’s current ADWF capacity limits.

The CSD has a contractual maximum treatment allocation of 7.85 mgd with the SJ/SCWPCP . At the time of the General Plan EIR, the CSD estimated the existing wastewater generation for the City of Cupertino to be 5.3 mgd and the proposed General Plan build-out would generate 7.2 mgd of wastewater . 161
Combined, the existing wastewater flow (5.3 mgd) plus the proposed project (0.0011 mgd) would not exceed the City’s contractual allocation limits (7.85 mgd). Furthermore, the proposed nine-unit residential development with one accessory unit is within the 4,421 residential units evaluated in the General Plan EIR. Furthermore, as demonstrated in Table 1.1 in Section 1.2, Tiering Process, the project site was originally proposed for 19 units. Therefore, the project would not result in an exceedance of the City’s contractual agreement with SJ/SCWPCP and there would be no significant impact with respect to wastewater treatment capacity.

However, the CSD wastewater flows through a portion of the City of Santa Clara’s sewer system. The contractual agreement between CSD and the City of Santa Clara, for this portion of the Santa Clara sewer system, allows the City 13.8 mgd of capacity in the sewer system during peak wet weather flows. The existing CSD peak wet weather flow into the Santa Clara system is 13.14 mgd. 162 However, the estimated
wastewater generation from the proposed project and from other potential projects in Cupertino, as established by the General Plan and other approved projects, is approximately 14.61 mgd, which is the

159 Mark Thomas & Co. Inc., December 6, 2019, Cupertino Sanitary District Flow Modeling Analysis Homestead Flume Outfall to City of Santa Clara.
160 Mark Thomas & Co. Inc., December 6, 2019, Cupertino Sanitary District Flow Modeling Analysis Homestead Flume Outfall to City of Santa Clara.
161 City of Cupertino, General Plan (Community Vision 2015–2040, Appendix B: Housing Element Technical Report, 4.3 Environmental, Infrastructure & Public Service Constraints, page B-93. 162 Mark Thomas & Co. Inc, December 6, 2019, Cupertino Sanitary District Flow Modeling Analysis Homestead Flume Outfall to City of Santa Clara.
245
CC 02-01-2022
245 of 756
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-95

FINAL DRAFT
total capacity needed to serve the General Plan buildout.163 Therefore, the proposed project, and other approved and potential projects as established by the General Plan buildout, will require a reduction in sewer generation from the CSD system prior to flowing into the City of Santa Clara system, or additional capacity rights will need to be acquired from the City of Santa Clara.

Until such corrections to the system can occur, future projects in Cupertino, including of the proposed project would exceed the 13.8 mgd contractual limit through the City of Santa Clara sewer system resulting in a potentially significant impact.

Impact UTIL-1: Implementation of the proposed project may result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the proposed project, that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.

Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: No building permits shall be issued by the City for the proposed 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard Project that would result in exceeding the permitted peak wet weather flow capacity of 13.8 mgd through the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system. The project applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of Cupertino and Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD), that the proposed project would not exceed the peak wet weather flow capacity of the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system by implementing one or more of the following methods:

1. Reduce inflow and infiltration in the CSD system to reduce peak wet weather flows; or

2. Increase on-site water reuse, such as increased grey water use, or reduce water consumption of the fixtures used within the proposed project, or other methods that are measurable and reduce sewer generation rates to acceptable levels, to the satisfaction of the CSD.

To calculate the peak wet weather flow for a 10-year
storm event, the average daily flow rate shall be multiplied by a factor of 2.95 as required by CSD pursuant to their December 2019 flow modeling analysis.

If the prior agreement between CSD and the City of Santa Clara that currently limits the permitted peak wet weather flow capacity of 13.8 mgd through the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system were to be updated to increase the permitted peak wet weather flow, this impact would then be less than significant. If this were to occur prior to the City’s approval of building permits, then Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 would no longer be required to be implemented.

Significance With Mitigation: Less than significant. Implementation of the Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 would guarantee that no development on the project site could occur that would exceed 13.8 mgd peak

163 Mark Thomas & Co. Inc, December 6, 2019, Cupertino Sanitary District Flow Modeling Analysis Homestead Flume Outfall to City of Santa Clara.
246
CC 02-01-2022
246 of 756
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-96 OCTOBER 2021

FINAL DRAFT
wet weather flow contractual limit through the City of Santa Clara and CSD by ensuring that no building permit would be issued for any structures or units that result in the contractual limit being exceeded until:
(1) additional capacity is available through the City of Santa Clara’s sewer system; (2) improvements would be made to the CSD sewer system that reduce the peak wet weather flows that enter the City of Santa Clara system; (3) improvements would be made on the project site that ensure the contractual limit is not exceed; or (4) the completion of any combination of these approaches that adequately addresses potential capacity issues. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. d) Would the project 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? The City contracts with Recology to provide solid waste collection services to residents and businesses in the city. The City has a contract with Newby Island Sanitary Landfill (NISL) until 2023 but has not secured a new landfill contract for landfill disposal after that date. However, according to the Integrated Waste Management Plan, the landfills in the County (including NISL where the City’s collected solid waste is currently being landfilled) have adequate disposal capacity beyond 2026 and NISL’s’ operational life has recently been extended to 2041.
164 The City, therefore, has options for landfill service once the City’s existing contract with NISL ends in 2023. In addition to the Newby Island Landfill, solid waste generated in Cupertino can also be disposed of at the Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery facility, the Corinda Los Trancos Landfill, Forward Landfill Inc., Guadalupe Sanitary Landfill, Kirby Canyon Recycling and Disposal Facility, the Monterey Peninsula Landfill, Recology Hay Road, the Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill, the Zanker Material Processing Facility, and the Zanker Road Class III Landfill.

Waste management for the proposed project includes recycling and composting. Solid waste generated by construction of the proposed project would largely consist of demolition waste from the existing building as well as construction debris. The project would be required to comply with CMC Chapter 16.72, Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Waste, and the City’s Zero Waste Policy, which requires the recycling or diversion of at least 65 percent of all construction and demolition (C&D) waste by salvage or by transfer to an approved facility.
165,166 Prior to the issuance of any demolition, grading, and/or building permits, the applicant is required to submit a properly completed Waste Management Plan to the Cupertino Public Works Department, Environmental Programs Division. The Waste Management Plan shall do the following:
 Identify the materials to be diverted from disposal by recycling, reused on the project, or salvaged for future use or sale.
 Specify if materials would be sorted on-site or mixed for transportation to a diversion facility.  Identify the diversion facility where the material collected will be taken.

164 Santa Clara County Integrated Waste Management Plan, County of Santa Clara Environmental Resources Agency, 1996. 165 Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 16, Buildings and Construction, Chapter 16.72, Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Waste, Section 16.72.040, Diversion Requirement. 166 City of Cupertino, Public Works, Garbage & Recycling, https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/environment- sustainability/waste, accessed July 15, 2020.
247
CC 02-01-2022
247 of 756
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-97

FINAL DRAFT
 Identify construction methods employed to reduce the amount of waste generated.  Specify that the amount of materials diverted shall be calculated by weight or volume, but not by both.

Compliance with CMC Chapter 16.72 and the City’s Zero Waste Policy would reduce solid waste and construction-related impacts on landfill capacity.

Once the project is operational, there will be approximately 28 residents on the site. In 2019, the City of Cupertino’s disposal rate for residents was 3.5 pounds per day (PPD), which is much lower than CalRecycle’s target rate of 4.3 PPD for residents.
167 The City of Cupertino’s disposal rates for residents have been below target rates and steadily decreasing since 2007, with the exception of 2014, when the rate (9.8 PPD) exceeded the target (8.10 PPD).168 Applying these disposal rates, the project would generate approximately 98 PPD or 0.049 tons per day of new waste. The Newby Island Sanitary Landfill has a maximum permitted daily disposal capacity of 4,000 tons per day and in 2019, the average daily disposal rate was approximately 1,940 tons/day. Therefore, the residual daily landfill capacity of 2,060 tons/day is more than sufficient to meet the solid waste generation rate for the project of 0.049 tons/day. The project would also comply with the City’s current recycling ordinances and zero-waste policies, which would further reduce solid waste disposed of in the landfill. Therefore, implementation of the project would not generate solid waste that exceeds State or local standards, or exceeds the capacity of the landfill, or otherwise impairs the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Impacts would be less than significant. e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? The City’s per capita disposal rate for residents in 2019 was 3.5 PPD, which is below the 4.3 PPD target rate established by CalRecycle.
169 As part of the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan to address waste management conditions within Santa Clara County, Cupertino adopted a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE)170 and Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE)171 in compliance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act.172 The City has gone beyond the SRRE by implementing several programs, including the City’s and Recology’s organics or food waste collection program, and Environmental Recycling Day events offered to residents three times per year by Recology.

167 CalRecycle. 2017. Jurisdiction Per Capita Disposal Trends. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/DisposalRateCalculator, accessed July 15, 2020. 168 CalRecycle. 2017. Jurisdiction Per Capita Disposal Trends. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/ReviewReports, accessed July 15, 2020. 169 CalRecycle. 2017. Disposal Rate Calculator.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/DisposalRateCalculator, accessed May 30, 2019. 170 City of Cupertino, Public Works. 1992. Source Reduction and Recycling Element, September 21, 1992. 171 City of Cupertino, Public Works. 1992. Household Hazardous Waste Element, September 21, 1992. 172 Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 9, Health and Sanitation, Chapter 9.6, Solid Waste, Non-Organic Recycling and Recycling Areas, Section 9.16.010(a), Purpose.
248
CC 02-01-2022
248 of 756
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-98 OCTOBER 2021

FINAL DRAFT
In December 2017, the City adopted a Zero Waste Policy.173 According to the Zero Waste Policy, the City will require, through the City’s waste hauling franchise agreement, steadfast and ongoing efforts by the City’s franchisee to maintain a minimum residential and commercial waste diversion rate of 75 percent with a goal of reaching and maintaining 80 percent by 2025. In 2019, the City’s solid waste diversion rate was 69 percent. These programs will be sufficient to ensure that future development in Cupertino, including the proposed project, would not compromise the ability to meet or exceed the State mandated target.

Construction and any demolition debris associated with the project would be subject to CMC Chapter

16.72, requiring that a minimum of 65 percent of C&D debris be diverted from landfill. 174 In addition, the
City’s Zero Waste Policy requires that all private construction projects that come through the City’s permitting process, and all City projects (through contract requirements), recover and divert at least 65 percent of the construction waste generated by the project. Compliance with applicable statutes and regulations would ensure that the impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required.

XVIII. 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 Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
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?    

GENERAL PLAN EIR
Chapter 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the General Plan EIR, addressed the impacts to wildfire hazards associated with buildout of the General Plan including the redevelopment of the project site with up to 19 dwelling units and a 30-foot height maximum at a program level. Impacts were found to be less

173 City of Cupertino, Public Works, Garbage & Recycling, https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/environment- sustainability/waste, accessed May 30, 2019.
174 Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 16, Buildings and Construction, Chapter 16.72, Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Waste, Section 16.72.040, Diversion Requirement. 249
CC 02-01-2022
249 of 756
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-99

FINAL DRAFT
than significant, and no mitigation measures were required. This section of the Initial Study also addresses additional questions regarding wildfire related impacts pursuant to the updated CEQA Guidelines that were adopted by the California Natural Resource Agency in December 2018.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Wildland fire protection in California is the responsibility of either the State, local government, or the federal government. State Responsibility Areas (SRA) are the areas where the State of California has the primary financial responsibility for the prevention and suppression of wildland fires. The SRA includes a 31-million-acre area, in which the State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) provides a basic level of wildland fire prevention and protection services. Local Responsibility Areas (LRA) include lands within incorporated cities, cultivated agriculture lands, and portions of the desert. LRA fire protection is typically provided by city fire departments, fire protection districts, counties, or by CAL FIRE under contract to local government.
175 CAL FIRE determines fire hazard zones within the LRA using an extension of the SRA Fire Hazard Severity Zone model as the basis. The LRA hazard rating reflects flame and ember intrusion from adjacent wildlands and from flammable vegetation in the urban area.

CAL FIRE designates fire hazard severity zones (FHSZs) as authorized under California Government Code Sections 51175 et seq. CAL FIRE considers many factors such as fire history, existing and potential fuel (natural vegetation), flame length, blowing embers, terrain, and typical weather for the area. There are three types of FHSZs: moderate, high, and very high.

According to the California Office of Emergency Services, a Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) is defined as any area where structures and other human development meet or intermingle within wildland vegetation.
176 Developments in the wildland-urban interface exacerbate fire occurrence and fire spread in several ways, including:
 Increased numbers of human-caused wildfires.
 Wildfires become harder to fight.
 Firefighting resources are diverted from containing the wildfire to protecting lives and homes.  Letting natural fires burn becomes impossible; leading to buildup of fuel, increasing wildfire hazard further .
177
The project site is located within an LRA and the SCCFD currently provides fire protection and emergency medical services to the city and project site. The nearest SRA is approximately 1 mile to the west and is designated as a High FHSZ. The nearest Very High FHSZ within the Cupertino LRA is located approximately 2 miles to the southeast. The project site is not located within the Cupertino designated WUI. 178 However,
it is located within the CalOES defined WUI, which is an area of transition between wildland (unoccupied

175 California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CAL FIRE). Frequently Asked Questions. http://www.fire.ca.gov/firepreventionfee/sra_faqs, accessed June 19, 2020. 176 Cal OES. 2018. California State Hazard Mitigation Plan. 177 Radeloff, Volker; Helmers, David; Kramer, H., et al. 2018. Rapid Growth of the US Wildland-Urban Interface Raises Wildfire Risk. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS): Volume 115 No. 13. Accessed June 18, 2020 at https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/115/13/3314.full.pdf. 178 Cupertino Municipal Code, Section 16.74, Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area. 250
CC 02-01-2022
250 of 756
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-100 OCTOBER 2021

FINAL DRAFT
land) and land with human development (occupied land);179 therefore, impacts related to wildfire are discussed below.

DISCUSSION
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The City of Cupertino Office of Emergency Services is responsible for coordinating agency response to disasters or other large-scale emergencies in the City of Cupertino with assistance from the Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Services and the SCCFD. The Cupertino EOP establishes emergency planning, mitigation, response, and recovery policies within the city.

As described in Section VIII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, emergency vehicle access would be provided at two points on the project site and the proposed project would not block roads or impede emergency access to surrounding properties or neighborhoods during either construction or operation of the project. The Emergency Circulation Plan includes a fire truck circulation route in addition to designated fireman access routes to reach the rear of the structures. During demolition and construction, vehicles, equipment, and materials would be staged and stored on a portion of the project site and no staging would occur in the public right-of-way.

As stated in Section VIII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the proposed project would not interfere or impair with an adopted emergency response plan, or emergency evacuation plan; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? As stated in Section 3, Project Description, of this Initial Study, the project site is classified as “urban area” under the CALVEG classification system and is surrounded by residential and other urban uses. The site is characterized as generally flat and surrounding by low topographic relief. Prevailing winds in Cupertino derive from the west from February to November, and from the north from November to February, with the windier part of the year occurring from March to July with wind speeds averaging 7.6 miles per h o u r.
180 The project site is not located within an SRA or Very High FHSZ in an LRA. The project site also is not located within the Cupertino Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area as defined in CMC Chapter 16.74, Wildland Urban Interface Area Adopted.

The proposed landscaping includes a variety of low water use plants with shrubs and trees surrounding the exterior of the site, as shown in Figure 3-10. The proposed buildings and landscaping would be required to comply with CMC Chapter 9.22.020, Property Maintenance, which requires the upkeep of vegetation and landscaping on the properties to prevent fire and health hazards. CMC Chapter 16.40, Fire

179 CAL FIRE. 2018. Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Threat. http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=d45bf08448354073a26675776f2d09cb, accessed July 30, 2020. 180 Weather Spark. 2019. https://weatherspark.com/y/504/Average-Weather-in-Cupertino-California-United-States-Year- Round, accessed June 19, 2020.
251
CC 02-01-2022
251 of 756
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-101

FINAL DRAFT
Code, would also require the proposed project to comply with the 2019 California Fire Code and 2015 International Fire Code, which provide specific regulations governing conditions hazardous to life and property from fire or explosion. Therefore, the proposed project would have fire prevention and management measures and would not expose occupants and the surrounding neighborhoods to pollutant concentrations or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
c) Require the installation of 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? As discussed in Section 3.1.3.1, Site Character, of the Project Description, the site is currently developed with a single-story, approximately 2,400 square-foot commercial building with a convenience store and an associated paved and unpaved surface parking adjacent to South Foothill Boulevard. The remainder of the property is an undeveloped and unpaved (dirt and gravel) lot. Utility infrastructure already serves the project site. The proposed project would not include new roads, fuel breaks, or sources of emergency water . Overhead power lines are currently located above the northern and eastern edges of the project site, and new power lines are not proposed as part of the project. Minor alterations such as water, natural gas, and sewer line piping would be installed to connect existing utilities to the proposed residential units.

Therefore, installation and maintenance of infrastructure would not exacerbate wildfire risks and new infrastructure would not cause temporary or ongoing impacts on the environment. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required. d) Expose people or structure to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire instability, or drainage changes? As stated in criterion b), the project site is characterized as generally flat and is surrounded by low topographic relief. The project site is not located within a floodplain or an area that has a high potential for landslides. As discussed in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project would result in 18,052 square feet of impervious coverage, compared to approximately 2,757 square feet of impervious coverage in existing conditions, this would be an increase of 15,295 square feet. The proposed project would, however, include 9,454 square feet of pervious surfaces in the form of landscaping and one on-site bioretention area that would hold and treat stormwater before it is released into the City’s off-site storm drain infrastructure, which will reduce runoff on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to flooding or landslides that result from post-fire instability and runoff, and impacts would be less than significant.
252
CC 02-01-2022
252 of 756
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-102 OCTOBER 2021

FINAL DRAFT
XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
   
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
   
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
   

DISCUSSION
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
The project site is in an urbanized and developed area of Cupertino. The project site is currently developed with a single-story, approximately 2,400 square-foot commercial building with a convenience store and associated paved and unpaved surface parking adjacent to South Foothill Boulevard. The remainder of the property is an undeveloped and unpaved (dirt and gravel) lot. The surrounding area is entirely built out with residential and office uses to the north, residential uses and a gas service station with an auto repair shop to the east, residential uses to the south, and residential uses and the Monta Vista Fire Station to the west. There is no existing landscaping on-site. There are no identified sensitive natural communities, no areas of sensitive habitat, and no areas of critical habitat on the project site. In addition, there are no buildings currently listed or eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources, no recorded archaeological sites, and no known paleontological resources located on the project site. The implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, AQ-3, BIO-1, CULT-1, GEO-1, and TCR-1 would serve to protect the quality of the air, nesting birds, and unknown cultural and tribal resources, as well as ensure adequate services are provided and that no additional physical impacts would occur elsewhere. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in a less-than- 253
CC 02-01-2022
253 of 756
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-103

FINAL DRAFT
significant impact to the quality of the environment, wildlife, and 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)?
CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 defines cumulative impacts as two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.

Cumulative impacts may result from individually minor, but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time. CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b) advises that a discussion of cumulative impacts should reflect both the severity of the impacts and the likelihood of their occurrence. To accomplish these two objectives, CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 permits two different methods for completion of a cumulative impact analysis and allows for a reasonable combination of the two approaches:
 The ‘list’ approach permits the use of a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including projects both within and outside the city; and  The ‘projections’ approach allows the use of a summary of projections contained in an adopted plan or related planning document, such as a regional transportation plan, or in an EIR prepared for such a plan. The projections may be supplemented with additional information such as regional modeling.

The General Plan EIR evaluated the cumulative effects of the General Plan Amendments, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning using the summary of projections approach provided for in CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1)(B). The General Plan EIR took into account growth from the General Plan within the Cupertino city boundary and Sphere of Influence (SOI), in combination with projected growth in the rest of Santa Clara County and the surrounding region, as forecast by ABAG.

As provided for by CEQA Guidelines Section 15130, the cumulative context considered in the General Plan EIR varies, depending on the nature of the issue being studied, to best assess each issue‘s geographic extent. For example, the cumulative impacts on water and air quality can be best analyzed within the boundaries of the affected resources, such as water bodies and air basins. For other cumulative impacts, such as hazard risks, traffic, and the need for new public service facilities, the cumulative impact is best analyzed within the context of the population growth and associated development that are expected to occur in the region or the public service providers’ jurisdiction.

Table 4-11 shows the other reasonably foreseeable projects in Cupertino and how they relate to the maximum buildout potential evaluated in the General Plan EIR. 254
CC 02-01-2022
254 of 756
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-104 OCTOBER 2021

FINAL DRAFT
TABLE 4-11 REASONABLY FORESEEABLE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN CUPERTINO

Hotel Residential Commercial Office
General Plan EIR: Maximum
Development Potential 1,339 4,421 1,343,679 4,040,231
Reasonably Foreseeable Projects
Marina Plaza a 122 188 23,000
The Hamptons Redevelopment a 600
The Forum a 23
The Village Hotel a 185
De Anza Hotel a 155
Westport a 267 20,000
Public Storage a, d 209,485
Scandinavian Design a 2,235
Vallco a ,c 2,402 400,000 1,810,000
Loc-N-Stor b, d 96,432
Canyon Crossings 18 4,536
Total Foreseeable Development 462 3,498 755,688 1,810,000 General Plan EIR: Remaining
Development Potential 877 923 587,991 2,230,231
Notes:
a. The project has been approved or is under construction. b. The project is under review.
c. The buildout numbers are for the Vallco SB 35 Application (0 hotel rooms, 2,402 units, 1,810,000 square feet commercial, and 400,000 square feet commercial).
d. The storage facility sites currently have existing storage facilities and the square footage shown in this table is the net new.

Source: City of Cupertino, 2021.

