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.
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.
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.
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 ve hicles 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 th rough 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.
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 heal th 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.
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 loca lized 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 sc ientific 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 in cludes 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. Fina l 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/plans-under- development.
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 c ontrol 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 lig ht 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 em issions 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 ne ar 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.
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
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.
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 transpor tation 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:
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.
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 (acc essed). 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.
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 O 3, 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 (acc essed). 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.
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.
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. Sensit ive 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 a ssessment 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 ne w 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 guidan ce 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 ).)
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.
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 m ixing 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 su bstances 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.
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 wi thin 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.
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 infant s 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.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 21
2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Scientists have concluded that human activities are cont ributing 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.
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 subs tances 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.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 23 Table 5 GHG Emissions and Their Relative Global Warming Potential Compared to CO2 GHGs Carbon Dioxide (CO 2) Methane 1 (CH4) Nitrous Oxide (N 2O) 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.
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-deplet ing 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 ca uses 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.
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.
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.
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, kn own 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.
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. Executi ve 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 Califor nia’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 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.
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 air 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 Pollu tant 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.
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.
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 Scopi ng 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 pe rcent 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 rele ased another update in February 2018. The updated targets consider the need to further reduce VMT, as identified in the 2017 Sc oping 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 enacte d 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.
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 contro l 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.
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 Deve lopment 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-fam ily 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.
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 Co mmission 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 composti ng. 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.
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 du ring the 7th Extraordinary Session of 2009–2010 and therefore dubbed “SBX7-7.” SBX7-7 mandated urba n water conservation and authorized the DWR to prepare a plan implementing urban water conservation requirements (20x 2020 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 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 percen t per capita reduction of GHG emissions 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/.
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 Cl imate 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.
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 pr ovide 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 pub lic 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.
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.
Emissions Worksheet
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
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
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
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
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 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 28 90 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.
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 00 0 00 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 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 00 00 0 00 0
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.
GHG Emissions Inventory
Construction
MTCO2e Total Project*
2022 172
Total Construction 172
30-Yr Amortized Construction Emissions 6
BAAQMD Bright-Line Screening Threshold 660 MTCO 2e/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.
Assumptions Worksheet
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 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 constructio n 304
years of construction 0.47 years of constructio n 0.83
months of construction 5.62 months of constructio n 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 Coatin
g 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
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 Equipmen t 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 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
CalEEMod Construction Model
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
22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard Residential Project - Santa Clara County, Annual 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard Residential Project
Santa Clara County, Annual
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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- CO2ROG 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
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
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 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
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
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 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
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
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
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 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
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
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 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
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
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
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 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
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 0.0000 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- CO2ROG 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
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 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
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
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 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
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
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
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 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
0.0000 1.1490 1.1490 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.15083.7000e-
004
3.7000e-
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
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
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 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
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 1.1490 1.1490 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.15083.7000e-
004
3.7000e-
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
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
CalEEMod Mitigated Construction Model
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
22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard Residential Project Mitigated Construction - Santa Clara County, Annual 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard Residential Project Mitigated Construction Santa Clara County, Annual
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 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, MM: Tier 4 Interim equipment for >25 HP 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
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 6,210.00 6,215.00
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 3.00 4.50
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 875.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 9.00
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 2.00 15.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 100.00 176.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 9.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 2.00 4.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 2.00 4.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 18.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 1.00 2.00
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 18.00
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 8.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 34.00 36.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 2.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 7.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 7.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 1.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 6.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 1.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 7.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 4.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 4.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.56 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 3.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 1,280.00 1,279.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 9,000.00 26,172.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 22,130.00 22,127.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0039.82 91.41 67.34 41.49 90.98 80.22 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
37.03 29.02 -7.93 0.00
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
0.0000 152.8585 152.8585 0.0271 0.0000 153.53530.0242 3.9500e- 003
0.0282 7.0800e-
003
3.9400e-
003
0.0110Maximum 0.1110 0.6478 1.0583 1.7500e-
003
0.0000 152.8585 152.8585 0.0271 0.0000 153.53530.0242 3.9500e- 003
0.0282 7.0800e-
003
3.9400e-
003
0.01102022 0.1110 0.6478 1.0583 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
CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 4.00 3.00
2.0 Emissions Summary
2.1 Overall Construction
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 6.00 2.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 19.00 14.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 2.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 2.00
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
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
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power 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 0.2539
6 4-1-2022 6-30-2022 0.2655 0.1910
7 7-1-2022 9-30-2022 0.2684 0.1931
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 0.2539
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
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
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
3.2 Demolition - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment
Replace Ground Cover
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Clean Paved Roads
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
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
0.0000 18.9699 18.9699 4.8300e-
003
0.0000 19.09083.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
Total 4.1700e-
003
0.0769 0.1387 2.2000e-
004
0.0000 18.9699 18.9699 4.8300e-
003
0.0000 19.09083.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
Off-Road 4.1700e-
003
0.0769 0.1387 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
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 0.00003.6800e-
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 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- CO2ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
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 1.33872.8000e-
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
Mitigated 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 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
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
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2ePM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
3.5 Grading - 2022
Unmitigated 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
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 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
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 2.1547 2.1547 7.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.17211.0200e-
003
4.0000e-
005
1.0600e-
003
1.1000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
1.5000e-
004
Total 4.2000e-
004
6.9400e-
003
0.0136 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.1547 2.1547 7.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.17214.0000e-
005
4.0000e-
005
4.0000e-
005
4.0000e-
005
Off-Road 4.2000e-
004
6.9400e-
003
0.0136 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- CO2ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
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
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 0.2292 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 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
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
Category tons/yr MT/yr
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
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 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
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 3.6205 3.6205 1.1700e-
003
0.0000 3.64988.5500e-
003
7.0000e-
005
8.6200e-
003
3.2000e-
003
7.0000e-
005
3.2700e-
003
Total 7.4000e-
004
0.0127 0.0243 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.6205 3.6205 1.1700e-
003
0.0000 3.64987.0000e-
005
7.0000e-
005
7.0000e-
005
7.0000e-
005
Off-Road 7.4000e-
004
0.0127 0.0243 4.0000e-
005
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
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
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 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- CO2ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
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 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 100.67913.1400e- 003
3.1400e-
003
3.1400e-
003
3.1400e-
003
Total 0.0230 0.4709 0.7736 1.1700e-
003
0.0000 100.2433 100.2433 0.0174 0.0000 100.67913.1400e- 003
3.1400e-
003
3.1400e-
003
3.1400e-
003
Off-Road 0.0230 0.4709 0.7736 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 0.0000 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 Mitigated Construction On-Site
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
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 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
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
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2ePM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
3.9 Architectural Coating - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
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 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
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 6.9795 6.9795 2.2100e-
003
0.0000 7.03481.9000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
Total 1.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0598 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 7.03481.9000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
Off-Road 1.5900e-
003
0.0355 0.0598 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- CO2ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
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- 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 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
0.0000 1.1490 1.1490 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.15083.7000e-
004
3.7000e-
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
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
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 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
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 1.1490 1.1490 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.15082.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
Total 0.0755 4.7700e-
003
8.2500e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.1490 1.1490 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.15082.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
Off-Road 2.5000e-
004
4.7700e-
003
8.2500e-
003
1.0000e-
005
........................................................................................................................
A PPENDIX B :
H EALTH R ISK A SSESSMENT
........................................................................................................................
Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data
Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data
1. Health Risk Assessment
1.1 CONSTRUCTION HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
The City of Cupertino (City) proposes to redevelop the project site with a residential development located at 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, California. The proposed project would involve demolishing the existing commercial building on an approximately 0.68-acre site and construction of a nine-unit, single- family attached residential, with one accessory dw elling unit. The site is currently developed with a convenience store and associated paved surface parking. A portion of the site is an undeveloped and unpaved lot. The following provides the background methodology used for the construction health risk assessment for the proposed project.