The General Plan EIR included an assessment of the redevelopment of the project site with commercial and residential projects. The residential assumptions included a residential density of 35 dwelling units per acres with a 30-foot height maximum, which would result in up to 19 residential units. Therefore, as shown in Table 4-11, when combined with the other reasonably foreseeable projects in Cupertino the project would not exceed the maximum buildout potential evaluated in the General Plan EIR. The impact discussions in Section I through Section XVIII, above, describe the proposed project relationship to and consistency with the scope of development, land use designations, population projections, and cumulative impacts analyses contained in the General Plan EIR. As shown, the proposed project cumulative impacts were determined to be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation in the cumulative context.

Since the certification of the General Plan EIR, the City has considered new development at the Vallco project site. While, as shown in Table 4-11, this development at the Vallco site is consistent with the maximum buildout potential in the General Plan EIR for citywide cumulative discussions (e.g., population and housing, water supply, etc.), the General Plan EIR did not evaluate the specific amount of buildout at the Vallco site that is shown in Table 4-11, therefore, localized cumulative impacts such as traffic, traffic related noise, and utilities infrastructure were not captured in the General Plan EIR. Due to the distance between the proposed 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard Project and the Vallco project site, the proposed 255
CC 02-01-2022
255 of 756
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-105

FINAL DRAFT
project impacts would result in no localized cumulative impacts related traffic, noise, or utilities in combination with development of the Vallco site.

As described in the environmental checklist, the impacts of the proposed project would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. The proposed project would incrementally contribute to, but would not exceed, the cumulative impacts analyses included in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would not be expected to contribute to significant cumulative impacts when considered along with other impacts under the General Plan.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
As discussed previously, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact that could not be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, thus the proposed project’s environmental effects would be less than significant.

256
CC 02-01-2022
256 of 756
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-106 OCTOBER 2021

FINAL DRAFT
This page intentionally left blank.

257
CC 02-01-2022
257 of 756
PLACEWORKS 5-1

FINAL DRAFT
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard Project. The purpose of the MMRP is to ensure the implementation of project-specific mitigation measures identified as part of the environmental review for the proposed project. The MMRP includes the following information:
 The full text of the mitigation measures;
 The party responsible for implementing the mitigation measures;  The timing for implementation of the mitigation measure;  The agency responsible for monitoring the implementation; and  The monitoring action and frequency.

The City of Cupertino must adopt this MMRP , or an equally effective program, if it approves the proposed project with the mitigation measures that were adopted or made conditions of project approval.

258
CC 02-01-2022
258 of 756
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CUPERTINO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
5-2 OCTOBER 2021

AIR QUALITY
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: The project’s construction contractor shall comply with the following best management practices for reducing construction emissions of fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) as required by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Revised California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines:
 Water all active construction areas at least twice daily, or as often as needed to control dust emissions. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency may be necessary whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible.
 Pave, apply water twice daily or as often as necessary to control dust, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites.  Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer).
 Sweep daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) or as often as needed all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at the construction site to control dust.  Sweep public streets daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) in the vicinity of the project site, or as often as needed, to keep streets free of visible soil material.
 Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas.
 Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt/sand).
 Limit vehicle traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.  Vegetative ground cover shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until the vegetation is established.

Applicant During construction City of Cupertino
Public Works
Department
And Building
Department
Plan Review and
Approval
During scheduled
construction site
inspections
259
CC 02-01-2022
259 of 756
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CUPERTINO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

PLACEWORKS 5-3

FINAL DRAFT
TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
 Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff from public roadways.
 All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe.

Mitigation Measure AQ-2: During construction, the construction contractor(s) shall:
 Use construction equipment that have engines that meet either United State Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) or California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 4 Interim emission standards for off-road diesel-powered construction equipment with more than 25 horsepower, unless it can be demonstrated to the City of Cupertino Building Division that such equipment is not available. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by Tier 4 Interim emissions standards for a similarly sized engine, as defined by the CARB’s regulations.
 Prior to issuance of any construction permit, ensure that all construction plans submitted to the City of Cupertino Planning Department and/or Building Division clearly show the requirement for Tier 4 Interim emission standards for construction equipment over 25 horsepower.
 Maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the project site for verification by the City of Cupertino Building Division official or his/her designee. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, and number of construction equipment on-site.  Ensure that all equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with manufacturer recommendations.  Communicate with all sub-contractors in contracts and construction documents that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to 5 minutes or less in compliance with CARB Rule 2449 and is responsible for ensuring that this requirement is met.

Applicant During construction City of Cupertino
Public Works
Planning & Building
Department

Plan Review and
Approval

During scheduled
construction site
inspections

260
CC 02-01-2022
260 of 756
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CUPERTINO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
5-4 OCTOBER 2021

FINAL DRAFT
TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
Mitigation Measure AQ-3: The project applicant shall install a vapor barrier beneath the concrete foundation slab of the proposed residential buildings at the project site to mitigate potential odor risks associated with concentration of non-hazardous soil vapor contamination. This mitigation measure shall be identified on the permit application drawing set and as part of the construction drawing set, and shall be implemented by the on-site Construction Manager.

Applicant During construction City of Cupertino
Public Works
Planning & Building
Department
Site inspection Once to ensure
completion

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Nests of raptors and other birds shall be protected when in active use, as required by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Department of Fish and Game Code. The construction contractor shall indicate the following on all construction plans, if construction activities occur during the breeding season (February 1 and August 31).
 Preconstruction surveys shall:
 Be coordinated with the owner’s and/or residents of the residential properties directly south of the project site.  Be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to tree removal or grading, demolition, or construction activities. Note that preconstruction surveys are not required for tree removal or construction, grading, or demolition activities outside the nesting period.
 Be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the start of construction.
 Be repeated at 14-day intervals until construction has been initiated in the area after which surveys can be stopped.  Document locations of active nests containing viable eggs or young birds.
 Protective measures for active nests containing viable eggs or young birds shall be implemented under the direction of the qualified biologist until the nests no longer contain eggs or young birds, and the young have left the nest and are foraging Applicant Prior to construction
During construction

Qualifying biologist
in consultation with
California
Department of Fish
and Wildlife as
needed

Preconstruction
Survey

Once for survey;
ongoing if nesting
birds identified
and until they
have left the nest

261
CC 02-01-2022
261 of 756
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CUPERTINO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

PLACEWORKS 5-5

FINAL DRAFT
TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
independently or the nest is no longer active. Protective measures shall include:
 Establishment of clearly delineated exclusion zones (i.e., demarcated by identifiable fencing, such as orange
construction fencing or equivalent) around each nest location as determined by the qualified biologist, taking into account the species of birds nesting, their tolerance for disturbance and proximity to existing development. In general, exclusion zones shall be a minimum of 300 feet for raptors and 75 feet for passerines and other birds.
 Monitoring active nests within an exclusion zone on a weekly basis throughout the nesting season to identify signs of disturbance and confirm nesting status.
 An increase in the radius of an exclusion zone by the qualified biologist if project activities are determined to be adversely affecting the nesting birds. Exclusion zones may be reduced by the qualified biologist only in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure CULT-1: A tribal representative shall be permitted on-site at all times during ground disturbance (including grading, demolition and/or construction) to monitor for potential prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources. Notice shall be given to the Tribe in a manner requested by the Tribe at least 48 hours before any ground disturbing activity. Prior to ground disturbance activities, construction workers conducting the ground disturbing activities shall undergo cultural resource sensitivity training conducted by the on-site tribal representative.

If any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground-disturbing (including grading, demolition and/or construction) activities:

Applicant During construction Consulting
archeologist and
City of Cupertino
Public Works &
Building Department

Plan Review and
Approval

As needed if
resources are
unearthed

262
CC 02-01-2022
262 of 756
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CUPERTINO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
5-6 OCTOBER 2021

FINAL DRAFT
TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
 All work within 50 feet of the resources shall be halted, the City shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist and tribal representative shall be consulted. The contractor shall cooperate in the recovery of the materials. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for tribal cultural resources, historical resources or unique archaeological resources is being carried out.
 The qualified archaeologist shall prepare a report for the evaluation of the resource to the California Register of Historical Places and the City Building Department. The report shall also include appropriate recommendations in collaboration with a tribal representative regarding the significance of the find and appropriate mitigations as follows:
 If the resource is a non-tribal resource, the archaeologist shall assess the significance of the find according to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5.
 If the resource is a tribal resource – whether historic or prehistoric – the consulting archaeologist shall consult with the appropriate tribe(s) to evaluate the significance of the resource and to recommend appropriate and feasible
avoidance, testing, preservation or mitigation measures, in light of factors such as the significance of the find, proposed project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) may be implemented.
 All significant non-tribal cultural materials recovered shall be, as necessary, and at the discretion of the consulting archaeologist, subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according to current professional standards.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: The construction contractor shall incorporate the following in all grading, demolition, and construction plans:

Applicant During construction City of Cupertino
Public Works &
Building Department
Plan Review and
Approval

During scheduled
construction site
inspections
263
CC 02-01-2022
263 of 756
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CUPERTINO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

PLACEWORKS 5-7

FINAL DRAFT
TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
 In the event that fossils or fossil-bearing deposits are discovered during grading, demolition, or building, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted.
 The contractor shall notify the City of Cupertino Building Department and a City-approved qualified paleontologist to examine the discovery.
 The paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 1995), evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the finding under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
 The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find.
 If the project applicant determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the proposed project based on the qualities that make the resource important. The excavation plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to implementation.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: The project applicant shall prepare an Environmental Site Management Plan (ESMP) in consultation with applicable agencies (e.g., the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH), or Santa Clara County Fire Department), if any, or in the alternative to the satisfaction of the City based on a third-party peer review, as appropriate. The purpose of the ESMP is to protect construction workers, the general public, the environment, and future site occupants from subsurface hazardous materials previously identified at the site and to address the possibility of encountering unknown contamination or hazards during demolition, grading, excavation, and construction activities. The ESMP shall summarize soil and groundwater analytical Applicant Prior issuance of
building permit
City of Cupertino
Public Works &
Building Department
Plan Review and
Approval
During scheduled
construction site
inspections
264
CC 02-01-2022
264 of 756
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CUPERTINO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
5-8 OCTOBER 2021

FINAL DRAFT
TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
data collected on the project site during past investigations; identify management options for grading, if contaminated media are encountered during grading; and identify monitoring, irrigation, or other wells requiring proper abandonment in compliance with local, State, and federal laws, policies, and regulations.

The ESMP shall include measures for identifying, testing, and managing soil and groundwater suspected of or known to contain hazardous materials. The ESMP shall: 1) provide procedures for evaluating, handling, storing, testing, and disposing of soil and groundwater during project grading; 2) describe required worker health and safety provisions for all workers potentially exposed to hazardous materials in accordance with State and federal worker safety regulations; and 3) designate personnel responsible for implementation of the ESMP.

NOISE
Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: The following shall be incorporated in all activity phases and construction plans, as required by the Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC). Construction activities shall take place only during daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and due to the close proximity of the adjacent residential land use to the south, construction may occur on the weekends, holidays or nighttime only if a special exception has been granted by the City. In addition, the construction crew shall adhere to the following best management practices:
 At least 90 days prior to the start of any construction, demolition or grading activities, all off-site businesses and residents within 300 feet of the project site will be notified of the planned activities. The notification will include a brief description of the project, the activities that would occur, the hours when activity would occur, and the construction period’s overall duration. The notification should include the telephone numbers of the contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint.
 The project applicant and contractors shall prepare and submit a Construction Noise Control Plan to the City’s Building Department Applicant Prior to issuance of
building permits
City of Cupertino
Public Works
Department
Plan review and
approval/site
inspections
Once for plan
review/ during
scheduled
construction site
inspections
265
CC 02-01-2022
265 of 756
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CUPERTINO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

PLACEWORKS 5-9

FINAL DRAFT
TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
and Code Enforcement for review and approval prior to issuance of any grading, demolition, and/or building permits. The Construction Noise Plan shall demonstrate compliance with the 80-dBA limit in the CMC. The details of the Construction Noise Control Plan, including those details listed herein, shall be included as part of the permit application drawing set and as part of the construction drawing set, shall be implemented by the on-site Construction Manager, and shall include, but not be limited to, the following available controls to comply with the 80 dBA performance standard:
 At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign will be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, which includes permitted construction days and hours, as well as the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. If the authorized contractor’s representative receives a
complaint, he/she will investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City.
 During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used for project construction will utilize the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment re-design, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds), wherever feasible.
 Include noise control requirements for equipment and tools, including concrete saws, to the maximum extent feasible.

Such requirements could include, but are not limited to, erecting temporary plywood noise barriers between
construction areas and nearby sensitive receptors; performing work in a manner that minimizes noise; and undertaking the noisiest activities during times of least disturbance to nearby sensitive receptors.
266
CC 02-01-2022
266 of 756
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CUPERTINO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
5-10 OCTOBER 2021

FINAL DRAFT
TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
 During the entire active construction period, stationary noise sources will be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible, and they will be muffled and enclosed within
temporary sheds, or insulation barriers or other measures will be incorporated to the extent feasible.
 Select haul routes that avoid the greatest amount of sensitive use areas and submit to the City of Cupertino Public Works Department for approval prior to the start of the construction phase.
 Signs will be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on- site construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment will be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes.
 During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noise producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells will be for safety warning purposes only. The construction manager will use smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and law.
 Prior to start of construction, erect a temporary noise barrier/curtain between the construction zone and adjacent residences along the boundary (see Figure 4-1, Temporary Noise Barrier Locations, of the Initial Study). The temporary sound barrier shall have a minimum height of 12 feet and be free of gaps and holes. The barrier can be (a) a ¾-inch-thick plywood wall OR (b) a hanging blanket/curtain with a surface density or at least 2 pounds per square foot.

Mitigation Measure NOISE-2: Mechanical equipment shall be selected and designed to reduce impacts on surrounding uses to meet the Cupertino Municipal Code noise limits of 60 dBA and 50 dBA at residential uses during daytime and nighttime, respectively, and 65 dBA and 55 dBA at non-residential sensitive uses during daytime and Applicant Prior to and during
construction
Qualified acoustical
consultant and City
of Cupertino Public
Works & Building
Department
Plan review and
approval/site
inspections
Once for plan
review/ during
scheduled
construction site
inspections
267
CC 02-01-2022
267 of 756
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CUPERTINO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

PLACEWORKS 5-11

FINAL DRAFT
TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
nighttime, respectively. A qualified acoustical consultant shall be retained to review mechanical noise as these systems are selected to determine specific noise reduction measures necessary to reduce noise to comply with the City’s noise level requirements. Mechanical equipment shall be selected and designed to reduce impacts on surrounding uses to meet the City’s noise level requirements. Noise reduction measures could include, but are not limited to:
 Selection of equipment that emits low noise levels;
 Installation of noise dampening techniques, such as enclosures and parapet walls, to block the line-of-sight between the noise source and the nearest receptors;
 Locating equipment in less noise-sensitive areas, where feasible.

Mitigation Measure NOISE-3: If paving activity during construction is required within 25 feet of nearby residential structures, use of a static roller in lieu of a vibratory roller shall be employed. Grading and earthwork activities within 15 feet of adjacent residential structures shall be conducted with off-road equipment that is limited to 100 horsepower or less.

This mitigation measure shall be identified on the
permit application drawing set and as part of the construction drawing set, and shall be implemented by the on-site Construction Manager.

Applicant During construction Qualified acoustical
consultant and City
of Cupertino Public
Works & Building
Department
Plan review and
approval/site
inspections
Once for plan
review/ during
scheduled
construction site
inspections

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Implement Mitigation Measure CULT-1. Applicant During construction Consulting archeologist and
City of Cupertino
Public Works
Department
Plan Review and
Approval
As needed if
resources are
unearthed

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: No building permits shall be issued by the City for the proposed 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard Project that would result in exceeding the permitted peak wet weather flow capacity of

13.8 mgd through the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system. The project applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of Cupertino Applicant Prior to issuance of
building permits
Cupertino Sanitary
District, City of
Cupertino Public
Works and Building
Departments
Plan Review and
Approval
During scheduled
construction site
inspections
268
CC 02-01-2022
268 of 756
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CUPERTINO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
5-12 OCTOBER 2021

FINAL DRAFT
TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
and Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD), that the proposed project would not exceed the peak wet weather flow capacity of the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system by implementing one or more of the following methods:

Reduce inflow and infiltration in the CSD system to reduce peak wet weather flows; or
Increase on-site water reuse, such as increased grey water use, or reduce water consumption of the fixtures used within the proposed project, or other methods that are measurable and reduce sewer generation rates to acceptable levels, to the satisfaction of the CSD.

The proposed project’s estimated wastewater generation shall be calculated using the generation rates used by the CSD in the Flow Modeling Analysis for the Homestead Flume Outfall to the City of Santa Clara, prepared by Mark Thomas & Co. Inc. dated December 6, 2019, unless alternative (i.e., lower) generation rates achieved by the proposed project are substantiated by the project applicant based on evidence to the satisfaction of the CSD. To calculate the peak wet weather flow for a 10-year storm event, the average daily flow rate shall be multiplied by a factor of 2.95 as required by CSD pursuant to their December 2019 flow modeling analysis.

269
CC 02-01-2022
269 of 756
PLACEWORKS 6-1

FINAL DRAFT
Organizations and Persons Consulted
This Initial Study was prepared by the following individuals:

LEAD AGENCY

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Benjamin Fu ........................................................................................... Director of Community Development Piu Ghosh .............................................................................................................................. Planning Manager Erick Serrano .................................................................................................. Senior Planner, Project Manager Chad Mosley ................................................................................................. Assistant Director of Public Works David Stillman .............................................................................................................. Transportation Manager Chris Carrao ........................................................................................ Senior Transit & Transportation Planner Winnie Pagan ..................................................................................................................... Senior Civil Engineer Jennifer Chu ...................................................................................................................... Senior Civil Engineer

REPORT PREPARERS
PlaceWorks
Terri McCracken ................................................................................. Associate Principal, Principal-in-Charge Jacqueline Protsman .............................................................................................. Associate, Project Manager Nicole Vermilion ................................................... Principal, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Practice Leader Cathy Fitzgerald ..................................................................................................................... Principal Engineer Steve Bush ................................................................................................................................. Senior Engineer John Vang ............................................................. Senior Associate, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Josh Carman .................................................................................................. Senior Associate, Noise Specialist Alejandro Garcia ....................................................................................................... Associate, Noise Specialist Kristie Nguyen ................................................................... Scientist, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Torina Wilson ....................................................................................................................................... Associate Grant Reddy .......................................................................................................................... Graphics Specialist

270
CC 02-01-2022
270 of 756
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED
6-2 OCTOBER 2021

FINAL DRAFT
This page intentionally left blank.

271
CC 02-01-2022
271 of 756
272
CC 02-01-2022
272 of 756
Berkeley, CA
510.848.3815
www.PlaceWorks.com
273
CC 02-01-2022
273 of 756
........................................................................................................................

A PPENDIX A :

A IR Q UALITY AND G REENHOUSE

G AS E MISSIONS D ATA
274
CC 02-01-2022
274 of 756
........................................................................................................................

275
CC 02-01-2022
275 of 756
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 1 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data

1. Air Quality
Ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been adopted at State and federal levels for criteria air pollutants.

In addition, both the State and federal government regulate the release of toxic air contaminants (TACs). The City of San Francisco is in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) and is subject to the rules and regulations imposed by the Bay Area Air Quality Mana gement District (BAAQMD), as well as the California AAQS adopted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and national AAQS adopted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Federal, State, regional, and local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are potentially applicable to the proposed project are summarized below. The discussion also identifies the natural factors in the air basin that affect air pollution.

1.1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

1.1.1 Ambient Air Quality Standards
The Clean Air Act (CAA) was passed in 1963 by the US Congress and has been amended several times. The 1970 Clean Air Act amendments strengthen ed previous legislation and laid the foundation for the regulatory scheme of the 1970s and 1980s. In 1977, Congress again added several provisions, including nonattainment requirements for areas not meeting National AAQS and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program.

The 1990 amendments represent the latest in a series of federal efforts to regul ate the protection of air quality in the United States. The CAA allows states to adopt more stringent standards or to include other pollution species. The California Clean Air Act (CCAA), signed into law in 1988, requires all areas of the state to achieve and maintain the California AAQS by the earliest practical date. The California AAQS tend to be more restrictive than the National AAQS, based on even greater health and welfare concerns.

These National AAQS and California AAQS are the levels of air quality considered to provide a margin of safety in the protection of the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect “sensitive receptors” most susceptible to further respirator y distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollu tant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed.

Both California and the federal government have established health-based AAQS for seven air pollutants. As shown in Table 1, these pollutants include ozone (O
3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM 10), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM 2.5), and lead (Pb). In addition, the state has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility- reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety.
276
CC 02-01-2022
276 of 756

Page 2 ends

Table 1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants Pollutant Averaging Time
California
Standard1
Federal Primary
Standard2 Major Pollutant Sources
Ozone (O3)3 1 hour 0.09 ppm * Motor vehicles, paints, coatings, and solvents. 8 hours 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Internal combustion engines, primarily gasoline-powered motor vehicles.
8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO
2)
Annual Arithmetic
Mean

0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm Motor vehicles, petroleum-refining operations, industrial sources, aircraft, ships, and railroads.
1 hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO
2)
Annual Arithmetic
Mean
* 0.030 ppm Fuel combustion, chemical plants, sulfur recovery plants, and metal processing.
1 hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm
24 hours 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm
Respirable Coarse
Particulate Matter
(PM10)
Annual Arithmetic
Mean
20 µg/m3 * Dust and fume-producing construction, industrial, and agricultural operations, combustion, atmospheric
photochemical reactions, and natural activities (e.g., wind- raised dust and ocean sprays). 24 hours 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 Respirable Fine
Particulate Matter
(PM2.5)4

Annual Arithmetic
Mean
12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3 Dust and fume-producing construction, industrial, and agricultural operations, combustion, atmospheric
photochemical reactions, and natural activities (e.g., wind- raised dust and ocean sprays). 24 hours * 35 µg/m3
Lead (Pb) 30-Day Average 1.5 µg/m3 * Present source: lead smelters, battery manufacturing & recycling facilities. Past source: combustion of leaded gasoline.