The latest version of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Guidelines requires projects to evaluate the impact s of construction activities on sensitive receptors (BAAQMD, 2017). Project construction is anticipated to take pl ace starting at the beginning of January 2022 and be completed by November 2022 (approximately 218 wo rkdays). The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site include the adja cent single-family residences to the south. Additional sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the site are senior living residents at Sunny View Bay Area Retirement Community, approximately 525 feet to the northeast. The BAAQMD has developed Screening Tables for Air Toxics Evaluation During Construction (2017) that evaluate constr uction-related health risks as sociated with residential, commercial, and industrial projects. According to the screening tables, the receptors are closer than the distance of 100 meters (328 feet) that would screen ou t potential health risks an d, therefore, could be potentially impacted from the proposed construction activi ties. As a result, a site-specific construction health risk assessment (HRA) has been prepared for the proposed project. This HRA considers the health impact to off-site sensitive receptors (i.e., children at the nearby residences and senior living residents) from construction emissions at the project site, including di esel equipment exhaust (diesel particulate matter or DPM) and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM
2.5).
It should be noted that these health impacts are based on conservative (i.e., health protective) assumptions.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, 2005) and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA, 2015) note that conservative assumptions used in a risk assessment are intended to ensure that the estimated risks do not unde restimate the actual risks. Therefore, the estimated risks may not necessarily represent ac tual risks experienced by populations at or near a site. The use of conservative assumptions tends to produce upper-bound estimates of exposure and thus risk.
For residential-based receptors, the following conservative assumptions were used:
It was assumed that maximum-exposed off-site residential receptors (both children and adults) stood outdoors and are subject to DPM at their residence for 8 hours per day, and approximately 260 construction days per year. In reality, California re sidents typically will spend on average 2 hours per day
outdoors at their residences (USEPA, 2011). This would result in lower exposures to construction related DPM emissions and lower estimated risk values.
The calculated risk for infants from third trimester to age 2 is multiplied by a factor of 10 to account for early life exposure and uncertainty in child versus adult exposure impacts (OEHHA, 2015).
For senior living residents, the following conservative assumptions were used:
It was assumed that maximum exposed receptor (senior living resident) stood outside and are subject to DPM at the retirement community for 8 hours per weekday and approximately 260 construction days per year.
1.2 METHODOLOGY AND SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
For this HRA, the BAAQMD significance thresholds we re deemed to be appropriate and the thresholds that were used for this project are shown below:
Excess cancer risk of more than 10 in a million
Non-cancer hazard index (chronic or acute) greater than 1.0 Incremental increase in average annual PM2.5 concentration of greater than 0.3 μg/m3
The methodology used in this HRA is consistent with the following BAAQMD and the OEHHA guidance documents:
BAAQMD, 2017. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Guidelines. May 2017. BAAQMD, 2016. Planning Healthy Places. May 2016.
BAAQMD, 2010. Screening Tables for Air Toxics Evaluation During Construction. May 2010. BAAQMD, 2012. Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards . Version 3.0. May 2012.
OEHHA. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.
February 2015.
Potential exposures to DPM and PM 2.5 from proposed project construction were evaluated for off-site sensitive receptors in close proximity to the site. Pollutant concentrations were estimated using an air dispersion model, and excess lifetim e cancer risks and chronic non-cancer hazard indexes were calculated.
These risks were then compared to the significance thresholds adopted for this HRA.
Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data Page 3
1.3 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Construction emissions were calculated as average da ily emissions in pounds per day, using the proposed construction schedule and the latest version of California Emissions Estimation Model, known as CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 (CAPCOA, 2016). DPM emissi ons were based on the CalEEMod construction runs, using annual exhaust PM
10 construction emissions presented in pounds (lbs) per day. The PM 2.5 emissions were taken from the CalEEMod output for exhaust PM2.5 also presented in lbs per day.
The project was assumed to take place over 10 mo nths years (218 work days) from January 2022 to November 2022. The average daily emission rates from construction equipment us ed during the proposed project were determined by dividing the annual average emissions for each construction year by the number of construction days per year for each calendar year of construction (i.e., 2022). The off-site hauling emission rates were adjusted to evaluate lo calized emissions from the 0.42-mile haul route within 1,000 feet of the project site. The CalEEMod construction emissions outp ut and emission rate calculations are provided in Appendix A of the HRA.
1.4 DISPERSION MODELING
Air quality modeling was performed using the AERMOD at mospheric dispersion model to assess the impact of emitted compounds on sensitive receptors near the project. The model is a steady state Gaussian plume model and is an approved model by BAAQMD for estimating ground level impacts from point and fugitive sources in simple and complex terrain. The on-site construction emissions for the project were modeled as poly-area sources. The off-site mobile sources were modeled as adjacent line volume sources. The model requires additional input parameters, including chemical emission data and local meteorology. Inputs for the construction emission rates are those described in Section 1.3. Meteorological data obtained from the BAAQMD for the nearest representative meteorological station (Moffett Federal Airfield Airport) with the five latest available years (2009 to 2013) of record we re used to represent loca l weather conditions and prevailing winds.
The modeling analysis also considered the spatial di stribution and elevation of each emitting source in relation to the sensitive receptors. To accommodate the model’s Cartesian grid format, direction-dependent calculations were obtained by iden tifying the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates for each source location. In addition, digital elevation model (D EM) data for the area were obtained and included in the model runs to account for complex terrain. An emission release height of 4.15 meters was used as representative of the stack exhaust height for off-road construction equipment and diesel truck traffic, and an initial vertical dispersion parameter of 1.93 m was used, per California Air Resources Board (CARB) guidance (2000).
To determine contaminant impacts during construction hours, the model’s Season-Hour-Day (HRDOW) scalar option was invoked to predict flagpole-level concentrations (1.5 m for receptors) for construction emissions generated between the hours of 7:00 AM and 4:00 PM with a 1-hour lunch break. In addition, a scalar factor was applied to the risk calculations to ac count for the number of days receptors are exposed to construction emissions per year.
A unit emission rate of 1 gram per second was used for all modeling runs. The unit emission rates were proportioned over the poly-area sources for on-site construction emissions and divided between the volume sources for off-site hauling emissions. The maximum modeled concentrations from the output files were then multiplied by the emission rates calculated in Appendix A to obtain the maximum flagpole-level concentrations at the off-site maximum exposed receptors (MER). The off-site MER is a single-family residence immediately south of the site. The MER loc ation is the receptor location associated with the maximum predicted AERMOD concentrations from the on-site emission source. The calculated on-site emission rates are approximately 4 orders of magnitude higher than the calculated off-site emission rates (see Appendix A). Therefore, the maximum concentrations a ssociated with the on-site emission sources produce the highest overall ground-level MER concentrations and, consequently, highest calculated health risks.
The air dispersion model output for the emission so urces is presented in Appendix B. The model output
DPM and PM2.5 concentrations from the construction emission sources are provided in Appendix C.
1.5 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
1.5.1 Carcinogenic Chemical Risk
A threshold of ten in a million (10x10 -6) has been established as a level posing no significant risk for exposures to carcinogens. Health risks associated with exposure to carcinogenic compounds can be defined in terms of the probability of developing cancer as a result of exposure to a chemical at a given concentration.
The cancer risk probability is determined by multiplyin g the chemical’s annual concentration by its cancer potency factor (CPF), a measure of the carcinogenic potential of a chemical when a dose is received through the inhalation pathway. It is an upper-limit estimate of the probability of contract ing cancer as a result of continuous exposure to an ambient concentr ation of one microgram per cubic meter (µg/m 3) over a lifetime
of 70 years.