Calendar Quarter * 1.5 µg/m3
Rolling 3-Month
Average
* 0.15 µg/m3
Sulfates (SO4)5 24 hours 25 µg/m3 * Industrial processes.

Visibility Reducing
Particles
8 hours ExCo
=0.23/km
visibility of
10≥ miles
No Federal
Standard
Visibility-reducing particles consist of suspended
particulate matter, which is a complex mixture of tiny
particles that consists of dry solid fragments, solid cores with liquid coatings, and small droplets of liquid. These particles vary greatly in shape, size and chemical
composition, and can be made up of many different
materials such as metals, soot, soil, dust, and salt.

Hydrogen Sulfide 1 hour 0.03 ppm No Federal
Standard
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is a colorless gas with the odor of rotten eggs. It is formed during bacterial decomposition of sulfur-containing organic substances. Also, it can be
present in sewer gas and some natural gas and can be
emitted as the result of geothermal energy exploitation. 277
CC 02-01-2022
277 of 756
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 3 Table 1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants Pollutant Averaging Time
California
Standard1
Federal Primary
Standard2 Major Pollutant Sources
Vinyl Chloride 24 hours 0.01 ppm No Federal
Standard
Vinyl chloride (chloroethene), a chlorinated hydrocarbon, is a colorless gas with a mild, sweet odor. Most vinyl
chloride is used to make polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic and vinyl products. Vinyl chloride has been detected near landfills, sewage plants, and hazardous waste sites, due to microbial breakdown of chlorinated solvents.

Source: California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2016, October 1. Ambient Air Quality Standards. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf.

Notes: ppm: parts per million; μg/m3: micrograms per cubic meter * Standard has not been established for this pollutant/duration by this entity. 1 California standards for O 3, CO (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), SO2 (1 and 24 hour), NO2, and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. 2 National standards (other than O 3, PM, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The O3 standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 µg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. 3 On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm. 4 On December 14, 2012, the national annual PM 2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 μg/m3 to 12.0 µg/m3. The existing national 24-hour PM2.5 standards (primary and secondary) were retained at 35 µg/m3, as was the annual secondary standard of 15 µg/m3. The existing 24-hour PM10 standards (primary and secondary) of 150 µg/m3 also were retained. The form of the annual primary and secondary standards is the annual mean, averaged over 3 years. 5 On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO 2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. The 1-hour national standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the 1-hour national standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm.

California has also adopted a host of other regulations that reduce criteria pollutant emissions, including:
 AB 1493: Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards
 Title 20 California Code of Regulations (CCR): Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards  Title 24, Part 6, CCR: Building and Energy Efficiency Standards  Title 24, Part 11, CCR: Green Building Standards Code

1.1.2 Air Pollutants of Concern
A substance in the air that can caus e harm to humans and the environment is known as an air pollutant.

Pollutants can be in the form of solid particles, liquid droplets, or gases. In addition, they may be natural or man-made.

1.1.2.1 CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS
The air pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by federal and state law. Air pollutants are categorized as primary or secondary pollutants. Primary air pollutants are those that are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen dioxide (NO
2), sulfur dioxide (SO 2), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM 10), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM 2.5), and lead (Pb) are primary air pollutants. Of these, CO, SO 2, NO 2, PM 10, and PM 2.5 are “criteria air pollutants,” which means that ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been established for them. VOC and oxides of nitrogen (NO
x) are air pollutant precursors that form secondary criteria pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. Ozone (O 3) and NO 2 are the principal secondary pollutants. A description of each of the pr imary and secondary criteria air pollutants and their known health effects is presented below.
278
CC 02-01-2022
278 of 756

Page 4 ends

Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas produced by incomplete combustion of carbon substances, such as gasoline or diesel fuel. CO is a primary criteria air pollutant. CO concentrations tend to be the highest during winter mornings with little to no wind, when surface-based inversions trap the pollutant at ground levels. The highest ambient CO concentrations are generally found near traffic-congested corridors and intersections. When inhaled at high concentrations, CO combines with hemoglobin in the blood and reduces its oxygen-carrying capacity. This results in re duced oxygen reaching the brain, heart, and other body tissues. This condition is especially critical for people with cardiovascular diseases, chronic lung disease, or anemia, as well as for fetuses. Even healthy people exposed to high CO con centrations can experience headaches, dizziness, fatigue, unconsciousness, and even death. 1 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) are compounds composed primarily of hydrogen and carbon atoms.

Internal combustion associated with motor vehicle usage is the major source of ROGs. Other sources of ROGs include evaporative emissions from paints and solvents, the application of asphalt paving, and the use of household consumer products such as aerosols. Adve rse effects on human health are not caused directly by ROGs, but rather by reactions of ROGs to form secondary pollutants such as O

3. There are no AAQS
established for ROGs. However, because they contribute to the formation of O 3, the Air District has established a significance threshold for this pollutant.

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) are a by-product of fuel combustion and contribute to the formation of O3, PM10, and PM2.5. The two major components of NOx are nitric oxide (NO) and NO 2. The principal component of NOx produced by combustion is NO , but NO reacts with oxygen to form NO 2, creating the mixture of NO and NO2 commonly called NOX. NO2 absorbs blue light; the result is a brownish-red cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. NO is a colorless, odorless ga s formed from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes place under high temperature and/or high pressure. 2 NO 2 acts as an acute irritant and in equal concentrations is more injurious than NO. At atmospheric concentrations, however, NO 2 is only potentially irritating. There is some indication of a relationship between NO2 and chronic pulmonary fibrosis.

Some increase in bronchitis in children (2 and 3 years old) has also been observed at concentrations below 0.3 parts per million (ppm). 3
Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2) is a colorless, pungent, irritating gas fo rmed by the combustion of sulfurous fossil fuels. It enters the atmosphere as a result of burning high-sulfur-content fuel oils and coal and from chemical processes at chemical plants and refineries. Gasoline and natural gas have very low sulfur content and do not release significant quantities of SO

2. When SO 2 forms sulfates (SO 4) in the atmosphere, together these pollutants are referred to as sulfur oxides (SO x). Thus, SO 2 is both a primary and secondary criteria air pollutant. At sufficiently high concentrations, SO 2 may irritate the upper respiratory tract. At lower concentrations and when combined with particulates, SO2 may do greater harm by injuring lung tissue. 4 Suspended Particulate Matter (PM 10 and PM 2.5) consists of finely divided solids or liquids such as soot, dust, aerosols, fumes, and mists. In the San Franci sco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB or Air Basin), most particulate matter is caused by combustion, factories, c onstruction, grading, demolition, agricultural activities, and motor vehicles. Two forms of fine particulates are now recognized and regulated. Inhalable coarse

1 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017, Revised California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. 2 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017, Revised California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. 3 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017, Revised California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. 4 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017, Revised California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. 279
CC 02-01-2022
279 of 756
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 5 particles, or PM 10, include the particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns (i.e., 10 millionths of a meter or 0.0004 inch) or less. Inhalable fine particles, or PM 2.5, have an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less (i.e., 2.5 millionths of a meter or 0.0001 inch). Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is also classified a carcinogen.

Extended exposure to particulate matter can increase the risk of chronic respiratory disease. PM 10 bypasses the body’s natural filtration system more easily than larger particles and can lodge deep in the lungs. The EPA scientific review concluded that PM 2.5 penetrates even more deeply into the lungs, and this is more likely to contribute to health effects—at concentrations well below current PM 10 standards. These health effects include premature death in people with heart or lung disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms (e.g., irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing). Motor vehicles are currently responsible for about half of particulates in the SFBAAB. Wood burning in fireplaces and stoves is another large source of fine particulates.
5 Ozone (O3) is commonly referred to as “smog” and is a gas that is formed when ROGs and NO x, both by- products of internal combustion engine exhaust, undergo photochemical reactions in the presence of sunlight. O
3 is a secondary criteria air pollutant. O 3 concentrations are generally highest during the summer months when direct sunlight, light winds, and warm temperatures create favorable conditions to the formation of this pollutant. O3 poses a health threat to those who alread y suffer from respiratory diseases as well as to healthy people. O 3 levels usually build up during the day and peak in the afternoon hours. Short- term exposure can irritate the eyes and cause constriction of the airways. Besides causing shortness of breath, it can aggravate existing respiratory diseases such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema. Chronic exposure to high ozone levels can permanently damage lung tissue. O 3 can also damage plants and trees and materials such as rubber and fabrics.6
Lead (Pb) is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as in manufactured products. The major sources of lead emissions have historically been mobile and industrial sources. As a result of the phasing out of leaded gasoline, metal processing is currently the primary source of lead emissions. The highest levels of lead in air are generally found near lead smelters. Othe r stationary sources are waste incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery manufactur ers. Because emissions of lead are found only in projects that are permitted by the Air District, lead is not an air quality of concern for the proposed project.

1.1.2.2 TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS
The public’s exposure to air pollutants classified as toxic air contaminants (TACs) is a significant environmental health issue in California. In 1983, the Ca lifornia Legislature enacted a program to identify the health effects of TACs and to reduce exposure to these contaminants to protect the public health. The California Health and Safety Code defines a TAC as “an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which ma y pose a present or potential hazard to human health.” A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant (H AP) pursuant to Section 112( b) of the federal Clean Air Act (42 United States Code §7412[b]) is a toxi c air contaminant. Under state law, the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), acting through CARB, is authorized to identify a substance as

5 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017, Revised California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. 6 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. Revised California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. 280
CC 02-01-2022
280 of 756

Page 6 ends

a TAC if it determines that the substance is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or to an increase in serious illness, or may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.

California regulates TACs primarily through Assemb ly Bill (AB) 1807 (Tanner Air Toxics Act) and AB 2588 (Air Toxics “Hot Spot” Information and Assessment Act of 1987). The Tanner Air Toxics Act sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB adopts an “airborne toxics control measure” for sources that emit designated TACs. If there is a safe threshold for a substance (i.e., a point below which there is no toxic effect), the control measure must reduce exposure to below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the measure must incorporate toxics best available control technology to minimize emissions. To date, CARB has established formal control measures for 11 TACs, all of which are identified as having no safe threshold.

Air toxics from stationary sources are also regulated in California under the Air Toxics “Hot Spot” Information and Assessment Act of 1987. Under AB 2588, toxic air contaminant emissions from individual facilities are quantified and prioritized by the air quality management district or ai r pollution control district.

High priority facilities are required to perform a health risk assessment and, if specific thresholds are exceeded, are required to communicate the results to the public in the form of notices and public meetings.

By the last update to the TAC list in December 1999, CARB had designated 244 compounds as TACs. 7 Additionally, CARB has implemented control measures for a number of compounds that pose high risks and show potential for effective control. The majority of the estimated health risks from TACs can be attributed to relatively few compounds, the most important being particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines.

Diesel Particulate Matter
In 1998, CARB identified particulate emissions from di esel-fueled engines (diesel PM) as a TAC. Previously, the individual chemical compounds in diesel exhaust were considered TACs. Almost all diesel exhaust particle mass is 10 microns or less in diameter. Because of thei r extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung.

CARB has promulgated the following specific rules to limit TAC emissions:
 13 CCR Chapter 10, Section 2485, Airborne Toxic Co ntrol Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling
 13 CCR Chapter 10, Section 2480, Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit School Bus Idling and Idling at Schools
 13 CCR Section 2477 and Article 8, Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets and Facilities Where TRUs Operate Community Risk
In addition, to reduce exposure to TACs, CARB developed and approved the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective8 to provide guidance regarding the siting of sensitive land uses in the vicinity of freeways, distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome-plating facilities, dry cleaners, and

7 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 1999. California Air Reso urces Board (CARB). Final Staff Report: Update to the Toxic Air Contaminant List. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/finalstaffreport.htm. 8 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2005, April. Air Qua lity and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. https://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf.
281
CC 02-01-2022
281 of 756
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 7 gasoline-dispensing facilities. This guidance document was developed to assess compatibility and associated health risks when placing sensitive receptors near existing pollution sources. CARB’s recommendations on the siting of new sensitive land uses were based on a compilation of recent studies that evaluated data on the adverse health effects from proximity to air pollution sources. The key observation in these studies is that proximity to air pollution sources substantially increases exposure and the potential for adverse health effects.

There are three carcinogenic toxic air contaminants that constitute the majority of the known health risks from motor vehicle traffic, DPM from trucks, and benzene and 1,3-butadiene from passenger vehicles. CARB recommendations are based on data that show that localized air pollution exposures can be reduced by as much as 80 percent by following CARB minimum distance separations.

1.1.3 Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The Air District is the agency responsible for assuring that the National and California AAQS are attained and maintained in the Air Basin. Air quality conditions in the Air Basin have improved significantly since the Air District was created in 1955. The Air District pr epares air quality manageme nt plans (AQMP) to attain ambient air quality standards in the Air Basin. The Air District prepares ozone attainment plans for the National O3 standard and clean air plans for the California O 3 standard. These air qua lity management plans
are prepared in coordination with Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The Air District ad opted the 2017 Clean Air Pl an, Spare the Air, Cool the Climate (2017 Clean Air Plan) on April 19, 2017, making it the most recent ad opted comprehensive plan.

The 2017 Clean Air Plan incorporates significant new scientific data, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes, and new air quality modeling tools.

1.1.3.1 BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2017 CLEAN AIR PLAN 2017 Spare the Air, Cool the Climate: A Blueprint for Clean Air and Climate Protection in the Bay Area
The 2017 Clean Air Plan serves as an update to the adopted Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan and continues in providing the framework for SFBAAB to achieve attainment of the California and National AAQS. The 2017 Clean Air Plan updates the Bay Area’s ozone plan, which is based on the “all feasible measures” approach to meet the requirements of the California Clean Air Act. Additionally, it sets a goal of reducing health risk impacts to local communities by 20 percent by 2020. Furthermore, the 2017 Clean Air Plan also lays the groundwork for reducing GHG emissions in the Bay Area to meet the state’s 2030 GHG reduction target and 2050 GHG reduction goal. It also includes a vision for the Bay Area in a post-carbon year 2050 that encompasses the following
9:
 Construct buildings that are energy efficient and powered by renewable energy.  Walk, bicycle, and use public transit for the majority of trips and use electric-powered autonomous public transit fleets.
 Incubate and produce clean energy technologies.

9 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, April 19. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan, Spare the Air, Cool the Climate: A Bluep rint for Clean Air and Climate Protection in the Bay Area. http: //www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/air-quality-plans/plans-under- development.
282
CC 02-01-2022
282 of 756

Page 8 ends

 Live a low-carbon lifestyle by purchasing low-ca rbon foods and goods in addition to recycling and putting organic waste to productive use.

A comprehensive multipollutant control strategy has been developed to be implemented in the next three to five years to address public health and climate chan ge and to set a pathway to achieve the 2050 vision. The control strategy includes 85 control measures to re duce emissions of ozone, particulate matter, TACs, and GHG from a full range of emission sources. These control measures cover the following sectors: 1) stationary (industrial) sources; 2) transportation; 3) energy; 4) agriculture; 5) natural and working lands; 6) waste management; 7) water; and 8) super-GHG pollutants. Overall, the proposed control strategy is based on the following key priorities:
 Reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants from all key sources.  Reduce emissions of “super-GHGs” such as methane, black carbon, and fluorinated gases.  Decrease demand for fossil fuels (gasoline, diesel, and natural gas).  Increase efficiency of the energy and transportation systems.  Reduce demand for vehicle travel, and high-carbon goods and services.  Decarbonize the energy system.
 Make the electricity supply carbon-free.
 Electrify the transportation and building sectors.

1.1.3.2 BAAQMD’S COMMUNITY AIR RISK EVALUATION PROGRAM (CARE) The BAAQMD’s Community Air Risk Evaluation (CAR E) program was initiated in 2004 to evaluate and reduce health risks associated with exposure to outdoor TACs in the Bay Area. Based on findings of the latest report, DPM was found to account for approximately 85 percent of the cancer risk from airborne toxics.

Carcinogenic compounds from gasoline-powered cars and light duty trucks were also identified as significant contributors: 1,3-butadiene contributed 4 percent of the cancer risk-weighted emissions, and benzene contributed 3 percent. Collectively, five compounds—DPM, 1,3-butadiene, benzene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde—were found to be responsible for more than 90 percent of the cancer risk attributed to emissions. All of these compounds are associated with emissions from internal combustion engines. The most important sources of cancer risk–weighted emissions were combustion-related sources of DPM, including on-road mobile sources (31 percent), construction equipment (29 percent), and ships and harbor craft (13 percent). A 75 percent reduction in DPM was predicted between 2005 and 2015 when the inventory accounted for CARB’s diesel regulations. Overall, cancer risk from TACs dropped by more than 50 percent between 2005 and 2015, when emissions inputs accounted for State diesel regulations and other reductions. 10 Modeled cancer risks from TAC in 2005 were highest near sources of DPM: near core urban areas, along major roadways and freeways, and near maritime shipping terminals. The highest modeled risks were found east of San Francisco, near West Oakland, and the Maritime Port of Oakland. BAAQMD has identified seven impacted communities in the Bay Area:
 Western Contra Costa County and the cities of Richmond and San Pablo

10 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2014. Improving Air Quality & Health in Bay Area Communities, Community Air Risk Program (CARE) Retrospective and Path Forward (2004–2013), April. 283
CC 02-01-2022
283 of 756
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 9  Western Alameda County along the In terstate 880 (I-880) corridor and th e cities of Berkeley, Alameda, Oakland, and Hayward
 San Jose
 Eastern side of San Francisco
 Concord
 Vallejo
 Pittsburgh and Antioch
The project site is not within a CARE-program impacted community.

1.1.3.3 AB 617 COMMUNITY ACTION PLANS
In July of 2017, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill 617 to develop a new community focused program to more effectively reduce exposure to air pollution an d preserve public health in environmental justice communities. The bill directs CARB and all local air districts to take measures to protect communities disproportionally impacted by air pollution through monitoring and implementing air pollution control strategies.

On September 27, 2018, CARB approved BAAQMD’s recommended communitie s for monitoring and emission reduction planning. The state approved communities for year 1 of the program, as well as communities that would move forward over the next five years. Bay Area recommendations included all the Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) areas, as well as areas with large sources of air pollution (refineries, seaports, airports, etc.), areas identified via statewide screening tools as having pollution and/or health burden vulnerability, and areas with low life expectancy.
11  Year 1 Communities:
 West Oakland. The West Oakland community was selected for BAAQMD’s first Community Action Plan. In 2017, cancer risk in from sources in We st Oakland (local sources) was 204 in a million. The primary sources of air pollution in West Oakland include heavy truck and cars, port and rail sources, large industries, and to a lesser extent other sour ces such as residential sources (i.e., woodburning).

The majority (over 90 percent) of cancer risk is from diesel PM2.5.12  Richmond: Richmond was selected for a community monitoring plan in year 1 of the AB 617 program. The Richmond area is in western Contra Costa County and includes most of the City of Richmond and portions of El Cerrito. It also includes communities just north and east of Richmond, such as San Pablo and several unincorporated communities, including North Richmond.

The primary goals of the Richmond monitoring effort are to leverage historic and current monitoring studies, to better characterize the area’s mix of sources, and to more fully understand the associated air quality and pollution impact.
13 11 BAAQMD. 2019, April 16. San Francisco Bay Area Community Health Protection Program. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/ab617-community-health/2019_0325_ab617onepager-pdf.pdf?la=en 12 BAAQMD. 2019, October 2. West Oakland Community Action Plan.. https://www.baaqmd.gov/community-health/community- health-protection-program/west-oakland-community-action-plan 13 BAAQMD. 2019, April 16. San Francisco Bay Area Community Health Protection Program. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/ab617-community-health/2019_0325_ab617onepager-pdf.pdf?la=en 284
CC 02-01-2022
284 of 756

Page 10 ends

 Year 2-5 Communities:
 East Oakland/San Leandro, Eastern San Francisco, the Pittsburg-Bay Point area, San Jose, Tri-Valley, and Vallejo are slated for action in years 2-5 of the AB 617 program. 14

1.1.3.4 REGULATION 7, ODOROUS SUBSTANCES
Sources of objectionable odors may occur within the City. BAAQMD’s Regulation 7, Odorous Substances, places general limitations on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous compounds. Odors are also regulated under BAAQMD Regulation 1, Rule 1-301, Public Nuisance, which states that “no person shall discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or the public; or which endangers the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which causes, or has a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.” Under BAAQMD’s Rule 1-301, a facility that receives three or more violation notices within a 30-day period can be declared a public nuisance.

1.1.3.5 OTHER BAAQMD REGULATIONS
In addition to the plans and programs described above, BAAQMD administers a number of specific regulations on various sources of pollutant emissions that would apply to individual development projects:
 BAAQMD, Regulation 2, Rule 2, New Source Review
 BAAQMD, Regulation 2, Rule 5, New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants  BAAQMD Regulation 6, Rule 1, General Requirements
 BAAQMD Regulation 6, Rule 2, Commercial Cooking Equipment  BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3, Architectural Coatings
 BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 4, General Solvent and Surface Coatings Operations  BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 7, Gasoline Dispensing Facilities  BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, Asbestos, Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing)  BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 18, Reduction of Risk from Air Toxic Emissions at Existing Facilities

1.1.4 Plan Bay Area
Plan Bay Area is the Bay Area’s Regional Transpor tation Plan/Sustainable Co mmunity Strategy. The 2040 update to Plan Bay Area was adopted jointly by the ABAG and MTC on July 26, 2017. The 2040 Plan Bay Area update serves as a limited and focused update to the 2013 Plan Bay Area , with updated planning assumptions that incorporate key economic, demographic, and financial trends from the last several years.15 It lays out a development scenario for the region, which when integrated with the transportation network and other transportation measures and policies, would reduce GHG emissions from transportation (excluding goods movement) beyond the per capita reduction targets identified by the Air Resources Board.