Recent guidance from OEHHA recommends a refinement to the standard point estimate approach with the use of age-specific breathing rates and age sensitiv ity factors (ASFs) to a ssess risk for susceptible subpopulations such as children. For the inhalation pathway, the procedure requires the incorporation of several discrete variates to effectively quantify dose for each age group. Once determined, contaminant dose is multiplied by the cancer potency fa ctor in units of inverse dose expressed in milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day)
-1 to derive the cancer risk estimate. Therefore, to accommodate the unique exposures associated with the sensitive receptors, the following dose algorithm was used.
Dose୍ୖ,୮ୣ୰ ୟୣ ୰୭୳୮ ൌ ሺCୟ୧୰ ൈ EF ൈ ሾ BR
BWሿ ൈ A ൈ CFሻ
Where:
DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg-day), per age group Cair = concentration of contaminant in air (µg/m 3)
EF = exposure frequency (number of days/365 days)
BR/BW = daily breathing rate norma lized to body weight (L/kg-day) A = inhalation absorption factor (default = 1)
CF = conversion factor (1x10
-6, µg to mg, L to m3)
Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data Page 5 The inhalation absorption factor (A) is a unitless factor that is only used if the cancer potency factor included a correction for absorption across the lung. The defa ult value of 1 was used for this assessment. For residential receptors, the exposure frequency (EF) of 0.96 is used to represent 350 days per year to allow for a two week period away from home each year (OEHHA, 2015). The 95 th percentile dail y breathing rates (BR/BW), exposure duration (ED), age sensitivity factors (ASFs), and fraction of time at home (FAH) for the various age groups are provided herein:
Age Groups BR/BW (L/kg-day) ED ASF FAH
Third trimester 361 0.25 10 0.85
0-2 age group 1,090 2 10 0.85
2-9 age group 861 7 3 0.72
2-16 age group 745 14 3 0.72
16-30 age group 335 14 1 0.73
16-70 age group 290 54 1 0.73
For construction analysis, the expos ure duration spans the length of construction (e.g. 218 work days, approximately 0.84 year). As the length of construction is less than 2 years, only the third trimester and 0-2 age bins apply to the construction analysis for the off-site residential receptors.
To represent the unique characteristics of senior living populations, the assessment employed the USEPA’s guidance to develop viable dose estimates based on reasonable maximum exposure, defined as the “highest exposure that is reasonably expected to occur” for a given receptor population. To assess senior living residential risk, exposures were adjusted to account for an employment period of 365 days per year for 30 years. This timeline is considered appropriate for potential senior living exposures established by OEHHA.
To calculate the overall cancer risk, the risk for each appropriate age group is calculated per the following equation:
Cancer Risk
୍ୖ ൌ Dose ୍ୖ ൈ CPF ൈ ASF ൈ FAH ൈ ED
𝐴𝑇
Where:
DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg-day), per age group CPF = cancer potency factor, chemical-specific (mg/kg-day) -1 ASF = age sensitivity factor, per age group
FAH = fraction of time at home, per age group (for residential receptors only) ED = exposure duration (years)
AT = averaging time period over which exposure duration is averaged (70 years) The CPFs used in the assessment were obtained from OEHHA guidance. The excess lifetime cancer risks during the construction period to the maximally exposed resident were calculated based on the factors provided above. The cancer risks for each age group ar e summed to estimate the total cancer risk for each toxic chemical species. The final step converts the cancer risk in scientific notation to a whole number that expresses the cancer risk in “chances per million” by multiplying the cancer risk by a factor of 1x10 6 (i.e. 1
million).
The calculated results are provided in Appendix C.
1.5.2 Non-Carcinogenic Hazards
An evaluation was also conducted of the potential non-cancer effects of chronic chemical exposures. Adverse health effects are evaluated by comparing the annual receptor level (flagpole) concentration of each chemical compound with the appropriate reference exposure limit (REL). Available RELs promulgated by OEHHA were considered in the assessment.
The hazard index approach was used to quantify non-ca rcinogenic impacts. The hazard index assumes that chronic sub-threshold exposures adversely affect a speci fic organ or organ system (toxicological endpoint).
Target organs presented in regulatory guidance were us ed for each discrete chemic al exposure. To calculate the hazard index, each chemical concentration or dose is divided by the appropriate toxicity value. This ratio is summed for compounds affecting the same toxicological endpoint. A health hazard is presumed to exist where the total equals or exceeds one.
The chronic hazard analysis for DPM is provided in Appendix C. The calculations contain the relevant exposure concentrations and corresponding reference dose values used in the evaluation of non-carcinogenic exposures.
1.5.3 Criteria Pollutants
The BAAQMD has recently incorporated PM 2.5 into the District’s CEQA significance thresholds due to recent studies that show adverse health impacts from ex posure to this pollutant. An incremental increase of greater than 0.3 µg/m3 for the annual average PM2.5 concentration is considered to be a significant impact.
Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data Page 7
1.6 CONSTRUCTION HRA RESULTS
The calculated results are provided in Appendix C and the results are summarized in Table 1.
TABLE 1. CONSTRUCTION RISK SUMMARY ‐ UNMITIGATED
Receptor
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Chronic
Hazards
PM2.5
(µg/m3)
Maximum Exposed Receptor – Off-site Resident 59.4 0.133 0.63 Maximum Exposed Receptor – Senior Living Resident 0.009 0.002 0.001 BAAQMD Threshold 10 1.0 0.30
Exceeds Threshold? Yes No Yes
Note: Cancer risk calculated using 2015 OEHHA HRA guidance.
Cancer risk for the residential MER from project-related construction emissions was calculated to be 59.4in a million, which exceeds the 10 in a million significance threshold. In accordance with the latest 2015 OEHHA guidance, the calculated total cancer risk conservati vely assumes that the risk for the MER consists of a pregnant woman in the third trimester that subsequently gives birth to an infant during the approximately 10- month construction period; therefore, all calculated risk values were multiplied by a factor of 10. In addition, it was conservatively assumed that the residents were outdoors 8 hours a day, 260-261 construction days per year and exposed to all of the daily construction emi ssions. The cancer risk for the maximum exposed senior living residential receptor would not exceed 10 per million.
For non-carcinogenic effects, the chronic hazard index id entified for each toxicological endpoint totaled less than one for all the off-site sensitive receptors. Therefore, chronic non-carcinogenic hazards are within acceptable limits. For the reside ntial MER, the maximum annual PM 2.5 concentration of 0.63 µg/m3 exceeds the BAAQMD significance threshold of 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m 3). However, the maximum annual PM2.5 concentration for the maximum exposed senior living residential receptor does not exceed the threshold.
The following mitigation measure to project construc tion equipment is proposed because the incremental cancer risk and maximum annual PM 2.5 concentration at the residential MER would exceed BAAQMD’s significance thresholds:
Mitigation Measure AQ-2: During construction, the construction contractor(s) shall:
Use construction equipment that meets the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Tier 4 Interim emissions standards for of f-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 availabl e. 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 similarl y sized engine, as defined by the California Air Resources Board’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 EPA Tier 4 Interim emissions 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 the manufacturer’s 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 California Air Resources Board Rule 2449 and is responsible for ensuring that this requirement is met.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would reduce the project’s localized construction emissions, as shown in Table 2.