14 BAAQMD. 2019, April 16. San Francisco Bay Area Community Health Protection Program. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/ab617-community-health/2019_0325_ab617onepager-pdf.pdf?la=en 15 Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments, 2017. Plan Bay Area 2040 Plan. 285
CC 02-01-2022
285 of 756
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 11

1.1.5 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is the congestion management agency for Santa Clara County. VTA is tasked with developing a comprehensive transportation improvement program among local jurisdictions that will reduce traffic congestion and im prove land use decision-making and air quality. VTA ’s latest congestion management program (CMP) is the 2017 Congestion Management Program Document.

VTA ’s countywide transportation model must be consistent with the regional transportation model developed by the MTC with ABAG data. The countywide transportation model is used to help evaluate cumulative transportation impacts of local land use decisions on the CMP system. In addition, VTA ’s updated CMP includes multi-modal performance standards and trip reduction and transportation demand management strategies consistent with the goal of reducing regional vehicle miles traveled in accordance with Senate Bill 375. The 2017 CMP also includes a discussion of Senate Bill 743 implementation and relationship to the CMP auto level of service standard. Elements discussed in the 2017 CMP for Santa Clara County, include the following:
 Transportation Analysis Standards Element:
 Monitor and submit report on the level of service on CMP roadway network intersections using CMP software and procedures
 Monitor performance of CMP rural highways and freeways.  Multimodal Performance Measures Element:
 Collect available transportation performance me asurement data for use in land use analysis, deficiency plans and the CIP .
 Transportation Model and Database Element:
 Certify that the CMP model us consistent with the regional model.  Certify that member agency models are consistent with the CMP model.  Land Use Impact Analysis Element:
 Prepare a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) fo r projects that generate 100 or more peak hour trips and submit to the CMP according to TIA Guidelines schedule.  Submit relevant conditions of approval to VTA for projects generating TIAs.  Prepare quarterly report on VTA comments and lo cal agency adopted conditions for VTA Board, Congestion Management Program and Planning Committee, Policy Advisory Committee, Technical Advisory Committee, Citizens Advisory Commit tee, and Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee.
 Prepare and submit land use monitoring data to th e CMP on all land use projects approved from July 1 to June 30 of the previous year.
 Capital Improvement Program Element:
 Develop a list of projects intended to maintain or improve the level of service on the designated system and to maintain transit performance standards.
 Monitoring and Conformance Element:
286
CC 02-01-2022
286 of 756

Page 12 ends

 Outline the requirements and procedures established for conducting annual traffic LOS and land use monitoring efforts. Support the Traffic Level of Service and Community Form and Impact Analysis Elements.
 Multimodal Improvement Plan Element:
 Prepare deficiency plans for facilities that violate CMP traffic LOS standards or that are projected to violate LOS standards using the adopted deficiency plan requirements.  Submit Deficiency Plan Implementation Status Report as part of annual monitoring.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

1.1.6 San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
The BAAQMD is the regional air quality agency for the SFBAAB, which comprises all of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties; the southern portion of Sonoma County; and the southwestern portion of Solano County. Air quality in this area is determined by such natural factors as topography, meteorology, and climate, in addition to the presence of existing air pollution sources and ambient conditions.
16 1.1.6.1 METEOROLOGY
The SFBAAB is characterized by complex terrain, consisting of coastal mountain ranges, inland valleys, and bays, which distort normal wind flow patterns. The Coast Range splits, resulting in a western coast gap, Golden Gate, and an eastern coast gap, Carquinez Strait, which allow air to flow in and out of the SFBAAB and the Central Valley.

The climate is dominated by the strength and location of a semi-permanent, subtropical high-pressure cell.

During the summer, the Pacific high-pressure cell is centered over the northeastern Pacific Ocean, resulting in stable meteorological conditions and a steady northwesterly wind flow.

Upwelling of cold ocean water from
below the surface because of the northwesterly flow produces a band of cold water off the California coast.

The cool and moisture-laden air approaching the coas t from the Pacific Ocean is further cooled by the presence of the cold water band, resulting in condensa tion and the presence of fog and stratus clouds along the Northern California coast. In the winter, the Paci fic high-pressure cell weakens and shifts southward, resulting in wind flow offshore, the absence of upwe lling, and the occurrence of storms. Weak inversions coupled with moderate winds result in a low air pollution potential.

1.1.6.2 WIND PATTERNS
During the summer, winds flowing from the northwest are drawn inland through the Golden Gate and over the lower portions of the San Francisco Peninsula. Immediately south of Mount Tamalpais, the northwesterly winds accelerate considerably and come more directly from the west as they stream through the Golden Gate.

16 This section describing the air basin is from Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017, May, Appendix C: Sample Air Quality Setting, in California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. 287
CC 02-01-2022
287 of 756
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 13 This channeling of wind through the Golden Gate produces a jet that sweeps eastward and splits off to the northwest toward Richmond and to the southwest toward San Jose when it meets the East Bay hills.

Wind speeds ma y be strong locally in areas where air is c hanneled through a narro w opening, suc h as the Carquinez Strait, the Golden Gate, or the San Bruno gap. For example, the average wind speed at San Francisco International Airport in July is about 17 knots (from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.), compared with only 7 knots at San Jose and less than 6 knots at the Farallon Islands.

The air flowing in from the coast to the Central Valley, called the sea breeze, begins developing at or near ground level along the coast in late morning or early afternoon. As the day progresses, the sea breeze layer deepens and increases in velocity while spreading inland . The depth of the sea breeze depends in large part upon the height and strength of the inversion. If the inversion is low and strong, and hence stable, the flow of the sea breeze will be inhibited and stagnant conditions are likely to result.

In the winter, the SFBAAB frequently experiences stormy conditions with moderate to strong winds, as well as periods of stagnation with very light winds. Wint er stagnation episodes are characterized by nighttime drainage flows in coastal valleys. Drainage is a reversal of the usual daytime air-flow patterns; air moves from the Central Valley toward the coast and back down toward the Bay from the smaller valleys within the SFBAAB.

1.1.6.3 TEMPERATURE
Summertime temperatures in the SFBAAB are determined in large part by the effect of differential heating between land and water surfaces. Because land tends to heat up and cool off more quickly than water, a large- scale gradient (differential) in temperature is often created between the coast and the Central Valley, and small-scale local gradients are often produced along th e shorelines of the ocean and bays. The temperature gradient near the ocean is also exaggerated, especial ly in summer, because of the upwelling of cold water from the ocean bottom along the coast. On summer afternoons the temperatures at the coast can be 35 degrees Fahrenheit (ºF) cooler than temperatures 15 to 20 miles inland. At nigh t this contrast usually decreases to less than 10ºF.

In the winter, the relationship of minimum and maximu m temperatures is reversed. During the daytime the temperature contrast between the coast and inland areas is small, whereas at night the variation in temperature is large. The climatological station nearest to the project site with temperature data is the Santa Clara University Monitoring Station (ID No. 043861). The lowest average temperature is reported at 38.2°F in January, and the highest average temperature is 81.7°F in August. 17 1.1.6.4 PRECIPITATION
The SFBAAB is characterized by moderately wet winters and dry summers. Winter rains (November through March) account for about 75 percent of the average annual rainfall. The amount of annual precipitation can vary greatly from one part of the SFBAAB to another, even within short distances. In general, total annual rainfall can reach 40 inches in the mountains, but it is often less than 16 inches in sheltered valleys.

17 Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2020, July 13 (accessed). Hayward Air Terminal, California ([Station ID] 043861):

Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary, 09/19/1998 to 06/09/2016. Western U.S. Climate Summaries. https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca3861.
288
CC 02-01-2022
288 of 756

Page 14 ends

During rainy periods, ventilation (rapid horizontal movement of air and injection of cleaner air) and vertical mixing (an upward and downward movement of air) are usually high, and thus pollution levels tend to be low (i.e. air pollutants are dispersed more readily into the atmosphere rather than accumulate under stagnant conditions). However, during the winter, frequent dry periods do occur, when mixing and ventilation are low and pollutant levels build up. Rainfall historically averages 14.50 inches per year in the project area. 18 1.1.6.5 WIND CIRCULATION
Low wind speed contributes to the buildup of air pollution because it allows more pollutants to be emitted into the air mass per unit of time. Light winds occur most frequently during periods of low sun (fall and winter, and early morning) and at night. These are al so periods when air pollutant emissions from some sources are at their peak, namely, commuter traffic (early morning) and wood-burning appliances (nighttime).

The problem can be compounded in valleys, when weak flows carry the pollutants up -valley during the day, and cold air drainage flows move the air mass down-valley at night. Such restricted movement of trapped air provides little opportunity for ventilation and leads to buildup of pollutants to potentially unhealthful levels.

1.1.6.6 INVERSIONS
An inversion is a layer of warmer air over a layer of cooler air. Inversions affect air quality conditions significantly because they influence th e mixing depth, i.e. the vertical de pth in the atmosphere available for diluting air contaminants near the ground. There are two types of inversions that occur regularly in the SFBAAB. Elevation inversions are more common in the summer and fall, and radiation inversions are more common during the winter. The highest air pollutant c oncentrations in the SFBAAB generally occur during inversions.

1.1.7 Existing Ambient Air Quality

1.1.7.1 ATTAINMENT STATUS OF THE SFBAAB
Areas that meet AAQS are classified attainment areas, and areas that do not meet these standards are classified nonattainment areas. Severity classifications for O 3 range from marginal, moderate, and serious to
severe and extreme. The attainment status for the air basin is shown in Table 2. The air basin is currently designated a nonattainment area for California and National O3, California and National PM2.5, and California PM10 AAQS.

Table 2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollu tants in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin Pollutant State Federal 1
Ozone – 1-hour Nonattainment Classification revoked (2005) Ozone – 8-hour Nonattainment (serious) Nonattainment
PM10 Nonattainment Unclassified/Attainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Unclassified/Attainment
CO Attainment Attainment
NO2 Attainment Unclassified

18 Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2020, July 13 (accessed). Hayward Air Terminal, California ([Station ID] 043861):

Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary, 09/19/1998 to 06/09/2016. Western U.S. Climate Summaries. https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca3861.
289
CC 02-01-2022
289 of 756
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 15 Table 2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollu tants in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin Pollutant State Federal 1
SO2 Attainment Attainment
Lead Attainment Attainment
Sulfates Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
All others Unclassified/Attainment Unclassified/Attainment Source: California Air Resources Board, 2019, August, October. Area Designations Maps: State and National. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps- state-and-federal-area-designations.
1 Federal designations current as of June 30, 2020

1.1.7.2 EXISTING AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical tren ds and projections in the vicinity of the project site are best documented by measurements made by the BAAQMD. The BAAQMD monitoring station closest to the project site is the San Jose – Jackson Street Avenue Monitoring Station. Data from this station is summarized in Table 3. The data show occasional violations of the State and federal O 3 standards, as well as
state PM10 and federal PM2.5 standards. The State and federal CO and NO2 standards have not been exceeded in the last five years in the vicinity of the project site.

Table 3 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary
Pollutant/Standard
Number of Days Threshold Were
Exceeded and Maximum Levels during Such Violations
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Ozone (O3)
State 1-Hour  0.09 ppm
State 8-hour  0.07 ppm
Federal 8-Hour > 0.075 ppm
Maximum 1-Hour Conc. (ppm)
Maximum 8-Hour Conc. (ppm)
0 0
0 0.089

0.066
0 2
2 0.094

0.065
0 0
0 0.087

0.066
0 4
3 0.121

0.098
0 0
0 0.078

0.061
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
State 1-Hour  0.18 (ppm)
Maximum 1-Hour Conc. (ppb)
0 58.4
0 49.3
0 51.1
0 67.5
0 86.1
Coarse Particulates (PM10)
State 24-Hour > 50 µg/m3
Federal 24-Hour > 150 µg/m3
Maximum 24-Hour Conc. (µg/m3)
1 0

56.4 1
0 58.8
0 0

40.0 6
0 69.4
4 1
155.8
Fine Particulates (PM2.5)
Federal 24-Hour > 35 µg/m3
Maximum 24-Hour Conc. (µg/m3)
2 60.4
2 49.4
0 22.6
6 49.7
15 133.9
Source: California Air Resources Board, 2019, Air Pollution Data Monitoring Cards (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018), Accessed July 20, 2020, https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php. Data from the San Jose Jackson Street Monitoring Station for 03, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5.

Notes: ppm: parts per million; ppb: parts per billion; µg/m3: or micrograms per cubic meter

1.1.7.3 EXISTING EMISSIONS
The project site is currently developed with one commer cial building, which currently generates criteria air pollutants emissions from energy use, transportation, and area sources. 290
CC 02-01-2022
290 of 756

Page 16 ends

1.1.8 Sensitive Receptors
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with cardiorespiratory di seases. Residential areas are also considered sensitive receptors to air pollution because residents (including children and the elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutants present. Other sensitive receptors include retirement facilities, hospitals, and schools. Recreational land uses are considered moderately sensitive to air pollution. Although exposure periods are generally short, exercise places a high demand on respiratory functions, which can be impaired by air pollution. In addition, noticeable air pollution can detract from the enjoyment of recreation. Industrial, commercial, retail, and office areas are considered the least sensitive to air pollution. Exposure periods are relatively short and intermittent, since the majority of the workers tend to stay indoors most of the time. In addition, the working population is generally the healthiest segment of the population. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the residents along South Foothill Boulevard to the south and east, along Camino Vista Drive to the west, and along Stevens Creek Boulevard to the north.

1.2 METHODOLOGY
The BAAQMD “CEQA Air Quality Guidelines” were prep ared to assist in the evaluation of air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed in the Bay Ar ea. The guidelines provid e recommended procedures for evaluating potential air impacts during the environmental review process, consistent with CEQA requirements, and include recommended thresholds of significance, mitigation measures, and background air quality information. They also include recommended assessment methodologies for air toxics, odors, and greenhouse gas emissions. In June 2010, the BAAQMD's Board of Directors adopted CEQA thresholds of significance and an update of the CEQA Guide lines. In May 2011, the up dated BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines were amended to include a risk and hazards threshold for new receptors and modified procedures for assessing impacts related to risk and ha zard impacts; however, this later amendment regarding risk and hazards was the subject of the December 17, 2015 Supreme Court decision ( California Building Industry Association v BAAQMD), which clarified that CEQA does not require an evaluation of impacts of the environment on a project.
19 1.2.1 Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
The proposed project qualifies as a project-level project under BAAQMD’s criteria. For project-level analyses, BAAQMD has adopted screening criteria and significance criteria that would be applicable to the proposed

19 On March 5, 2012, the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the BAAQMD had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the thresholds of significance in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The court did not determine whether the thresholds of significance were valid on their merits, but found that the adoption of the thresholds was a project under CEQA. The court issued a writ of mandate ordering the BAAQMD to set aside the thresholds and cease dissemination of them until the BAAQMD complied with CEQA . Following the court’s order, the BAAQMD released revised CEQA Air Quality Guidelines in May of 2012 that include guidance on calculating air pollution emissions, obtaining information regarding the health impacts of air pollutants, and identifyin g potential mitigation measures, and which set aside the significance thresholds. The Alameda County Superior Court, in ordering BAAQMD to set aside the thresholds, did not address the merits of the science or evidence supporting the thresholds, and in light of the subsequent case history discussed below, the science an d reasoning contained in the BAAQMD 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelin es provide the latest state-of-the-art guidance available.

On August 13, 2013, the First District Court of Appeal ordere d the trial court to reverse the judgment and upheld the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines. ( California Building Industry Association versus BAAQMD, Case No. A135335 and A136212 (Court of Appeal, First District, August 13, 2013 ).)
291
CC 02-01-2022
291 of 756
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 17 project. If a project exceeds the screening level, it would be required to conduct a full analysis using BAAQMD’s significance criteria.20
Regional Significance Criteria
BAAQMD’s criteria for regional significance for projects that exceed the screening thresholds are shown in Table 4. Criteria for both construction and operational phases of the project are shown.

Table 4 BAAQMD Regional (Mass Emissions) Crit eria Air Pollutant Significance Thresholds Pollutant
Construction Phase Operational Phase
Average Daily Emissions
(lbs/day)
Average Daily Emissions
(lbs/day)
Maximum Annual Emissions
(Tons/year)
ROG 54 54 10
NOx 54 54 10
PM10 82 (Exhaust) 82 15
PM2.5 54 (Exhaust) 54 10
PM10 and PM2.5 Fugitive Dust Best Management Practices None None Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, May. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Appendix D: Threshold of Significance Justification.

BAAQMD is the primary agency responsible for ensuring the health and welfare of sensitive individuals exposed to elevated concentrations of air pollutants in the Air Basin and has established thresholds that would be protective of these individuals. To achieve the health-based standards established by the EPA, BAAQMD prepares the Clean Air Plan that details regional programs to attain the AAQS. Mass emissions in Table 4.3-7 are not correlated with concentrations of air pollutants but contribute to the cumulative air quality impacts in the Air Basin. The thresholds are ba sed on the trigger levels for the federal New Source Review (NSR) Program. The NSR Program was created to ensure projects are consistent with attainment of health-based federal AAQS. Regional emissions from a single project do not single-handedly trigger a regional health impact, and it is speculative to identify how many more individuals in the air basin would be affected by the health effects listed above. Projects that do not exceed the BAAQMD regional significance thresholds in Table 4 would not violate any air quality standards or c ontribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.

If projects exceed the emissions in Table 4 emissions would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment status and would contribute in elevating health effects associated to these criteria air pollutants. Known health effects related to ozone include worsening of bronchi tis, asthma, and emphysema and a decrease in lung function. Health effects associated with particulate matter include premature death of people with heart or lung disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, decreased lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms. Reducing emissions would further contribute to reducing possible health effects related to criteria air pollutants. However, for projects that exceed the emi ssions in Table 4 it is speculative to determine how exceeding the regional thresholds would affect the number of days the region is in nonattainment since mass

20 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, May. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. 292
CC 02-01-2022
292 of 756

Page 18 ends

emissions are not correlated with co ncentrations of emissions or how many additional individuals in the air basin would be affected by the health effects cited above.

BAAQMD has not provided methodology to assess the specific correlation between mass emissions generated and the effect on health in order to address the issue raised in Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (Friant Ranch, L.P .) (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, Case No. S21978. Oz one concentrations are depe ndent upon a variety of complex factors, including the presence of sunlight and precursor pollutants, natural topography, nearby structures that cause building downwash, atmospher ic stability, and wind patterns. Because of the complexities of predicting ground-level ozone co ncentrations in relation to the National AAQS and California AAQS, it is not possible to link health risks to the magnitude of emissions exceeding the significance thresholds. However, if a project in the Bay Area exceeds the regional significance thresholds, the project could contribute to an increase in health effects in the basin until such time the attainment standard are met in the Air Basin.

Local CO Hotspots
Congested intersections have the potential to create elevated concentrations of CO, referred to as CO hotspots. The significance criteria for CO hotspots are based on the California AAQS for CO, which is 9.0 ppm (8-hour average) and 20.0 ppm (1-hour average). However, with the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology, the SFBAAB is in attainment of the California and National AAQS, and CO concentrations in the SFBAAB have steadily declined. Because CO concentrations have improved, BAAQMD does not require a CO hotspot analysis if the following criteria are met:
 Project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways, the regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans.
 The project would not increase traffic volumes at affe cted intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour.
 The project traffic would not increase traffic volu mes at affected intersecti on to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g. tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway). 21 Odors
BAAQMD’s thresholds for odors are qualitative based on BAAQMD’s Regulation 7, Odorous Substances.

This rule places general limitations on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous compounds. In addition, odors are also regulated under BAAQMD Regulation 1, Rule 1-301, Public Nuisance, which states that no person shall discharg e from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or the public; or which endangers the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which causes, or has a natura l tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. Under BAAQMD’s Rule 1-301, a facility that receives three or more violation notices within a 30-

21 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, May. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Appendix D:

Threshold of Significance Justification.
293
CC 02-01-2022
293 of 756
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 19 day period can be declared a public nuisance. BAAQMD has established odor screening thresholds for land uses that have the potential to generate substantial odor complaints, including wastewater treatment plants, landfills or transfer stations, comp osting facilities, confined animal facilities, food manufacturing, and chemical plants.
22 1.2.2 Toxic Air Contaminants
The BAAQMD’s significance thresholds for local community risk and hazard impacts apply to the siting of a new source. Local community risk and hazard impacts are associated with TACs and PM2.5 because emissions of these pollutants can have significant health impacts at the local level. The purpose of this environmental evaluation is to identify the significant effects of the proposed project on the environment, not the significant effects of the environment on the proposed project ( California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District [2015] 62 Cal.4th 369 [Case No. S213478] ) . C E Q A d o e s n o t r e q u i r e a n environmental evaluation to analyze the environmental effects of attracting development and people to an area. However, the environmental evaluation must an alyze the impacts of environmental hazards on future users when the proposed project exacer bates an existing environmental hazard or condition or if there is an exception to this exemption identified in the Public Resources Code. Schools, residential, commercial, and office uses do not use substantial quantities of TACs and typically do not exacerbate existing hazards, so these thresholds are typically applied to new industrial projects.

For assessing community risk and hazards, sources within a 1,000-foot radius are considered. Sources are defined as freeways, high volume roadways (with volume of 10,000 vehicles or more per day or 1,000 trucks per day), and permitted sources.
23,24
The proposed project would generate TACs and PM 2.5 during construction activities that could elevate concentrations of air pollutants at the surrounding residential receptors. The BAAQMD has adopted screening tables for air toxics evaluation during construction. 25 Construction-related TAC and PM 2.5 impacts
should be addressed on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the specific construction-related characteristics of each project and proximity to off-site receptors, as applicable.26 The project threshold identified below is applied to the proposed project’s construction phase emissions:

Community Risk and Hazards – Project
Project-level construction emissions of TACs or PM 2.5 from the proposed project to individual sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the project site that exceed any of the thresholds listed below are considered a potentially significant community health risk:
 Non-compliance with a qualified Community Risk Reduction Plan;

22 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, May. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. 23 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, May. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Appendix D:

Threshold of Significance Justification.
24 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2012. Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards. 25 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2010. Screening Tables for Air Toxics Evaluations during Construction. 26 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, May. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Appendix D:

Threshold of Significance Justification.
294
CC 02-01-2022
294 of 756

Page 20 ends

 An excess cancer risk level of more than 10 in one million, or a non-cancer (i.e. chronic or acute) hazard index greater than 1.0 would be a significant cumulatively considerable contribution;  An incremental increase of greater than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m 3) annual average PM 2.5 from a single source would be a significant, cumulatively considerable contribution.27 Community Risk and Hazards – Cumulative
Cumulative sources represent the combined total risk va lues of each of the individual sources within the 1,000-foot evaluation zone.