The results indicate that, with mitigation, cancer risks and annual PM 2.5 concentrations would be less than BAAQMD’s significance thresholds for residential-based receptors. Therefore, the project would not expose off-site sensitive receptors to substantial concentration s of air pollutant emissions during construction and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
TABLE 2 CONSTRUCTION RISK SUMMARY – MITIGATED
Receptor
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Chronic
Hazards
PM2.5
(µg/m3)a
Maximum Exposed Receptor – Off-site Resident 4.9 0.011 0.05 Maximum Exposed Receptor – Senior Living Resident <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 BAAQMD Threshold 10 1.0 0.3
Exceeds Threshold? No No No
Risks incorporate Mitigation Measure AQ‐2, which requires all equipment of 25 horsepower or more be fitted with engines that meet the EPA’s Tier 4 Interim emissions standards.
Note: Cancer risk calculated using 2015 OEHHA HRA guidance.
Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data Page 9
2. References
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. ———. 2016. Planning Healthy Places. Dated May 2016.
———. 2012. Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards. Version 3.0. Dated May 2012.
———. 2010. Screening Tables for Air Toxics Evaluation During Construction. Version 1.0. Dated May 2010.
———. 2009-2013. Meteorological Data Set fo r Metro Oakland International Airport.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2016. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Version 2016.3.2. Prepared by: ENVIRON International Corporation and the California Air Districts.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles.
———. 2020. Meteorological Files. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/harp-aermod- meteorological-files
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Dated February 2015.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (Final). EPA/600/R-09/052F, 2011.
______. 2005. Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised). EPA-450/2-78-027R.
Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data
Appendix A. Emission Rate Calculations
Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data
Appendix B. Air Dispersion Model Output
Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data
Appendix C. Construction Risk Calculations
PLACEWORKS
0 Scale (Feet)
500
Source: Google Earth Pro, 2020; PlaceWorks, 2020.
Project Site Maximum Exposed Receptor - Residential
Receptors - Residential
Truck Route
Figure 1
Site and Off-Site Receptor Locations
Maximum Exposed Receptor - Senior Living Resident
Receptors - Senior Living Resident
Long Oak LnLong Oak Ln
Spanish Oak CtSpanish Oak Ct
California Oak WyCalifornia Oak Wy
Majestic Oak WyMajestic Oak Wy
English Oak WyEnglish Oak Wy
Salem AveSalem Ave
Poppy DrPoppy Dr
Alpine DrAlpine Dr
Cupertino RdCupertino Rd
Anthony PlAnthony Pl
Silver Oak WySilver Oak Wy
N Foothill BlvdN Foothill Blvd
Stevens Creek BlvdStevens Creek Blvd
Hillcrest RdHillcrest Rd
Bellvue AveBellvue Ave
Janice AveJanice Ave
Dubon AveDubon Ave
Woodridge CtWoodridge Ct
Walnut Cir NWalnut Cir N
Medina LnMedina Ln
Rancho Ventura St
Rancho Ventura St
S Foothill BlvdS Foothill Blvd
Mira Vista RdMira Vista Rd
Palo Vista RdPalo Vista Rd
Casa PlCasa Pl
Ramona CtRamona Ct
Camino Vista DrCamino Vista Dr
Palo Vista AvePalo Vista Ave
Lockwood DrLockwood Dr
Lebanon DrLebanon Dr
McKlintlock LnMcKlintlock Ln
Amad
or Oak Ct
Amad
or Oak Ct
Silver Oak LnSilver Oak Ln
SwanOak LnSwanOak Ln
Residential
Residential
Residential
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD CONSTRUCTION HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data
Appendix A. Emission Rate Calculations
Construction Emissions - DPM and PM2.5
Input to Risk Tables
Average Daily Emissions and Emission Rates
Onsite Construction PM10 Exhaust Emissions1 Onsite Construction PM2.5 Exhaust Emissions2 Year
Average
Daily
Emissions
(lbs/day)
Average
Daily
Emissions
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Rate (g/s)
Average
Daily
Emissions
(lbs/day)
Average
Daily
Emissions
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Rate (g/s)
2022 0.42 5.26E-02 6.63E-03 0.40 5.00E-02 6.29E-03
Offsite Construction PM10 Exhaust Emissions1 Offsite Construction PM2.5 Exhaust Emissions2 Year
Average
Daily
Emissions
(lbs/day)
Hauling
Emissions
w/in 1,000ft
(lbs/day) 3
Emission
Rate (lbs/hr)
Emission
Rate (g/s)
Average
Daily
Emissions
(lbs/day)
Hauling
Emissions
w/in 1,000ft
(lbs/day) 3
Emission
Rate (lbs/hr)
Emission
Rate (g/s)
2022 1.38E-03 2.89E-05 3.61E-06 4.55E-07 1.38E-03 2.89E-05 3.61E-06 4.55E-07 Note: Emissions evenly distributed over 55 modeled volume sources.
Year Workdays Risk Scalar 5
Hauling Length (miles) 20 miles
Haul Length within 1,000 ft of Site (mile) 3 0.42 miles 2022 218 0.84 8 hours
1 DPM emissions taken as PM10 exhaust emissions from CalEEMod average daily emissions. 2 PM2.5 emissions taken as PM2.5 exhaust emissions from CalEEMod average daily emissions. 4 Work hours applied in By Hour/Day (HRDOW) variable emissions module in air dispersion model (see App B - Air Dispersion Model Output).
Hours per work day (7:00 AM to 4:00 PM, 1-
hour of breaks) 4
3 Emissions from CalEEMod offsite average daily emissions, which is based on proportioned haul truck trip distances, are adjusted to evaluate emissions from the 0.42-mile route within 1,000 of the project site.
5 Risk scalars determined for each year of construction to adjust receptor exposures to the exposure durations for each construction year (see App C - Risk Calculations).
Construction Emissions - DPM and PM2.5
Input to Risk Tables
With Mitigation - Tier 4 Interim Engines for Eq. > 25 hp Average Daily Emissions and Emission Rates: Mitigated Scenario Onsite Construction PM10 Exhaust Emissions1 Onsite Construction PM2.5 Exhaust Emissions2 Year
Average
Daily
Emissions
(lbs/day)
Average
Daily
Emissions
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Rate (g/s)
Average
Daily
Emissions
(lbs/day)
Average
Daily
Emissions
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Rate (g/s)
2022 0.03 4.36E-03 5.49E-04 0.03 4.36E-03 5.49E-04
Offsite Construction PM10 Exhaust Emissions1 Offsite Construction PM2.5 Exhaust Emissions2 Year
Average
Daily
Emissions
(lbs/day)
Hauling
Emissions
w/in 1,000ft
(lbs/day) 3
Emission
Rate (lbs/hr)
Emission
Rate (g/s)
Average
Daily
Emissions
(lbs/day)
Hauling
Emissions
w/in 1,000ft
(lbs/day) 3
Emission
Rate (lbs/hr)
Emission
Rate (g/s)
2022 1.38E-03 2.89E-05 3.61E-06 4.55E-07 1.38E-03 2.89E-05 3.61E-06 4.55E-07 Note: Emissions evenly distributed over 55 modeled volume sources.
Year Workdays Risk Scalar 5
Hauling Length (miles) 20 miles
Haul Length within 1,000 ft of Site (mile) 3 0.42 miles 2022 218 0.84 8 hours
1 DPM emissions taken as PM10 exhaust emissions from CalEEMod average daily emissions. 2 PM2.5 emissions taken as PM2.5 exhaust emissions from CalEEMod average daily emissions. 4 Work hours applied in By Hour/Day (HRDOW) variable emissions module in air dispersion model (see App B - Air Dispersion Model Output).
Hours per work day (7:00 AM to 4:00 PM, 1-
hour of breaks) 4
3 Emissions from CalEEMod offsite average daily emissions, which is based on proportioned haul truck trip distances, are adjusted to evaluate emissions from the 0.42-mile route within 1,000 of the project site.