A project would have a cumulative considerable impact if the aggregate total of all past, present, and foreseeable future sources within a 1,000-foot radius from the fence line of a source or location of a receptor, plus the contribution from the project, exceeds the following:
 Non-compliance with a qualified Community Risk Reduction Plan; or  An excess cancer risk levels of more than 100 in one million or a chronic non-cancer hazard index (from all local sources) greater than 10.0; or
 0.8 µg/m3 annual average PM2.5.28
Current BAAQMD guidance recommends the determ ination of cancer risks using the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s (OEHHA) methodology, which was originally adopted in 2003.
29,30 In February 2015, OEHHA adopted new health risk assessment gu idance which includes several efforts to be more protective of children’s health. These updated procedures include the use of age sensitivity factors to account for the higher sensitivity of infants and young children to cancer causing chemicals, and age-specific breathing rates.
31 However, BAAQMD has not formally adopted the new OEHHA methodology into their CEQA guidance. To be conservative, the can cer risks associated with project implementation and significance conclusions were determined using the new 2015 OEHHA guidance for risk assessments.

27 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, May. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Appendix D:

Threshold of Significance Justification.
28 Ibid.
29 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2012, Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards. 30 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2003. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.
31 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.
295
CC 02-01-2022
295 of 756
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 21

2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Scientists have concluded that human activities are contributing to global climate change by adding large amounts of heat-trapping gases, known as GHG, to the atmosphere. Climate change is the variation of Earth’s climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activities. The primary source of these GHG is fossil fuel use. The Interg overnmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified four major GHG—water vapor,
32 carbon (CO 2), methane (CH 4), and ozone (O 3)—that are the likely cause of an increase in global average temper atures observed within the 20th and 21st centuries. Other GHG identified by the IPCC that contribute to global warming to a lesser extent include nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and chlorofluorocarbons. 33, 34 The major GHG are briefly described below.
 Carbon dioxide (CO 2) enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, trees and wood products, and respiration, and also as a result of other chemical reactions (e.g. manufacture of cement). Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere (sequestered) when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle.  Methane (CH4) is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and from the decay of organic waste in municipal landfills and water treatment facilities.
 Nitrous oxide (N2O) is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities as well as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste.
 Fluorinated gases are synthetic, strong GHGs that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes.

Fluorinated gases are sometimes used as substitu tes for ozone-depleting substances. These gases are typically emitted in smaller quantities, but because they are potent GHGs, they are sometimes referred to as high global-warming-potential (GWP) gases.

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs ) are GHGs covered under the 1987 M ontreal Protocol and used for refrigeration, air conditioning, packaging, insulation, solvents, or aerosol propellants. Since they are not destroyed in the lower atmosphere (troposphere, stratosphere), CFCs drift into the upper atmosphere where, given suitable conditions, they break down ozone. These gases are also ozone- depleting gases and are therefore being replaced by other compounds that are GHGs covered under the Kyoto Protocol.

32 Water vapor (H2O) is the strongest GHG and the most variable in its phases (vapor, cloud droplets, ice crystals). However, water vapor is not considered a pollutant, but part of the feedback loop rather than a primary cause of change. 33 Black carbon contributes to climate change both directly, by absorbing sunlight, and indirectly, by depositing on snow (making it melt faster) and by interacting with clouds and affecting cloud formation. Black carbon is the most strongly light-absorbing component of particulate matter (PM) emitted from burning fuels such as coal, diesel, and biomass. Reducing black carbon emissions globally can have immediate economic, climate, and public health benefits. California has been an international leader in reducing emissions of black carbon, with close to 95 percent control expected by 2020 due to existing programs that target reducing PM from diesel engines and burning activities (California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017, March 14. Final Proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/shortlived/shortlived.htm). However, state and national GHG inventories do not yet include black carbon due to ongoing work resolving the precise global warming potential of black carbon. Guidance for CEQA documents does not yet include black carbon. 34 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001. New York:

Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/WGI_TAR_full_report.pdf. 296
CC 02-01-2022
296 of 756

Page 22 ends

 Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are a group of human-made chemicals composed of carbon and fluorine only. These chemicals (predominantly perfluoromethane [CF 4] and perfluoroethane [C 2F6]) were introduced as alternatives, along with HFCs, to the ozone-depleting substances. In addition, PFCs are emitted as by-products of industrial processes and are used in manufacturing. PFCs do not harm the stratospheric ozone layer, but they have a high global warming potential. 
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF 6) is a colorless gas soluble in alcohol and ether, slightly soluble in water.

SF6 is a strong GHG used primarily in electrical transmission and distribution systems as an insulator.  Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) contain hydrogen, fluorine, chlorine, and carbon atoms.

Although ozone-depleting substances, they are less potent at destroying stratospheric ozone than CFCs. They have been introduced as temporary replacements for CFCs and are also GHGs. 
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) contain only hydrogen, fluorine, and carbon atoms. They were introduced as alternatives to ozone-depleting substances to serve many industrial, commercial, and personal needs. HFCs are emitted as by-products of industrial processes and are also used in manufacturing. They do not significantly deplete the stratospheric ozone layer, but they are strong GHGs.
35,36
GHGs are dependent on the lifetime or persistence of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. Some GHGs have stronger greenhouse effects than others. These ar e referred to as high GWP gases. The GWP of GHG emissions are shown in Table 5. The GWP is used to convert GHGs to CO 2-equivalence (CO2e) to show the relative potential that different GHGs have to retain infrared radiation in the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect. For example, under IPCC’s Fouth Assessment Report (AR5) GWP values for CH 4, a
project that generates 10 MT of CH4 would be equivalent to 250 MT of CO2.37,38

35 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001. New York:

Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/WGI_TAR_full_report.pdf. 36 US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2019. Overview of Greenhouse Gases. http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases.html. 37 CO2-equivalence is used to show the relative potential that different GHGs have to retain infrared radiation in the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect. The global warming potential of a GHG is also dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere.
38 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2013. Fifth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2013. New York:

Cambridge University Press.
297
CC 02-01-2022
297 of 756
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 23 Table 5 GHG Emissions and Their Relative Global Warming Potential Compared to CO 2 GHGs Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Methane 1 (CH4) Nitrous Oxide (N2O) Second Assessment
Atmospheric Lifetime (Years) 50 to 200 12 (±3) 120
Global Warming Potential Relative to CO22 1 21 310
Fourth Assessment
Atmospheric Lifetime (Years) 50 to 200 12 114
Global Warming Potential Relative to CO22 1 25 298
Fifth Assessment3
Atmospheric Lifetime (Years) 50 to 200 12 121
Global Warming Potential Relative to CO22 1 28 265
Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 1995. Second Assessment Report: Climate Change 1995 https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_sar_wg_I_full_report.pdf; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Fourth Assessment Report:

Climate Change 2007. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4_syr_full_report.pdf; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2013. Fifth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2013. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Notes:
1 The methane GWP includes direct effects and indirect effects due to the production of tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapor. The indirect effect due to the production of CO2 is not included.
2 Based on 100-year time horizon of the GWP of the air pollutant compared to CO2. 3 The GWP values in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (2013)39 reflect new information on atmospheric lifetimes of GHGs and an improved calculation of the radiative forcing of CO2.

2.1 CALIFORNIA’S GREENHOUSE GAS SOURCES AND RELATIVE

CONTRIBUTION
In 2019, the statewide GHG emissions inventory was updated for 2000 to 2017 emissions using the GWPs in IPCC’s AR4.40 Based on these GWPs, Cali fornia produced 424.10 MMTCO 2e GHG emissions in 2017. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) categorizes GHG generation into the following seven sectors.41  Transportation. Consists of direct tailpipe emissions from on-road vehicle and direct emissions from off-road transportation mobile sources, intrastate aviation, rail, and watercraft. Emissions are generated from the combustion of fuels in on- and off-road vehicles in addition to aviation, rail, and ships.  Electric. Includes emissions from instate power generation (including the portion of cogeneration emissions attributed to electricity generation) and emissions from imported electricity.  Industrial. Includes emissions primarily driven by fuel combustion from sources that include refineries, oil and gas extraction, cement plants, and the portion of cogeneration emissions attribute to thermal energy output.
 Commercial and Residential. Accounts for emissions generated from combustion of natural gas and other fuels for household and commercial business use, such as space heating, cooking, and hot water or steam generation. Emissions associated with electricity usage are accounted for in the Electric Sector.  Recycling and Waste. Consists of emissions generated at la ndfills and from commercial-scale composting.

39 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2013. Fifth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2013. New York: Cambridge University Press. https:// www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf. 40 Methodology for determining the statewide GHG inventory is not the same as the methodology used to determine statewide GHG emissions under Assembly Bill 32 (2006).
41 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2019, August 26. Ca lifornia Greenhouse Emissions for 2000 to 2017: Trends of Emissions and Other Indica tors. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm. 298
CC 02-01-2022
298 of 756

Page 24 ends

 Agriculture. Primarily includes methane (CH 4) and nitrous oxide (N 2O) emissions generated from enteric fermentation and manure management from livestock. Also accounts for emissions associated with crop production (fertilizer use, soil preparation and disturbance, and crop residue burning) and fuel combustion associated with stationary agricultural activities (e.g., water pumping, cooling or heating buildings).
 High Global Warming Potential Gases. Associated with substitutes for ozone-depleting substances, emissions from electricity transmi ssion and distribution system, and ga ses emitted in the semiconductor manufacturing process. Substitutes for ozone-depleting substances are used in refrigeration and air conditioning equipment, solvent cleaning, foam production, fire retardants, and aerosols.

California’s transportation sector was the single largest generator of GHG emissions, producing 40.1 percent of the state’s total emissions. Industrial sector emissions made up 21.1 percent, and electric power generation made up 14.7 percent of the state’s emissions invent ory. Other major sectors of GHG emissions include commercial and residential (9.7 percent), agriculture and forestry (7.6 percent), high GWP (4.7 percent), and recycling and waste (2.1 percent).
42 California’s GHG emissions have followed a declining trend since 2007. In 2017, emissions from routine GHG-emitting activities statewide were 424 MMTCO2e, 5 MMTCO2e lower than 2016 levels. This represents an overall decrease of 14 percent since peak levels in 2004 and 7 MMTCO 2e below the 1990 level and the state’s 2020 GHG target. During the 2000 to 2017 period , per capita GHG emissions in California have continued to drop from a peak in 2001 of 14.0 MTCO 2e per capita to 10.7 MTCO 2e per capita in 2017, a 24 percent decrease. Overall trends in the inventory also demonstrate that the carbon intensity of California’s economy (the amount of carbon pollu tion per million dollars of gross domestic product) has declined 41 percent since the 2001 peak, while the state’s gross dome stic product has grown 52 percent during the same period. For the first time since California started to track GHG emissions, California uses more electricity from zero-GHG sources (hydro, solar, wind, and nuclear energy). 43 2.2 HUMAN INFLUENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE
For approximately 1,000 years before the Industrial Revolution, the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere remained relatively constant. During the 20th century, however, scientists observed a rapid change in the climate and the quantity of climate change pollutants in the Earth’s atmosphere that is attributable to human activities. The amount of CO 2 in the atmosphere has in creased by more than 35 percent since preindustrial times and has increased at an average rate of 1.4 parts per million per year since 1960, mainly due to combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation. 44 These recent changes in the quantity and concentration of climate change pollutants far exceed the extremes of the ice ages, and the global mean temperature is warming at a rate that cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Human activities are directly altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of climate change pollutants. 45 In the past,

42 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2019, August 26. 2019 Edition California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2017: By Category as Defined in the 2008 Scoping Plan. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm. 43 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2019, August 26. 2019 Edition California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2017: By Category as Defined in the 2008 Scoping Plan. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm. 44 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. New York:

Cambridge University Press.
45 California Climate Action Team (CAT). 2006, March. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature.
299
CC 02-01-2022
299 of 756
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 25 gradual changes in the earth’s temperature changed the distribution of species, availability of water, etc.

However, human activities are accelerating this process so that environmental impacts associated with climate change no longer occur in a geologic time frame but within a human lifetime. 46 Like the variability in the projections of the expe cted increase in global surface temperatures, the environmental consequences of gradual changes in the Earth’s temperature are hard to predict. Projections of climate change depend heavily upon future human activity. Therefore, climate models are based on different emission scenarios that account for historical trends in emissions and on observations of the climate record that assess the human influence of the trend and projections for extreme weather events. Climate- change scenarios are affected by varying degrees of uncertainty. For example, there are varying degrees of certainty on the magnitude of the trends for:
 Warmer and fewer cold days and nights over most land areas.  Warmer and more frequent hot days and nights over most land areas.  An increase in frequency of warm spells/heat waves over most land areas.  An increase in frequency of heavy precipitation events (or proportion of total rainfall from heavy falls) over most areas.
 Larger areas affected by drought.
 Intense tropical cyclone activity increases.
 Increased incidence of extreme high sea level (excluding tsunamis).

2.3 POTENTIAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS FOR CALIFORNIA
Observed changes over the last severa l decades across the western United States reveal clear signs of climate change. Statewide, average temperatures increased by about 1.7°F from 1895 to 2011, and warming has been greatest in the Sierra Nevada. 47 The years from 2014 through 2016 have shown unprecedented temperatures with 2014 being the warmest. 48 By 2050, California is projected to warm by approximately 2.7°F above 2000 averages, a threefold increase in th e rate of warming over the last cen tury. By 2100, average temperatures could increase by 4.1 to 8.6°F, depending on emissions levels. 49 In California and western North America, observations of the climate have shown: 1) a trend toward warmer winter and spring temperatures; 2) a smaller fraction of precipitation falling as sn ow; 3) a decrease in the amount of spring snow accumulation in the lower and middle elevation mountain zones; 4) advanced shift in the timing of snowmelt of 5 to 30 days earlier in the spri ng; and 5) a similar shift (5 to 30 days earlier) in the timing of spring flower blooms.
50 Overall, California has become drier over time, with five of the eight years of severe to extreme drought occurring between 2007 and 2016, with unprecedented dry years occurring in

46 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. New York:

Cambridge University Press.
47 California Climate Change Center (CCCC). 2012, July. Our Changing Climate 2012: Vulnerability and Adaptation to the Increasing Risks from Climate Change in California.
48 Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment (OEHHA). 2018, May. Indicators of Climate Change in California. https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/climate- change/report/2018caindicatorsreportmay2018.pdf. 49 California Climate Change Center (CCCC). 2012, July. Our Changing Climate 2012: Vulnerability and Adaptation to the Increasing Risks from Climate Change in California.
50 California Climate Action Team (CAT). 2006, March. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature.
300
CC 02-01-2022
300 of 756

Page 26 ends

2014 and 2015. 51 Statewide precipitation ha s become increasingly variable from year to year, with the driest consecutive four years occurring from 2012 to 2015. 52 According to the California Climate Action Team—a committee of state agency secretaries and the heads of agencies, boards, and departments, led by the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency—even if actions could be taken to immediately curtail climate change emissions, the potency of emissions that have already built up, their long atmospheric lifetimes (see Table 5), and the inertia of the Earth’s climate system could produce as much as 0.6°C (1.1°F) of additional warming. Consequently, some impacts from climate change are now considered unavoidable.

Global climate change risks to California are shown in Table 6 and include impact s to public health, water resources, agriculture, coastal sea level, forest and biological resources, and energy.

Table 6 Summary of GHG Emissions Risks to California
Impact Category Potential Risk
Public Health Impacts
Heat waves will be more frequent, hotter, and longer
Fewer extremely cold nights
Poor air quality made worse
Higher temperatures increase ground-level ozone levels
Water Resources Impacts
Decreasing Sierra Nevada snow pack
Challenges in securing adequate water supply
Potential reduction in hydropower
Loss of winter recreation
Agricultural Impacts
Increasing temperature
Increasing threats from pests and pathogens
Expanded ranges of agricultural weeds
Declining productivity
Irregular blooms and harvests
Coastal Sea Level Impacts
Accelerated sea level rise
Increasing coastal floods
Shrinking beaches
Worsened impacts on infrastructure
Forest and Biological Resource Impacts
Increased risk and severity of wildfires
Lengthening of the wildfire season
Movement of forest areas
Conversion of forest to grassland
Declining forest productivity
Increasing threats from pest and pathogens
Shifting vegetation and species distribution
Altered timing of migration and mating habits
Loss of sensitive or slow-moving species
Energy Demand Impacts Potential reduction in hydropower Increased energy demand
Sources: California Energy Commission (CEC). 2006. Our Changing Climate: Assessing the Risks to California. 2006 Biennial Report. CEC-500-2006-077. California Climate Change Center; California Energy Commission (CEC). 2009, May. The Future Is Now: An Update on Climate Change Science, Impacts, and Response Options for California. CEC-500-2008-0077; California Climate Change Center (CCCC). 2012, July. Our Changing Climate 2012: Vulnerability and Adaptation to the Increasing Risks from Climate Change in California; and California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA). 2014, July. Safeguarding California: Reducing Climate Risk:

An Update to the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/docs/climate/Final_Safeguarding_CA_Plan_July_31_2014.pdf.

51 Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment (OEHHA). 2018, May. Indicators of Climate Change in California. https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/climate- change/report/2018caindicatorsreportmay2018.pdf. 52 Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment (OEHHA). 2018, May. Indicators of Climate Change in California. https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/climate- change/report/2018caindicatorsreportmay2018.pdf. 301
CC 02-01-2022
301 of 756
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 27

2.1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

2.1.1 Federal Regulations
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on December 7, 2009, that GHG emissions threaten the public health and welfare of the American people and that GHG emissions from on-road vehicles contribute to that threat. The EPA ’s final findings respond to the 2007 US Supreme Court decision that GHG emissions fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants. The findings did not themselves impose any emission reduction requirements but allowed the EPA to finalize the GHG standards proposed in 2009 for new light-duty vehicles as part of the joint rulemaking with the Department of Transportation. 53 To regulate GHGs from passenger vehicles, EPA was required to issue an endangerment finding. The finding identifies emissions of six key GHGs—CO 2, CH4, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and SF 6— that have been the subject of scrutiny and intense analysis for decades by scientists in the United States and around the world. The first three are applicable to the proposed project’s GHG emissions inventory because they constitute the majority of GHG emissions; they are the GHG emissions that should be evaluated as part of a project’s GHG emissions inventory.

2.1.1.1 US MANDATORY REPORTING RULE FOR GREENHOUSE GASES (2009) In response to the endangerment finding, the EPA issued the Mandatory Reporting of GHG Rule that requires substantial emitters of GHG emissions (large stationary sources, etc.) to report GHG emissions data.

Facilities that emit 25,000 MTCO
2e or more per year are required to submit an annual report.

2.1.1.2 UPDATE TO CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS (2021 TO 2026) The federal government issued new Corporate Averag e Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards in 2012 for model years 2017 to 2025, which required a fleet average of 54.5 miles per gallon in 2025. However, on March 30, 2020, the EPA finalized an updated CAFE and GHG emissi ons standards for passenger cars and light trucks and established new standards, covering model years 2021 through 2026, known as the Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Final Rule for Model Ye ars 2021-2026. Under SAFE, the fuel economy standards will increase 1.5 percent per year co mpared to the 5 percen t per year under the CAFE standards established in 2012. However, consortium of automakers and California have agreed on a voluntary framework to reduce emissions that can serve as an alternative path forw ard for clean vehicle standards nationwide. Automakers who agreed to the framework are Ford, Honda, BMW of North America, and Volkswagen Group of America. The framework supports continued annual re ductions of vehicle greenhouse gas emissions through the 2026 model year, encourages innovation to accelerate the transition to electri c vehicles, and provides industry the certainty needed to make investments and create jobs. This commitment means that the auto companies party to the voluntary agreement will only se ll cars in the United States that meet the CAFE standards established in 2021 for model years 2017 to 2025.54

53 US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009, December. EPA: Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public Health and the Environment. Science overwhelmingly shows greenhouse gas concentrations at unprecedented levels due to human activity. https://archive.epa.gov/epapages/newsroom_arc hive/newsreleases/08d11a451131bca585257685005bf252.html. 54 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2019, September 5 (accessed). California and major automakers reach groundbreaking framework agreement on clean emission standards. https: //ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-and-major-automakers-reach- groundbreaking-framework-agreement-clean-emission.
302
CC 02-01-2022
302 of 756

Page 28 ends

2.1.1.3 EPA REGULATION OF STATIONARY SOURCES UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT (ONGOING) Pursuant to its authority under the Clean Air Act, the EPA has been developing regulations for new, large stationary sources of emissions such as power plants and refineries. Under former President Obama’s 2013 Climate Action Plan, the EPA was directed to develop re gulations for existing stationary sources as well. On June 19, 2019, the EPA issued the final Affordable Cl ean Energy (ACE) rule which became effective on August 19, 2019. The ACE rule was crafted under the direction of President Trump’s Energy Independence Executive Order. It officially rescinds the Clean Power Plan rule issued during the Obama Administration and sets emissions guidelines for states in developing plans to limit CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants.

2.1.2 State Regulations
Current State of California guidance and goals for re ductions in GHG emissions are generally embodied in Executive Orders S-03-05 and B-30-15, Assembly Bill (AB) 32, Senate Bill (SB) 32, and SB 375.

2.1.2.1 EXECUTIVE ORDER S-03-05
Executive Order S-03-05, signed June 1, 2005. Executive Order S-03-05 set the following GHG reduction targets for the State:
 2000 levels by 2010
 1990 levels by 2020
 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050

2.1.2.2 ASSEMBLY BILL 32, THE GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT State of California guidance and targets for reductions in GHG emissions are generally embodied in the Global Warming Solutions Act, adopted with passage of AB 32. AB 32 was passed by the California state legislature on August 31, 2006, to pl ace the state on a course toward reducing its contribution of GHG emissions. AB 32 follows the 2020 emissions reduction goal established in Executive Order S-03-05.