5 Risk scalars determined for each year of construction to adjust receptor exposures to the exposure durations for each construction year (see App C - Risk Calculations).
Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data
Appendix B. Air Dispersion Model Output
*** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino *** 07/21/20 *** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Construction HRA, Residential Receptors *** 09:29:47 PAGE 1
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN
*** MODEL SETUP OPTIONS SUMMARY ***
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
**Model Is Setup For Calculation of Average CONCentration Values.
-- DEPOSITION LOGIC --
**NO GAS DEPOSITION Data Provided.
**NO PARTICLE DEPOSITION Data Provided.
**Model Uses NO DRY DEPLETION. DRYDPLT = F
**Model Uses NO WET DEPLETION. WETDPLT = F
**Model Uses URBAN Dispersion Algorithm for the SBL for 56 Source(s), for Total of 1 Urban Area(s):
Urban Population = 1928000.0 ; Urban Roughness Length = 1.000 m
**Model Uses Regulatory DEFAULT Options:
1. Stack-tip Downwash.
2. Model Accounts for ELEVated Terrain Effects.
3. Use Calms Processing Routine.
4. Use Missing Data Processing Routine.
5. No Exponential Decay.
6. Urban Roughness Length of 1.0 Meter Assumed.
**Other Options Specified:
CCVR_Sub - Meteorological data includes CCVR substitutions TEMP_Sub - Meteorological data includes TEMP substitutions
**Model Accepts FLAGPOLE Receptor Heights.
**The User Specified a Pollutant Type of: OTHER
**Model Calculates PERIOD Averages Only
**This Run Includes: 56 Source(s); 2 Source Group(s); and 391 Receptor(s)
with: 0 POINT(s), including
0 POINTCAP(s) and 0 POINTHOR(s)
and: 55 VOLUME source(s)
and: 1 AREA type source(s)
and: 0 LINE source(s)
and: 0 RLINE/RLINEXT source(s)
and: 0 OPENPIT source(s)
and: 0 BUOYANT LINE source(s) with 0 line(s)
**Model Set To Continue RUNning After the Setup Testing.
Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
**The AERMET Input Meteorological Data Version Date: 14134
**Output Options Selected:
Model Outputs Tables of PERIOD Averages by Receptor
Model Outputs External File(s) of High Values for Plotting (PLOTFILE Keyword) Model Outputs Separate Summary File of High Ranked Values (SUMMFILE Keyword)
**NOTE: The Following Flags May Appear Following CONC Values: c for Calm Hours m for Missing Hours
b for Both Calm and Missing Hours
**Misc. Inputs: Base Elev. for Pot. Temp. Profile (m MSL) = 11.90 ; Decay Coef. = 0.000 ; Rot. Angle = 0.0 Emission Units = GRAMS/SEC ; Emission Rate Unit Factor = 0.10000E+07 Output Units = MICROGRAMS/M**3
**Approximate Storage Requirements of Model = 3.6 MB of RAM.
**Input Runstream File: aermod.inp
**Output Print File: aermod.out
**Detailed Error/Message File: COCU18.err
**File for Summary of Results: COCU18.sum
Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
*** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino *** 07/21/20 *** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Construction HRA, Residential Receptors *** 09:29:47 PAGE 2
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN
*** VOLUME SOURCE DATA ***
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE RELEASE INIT. INIT. URBAN EMISSION RATE SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT SY SZ SOURCE SCALAR VARY ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
L0000001 0 0.18182E-01 582491.5 4131335.0 114.4 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000002 0 0.18182E-01 582493.1 4131322.9 114.8 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000003 0 0.18182E-01 582494.6 4131310.8 115.2 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000004 0 0.18182E-01 582496.2 4131298.8 115.7 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000005 0 0.18182E-01 582497.8 4131286.7 116.1 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000006 0 0.18182E-01 582499.3 4131274.6 116.2 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000007 0 0.18182E-01 582500.9 4131262.5 116.4 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000008 0 0.18182E-01 582502.2 4131250.4 116.3 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000009 0 0.18182E-01 582503.6 4131238.2 116.0 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000010 0 0.18182E-01 582504.9 4131226.1 115.8 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000011 0 0.18182E-01 582506.2 4131214.0 115.7 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000012 0 0.18182E-01 582507.5 4131201.9 115.7 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000013 0 0.18182E-01 582508.7 4131189.8 115.8 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000014 0 0.18182E-01 582509.7 4131177.6 115.9 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000015 0 0.18182E-01 582510.6 4131165.4 115.9 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000016 0 0.18182E-01 582511.6 4131153.3 116.0 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000017 0 0.18182E-01 582512.5 4131141.1 116.1 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000018 0 0.18182E-01 582513.5 4131129.0 116.2 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000019 0 0.18182E-01 582514.4 4131116.8 116.3 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000020 0 0.18182E-01 582514.8 4131104.6 116.5 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000021 0 0.18182E-01 582515.2 4131092.4 116.6 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000022 0 0.18182E-01 582515.7 4131080.3 116.7 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000023 0 0.18182E-01 582516.1 4131068.1 116.8 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000024 0 0.18182E-01 582516.5 4131055.9 117.0 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000025 0 0.18182E-01 582517.0 4131043.7 117.2 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000026 0 0.18182E-01 582517.4 4131031.5 117.5 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000027 0 0.18182E-01 582517.8 4131019.3 117.8 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000028 0 0.18182E-01 582518.3 4131007.2 118.0 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000029
0 0.18182E-01 582518.7 4130995.0 118.1 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000030 0 0.18182E-01 582530.6 4130995.2 117.8 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000031 0 0.18182E-01 582542.8 4130995.8 117.8 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000032 0 0.18182E-01 582555.0 4130996.4 117.7 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000033 0 0.18182E-01 582567.1 4130996.9 117.8 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000034 0 0.18182E-01 582579.3 4130997.5 117.8 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000035 0 0.18182E-01 582591.5 4130998.0 118.1 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000036 0 0.18182E-01 582603.7 4130998.6 118.3 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000037 0 0.18182E-01 582615.8 4130999.2 118.5 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000038 0 0.18182E-01 582628.0 4130999.7 118.6 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
L0000039 0 0.18182E-01 582640.2 4131000.3 118.7 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000040 0 0.18182E-01 582652.4 4131000.9 118.7 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW *** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino *** 07/21/20 *** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Construction HRA, Residential Receptors *** 09:29:47 PAGE 3
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN
*** VOLUME SOURCE DATA ***
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE RELEASE INIT. INIT. URBAN EMISSION RATE SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT SY SZ SOURCE SCALAR VARY ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
L0000041 0 0.18182E-01 582664.6 4131001.4 118.6 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000042 0 0.18182E-01 582676.7 4131002.0 118.5 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000043 0 0.18182E-01 582688.9 4131001.9 118.6 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000044 0 0.18182E-01 582701.1 4131001.7 118.8 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000045 0 0.18182E-01 582713.3 4131001.5 119.0 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000046 0 0.18182E-01 582725.5 4131001.3 119.1 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000047 0 0.18182E-01 582737.7 4131001.1 119.3 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000048 0 0.18182E-01 582749.9 4131000.9 119.5 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000049 0 0.18182E-01 582762.1 4131000.7 119.6 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000050 0 0.18182E-01 582774.2 4131001.3 119.5 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000051 0 0.18182E-01 582786.3 4131003.2 119.5 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000052 0 0.18182E-01 582798.3 4131005.0 119.5 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000053 0 0.18182E-01 582810.4 4131006.9 119.5 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000054 0 0.18182E-01 582822.4 4131008.7 119.5 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW L0000055 0 0.18182E-01 582834.5 4131010.6 119.5 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
*** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino *** 07/21/20 *** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Construction HRA, Residential Receptors *** 09:29:47 PAGE 4
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN
*** AREAPOLY SOURCE DATA ***
NUMBER EMISSION RATE LOCATION OF AREA BASE RELEASE NUMBER INIT. URBAN EMISSION RATE SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC X Y ELEV. HEIGHT OF VERTS. SZ SOURCE SCALAR VARY ID CATS. /METER**2) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1 0 0.32580E
-03 582509.2 4130943.0 118.2 4.15 11 1.93 YES HRDOW Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
*** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino *** 07/21/20 *** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Construction HRA, Residential Receptors *** 09:29:47 PAGE 5
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN
*** SOURCE IDs DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS ***
SRCGROUP ID SOURCE IDs ----------- ---------- ONSITE 1 ,
HAUL L0000001 , L0000002 , L0000003 , L0000004 , L0000005 , L0000006 , L0000007 , L0000008 ,
L0000009 , L0000010 , L0000011 , L0000012 , L0000013 , L0000014 , L0000015 , L0000016 ,
L0000017 , L0000018 , L0000019 , L0000020 , L0000021 , L0000022 , L0000023 , L0000024 ,
L0000025 , L0000026 , L0000027 , L0000028 , L0000029 , L0000030 , L0000031 , L0000032 ,
L0000033 , L0000034 , L0000035 , L0000036 , L0000037 , L0000038 , L0000039 , L0000040 ,
L0000041 , L0000042 , L0000043 , L0000044 , L0000045 , L0000046 , L0000047 , L0000048 ,
L0000049 , L0000050 , L0000051 , L0000052 , L0000053 , L0000054 , L0000055 ,
*** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino *** 07/21/20 *** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Construction HRA, Residential Receptors *** 09:29:47 PAGE 6
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN
*** SOURCE IDs DEFINED AS URBAN SOURCES ***
URBAN ID URBAN POP SOURCE IDs -------- --------- ----------
1928000. 1 , L0000001 , L0000002 , L0000003 , L0000004 , L0000005 , L0000006 , L0000007 ,
L0000008 , L0000009 , L0000010 , L0000011 , L0000012 , L0000013 , L0000014 , L0000015 ,
L0000016 , L0000017 , L0000018 , L0000019 , L0000020 , L0000021 , L0000022 , L0000023 ,
L0000024 , L0000025 , L0000026 , L0000027 , L0000028 , L0000029 , L0000030 , L0000031 ,
L0000032 , L0000033 , L0000034 , L0000035 , L0000036 , L0000037 , L0000038 , L0000039 ,
L0000040 , L0000041 , L0000042 , L0000043 , L0000044 , L0000045 , L0000046 , L0000047 ,
L0000048 , L0000049 , L0000050 , L0000051 , L0000052 , L0000053 , L0000054 , L0000055 , Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
*** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino *** 07/21/20 *** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Construction HRA, Residential Receptors *** 09:29:47 PAGE 7
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN
* SOURCE EMISSION RATE SCALARS WHICH VARY DIURNALLY AND BY DAY OF WEEK (HRDOW) *
SOURCE ID = ALL SOURCES ; SOURCE TYPE = AREAPOLY and VOLUME:
HOUR SCALAR HOUR SCALAR HOUR SCALAR HOUR SCALAR HOUR SCALAR HOUR SCALAR HOUR SCALAR HOUR SCALAR - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - DAY OF WEEK = WEEKDAY
1 .0000E+00 2 .0000E+00 3 .0000E+00 4 .0000E+00 5 .0000E+00 6 .0000E+00 7 .0000E+00 8 .1000E+01 9 .1000E+01 10 .1000E+01 11 .1000E+01 12 .1000E+01 13 .0000E+00 14 .1000E+01 15 .1000E+01 16 .1000E+01 17 .0000E+00 18 .0000E+00 19 .0000E+00 20 .0000E+00 21 .0000E+00 22 .0000E+00 23 .0000E+00 24 .0000E+00 DAY OF WEEK = SATURDAY
1 .0000E+00 2 .0000E+00 3 .0000E+00 4 .0000E+00 5 .0000E+00 6 .0000E+00 7 .0000E+00 8 .0000E+00 9 .0000E+00 10 .0000E+00 11 .0000E+00 12 .0000E+00 13 .0000E+00 14 .0000E+00 15 .0000E+00 16 .0000E+00 17 .0000E+00 18 .0000E+00 19 .0000E+00 20 .0000E+00 21 .0000E+00 22 .0000E+00 23 .0000E+00 24 .0000E+00 DAY OF WEEK = SUNDAY
1 .0000E+00 2 .0000E+00 3 .0000E+00 4 .0000E+00 5 .0000E+00 6 .0000E+00 7 .0000E+00 8 .0000E+00 9 .0000E+00 10 .0000E+00 11 .0000E+00 12 .0000E+00 13 .0000E+00 14 .0000E+00 15 .0000E+00 16 .0000E+00 17 .0000E+00 18 .0000E+00 19 .0000E+00 20 .0000E+00 21 .0000E+00 22 .0000E+00 23 .0000E+00 24 .0000E+00 Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
*** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino *** 07/21/20 *** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Construction HRA, Residential Receptors *** 09:29:47 PAGE 69
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN
*** METEOROLOGICAL DAYS SELECTED FOR PROCESSING ***
(1=YES; 0=NO)
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
NOTE: METEOROLOGICAL DATA ACTUALLY PROCESSED WILL ALSO DEPEND ON WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE DATA FILE.