CARB 2008 Scoping Plan
The first Scoping Plan was adopted by CARB on Decem ber 11, 2008. The 2008 Scoping Plan identified that GHG emissions in California are anticipated to be 596 MMTCO 2e in 2020. In December 2007, CARB approved a 2020 emissions limit of 427 MMTCO 2e (471 million tons) for the state (CARB 2008). To effectively implement the emissions cap, AB 32 directed CARB to establish a mandatory reporting system to track and monitor GHG emissions levels for large stationary sources that generate more than 25,000 MTCO
2e per year, prepare a plan demonstrating how the 2020 deadline can be met, and develop appropriate regulations and programs to implement the plan by 2012.

First Update to the Scoping Plan
CARB completed a five-year update to the 2008 Scoping Plan, as required by AB 32. The First Update to the Scoping Plan, adopted May 22, 2014, highlights California’s progress toward meeting the near-term 2020 GHG emission reduction goals defined in the 2008 Scoping Plan. As part of the update, CARB recalculated 303
CC 02-01-2022
303 of 756
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 29 the 1990 GHG emission levels with th e updated AR4 GWPs, and the 427 MMTCO 2e 1990 emissions level and 2020 GHG emissions limit, established in response to AB 32, are slightly higher at 431 MMTCO2e. 55 As identified in the Update to the Scoping Plan, Ca lifornia is on track to meet the goals of AB 32. The update also addresses the state’s longer-term GHG goals in a post-2020 element. The post-2020 element provides a high-level view of a long-term st rategy for meeting the 2050 GHG goal, including a recommendation for the state to adopt a midterm target. According to the Update to the Scoping Plan, local government reduction targets should chart a reduction trajectory that is consistent with or exceeds the trajectory created by statewide goals. 56 CARB identified that reducing emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels will require a fundamental shift to efficient, clea n energy in every sector of the economy. Progressing toward California’s 2050 climate targets will require significant acceleration of GHG reduction rates.

Emissions from 2020 to 2050 will have to decline several times faster than the rate needed to reach the 2020 emissions limit. 57

2.1.2.3 EXECUTIVE ORDER B-30-15
Executive Order B-30-15, signed April 29, 2015, sets a goal of reducing GHG emissions in the state to 40 percent below 1990 levels by year 2030. Executive Orde r B-30-15 also directs CARB to update the Scoping Plan to quantify the 2030 GHG reduction goal for th e state and requires state agencies to implement measures to meet the interim 2030 goal as well as the long-term goal for 2050 in Executive Order S-03-05. It also requires the Natural Resources Agency to conduct triennial updates of the California adaption strategy, Safeguarding California, in order to ensure climate chan ge is accounted for in state planning and investment decisions.

2.1.2.4 SENATE BILL 32 AND ASSEMBLY BILL 197
In September 2016, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197, making the Executive Order goal for year 2030 into a statewide, mandated le gislative target. AB 197 established a joint legislative committee on climate change policies and requires the CA RB to prioritize direction emissions reductions rather than the market-based cap-and-trade program for large stationary, mobile, and other sources. 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update
Executive Order B-30-15 and SB 32 required CARB to prepare another update to the Scoping Plan to address the 2030 target for the state. On December 24, 2017, CARB approved the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update, which outlines potential regulations and programs, including strategies consistent with

55 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2014, May 15. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework, Pursuant to AB 32, The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan /document/updatedscopingplan2013.htm. 56 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2014, May 15. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework, Pursuant to AB 32, The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sc opingplan/scopingplan.htm.
57 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2014, May 15. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework, Pursuant to AB 32, The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan /document/updatedscopingplan2013.htm. 304
CC 02-01-2022
304 of 756

Page 30 ends

AB 197 requirements, to achieve the 2030 target. The 2017 Scoping Plan establishes a new emissions limit of 260 MMTCO2e for the year 2030, which corresponds to a 40 percent decrease in 1990 levels by 2030.58 California’s climate strategy will require contributions from all sectors of the economy, including enhanced focus on zero- and near-zero emission vehicle technologies; continued investment in renewables such as solar roofs, wind, and other types of distributed generation; greater use of low carbon fuels; integrated land conservation and development strategies; coordinated efforts to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants (methane, black carbon, and fluorinated gases); and an increased focus on integrated land use planning to support livable, transit-connected communities and conserve agricultural and other lands.

Requirements for GHG reductions at stationary sources complement local ai r pollution control efforts by the local air districts to tighten emissions limits for criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants on a broad spectrum of industrial sources. Major elements of the 2017 Scoping Plan framework include:
 Implementing and/or increasing the standards of the Mobile Source Strategy, which include increasing zero-emission (ZE) buses and trucks.
 Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), with an increased stringency (18 percent by 2030).  Implementation of SB 350, which expands the Renewables Portfoli o Standard (RPS) to 50 percent RPS and doubles energy efficiency savings by 2030.
 California Sustainable Freight Action Plan, which impr oves freight system efficiency by 25 percent by 2030 and utilizes near-zero emissions technology and deployment of ZE trucks.  Implementing the proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy, which focuses on reducing methane and hydrofluorocarbon emissions by 40 percent and anthropogenic black carbon emissions by 50 percent by year 2030.
 Post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program that includes declining caps.  Continued implementation of SB 375.
 Development of a Natural and Working Lands Action Plan to secure California’s land base as a net carbon sink.

In addition to these statewide strategies, the 2017 C limate Change Scoping Plan also identified local governments as essential partners in achieving the state’s long-term GHG reduction goals and recommended local actions to reduce GHG emissions—for example, statewide targets of no more than 6 MTCO 2e or less per capita by 2030 and 2 MTCO 2e or less per capita by 2050. CARB recommends that local governments evaluate and adopt quantitative, locally appropriate goals that align with the statewide per capita targets and sustainable development objectives and develop plans to achieve the local goals. The statewide per capita goals were developed by applying the percent reductions necessary to reach the 2030 and 2050 climate goals (i.e., 40 percent and 80 percent, respectively) to the st ate’s 1990 emissions limit established under AB 32. For CEQA projects, CARB states that lead agencies have discretion to develop evidenced-based numeric thresholds (mass emissions, per capita, or per service population) consistent with the Scoping Plan and the state’s long-term GHG goals. To the degree a project relies on GHG mitigation measures, CARB recommends that lead agencies prioritize on-site design features that reduce emissions, especially from vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and direct investments in GHG re ductions within the project’s region that contribute potential air quality, health, and economic co-benefits. Where further project design or regional investments

58 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017, November. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. 305
CC 02-01-2022
305 of 756
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 31 are infeasible or not proven to be effective, CARB recommends mitigating potential GHG impacts through purchasing and retiring carbon credits.

The Scoping Plan scenario is set against what is called the “business as usual” yardstick—that is, what would the GHG emissions look like if the state did nothing at all beyond the policies that are already required and in place to achieve the 2020 limit, as sh own in Table 7. It includes the existing renewables requirements, advanced clean cars, the “10 percent” LCFS, and the SB 375 program for more vibrant communities, among others. However, it does not include a range of new policies or measures that have been developed or put into statute over the past two years. Also shown in th e table, the known commitment s are expected to result in emissions that are 60 MMTCO
2e above the target in 2030. If the estimated GHG reductions from the known commitments are not realized due to delays in implementation or technology deployment, the post- 2020 Cap-and-Trade Program would deliver the additional GH G reductions in the sectors it covers to ensure the 2030 target is achieved.

Table 7 2017 Climate Change Scopi ng Plan Emissions Reductions Gap Modeling Scenario
2030 GHG Emissions
MMTCO2e
Reference Scenario
(Business-as-Usual) 389
With Known Commitments 320
2030 GHG Target 260
Gap to 2030 Target with Known Commitments 60
Source: California Air Resources Board. 2017, November. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf.

Table 8 provides estimated GHG emissions by sect or compared to 1990 levels , and the range of GHG emissions for each sector estimated for 2030.

Table 8 2017 Scoping Plan Emissions Changes by Sector to Achieve the 2030 Target Scoping Plan Sector
1990
MMTCO2e
2030 Proposed Plan Ranges
MMTCO2e % Change from 1990
Agricultural 26 24-25 -8% to -4%
Residential and Commercial 44 38-40 -14% to -9%
Electric Power 108 30-53 -72% to -51%
High GWP 3 8-11 267% to 367%
Industrial 98 83-90 -15% to -8%
Recycling and Waste 7 8-9 14% to 29%
Transportation (including TCU) 152 103-111 -32% to -27% Net Sinka -7 TBD TBD
Sub Total 431 294-339 -32% to -21%
Cap-and-Trade Program NA 24-79 NA
Total 431 260 -40%
Source: California Air Resources Board. 2017, November. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf.

Notes: TCU = Transportation, Communications, and Utilities; TBD: To Be Determined. a Work is underway through 2017 to estimate the range of potential sequestration benefits from the natural and working lands sector.

306
CC 02-01-2022
306 of 756

Page 32 ends

2.1.2.5 SENATE BILL 375 – SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY In 2008, SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, was adopted to connect the GHG emissions reductions targets established in the 2008 Scoping Plan for the transportation sector to local land use decisions that affect travel behavior. Its intent is to reduce GHG emissions from light-duty trucks and automobiles (excludes emissions associated with goods movement) by aligning regional long-range transportation plans, investments, and housing allocations to local land use planning to reduce VMT and vehicle trips. Specifically, SB 375 required CARB to es tablish GHG emissions reduction targets for each of the 18 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the MPO for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area region. MTC’s targets are a 7 percent per capita reduction in GHG emissions from 2005 by 2020, and 15 percent per capita reduction from 2005 levels by 2035.
59 2017 Update to the SB 375 Targets
CARB is required to update the targets for the MPOs every eight years. In June 2017, CARB released updated targets and technical methodology and recently released another update in February 2018. The updated targets consider the need to further reduce VMT, as identified in the 2017 Scoping Plan Update, while balancing the need for additional and more flexible revenue sources to incentivize positive planning and action toward sustainable communities. Like the 2010 targets, the updated SB 375 targets are in units of percent per capita reduction in GHG emissions from automobiles and light trucks relative to 2005. This excludes reductions anticipated from implementation of state technology and fuels strategies and any potential future state strategies such as statewide road user pricing. The proposed targets call for greater per capita GHG emission reductions from SB 375 than are currently in place, which for 2035, translate into proposed targets that either match or exceed the em ission reduction levels in the MPOs’ currently adopted sustainable communities strategies (SCS). As proposed , CARB staff ’s proposed ta rgets would result in an additional reduction of over 8 MMTCO
2e in 2035 compared to the current targets. For the next round of SCS updates, CARB’s updated targets for the SCAG region are an 8 percent per capita GHG reduction in 2020 from 2005 levels (unchanged from the 2010 target) and a 19 percent per capita GHG reduction in 2035 from 2005 levels (compared to the 2010 target of 13 percent). 60 CARB adopted the updated targets and methodology on March 22, 2018. All SCSs adopted after October 1, 2018, are subject to these new targets.

2.1.2.6 OTHER APPLICABLE MEASURES
Transportation
Assembly Bill 1493
California vehicle GHG emission standards were enacted under AB 1493 (Pavley I). Pavley I is a clean-car standard that reduces GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles (light-duty auto to medium-duty vehicles) from 2009 through 2016 and is anticipated to reduce GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles by 30 percent in 2016. California implements the Pavley I standards through a waiver granted to California by

59 California Air Resources Board. 2010. Staff Report, Proposed Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets for Automobiles and Light Trucks Pursuant to Senate Bill 375, August. 60 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2018, February. Proposed Update to the SB 375 Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm. 307
CC 02-01-2022
307 of 756
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 33 the EPA. In 2012, the EPA issued a Final Rulemaking that sets even more stringent fuel economy and GHG emissions standards for model years 2017 through 2025 light-duty vehicles (see also the discussion on the update to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards under Federal Laws, above). In January 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars program (formerly known as Pavley II) for model years 2017 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog, soot, and global warming gases with requirements for greater numbers of ZE vehicles into a single package of standards. Under California’s Advanced Clean Car program, by 2025 new automobiles will emit 34 percen t less global warming gases and 75 percent less smog- forming emissions.

Executive Order S-1-07
On January 18, 2007, the state set a new LCFS for tr ansportation fuels sold in the state. Executive Order S-01-07 sets a declining standard for GHG emissions measured in CO 2e gram per unit of fuel energy sold in California. The LCFS requires a reduction of 2.5 percent in the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by 2015 and a redu ction of at least 10 percent by 2020. The standard applies to refiners, blenders, producers, and importers of transportation fuels, and would use market-based mechanisms to allow these providers to choose how they reduce emissions during the “fuel cycle” using the most economically feasible methods.

Executive Order B-16-2012
On March 23, 2012, the state identifi ed that CARB, the Cali fornia Energy Commission (CEC), the Public Utilities Commission, and other relevant agencies worked with the Plug-in Electric Vehicle Collaborative and the California Fuel Cell Partnership to establish benchmarks to accommodate ZE vehicles in major metropolitan areas, including infrastructure to support them (e.g., electric vehicle charging stations). The executive order also directed the number of ZE vehicles in California’s state vehicle fleet to increase through the normal course of fleet replacement so that at least 10 percent of fleet purchases of light-duty vehicles are ZE by 2015 and at least 25 percent by 2020. The executive order also establishes a target for the transportation sector of reducing GHG emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels.

Renewables Portfolio Standard
Senate Bills 1078, 107, X1-2, and Executive Order S-14-08 A major component of California’s Renewable Energy Program is the renewables portfolio standard established under Senate Bills 1078 (Sher) and 107 (Simitian). Under the RPS, certain retail sellers of electricity were required to increase the amount of renewable energy each year by at least 1 percent in order to reach at least 20 percent by December 30, 2010. Ex ecutive Order S-14-08, signed in November 2008, expanded the state’s renewable energy standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. This standard was adopted by the legislature in 2011 (SB X1-2). Rene wable sources of electricity include wind, small hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. The increase in renewable sources for electricity production will decrease indirect GHG emissions from development projects because electricity production from renewable sources is generally considered carbon neutral. 308
CC 02-01-2022
308 of 756

Page 34 ends

Senate Bill 350
Senate Bill 350 (de Leon), was signed into law September 2015. SB 350 establishes tiered increases to the RPS of 40 percent by 2024, 45 percent by 2027, and 50 percent by 2030. SB 350 also set a new goal to double the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas through energy efficiency and conservation measures.

Senate Bill 100
On September 10, 2018, Governor Brown signed SB 100. Under SB 100, the RPS for public-owned facilities and retail sellers consist of 44 percent renewable energy by 2024, 52 percent by 2027, and 60 percent by 2030.

Additionally, SB 100 also established a new RPS require ment of 50 percent by 2026. Furthermore, the bill establishes an overall state policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of all retail sales of el ectricity to California end-use cust omers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2045. Under the bill, the state cannot increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid or allow re source shuffling to achieve the 100 percent carbon-free electricity target.

Executive Order B-55-18
Executive Order B-55-18, signed September 10, 2018, sets a goal “to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and main tain net negative emissions thereafter.” Executive Order B-55-18 directs CARB to work with relevant state agencies to ensure future Scoping Plans identify and recommend measures to achieve the carbon neutrality goal. The goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 is in addition to other statewide goals, meaning not only should emissions be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, but that, by no later than 2045, the remain ing emissions be offset by equivalent net removals of CO2e from the atmosphere, including through sequestration in forests, soils, and other natural landscapes.

Energy Efficiency
California Building Standards Code – Building Energy Efficiency Standards Energy conservation standards for new residential and non-residential buildings were adopted by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the CEC) in June 1977 and most recently revised in 2019 (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Co de of Regulations [CCR]). Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The 2019 Building Energy Ef ficiency Standards, which were adopted on May 9, 2018, went into effect on January 1, 2020.

The 2019 standards move towards cutting energy use in new homes by more than 50 percent and will require installation of solar photovoltaic systems for single-family homes and multi-family buildings of 3 stories and less. Four key areas the 2019 standards will focus on in clude 1) smart residential photovoltaic systems; 2) updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the interior to exterior and vice versa); 3) residential and nonresidential ventilation requirements; 4) and nonresidential lighting requirements. 61 Under

61 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2018. News Release: Energy Commission Adopts Standards Requiring Solar Systems for New Homes, First in Nation. http://www.energy.ca.gov/releases/2018_releases/2018-05- 09_building_standards_adopted_nr.html.
309
CC 02-01-2022
309 of 756
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 35 the 2019 standards, nonresidential buildings and multi-family residential buildings of four stories or more will be 30 percent more energy efficien t compared to the 2016 standards while single-family homes will be 7 percent more energy efficient. 62 When accounting for the electricity generated by the solar photovoltaic system, single-family homes would use 53 percent less energy compared to homes built to the 2016 standards.63
California Green Building Standards Code – CALGreen
On July 17, 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (24 CCR, Part 11, known as “CALGreen”) was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code. CALGreen established planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants. 64 The mandatory
provisions of CALGreen became effective January 1, 2011. The CEC adopted the voluntary standards of the 2019 CALGreen on October 3, 2018. The 2019 CALGreen standards became effective January 1, 2020. 2006 Appliance Energy Efficiency Regulations
The 2006 Appliance Efficiency Re gulations (20 CCR §§ 1601–1608) were adopted by the CEC on October 11, 2006 and approved by the California Office of Administrative Law on December 14, 2006. The regulations include standards for both federally regul ated appliances and non–federally regulated appliances.

Though these regulations are now often viewed as “bus iness as usual,” they exceed the standards imposed by all other states, and they reduce GHG emissions by reducing energy demand.

Solid Waste
AB 939
California’s Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939, Public Resources Code §§ 40050 et seq.) set a requirement for cities and counties throughout the state to divert 50 percent of all solid waste from landfills by January 1, 2000, through source reduction, recycling, and composting. In 2008, the requirements were modified to reflect a per capita requirement rather than tonnage. To help achieve this, the act requires that each city and county prepare and su bmit a source reduction and recyclin g element. AB 939 also established the goal for all California counties to provide at least 15 years of ongoing landfill capacity.

AB 341
AB 341 (Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011) increased the s tatewide goal for waste diversion to 75 percent by 2020 and requires recycling of waste from commercial and multifamily residential land uses. Section 5.208 of CALGreen also requires that at least 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse.

62 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2018. 2019 Building Energy and Efficiency Standards Frequently Asked Questions. http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/documents/2018_Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ.pdf. 63 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2018. 2019 Building Energy and Efficiency Standards Frequently Asked Questions. http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/documents/2018_Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ.pdf. 64 The green building standards became ma ndatory in the 2010 edition of the code. 310
CC 02-01-2022
310 of 756

Page 36 ends

AB 1327
The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act (AB 1327, Public Resources Code §§ 42900 et seq.) requires areas to be set aside for collecting and loading recyclable materials in development projects. The act required the California Integrated Waste Management Board to develop a model ordinance for adoption by any local agency requiring adequate areas for collect ion and loading of recyclable materials as part of development projects. Local agencies are required to adopt the model or an ordinance of their own.

AB 1826
In October of 2014, Governor Brown signed AB 1826 re quiring businesses to recycle their organic waste on and after April 1, 2016, depending on the amount of waste they generate per week. This law also requires that on and after January 1, 2016, local jurisdictions ac ross the state implement an organic waste recycling program to divert organic waste generated by businesses and multifamily residential dwellings with five or more units. Organic waste means food waste, green waste, landscape and pruning waste, nonhazardous wood waste, and food-soiled paper waste that is mixed with food waste.

Water Efficiency
SBX7-7
The 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan was issued by th e Department of Water Resources (DWR) in 2010 pursuant to Senate Bill 7, which was adopted during the 7th Extraordinary Session of 2009–2010 and therefore dubbed “SBX7-7.” SBX7-7 mandated urban water conservation and authorized the DWR to prepare a plan implementing urban water conservation requirements (20x2020 Water Conservation Plan). In addition, it required agricultural water providers to prepare agricultural water management plans, measure water deliveries to customers, and implement othe r efficiency measures. SBX7-7 requires urban water providers to adopt a water conservation target of 20 percent reduction in urban per capita water use by 2020 compared to 2005 baseline use.

AB 1881
The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881) requires local agencies to adopt the updated DWR model ordinance or equivalent. AB 1881 also re quires the Energy Commission, in consultation with the department, to adopt, by regulation, performa nce standards and labeling requirements for landscape irrigation equipment, including irrigation controllers, mois ture sensors, emission devices, and valves to reduce the wasteful, uneconomic, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy or water.

Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy
Senate Bill 1383
On September 19, 2016, the Governor signed SB 1383 to supplement the GHG redu ction strategies in the Scoping Plan to consider short-lived climate pollutants, including black carbon and CH 4. Black carbon is the light-absorbing component of fine particulate matter pr oduced during incomplete combustion of fuels. SB 1383 required the state board, no later than Januar y 1, 2018, to approve and begin implementing a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short- lived climate pollutants to achieve a reduction in 311
CC 02-01-2022
311 of 756
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 37 methane by 40 percent, hydrofluorocarbon gases by 40 percent, and anthropogenic black carbon by 50 percent below 2013 levels by 2030. The bill also establishe d targets for reducing organic waste in landfills. On March 14, 2017, CARB adopted the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, which identifies the state’s approach to reducing anthropogenic and biogenic sources of short-lived climate pollutants.

Anthropogenic sources of black carbon include on- and off-road transportation, residential wood burning, fuel combustion (charbroiling), and industrial processes. According to CARB, ambient levels of black carbon in California are 90 percent lower than in the ea rly 1960s, despite the tripling of diesel fuel use. 65 In-use on-
road rules are expected to reduce black carbon emi ssions from on-road sources by 80 percent between 2000 and 2020.

2.1.3 Regional Regulations
Plan Bay Area, Strategy for a Sustainable Region
Plan Bay Area 2040 is the Bay Area’s RTP/SCS and was adopted jointly by ABAG and MTC on July 26, 2017.

It lays out a development scenario for the region, which, when integrated with the transportation network and other transportation measures and policies, would reduce GHG emissions from transportation (excluding goods movement) beyond the per ca pita reduction targets identified by CARB. Plan Bay Area 2040 is a limited and focused update to the 2013 Plan Bay Area, with updated planning assu mptions that incorporate key economic, demographic, and financial trends from the last several years.

As part of the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area, local governments have identified Priority Development Areas (PDAs) to focus growth. PDAs are transit-oriented, infill development opportunity areas in existing communities. Overall, well over two-thirds of all regional growth in the Bay Area by 2040 is allocated in PDAs. Per the Final Plan Bay Area 2040, while the projected number of new housing units and new jobs within PDAs would increase to 629,000 unit s and 707,000 jobs compared to the adopted Plan Bay Area 2013, its overall share would be reduced to 77 percent and 55 percent. 66 However, Plan Bay Area 2040
remains on track to meet a 16 percent per capita reduction of GHG emi ssions by 2035 and a 10 percent per capita reduction by 2020 from 2005 conditions.67 The proposed project site is not within a PDA.68 Bay Area Clean Air Plan
BAAQMD adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan, Spare the Air, Cool the Climate on April 19, 2017. The 2017 Clean Air Plan also lays the ground work for reducing GHG emissions in the Bay Area to meet the state’s 2030 GHG reduction target and 2050 GHG reduction goal. It also includes a vision for the Bay Area in a post-carbon year 2050 that encompasses the following:

 Construct buildings that are energy efficient and powered by renewable energy.

65 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017, March 14. Final Proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ shortlived/shortlived.htm.
66 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2017, March. Plan Bay Area 2040 Plan.
67 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2017, March. Plan Bay Area 2040 Plan.
68 Associated Bay Area Governments (ABAG). July 2015. Priority Development Area Showcase, http://gis.abag.ca.gov /website/PDAShowcase/.
312
CC 02-01-2022
312 of 756

Page 38 ends

 Walk, bicycle, and use public transit for the majority of trips and use electric-powered autonomous public transit fleets.
 Incubate and produce clean energy technologies.
 Live a low-carbon lifestyle by purchasing low-ca rbon foods and goods in addition to recycling and putting organic waste to productive use.69
A comprehensive multipollutant control strategy has been developed to be implemented in the next 3 to 5 years to address public health and climate change and to set a pathway to achieve the 2050 vision. The control strategy includes 85 control measures to reduce emissions of ozone, particulate matter, toxic air contaminants, and GHG from a full range of emission sources. These control measures cover the following sectors: 1) stationary (industrial) sources; 2) transportat ion; 3) energy; 4) agriculture; 5) natural and working lands; 6) waste management; 7) water; and 8) super-GHG pollutants. Overall, the proposed control strategy is based on the following key priorities:
 Reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants from all key sources.  Reduce emissions of “super-GHGs” such as methane, black carbon, and fluorinated gases.  Decrease demand for fossil fuels (gasoline, diesel, and natural gas).  Increase efficiency of the energy and transportation systems.  Reduce demand for vehicle travel, and high-carbon goods and services.  Decarbonize the energy system.
 Make the electricity supply carbon-free.
 Electrify the transportation and building sectors.

Bay Area Commuter Benefits Program
Under Air District Regulation 14, Model Source Emissions Reduction Measures, Rule 1, Bay Area Commuter Benefits Program, employers with 50 or more full-time employees within the BAAQMD are required to register and offer commuter benefits to employees. In partnership with the BAAQMD and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the rule’s purpose is to improve air quality, reduce GHG emissions, and decrease the Bay Area’s traffic congestion by encouraging employees to use alternative commute modes, such as transit, vanpool, carpool, bicycling, and walking. The benefits program allows employees to choose from one of four commuter benefit options including a pr e-tax benefit, employer-provided subsidy, employer- provided transit, and alternative commute benefit.

2.1.4 Local Regulations

2.1.4.1 CITY OF CUPERTINO CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
The City of Cupertino published the public draft Climate Action Plan (CAP) in December 2014 to achieve the GHG reduction target of AB 32 for target year 2020. The CAP serves to support California’s statewide climate change efforts through identification of actions that can be taken locally, by residents, businesses, and

69 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan, Spare the Air, Cool the Climate: A Blueprint for Clean Air and Climate Protection in the Bay Area. http://www.baaqmd .gov/plans-and-climate/air-quality-plans/current-plans, accessed November 21, 2019.
313
CC 02-01-2022
313 of 756
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 39 the City itself, to ensure the State’s ambitious reduction goals can be achieved. The strategies outlined in the CAP seek to not only reduce GHG emissions, but also provide energy, water, fuel, and cost savings for the City.70 The goals established by the City’s CAP are the following:
 Goal 1 – Reduce Energy Use: Increase energy effici ency in existing homes and buildings and increase use of renewable energy community-wide.
 Goal 2 – Encourage Alternative Transportation: Support transit, carpooling, walking, and bicycling as viable transportation modes to decrease the number of single-occupancy vehicle trips within the community.
 Goal 3 – Conserve Water: Promote the efficient use and conservation of water in buildings and landscapes.
 Goal 4 – Reduce Solid Waste: Strengthen waste re duction efforts through recycling and organics collection and reduced consumption of materials that otherwise end up in landfills.  Goal 5 – Expand Green Infrastructure: Enhance the City’s existing urban forest on public and private lands.

2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

2.2.1 Existing Emissions
The project site is currently developed with one commercial building. The building operations currently generate greenhouse emissions from transportation, area sources, energy use, water use/wastewater generation, and solid waste disposal.

2.3 METHODOLOGY
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines were prepared to assist in the evaluation of air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed within the Bay Area. The guidelines provide r ecommended procedures for evaluating potential GHG emissions impacts during the environmental review process, consistent with CEQA requirements, and include recommended thresholds of significance, mitigation measures, and background information.

2.3.1 BAAQMD Standards of Significance
BAAQMD has adopted CEQA Guidelines to evaluate GHG emissions impacts from development projects.71 Land use development projects include residential, comme rcial, industrial, and public land use facilities.

Direct sources of emissions may include on-site combustion of energy, such as natural gas used for heating and cooking, emissions from industrial processes (not applicable for most land use development projects), and fuel combustion from mobile sources. Indirect em issions are emissions produced off-site from energy

70 City of Cupertino, 2015. Climate Ac tion Plan. January, 2015. http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=13531 71 Bay Area Air Quality Management Agency, 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en, accessed April 9, 2020.
314
CC 02-01-2022
314 of 756

Page 40 ends

production, water conveyance due to a project’s energy use and water consumption, and nonbiogenic emissions from waste disposal. Biogenic CO 2 emissions are not included in the quantification of a project’s GHG emissions, because biogenic CO 2 is derived from living biomass (e.g., organic matter present in wood, paper, vegetable oils, animal fat, food, animal, and yard waste) as opposed to fossil fuels. BAAQMD is currently updating their CEQA Guid elines. Under the 2017 CEQA Guidelin es, BAAQMD identified a tiered approach for assessing GHG emissions impacts of a project:
 Consistency with a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy. If a project is within the jurisdiction of an agency that has a “qualified” GHG reduction strategy, the project can assess consistency of its GHG emissions impacts with the reduction strategy.  BAAQMD Screening Level Sizes. BAAQMD has adopted screening criteria for development projects that would be applicable for the proposed project based on the square footage, units, acreage, students, and/or employees generated by a project. Typical projects that meet the screening criteria do not generate emissions greater than 1,100 MTCO
2e and would not generate significant GHG emissions.
 Brightline Screening Threshold. BAAQMD adopted screening criteria for development projects of 1,100 MTCO 2e per year that would be applicable for the proposed project. If a project exceeds the BAAQMD Guidelines’ GHG screening-level sizes or screening criteria of 1,100 MTCO2e.  Efficiency Threshold. AB 32 requires the statewide GHG emissi on to be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. On a per-capita basis, that means reducing the annual emissions of 14 tons of carbon dioxide for every person in California down to about 10 tons per person by 2020. 72 Hence, BAAQMD’s per capita significance threshold is calculated based on the State’ s land use sector emissions inventory prepared by CARB and the demographic foreca sts for the 2008 Scoping Plan. The land use sector GHG emissions for 1990 were estimated by BAAQMD, as identified in Appendix D of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, to be 295.53 MMTCO 2e and the 2020 California service population (SP) to be 64.3 million. Therefore, the threshold that would ensure consistency with the GHG reduction goals of AB 32 is estimated at 4.6 MTCO
2e per service population per year (MTCO2e/SP/yr) for year 2020.73 Because the proposed project would have a post-year 2020 opening year (yea r 2021), an interpolated brightline threshold between the 2020 brightline threshold and the GHG target of SB 32 is utilized. Based on the adopted 1,100 MTCO 2e per year brightline screening threshold, and the GHG reduction target for year 2030 established under SB 32 (i.e., 40 percent 1990 leve ls by 2030), the interpol ated brightline screening threshold of 660 MTCO 2e per year is utilized for th e proposed project. If projec t emissions are below this brightline screening threshold, GHG emissions impacts would be considered less than significant.

72 California Air Resources Board, 2008. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan, a Framework for Change. 73 Bay Area Air Quality Management Agency, 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en, accessed April 9, 2020.
315
CC 02-01-2022
315 of 756

Emissions Worksheet

316
CC 02-01-2022
316 of 756
Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Summary - Construction tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Total Unmitigated 0.18 0.91 0.98 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.01 0.04 0.05 Total Mitigated 0.11 0.65 1.06 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01

UNMITIGATED
tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Total Onsite 0.17 0.87 0.94 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.06 0.00 0.04 0.05 Total Offsite 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 check 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 FOR CONSTRUCTION RISK ASSESSMENT - Unmitigated Run
tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
2022 Onsite 0.17 0.87 0.94 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.06 0.00 0.04 0.05 2022 Offsite 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 FOR CONSTRUCTION REGIONAL EMISSIONS - Unmitigated Run
tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Total 2022 0.18 0.91 0.98 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.01 0.04 0.05 Construction Total 0.18 0.91 0.98 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.01 0.04 0.05 Check 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

MITIGATED
tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Total Onsite 0.11 0.61 1.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 Total Offsite 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 check 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 FOR CONSTRUCTION RISK ASSESSMENT - Mitigated Run
tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
2022 Onsite 0.11 0.61 1.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 2022 Offsite 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 FOR CONSTRUCTION REGIONAL EMISSIONS - Mitigated Run
tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Total 2022 0.11 0.65 1.06 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01 Construction Total 0.11 0.65 1.06 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01 Check 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 317
CC 02-01-2022
317 of 756

3.2 Demolition- 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Off-Road 0.02 0.15 0.13 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Total 0.02 0.15 0.13 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Hauling 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 Worker 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 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Off-Road 0.00 0.08 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.08 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Hauling 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 Worker 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

3.3 Demolition Haul- 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Off-Road 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 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Hauling 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 Worker 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 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Off-Road 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 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Hauling 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 Worker 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 0.00 318
CC 02-01-2022
318 of 756

3.4 Site Preparation - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Off-Road 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Hauling 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 Worker 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 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Off-Road 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Hauling 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 Worker 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

3.5 Grading - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.01

0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
Off-Road 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Hauling 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 Worker 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 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
Off-Road 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Hauling 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 Worker 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 0.00 319
CC 02-01-2022
319 of 756

3.6 Grading Soil Haul - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Off-Road 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 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Hauling 0.00 0.01 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 Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Off-Road 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 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Hauling 0.00 0.01 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 Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7 Building Construction - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Off-Road 0.07

0.63 0.73 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
Total 0.07 0.63 0.73 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Off-Road 0.02 0.47 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.02 0.47 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 320
CC 02-01-2022
320 of 756

3.8 Paving - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Off-Road 0.00 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Hauling 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 Worker 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 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Off-Road 0.00 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Hauling 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 Worker 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

3.8 Architectural Coating- 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Architectural Coating 0.08

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Off Road 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Hauling 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 Worker 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 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Architectural Coating 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Off Road 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Hauling 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 Worker 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 0.00 321
CC 02-01-2022
321 of 756
Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Summary - Construction Unmitigated Total Construction
Days 2022
Calendar
Days
218 218 306
Unmigated Run - with Best Control Measures for Fugitive Dust average
lbs/day ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Total 2890 0.22 0.42 1 0.07 0.40 0
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 NA NA BMP 82 54 BMP 54 NA
Exceeds Threshold No No NA NA NA No No NA No NA
avg lbs/day ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
TOTAL 2022 2 8 90 0.22 0.42 1 0.07 0.40 0
0 avg lbs/day ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Total Onsite 1.57 8.01 8.63 0.01 0.10 0.42 0.52 0.03 0.40 0.43 Total Offsite 0.05 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.03 0.00 0.03 00 00 00

FOR CONSTRUCTION RISK ASSESSMENT
Onsite Details
avg lbs/day ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
2022 Onsite 1.57 8.01 8.63 0.01 0.10 0.42 0.52 0.03 0.40 0.43 0000000000
Offsite Details
avg lbs/day ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
2022 Offsite 0.05 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.12 0.0014 0.12 0.03 0.0014 0.03 0000000000
Annual emissions divided by total construction duration to obtain average daily emissions. Average construction emissions accounts for the duration of each construction phase and the time each piece of construction equipment is onsite. 322
CC 02-01-2022
322 of 756
Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Summary - Construction Mitigated Total Construction
Days 2022
Calendar
Days
218 218 306
Mitigated- Tier 4 Emission Standards for Equipment >25 HP average
lbs/day ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Total 16 10 0 000 000
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 NA NA BMP 82 54 BMP 54 NA
Exceeds Threshold No No NA NA NA No No NA No NA
avg lbs/day ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
TOTAL 2022 1 6 10 0 0.22 0.04 0 0.07 0.04 0
check 16 1 00000000
avg lbs/day ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Total Onsite 0.97 5.58 9.34 0.01 0.10 0.03 0.14 0.03 0.03 0.07 Total Offsite 0.05 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.03 0.00 0.03 check 0 0 00000 000

FOR CONSTRUCTION RISK ASSESSMENT
Onsite Details
avg lbs/day ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
2022 Onsite 0.97 5.58 9.34 0.01 0.10 0.0349 0.14 0.03 0.0349 0.07 check 0.00 9.34 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.92 Offsite Details
avg lbs/day ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
2022 Offsite 0.05 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.12 0.0014 0.12 0.03 0.0014 0.03 Check 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual emissions divided by total construction duration to obtain average daily emissions. Average construction emissions accounts for the duration of each construction phase and the time each piece of construction equipment is onsite. 323
CC 02-01-2022
323 of 756
GHG Emissions Inventory
Construction
MTCO2e Total Project*
2022 172
Total Construction 172
30-Yr Amortized Construction Emissions 6
BAAQMD Bright-Line Screening Threshold 660 MTCO2e/Year
Exceed Threshold? No
*CalEEMod, Version 2016.3.2.25
*CalEEMod, Version 2016.3.2.25
** MTCO2e=metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.
*** Total construction emissions are amortized over 30 years per BAAQMD methodology; International Energy Agency, 2008, Energy Efficiency Requirements in Building Codes, Energy Efficiency Policies for New Buildings, March.
324
CC 02-01-2022
324 of 756

Assumptions Worksheet

325
CC 02-01-2022
325 of 756
CalEEMod Inputs - 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard Residential Project, Construction Name: 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard Residential Project Project Number: COCU-18
Project Location: 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard, northern and eastern perimeter of Stevens Creek Boulevard and South Foothill Boulevard County: Santa Clara
Climate Zone: 4
Land Use Setting: Urban
Operational Year: 2022
Utility Company: PGE
Air Basin: San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB)
Air District: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Proiect Site Acreage 0.68
Disturbed Site Acreage 0.68
Project Components Tons
Demolition
Existing Building 111
Asphalt Demo 234
New Construction
Number of Units Total SQFT Acres Stories Building Footprint Attached Townhomes 9 26,172 0.00 3 8,724
TOTAL BUILDING 26,172 0.000
Parking Lot 1,279 0.03
Total Other Asphalt Surfaces 6,215 0.14
Total Hardscape 2,024 0.05
Total Landscape 10,608 0.24
Open Space 3,840 0.09
Additional Area- Landscaping 5,655 0.13

0.68 CalEEMod Land Use Inputs
Land Use Type Land Use Subtype Unit Amount Size Metric Lot Acreage Land Use Square Feet Residential Housing Condo/Townhouse 9 DU 0.00 26,172
Parking Parking Lot 1.279 1000 sqft 0.03 1,279
Parking Other Asphalt Surfaces 6.215 1000 sqft 0.14 6,215 Parking Other Non-asphalt Surfaces 22.127 1000. sqft 0.51 22,127

0.68 Demolition
Component
Amount to be Demolished
(Tons)
Haul Truck Capacity
(tons) Haul Distance (miles) Total Trip Ends Trip Ends/ day Total Days Building 111 20 20 12 1 20
Asphalt 234 20 20 24 1 20
Total 344.4 36
Export Haul Travel Distance (1-Way): 20
Soil Haul 1
Construction Activities Volume (CY) Haul Truck Capacity (cy) Haul Distance (miles) No. of total one-way import
haul (trip ends) Duration (days)
No. of total one-way
haul (trip ends/day)*
Rough Grading (Export) 875 16 20 109 30 4
Architectural Coating
Percentage of Proposed Buildings' Interior
Painted: 100%
Percentage of Proposed Buildings' Exterior
Painted: 60%
Interior Paint VOC content: 50 grams per liter
Exterior Paing VOC content: 50 grams per liter
Residential Structures Land Use Square Feet CalEEMod Factor 2 Total Paintable Surface
Area Paintable Interior Area 1 Paintable Exterior Area1 Residential Housing 26,172 2.7 70,664 52,998 10,600
70,664 52,998 10,600
Parking Lot 7,494 6% 450 - 450
450 450
BAAQMD Construction BMPs
Replace Ground Cover PM10: 5 % Reduction
Replace Ground Cover PM2.5: 5 % Reduction
Water Exposed Area Frequency: 2 per day
PM10: 55 % Reduction
PM25: 55 % Reduction
Unpaved Roads Vehicle Speed: 15 mph
Clean Paved Road 9 % PM Reduction
SQFT
2,409.00
4,959.00
1CalEEMod methodology calculates the paintable interior and exterior areas by multiplying the total paintable surface area by 75 and 25 percent, respectively. 2 The program assumes the total surface for painting equals 2.7 times the floor square footage for residential and 2 times that for nonresidential square footage defined by the user. Architectural coatings for the parking lot is based on CalEEMod methodology applied to a surface parking lot (i.e., striping), in which 6% of surface area is painted. 3 100% of the interior and exterior of buildings to be modernized will be painted 326
CC 02-01-2022
326 of 756
Construction Activities and Schedule Assumptions: 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard Residential Project Construction Activities Phase Type Start Date End Date
CalEEMod
Duration
(Workday)
Demolition Demolition 1/1/2022 1/14/2022 10
Demolition Debris Haul Demolition 1/1/2022 1/14/2022 10 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/15/2022 1/17/2022 1 Grading Grading 1/17/2022 1/18/2022 2
Grading Soil Haul Grading 1/17/2022 1/18/2022 2
Building Construction Building Construction 1/19/2022 6/7/2022 100 Paving Paving 6/8/2022 6/14/2022 5
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 6/15/2022 6/21/2022 5 1/1/2022 6/21/2022 1/1/2022 11/1/2022
days of constructio
n 171 days of construction 304
years of construction 0.47 years of construction 0.83
months of construction 5.62 months of construction 9.99 Normalization Factor: 1.78
Construction Activities Phase Type Start Date End Date
Normalized
Duration
(Workday)
Demolition Demolition 1/1/2022 1/26/2022 18
Demolition Debris Haul Demolition 1/1/2022 1/26/2022 18 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/27/2022 1/30/2022 2 Grading Grading 1/31/2022 2/3/2022 4
Grading Grading 1/31/2022 2/3/2022 4
Building Constructio
n Building Construction 2/4/2022 10/7/2022 176
Paving Paving 10/8/2022 10/20/2022 9
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 10/21/2022 11/2/2022 9 * based on info provided by applicant
Construction Schedule (model default)
CalEEMod Defaults
Normalized CalEEMod Defaults
Construction Schedule
CalEEMod Default Duration Construction Duration
Normalization Calculations
327
CC 02-01-2022
327 of 756
CalEEMod Construction Off-Road Equipment Inputs
*Based on data provided by applicant, CalEEMod default used for construction equipment General Construction Hours: 8 hours btwn 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM (with 1 hr break), Mon-Fri Construction Equipment Details
Equipment model # of Equipment hr/day hp load factor* total trips Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saw 1 8 81 0.73
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 247 0.4
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 3 8 97 0.37
Worker Trips 13
Vendor Trips 0
Hauling Trips 0
Water Trucks 2
Demolition Haul
Worker Trips 0
Vendor Trips 0
Hauling Trips 36
Site Preparation
Graders 1 8 187 0.41
Scrapers 1 8 367 0.4824
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1 7 97 0.37
Worker Trips 8
Vendor Trips 0
Hauling Trips 0
Water Trucks 2
Grading
Grader 1 8 187 0.4087
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 247 0.4
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2 7 97 0.37
Worker Trips 10
Vendor Trips 0
Hauling Trips 0
Water Trucks 2
Grading Soil Haul
Worker Trips 0
Vendor Trips 0
Hauling Trips 109
Building Construction
Crane* 1 1 231 0.29
Forklifts 2 7 89 0.2
Generator Set 1 8 84 0.74
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1 6 97 0.37
Welders** 3 1 46 0.45
Worker Trips 14
Vendor Trips 2
Hauling Trips 0
Paving
Cement/Mortar Mixers 1 8 9 0.56
Pavers 1 8 130 0.42
Paving Equipment 1 8 132 0.3551
Roller 2 8 80 0.38
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1 8 97 0.37
Worker Trips 15
Vendor Trips 0
Hauling Trips 0
Architectural Coating
Air Compressors 1 6 78 0.48
Worker Trips 3
Vendor Trips 0
Hauling Trips 0
no additional equipment needed for Demo Haul
no additional equipment needed for Demo Haul
* assumes that crane will only be used onsite for 4 weeks total. For the most conservative results, crane is assumed to operate 8 hours per day, 5 days per week for entire 4 weeks. Averaged hours of use over duration of building construction phase and rounded up to the nearest hour. ** Use of welders would be predominately used during the initial framing; and therefore, the hours of operation of the duration were reduced to 1 hour per day per welder to reflect the average duration for the entire 10 month construction building phase 328
CC 02-01-2022
328 of 756
Demo Haul Trip Calculation
Conversion factors*

0.046 ton/SF

1.2641662 tons/cy
20 tons

15.82070459 CY

0.791035229 CY/ton
Building BSF Demo Tons/SF Tons Haul Truck (CY) Haul Truck (Ton) Round Trips Total Trip Ends Combined Building Demo 2,409 0.046 110.814 16 20.00 6 11 *CalEEMod User's Guide Version 2016.3.2, Appendix A
329
CC 02-01-2022
329 of 756

CalEEMod Construction Model

330
CC 02-01-2022
330 of 756

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - building SF provided by applicant
Construction Phase - construction durations from applicant Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment - based on info from applicant, see assumptions file for additional notes CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
641.35 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.029 N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.006
58 Climate Zone 4 Operational Year 2022
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) Condo/Townhouse 9.00 Dwelling Unit 0.00 26,172.00 26
Parking Lot 1.28 1000sqft 0.03 1,279.00 0
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 22.13 1000sqft 0.51 22,127.00 0 Floor Surface Area Population
Other Asphalt Surfaces 6.21 1000sqft 0.14 6,215.00 0

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2

Page 1 of 1 ends

22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard Residential Project - Santa Clara County, Annual 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard Residential Project
Santa Clara County, Annual
331
CC 02-01-2022
331 of 756
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 2.00 15.00
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 3.00 4.50
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 9.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 1.00 2.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 2.00 4.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 2.00 4.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 18.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 18.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 9.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 100.00 176.00
tblConstDustMitigation CleanPavedRoadPercentReduction 0 9 tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Exterior 150.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Interior 100.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating ConstArea_Parking 1,777.00 450.00 tblArchitecturalCoating ConstArea_Residential_Exterior 17,666.00 10,600.00 Trips and VMT - based on trips from applicant, assuming 2 vt/day/water truck Demolition -
Grading -
Architectural Coating - based on applicant data: <50 g/L paints, 60% exterior coating, assuming striping of parking lot and internal circulation Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - BAAQMD BMPs Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
Off-road Equipment - based on info from applicant
Off-road Equipment - no additional equipment needed for Demo Haul Off-road Equipment - based on info from applicant
Off-road Equipment - no additional equipment for soil haul Off-road Equipment - based on info from applicant
Off-road Equipment - based on info from applicant
332
CC 02-01-2022
332 of 756
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 7.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 7.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 6.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 1.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 1.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 4.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 7.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 3.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 4.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 9,000.00 26,172.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.56 0.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 22,130.00 22,127.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 1,280.00 1,279.00
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 875.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 6,210.00 6,215.00
333
CC 02-01-2022
333 of 756

0.0000 152.8585 152.8585 0.0271 0.0000 153.53530.0242 0.0460 0.0702 7.0800e- 003

0.0437 0.0508Maximum 0.1763 0.9126 0.9805 1.7500e-
003

0.0000 152.8585 152.8585 0.0271 0.0000 153.53530.0242 0.0460 0.0702 7.0800e- 003

0.0437 0.05082022 0.1763 0.9126 0.9805 1.7500e-
003
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10

0.0000 152.8587 152.8587 0.0271 0.0000 153.53550.0402 0.0460 0.0862 0.0121 0.0437 0.0558Maximum 0.1763 0.9126 0.9805 1.7500e- 003

0.0000 152.8587 152.8587 0.0271 0.0000 153.53550.0402 0.0460 0.0862 0.0121 0.0437 0.05582022 0.1763 0.9126 0.9805 1.7500e- 003
NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2

2.0 Emissions Summary

2.1 Overall Construction
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 19.00 14.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 4.00 3.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 2.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 6.00 2.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 2.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 2.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 34.00 36.00
334
CC 02-01-2022
334 of 756
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 4.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 15
Acres of Paving: 0.68
Residential Indoor: 52,998; Residential Outdoor: 10,600; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area:

OffRoad Equipment
9g
8 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 10/21/2022 11/2/2022 5 9 h 7 Paving Paving 10/8/2022 10/20/2022 5
4e
6 Building Construction Building Construction 2/4/2022 10/7/2022 5 176 f 5 Grading Soil Haul Grading 1/31/2022 2/3/2022 5
2c
4 Grading Grading 1/31/2022 2/3/2022 5 4 d
3 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/27/2022 1/30/2022 5 18 a
2 Demolition Haul Demolition 1/1/2022 1/26/2022 5 18 b
End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 1/1/2022 1/26/2022 5

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date
Highest 0.4168 0.4168
6 4-1-2022 6-30-2022 0.2655 0.2655
7 7-1-2022 9-30-2022 0.2684 0.2684
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 5 1-1-2022 3-31-2022 0.4168 0.4168

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0039.82 0.00 18.58 41.49 0.00 9.00 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
335
CC 02-01-2022
335 of 756
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56
Building Construction Welders 3 1.00 46 0.45
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Cranes 1 1.00 231 0.29
Grading Soil Haul Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 6.00 97 0.37 Grading Soil Haul Rubber Tired Dozers 0 1.00 247 0.40
Grading Soil Haul Concrete/Industrial Saws 0 8.00 81 0.73 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Concrete/Industrial Saws 0 8.00 81 0.73
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37 Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 367 0.48
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Demolition Haul Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 6.00 97 0.37 Demolition Haul Rubber Tired Dozers 0 1.00 247 0.40
Demolition Haul Concrete/Industrial Saws 0 8.00 81 0.73 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power 336
CC 02-01-2022
336 of 756

0.0000 18.9699 18.9699 4.8300e-
003

0.0000 19.09087.5400e-
003

7.5400e-
003

7.0500e-
003

7.0500e-
003
Total 0.0152 0.1496 0.1256 2.2000e-
004

0.0000 18.9699 18.9699 4.8300e-
003

0.0000 19.09087.5400e-
003

7.5400e-
003

7.0500e-
003

7.0500e-
003
Off-Road 0.0152 0.1496 0.1256 2.2000e-
004
CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Replace Ground Cover
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Clean Paved Roads

3.2 Demolition - 2022

10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 3.00 0.00 0.00
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80

10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 8 14.00 2.00 0.00
Grading Soil Haul 0 0.00 0.00 109.00 10.80

10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 4 10.00 2.00 0.00
Site Preparation 3 8.00 2.00 0.00 10.80

10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Demolition Haul 0 0.00 0.00 36.00
Demolition 5 13.00 2.00 0.00 10.80
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle
Class
Hauling
Vehicle
Class
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
337
CC 02-01-2022
337 of 756
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

0.0000 18.9699 18.9699 4.8300e-
003

0.0000 19.09087.5400e-
003

7.5400e-
003

7.0500e-
003

7.0500e-
003
Total 0.0152 0.1496 0.1256 2.2000e-
004

0.0000 18.9699 18.9699 4.8300e-
003

0.0000 19.09087.5400e-
003

7.5400e-
003

7.0500e-
003

7.0500e-
003
Off-Road 0.0152 0.1496 0.1256 2.2000e-
004
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10

0.0000 1.2020 1.2020 4.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.20291.0500e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0500e-
003

2.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004
Total 3.9000e-
004

1.9700e-
003

2.9200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.7403 0.7403 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.74069.3000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

9.3000e-
004

2.5000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.5000e-
004
Worker 3.4000e-
004

2.2000e-
004

2.4600e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.4618 0.4618 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.46231.2000e-
004

0.0000 1.2000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 4.0000e-
005
Vendor 5.0000e-
005

1.7500e-
003

4.6000e-
004

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
338
CC 02-01-2022
338 of 756
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2ePM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00003.6800e-
003

0.0000 3.6800e-
003

5.6000e-
004

0.0000 5.6000e-
004
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00003.6800e-
003

0.0000 3.6800e-
003

5.6000e-
004

0.0000 5.6000e-
004
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2

3.3 Demolition Haul - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10

0.0000 1.2020 1.2020 4.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.20299.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

9.7000e-
004

2.6000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.7000e-
004
Total 3.9000e-
004

1.9700e-
003

2.9200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.7403 0.7403 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.74068.6000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

8.6000e-
004

2.3000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.3000e-
004
Worker 3.4000e-
004

2.2000e-
004

2.4600e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.4618 0.4618 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.46231.1000e-
004

0.0000 1.1000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 4.0000e-
005
Vendor 5.0000e-
005

1.7500e-
003

4.6000e-
004

0.0000

0.0000 1.3372 1.3372 6.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.33872.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
004

8.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

9.0000e-
005
Hauling 1.3000e-
004

4.4200e-
003

1.0300e-
003

1.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00001.5800e-
003

0.0000 1.5800e-
003

2.4000e-
004

0.0000 2.4000e-
004
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00001.5800e-
003

0.0000 1.5800e-
003

2.4000e-
004

0.0000 2.4000e-
004
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10

0.0000 1.3372 1.3372 6.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.33873.1000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.2000e-
004

8.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
004
Total 1.3000e-
004

4.4200e-
003

1.0300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 1.3372 1.3372 6.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.33873.1000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.2000e-
004

8.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
004
Hauling 1.3000e-
004

4.4200e-
003

1.0300e-
003

1.0000e-
005
Category tons/yr MT/yr
340
CC 02-01-2022
340 of 756

0.0000 0.0506 0.0506 0.0000 0.0000 0.05066.0000e-
005

0.0000 6.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.0000e-
005
Worker 2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

1.7000e-
004

0.0000

0.0000 0.0513 0.0513 0.0000 0.0000 0.05141.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 1.0000e-
005

1.9000e-
004

5.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.0000 2.1547 2.1547 7.0000e-
004

0.0000 2.17212.3900e-
003

6.0000e-
004

2.9900e-
003

2.6000e-
004

5.5000e-
004

8.1000e-
004
Total 1.3800e-
003

0.0157 0.0101 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.1547 2.1547 7.0000e-
004

0.0000 2.17216.0000e-
004

6.0000e-
004

5.5000e-
004

5.5000e-
004
Off-Road 1.3800e-
003

0.0157 0.0101 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00002.3900e-
003

0.0000 2.3900e-
003

2.6000e-
004

0.0000 2.6000e-
004
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2

3.4 Site Preparation - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10

0.0000 1.3372 1.3372 6.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.33872.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
004

8.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

9.0000e-
005
Total 1.3000e-
004

4.4200e-
003

1.0300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 341
CC 02-01-2022
341 of 756

3.5 Grading - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site

0.0000 0.1019 0.1019 0.0000 0.0000 0.10207.0000e-
005

0.0000 7.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.0000e-
005
Total 3.0000e-
005

2.1000e-
004

2.2000e-
004

0.0000

0.0000 0.0506 0.0506 0.0000 0.0000 0.05066.0000e-
005

0.0000 6.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.0000e-
005
Worker 2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

1.7000e-
004

0.0000

0.0000 0.0513 0.0513 0.0000 0.0000 0.05141.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 1.0000e-
005

1.9000e-
004

5.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.0000 2.1547 2.1547 7.0000e-
004

0.0000 2.17211.0200e-
003

6.0000e-
004

1.6200e-
003

1.1000e-
004

5.5000e-
004

6.6000e-
004
Total 1.3800e-
003

0.0157 0.0101 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.1547 2.1547 7.0000e-
004

0.0000 2.17216.0000e-
004

6.0000e-
004

5.5000e-
004

5.5000e-
004
Off-Road 1.3800e-
003

0.0157 0.0101 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00001.0200e-
003

0.0000 1.0200e-
003

1.1000e-
004

0.0000 1.1000e-
004
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10

0.0000 0.1019 0.1019 0.0000 0.0000 0.10207.0000e-
005

0.0000 7.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.0000e-
005
Total 3.0000e-
005

2.1000e-
004

2.2000e-
004

0.0000
342
CC 02-01-2022
342 of 756
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2ePM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10

0.0000 0.2292 0.2292 0.0000 0.0000 0.22931.9000e-
004

0.0000 1.9000e-
004

5.0000e-
005

0.0000 5.0000e-
005
Total 7.0000e-
005

4.3000e-
004

5.2000e-
004

0.0000

0.0000 0.1265 0.1265 0.0000 0.0000 0.12661.6000e-
004

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

0.0000 4.0000e-
005
Worker 6.0000e-
005

4.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
004

0.0000

0.0000 0.1026 0.1026 0.0000 0.0000 0.10273.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Vendor 1.0000e-
005

3.9000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

0.0000

0.0000 3.6205 3.6205 1.1700e-
003

0.0000 3.64980.0200 1.4800e-
003

0.0215 7.4800e-
003

1.3700e-
003

8.8500e-
003
Total 3.0800e-
003

0.0340 0.0184 4.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.6205 3.6205 1.1700e-
003

0.0000 3.64981.4800e-
003

1.4800e-
003

1.3700e-
003

1.3700e-
003
Off-Road 3.0800e-
003

0.0340 0.0184 4.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0200 0.0000 0.0200 7.4800e- 003

0.0000 7.4800e-
003
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
343
CC 02-01-2022
343 of 756

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00005.0000e-
005

0.0000 5.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2

3.6 Grading Soil Haul - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10

0.0000 0.2292 0.2292 0.0000 0.0000 0.22931.7000e-
004

0.0000 1.8000e-
004

5.0000e-
005

0.0000 5.0000e-
005
Total 7.0000e-
005

4.3000e-
004

5.2000e-
004

0.0000

0.0000 0.1265 0.1265 0.0000 0.0000 0.12661.5000e-
004

0.0000 1.5000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

0.0000 4.0000e-
005
Worker 6.0000e-
005

4.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
004

0.0000

0.0000 0.1026 0.1026 0.0000 0.0000 0.10272.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Vendor 1.0000e-
005

3.9000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

0.0000

0.0000 3.6205 3.6205 1.1700e-
003

0.0000 3.64988.5500e-
003

1.4800e-
003

0.0100 3.2000e-
003

1.3700e-
003

4.5700e-
003
Total 3.0800e-
003

0.0340 0.0184 4.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.6205 3.6205 1.1700e-
003

0.0000 3.64981.4800e-
003

1.4800e-
003

1.3700e-
003

1.3700e-
003
Off-Road 3.0800e-
003

0.0340 0.0184 4.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00008.5500e-
003

0.0000 8.5500e-
003

3.2000e-
003

0.0000 3.2000e-
003
Fugitive Dust
Category tons/yr MT/yr
344
CC 02-01-2022
344 of 756

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00002.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00002.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10

0.0000 4.0487 4.0487 1.8000e-
004

0.0000 4.05339.2000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

9.6000e-
004

2.5000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004
Total 4.0000e-
004

0.0134 3.1200e-
003

4.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 4.0487 4.0487 1.8000e-
004

0.0000 4.05339.2000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

9.6000e-
004

2.5000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004
Hauling 4.0000e-
004

0.0134 3.1200e-
003

4.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00005.0000e-
005

0.0000 5.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 345
CC 02-01-2022
345 of 756
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

0.0000 100.2434 100.2434 0.0174 0.0000 100.67920.0337 0.0337 0.0322 0.0322Total 0.0706 0.6250 0.7256 1.1700e- 003

0.0000 100.2434 100.2434 0.0174 0.0000 100.67920.0337 0.0337 0.0322 0.0322Off-Road 0.0706 0.6250 0.7256 1.1700e- 003
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2

3.7 Building Construction - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10

0.0000 4.0487 4.0487 1.8000e-
004

0.0000 4.05338.6000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

9.0000e-
004

2.4000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

2.8000e-
004
Total 4.0000e-
004

0.0134 3.1200e-
003

4.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 4.0487 4.0487 1.8000e-
004

0.0000 4.05338.6000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

9.0000e-
004

2.4000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

2.8000e-
004
Hauling 4.0000e-
004

0.0134 3.1200e-
003

4.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
346
CC 02-01-2022
346 of 756
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10

0.0000 100.2433 100.2433 0.0174 0.0000 100.67910.0337 0.0337 0.0322 0.0322Total 0.0706 0.6250 0.7256 1.1700e- 003

0.0000 100.2433 100.2433 0.0174 0.0000 100.67910.0337 0.0337 0.0322 0.0322Off-Road 0.0706 0.6250 0.7256 1.1700e- 003
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10

0.0000 12.3101 12.3101 3.5000e-
004

0.0000 12.31900.0109 9.0000e-
005

0.0110 2.9300e-
003

9.0000e-
005

3.0200e-
003
Total 4.0800e-
003

0.0195 0.0304 1.4000e-
004

0.0000 7.7948 7.7948 1.6000e-
004

0.0000 7.79899.7700e-
003

6.0000e-
005

9.8300e-
003

2.6000e-
003

6.0000e-
005

2.6500e-
003
Worker 3.5400e-
003

2.3600e-
003

0.0259 9.0000e-
005

0.0000 4.5153 4.5153 1.9000e-
004

0.0000 4.52001.1600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1900e-
003

3.3000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

3.7000e-
004
Vendor 5.4000e-
004

0.0171 4.5300e-
003

5.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.4271 0.4271 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.42735.4000e-
004

0.0000 5.4000e-
004

1.4000e-
004

0.0000 1.5000e-
004
Worker 1.9000e-
004

1.3000e-
004

1.4200e-
003

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 6.9795 6.9795 2.2100e-
003

0.0000 7.03482.2000e-
003

2.2000e-
003

2.0200e-
003

2.0200e-
003
Total 4.4600e-
003

0.0420 0.0526 8.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Paving 2.2000e- 004

0.0000 6.9795 6.9795 2.2100e-
003

0.0000 7.03482.2000e-
003

2.2000e-
003

2.0200e-
003

2.0200e-
003
Off-Road 4.2400e-
003

0.0420 0.0526 8.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2

3.8 Paving - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10

0.0000 12.3101 12.3101 3.5000e-
004

0.0000 12.31900.0101 9.0000e-
005

0.0102 2.7300e-
003

9.0000e-
005

2.8200e-
003
Total 4.0800e-
003

0.0195 0.0304 1.4000e-
004

0.0000 7.7948 7.7948 1.6000e-
004

0.0000 7.79899.0100e-
003

6.0000e-
005

9.0700e-
003

2.4100e-
003

6.0000e-
005

2.4700e-
003
Worker 3.5400e-
003

2.3600e-
003

0.0259 9.0000e-
005

0.0000 4.5153 4.5153 1.9000e-
004

0.0000 4.52001.0800e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1200e-
003

3.2000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

3.5000e-
004
Vendor 5.4000e-
004

0.0171 4.5300e-
003

5.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 348
CC 02-01-2022
348 of 756

3.9 Architectural Coating - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site

0.0000 0.4271 0.4271 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.42734.9000e-
004

0.0000 5.0000e-
004

1.3000e-
004

0.0000 1.4000e-
004
Total 1.9000e-
004

1.3000e-
004

1.4200e-
003

0.0000

0.0000 0.4271 0.4271 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.42734.9000e-
004

0.0000 5.0000e-
004

1.3000e-
004

0.0000 1.4000e-
004
Worker 1.9000e-
004

1.3000e-
004

1.4200e-
003

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 6.9795 6.9795 2.2100e-
003

0.0000 7.03482.2000e-
003

2.2000e-
003

2.0200e-
003

2.0200e-
003
Total 4.4600e-
003

0.0420 0.0526 8.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Paving 2.2000e- 004

0.0000 6.9795 6.9795 2.2100e-
003

0.0000 7.03482.2000e-
003

2.2000e-
003

2.0200e-
003

2.0200e-
003
Off-Road 4.2400e-
003

0.0420 0.0526 8.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10

0.0000 0.4271 0.4271 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.42735.4000e-
004

0.0000 5.4000e-
004

1.4000e-
004

0.0000 1.5000e-
004
Total 1.9000e-
004

1.3000e-
004

1.4200e-
003

0.0000
349
CC 02-01-2022
349 of 756
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2ePM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10

0.0000 0.0854 0.0854 0.0000 0.0000 0.08551.1000e-
004

0.0000 1.1000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005
Total 4.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
005

2.8000e-
004

0.0000

0.0000 0.0854 0.0854 0.0000 0.0000 0.08551.1000e-
004

0.0000 1.1000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005
Worker 4.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
005

2.8000e-
004

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 1.1490 1.1490 7.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.15083.7000e-
004

3.7000e-
004

3.7000e-
004
Total 0.0762 6.3400e-
003

8.1600e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.1490 1.1490 7.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.15083.7000e-
004

3.7000e-
004

3.7000e-
004
Off-Road 9.2000e-
004

6.3400e-
003

8.1600e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 0.0753 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
350
CC 02-01-2022
350 of 756

0.0000 0.0854 0.0854 0.0000 0.0000 0.08551.0000e-
004

0.0000 1.0000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005
Total 4.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
005

2.8000e-
004

0.0000

0.0000 0.0854 0.0854 0.0000 0.0000 0.08551.0000e-
004

0.0000 1.0000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005
Worker 4.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
005

2.8000e-
004

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 1.1490 1.1490 7.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.15083.7000e-
004

3.7000e-
004

3.7000e-
004
Total 0.0762 6.3400e-
003

8.1600e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.1490 1.1490 7.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.15083.7000e-
004

3.7000e-
004

3.7000e-
004
Off-Road 9.2000e-
004

6.3400e-
003

8.1600e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 0.0753 Category tons/yr MT/yr
351
CC 02-01-2022
351 of 756

CalEEMod Mitigated Construction Model

352
CC 02-01-2022
352 of 756

0.029 N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.006
58 Climate Zone 4 Operational Year 2022
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2

Page 1 of 1 ends

Cupertino City CouncilFebruary 1, 2022

Cupertino City Council
February 1, 2022