*** UPPER BOUND OF FIRST THROUGH FIFTH WIND SPEED CATEGORIES *** (METERS/SEC)
1.54, 3.09, 5.14, 8.23, 10.80,
Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
*** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino *** 07/21/20 *** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Construction HRA, Residential Receptors *** 09:29:47 PAGE 70
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN
*** UP TO THE FIRST 24 HOURS OF METEOROLOGICAL DATA ***
Surface file: ..\MetData\745090.SFC Met Version: 14134 Profile file: ..\MetData\745090.PFL
Surface format: FREE
Profile format: FREE
Surface station no.: 23244 Upper air station no.: 23230 Name: UNKNOWN Name: OAKLAND/WSO_AP Year: 2009 Year: 2009
First 24 hours of scalar data
YR MO DY JDY HR H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS WD HT REF TA HT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 09 01 01 1 01 -12.1 0.213 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 236. 72.6 0.09 0.54 1.00 2.86 1. 10.0 282.5 2.0 09 01 01 1 02 -14.9 0.261 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 321. 109.2 0.09 0.54 1.00 3.36 18. 10.0 282.0 2.0 09 01 01 1 03 -9.1 0.160 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 158. 40.7 0.09 0.54 1.00 2.36 24. 10.0 282.0 2.0 09 01 01 1 04 -999.0 -9.000 -9.000 -9.000 -999. -999. -99999.0 0.24 0.54 1.00 0.00 0. 10.0 281.4 2.0 09 01 01 1 05 -3.9 0.075 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 49. 9.8 0.09 0.54 1.00 1.76 23. 10.0 281.4 2.0 09 01 01 1 06 -9.1 0.159 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 153. 40.5 0.09 0.54 1.00 2.36 2. 10.0 280.9 2.0 09 01 01 1 07 -9.1 0.159 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 153. 40.5 0.09 0.54 1.00 2.36 15. 10.0 280.9 2.0 09 01 01 1 08 -4.7 0.084 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 61. 11.7 0.15 0.54 0.73 1.76 323. 10.0 280.9 2.0 09 01 01 1 09 -4.9 0.212 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 234. 179.0 0.15 0.54 0.38 2.36 357. 10.0 280.4 2.0 09 01 01 1 10 5.7 0.163 0.241 0.014 89. 159. -69.3 0.09 0.54 0.25 1.76 11. 10.0 280.9 2.0 09 01 01 1 11 12.2 -9.000 -9.000 -9.000 158. -999. -99999.0 0.24 0.54 0.21 0.00 0. 10.0 280.9 2.0 09 01 01 1 12 16.0 0.426 0.456 0.016 216. 668. -442.4 0.15 0.54 0.19 4.36 346. 10.0 281.4 2.0 09 01 01 1 13 16.6 0.236 0.493 0.015 263. 305. -71.8 0.36 0.54 0.19 1.76 253. 10.0 281.4 2.0 09 01 01 1 14 14.2 -9.000 -9.000 -9.000 297. -999. -99999.0 0.24 0.54 0.20 0.00 0. 10.0 282.0 2.0 09 01 01 1 15 44.9
-9.000 -9.000 -9.000 387. -999. -99999.0 0.24 0.54 0.23 0.00 0. 10.0 283.8 2.0 09 01 01 1 16 13.2 -9.000 -9.000 -9.000 410. -999. -99999.0 0.24 0.54 0.31 0.00 0. 10.0 284.1 2.0 09 01 01 1 17 -12.3 0.130 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 112. 16.2 0.15 0.54 0.55 2.36 351. 10.0 282.1 2.0 09 01 01 1 18 -9.3 0.106 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 83. 11.6 0.36 0.54 1.00 1.76 297. 10.0 282.1 2.0 09 01 01 1 19 -999.0 -9.000 -9.000 -9.000 -999. -999. -99999.0 0.24 0.54 1.00 0.00 0. 10.0 281.1 2.0 09 01 01 1 20 -999.0 -9.000 -9.000 -9.000 -999. -999. -99999.0 0.24 0.54 1.00 0.00 0. 10.0 281.1 2.0 09 01 01 1 21 -999.0 -9.000 -9.000 -9.000 -999. -999. -99999.0 0.24 0.54 1.00 0.00 0. 10.0 281.1 2.0 09 01 01 1 22 -999.0 -9.000 -9.000 -9.000 -999. -999. -99999.0 0.24 0.54 1.00 0.00 0. 10.0 281.1 2.0 09 01 01 1 23 -999.0 -9.000 -9.000 -9.000 -999. -999. -99999.0 0.24 0.54 1.00 0.00 0. 10.0 281.1 2.0 09 01 01 1 24 -999.0 -9.000 -9.000 -9.000 -999. -999. -99999.0 0.24 0.54 1.00 0.00 0. 10.0 280.1 2.0
First hour of profile data
YR MO DY HR HEIGHT F WDIR WSPD AMB_TMP sigmaA sigmaW sigmaV 09 01 01 01 10.0 1 1. 2.86 282.6 99.0 -99.00 -99.00
F indicates top of profile (=1) or below (=0)
Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
*** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino *** 07/21/20 *** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Construction HRA, Residential Receptors *** 09:29:47 PAGE 71
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN
*** THE PERIOD ( 43872 HRS) AVERAGE CONCENTRATION VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: ONSITE *** INCLUDING SOURCE(S): 1 ,
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS ***
** CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 **
X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 582111.53 4130697.09 0.05189 582151.53 4130697.09 0.07355 582191.53 4130697.09 0.11089 582231.53 4130697.09 0.17458 582271.53 4130697.09 0.28405 582311.53 4130697.09 0.47641 582351.53 4130697.09 0.81880 582391.53 4130697.09 1.40788 582431.53 4130697.09 2.30141 582471.53 4130697.09 3.32345 582511.53 4130697.09 3.99311 582551.53 4130697.09 3.94542 582591.53 4130697.09 3.26933 582631.53 4130697.09 2.38250 582671.53 4130697.09 1.60654 582711.53 4130697.09 1.06612 582751.53 4130697.09 0.72524 582791.53 4130697.09 0.50365 582831.53 4130697.09 0.36942 582111.53 4130727.09 0.04952 582151.53 4130727.09 0.06999 582191.53 4130727.09 0.10432 582231.53 4130727.09 0.16687 582271.53 4130727.09 0.28133 582311.53 4130727.09 0.48998 582351.53 4130727.09 0.88966 582391.53 4130727.09 1.63663 582431.53 4130727.09 2.82829 582471.53 4130727.09 4.21964 582511.53 4130727.09 5.07564 582551.53 4130727.09 4.82709 582591.53 4130727.09 3.75293 582631.53 4130727.09 2.55915 582671.53 4130727.09 1.63694 582711.53 4130727.09 1.04707 582751.53 4130727.09 0.69840 582791.53 4130727.09 0.48244 582831.53 4130727.09 0.35241 582111.53 4130757.09 0.04771 582151.53 4130757.09 0.06665 582191.53 4130757.09 0.09885 582231.53 4130757.09 0.15697 582271.53 4130757.09 0.27029 582311.53 4130757.09 0.50033 582351.53 4130757.09 0.96869 582391.53 4130757.09 1.91856 582431.53 4130757.09 3.55198 582471.53 4130757.09 5.52092 582511.53 4130757.09 6.61787 582551.53 4130757.09 5.96909 582591.53 4130757.09 4.28447 582631.53 4130757.09 2.68401 582671.53 4130757.09 1.61156 582711.53 4130757.09 0.99565 582751.53 4130757.09 0.66169 582791.53 4130757.09 0.45952 582831.53 4130757.09 0.33672 582111.53 4130787.09 0.04610 582151.53 4130787.09 0.06314 582191.53 4130787.09 0.09220 582231.53 4130787.09 0.14623 582271.53 4130787.09 0.25486 582311.53 4130787.09 0.49388 582351.53 4130787.09 1.02153 582391.53 4130787.09 2.24565 582431.53 4130787.09 4.57734 582471.53 4130787.09 7.49411 582511.53 4130787.09 8.89340 582551.53 4130787.09 7.44053 582591.53 4130787.09 4.77933 582631.53 4130787.09 2.71167 582671.53 4130787.09 1.53764
582711.53 4130787.09 0.93253 582751.53 4130787.09 0.62012 Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
582791.53 4130787.09 0.43549 582831.53 4130787.09 0.32200 582111.53 4130817.09 0.04577 582151.53 4130817.09 0.06132 582191.53 4130817.09 0.08694 582231.53 4130817.09 0.13549 *** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino *** 07/21/20 *** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Construction HRA, Residential Receptors *** 09:29:47 PAGE 72
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN
*** THE PERIOD ( 43872 HRS) AVERAGE CONCENTRATION VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: ONSITE *** INCLUDING SOURCE(S): 1 ,
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS ***
** CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 **
X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 582271.53 4130817.09 0.23558 582311.53 4130817.09 0.46890 582351.53 4130817.09 1.05415 582391.53 4130817.09 2.63392 582431.53 4130817.09 6.04365 582471.53 4130817.09 10.62496 582511.53 4130817.09 12.42714 582551.53 4130817.09 9.31481 582591.53 4130817.09 5.18312 582631.53 4130817.09 2.63745 582671.53 4130817.09 1.42584 582711.53 4130817.09 0.86979 582751.53 4130817.09 0.57752 582791.53 4130817.09 0.41270 582831.53 4130817.09 0.30963 582111.53 4130847.09 0.04705 582151.53 4130847.09 0.06131 582191.53 4130847.09 0.08443 582231.53 4130847.09 0.12732 582271.53 4130847.09 0.21588 582311.53 4130847.09 0.43081 582351.53 4130847.09 1.02414 582391.53 4130847.09 3.01469 582431.53 4130847.09 8.23465 582471.53 4130847.09 16.01141 582511.53 4130847.09 18.27891 582551.53 4130847.09 11.55991 582591.53 4130847.09 5.34022 582631.53 4130847.09 2.44792 582671.53 4130847.09 1.29038 582711.53 4130847.09 0.79329 582751.53 4130847.09 0.53716 582791.53 4130847.09 0.39246 582831.53 4130847.09 0.29926 582111.53 4130877.09 0.05020 582151.53 4130877.09 0.06442 582191.53 4130877.09 0.08617 582231.53 4130877.09 0.12472 582271.53 4130877.09 0.20059 582311.53 4130877.09 0.38597 582351.53 4130877.09 0.94648 582391.53 4130877.09 3.35059 582431.53 4130877.09 11.79760 582471.53 4130877.09 26.20561 582511.53 4130877.09 28.81194 582551.53 4130877.09 13.59630 582591.53 4130877.09 4.96884 582631.53 4130877.09 2.14041 582671.53 4130877.09 1.14880 582711.53 4130877.09 0.72485 582751.53 4130877.09 0.50483 582791.53 4130877.09 0.37574 582831.53 4130877.09 0.29007 582111.53 4130907.09 0.05579 582151.53 4130907.09 0.07130 582191.53 4130907.09 0.09367 582231.53 4130907.09 0.13185 582271.53 4130907.09 0.20049 582311.53 4130907.09 0.36494 582351.53 4130907.09 0.83355 582391.53 4130907.09 3.37559 582431.53 4130907.09 18.27494 582471.53 4130907.09 47.59861 582511.53 4130907.09 49.39619
582551.53 4130907.09 13.60759 582591.53 4130907.09 4.07477 582631.53 4130907.09 1.80554 582671.53 4130907.09 1.02630 Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
582711.53 4130907.09 0.67270 582751.53 4130907.09 0.47952 582791.53 4130907.09 0.36197 582831.53 4130907.09 0.28218 582111.53 4130937.09 0.06519 582151.53 4130937.09 0.08381 582191.53 4130937.09 0.11147 582231.53 4130937.09 0.15502 582351.53 4130937.09 0.79028 582391.53 4130937.09 2.78391 582431.53 4130937.09 34.50093 582471.53 4130937.09 100.09548 Residential MER *** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino *** 07/21/20 *** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Construction HRA, Residential Receptors *** 09:29:47 PAGE 73
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN
*** THE PERIOD ( 43872 HRS) AVERAGE CONCENTRATION VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: ONSITE *** INCLUDING SOURCE(S): 1 ,
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS ***
** CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 **
X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 582511.53 4130937.09 82.87908 582551.53 4130937.09 10.03204 582591.53 4130937.09 3.11132 582631.53 4130937.09 1.53411 582671.53 4130937.09 0.93244 582711.53 4130937.09 0.63124 582751.53 4130937.09 0.45748 582791.53 4130937.09 0.34873 582831.53 4130937.09 0.27389 582111.53 4130967.09 0.08051 582151.53 4130967.09 0.10516 582191.53 4130967.09 0.14347 582231.53 4130967.09 0.20338 582346.84 4130955.96 0.85895 582432.70 4130954.20 63.76270 582591.53 4130967.09 2.44773 582631.53 4130967.09 1.33224 582671.53 4130967.09 0.84815 582711.53 4130967.09 0.58825 582751.53 4130967.09 0.43211 582791.53 4130967.09 0.33208 582831.53 4130967.09 0.26319 582791.53 4130997.09 0.31055 582831.53 4130997.09 0.24894 582111.53 4131027.09 0.13618 582151.53 4131027.09 0.18690 582191.53 4131027.09 0.28764 582231.53 4131027.09 0.43190 582271.53 4131027.09 0.70203 582311.53 4131027.09 1.26051 582351.53 4131027.09 2.61908 582391.53 4131027.09 5.80612 582431.53 4131027.09 8.86529 582551.53 4131027.09 1.87406 582591.53 4131027.09 1.26219 582631.53 4131027.09 0.86566 582671.53 4131027.09 0.61821 582711.53 4131027.09 0.46207 582751.53 4131027.09 0.35649 582791.53 4131027.09 0.28340 582831.53 4131027.09 0.23097 582111.53 4131057.09 0.18496 582151.53 4131057.09 0.25401 582191.53 4131057.09 0.36403 582231.53 4131057.09 0.54775 582271.53 4131057.09 0.87426 582311.53 4131057.09 1.48729 582351.53 4131057.09 2.62758 582391.53 4131057.09 4.17865 582431.53 4131057.09 4.65023 582551.53 4131057.09 1.07905 582591.53 4131057.09 0.82318 582631.53 4131057.09 0.63545 582671.53 4131057.09 0.49180 582711.53 4131057.09 0.38700 582751.53 4131057.09 0.30892 582791.53 4131057.09 0.25148 582831.53 4131057.09 0.20952 582111.53 4131087.09 0.22281 582151.53 4131087.09 0.30569 582191.53 4131087.09 0.43406 582231.53 4131087.09 0.64013 Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
582271.53 4131087.09 0.97725 582311.53 4131087.09 1.50923 582351.53 4131087.09 2.24413 582391.53 4131087.09 2.84264 582431.53 4131087.09 2.64266 582551.53 4131087.09 0.68446 582591.53 4131087.09 0.55723 582631.53 4131087.09 0.46111 582671.53 4131087.09 0.38214 582711.53 4131087.09 0.31667 582751.53 4131087.09 0.26128 582791.53 4131087.09 0.21848 582831.53 4131087.09 0.18631 582111.53 4131117.09 0.25874 582151.53 4131117.09 0.35121 582191.53 4131117.09 0.48792 582231.53 4131117.09 0.69163 582271.53 4131117.09 0.98900 *** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino *** 07/21/20 *** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Construction HRA, Residential Receptors *** 09:29:47 PAGE 74
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN
*** THE PERIOD ( 43872 HRS) AVERAGE CONCENTRATION VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: ONSITE *** INCLUDING SOURCE(S): 1 ,
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS ***
** CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 **
X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 582311.53 4131117.09 1.38063 582351.53 4131117.09 1.78228 582391.53 4131117.09 1.94068 582431.53 4131117.09 1.63066 582471.53 4131117.09 1.06596 582551.53 4131117.09 0.47546 582591.53 4131117.09 0.39693 582631.53 4131117.09 0.34144 582671.53 4131117.09 0.29512 582711.53 4131117.09 0.25477 582751.53 4131117.09 0.21816 582791.53 4131117.09 0.18724 582831.53 4131117.09 0.16369 582111.53 4131147.09 0.28920 582151.53 4131147.09 0.38420 582191.53 4131147.09 0.51711 582231.53 4131147.09 0.69943 582271.53 4131147.09 0.93330 582311.53 4131147.09 1.18975 582351.53 4131147.09 1.37674 582391.53 4131147.09 1.35359 582431.53 4131147.09 1.07509 582471.53 4131147.09 0.73475 582551.53 4131147.09 0.35128 Senior Living MER 582591.53 4131147.09 0.29613 582631.53 4131147.09 0.26066 582671.53 4131147.09 0.23117 582711.53 4131147.09 0.20513 582751.53 4131147.09 0.18133 582791.53 4131147.09 0.15919 582831.53 4131147.09 0.14238 582191.53 4131177.09 0.52245 582231.53 4131177.09 0.67294 582271.53 4131177.09 0.84153 582311.53 4131177.09 0.99177 582351.53 4131177.09 1.05745 582391.53 4131177.09 0.96851 582431.53 4131177.09 0.74691 582471.53 4131177.09 0.53006 582551.53 4131177.09 0.27049 582591.53 4131177.09 0.22966 582631.53 4131177.09 0.20512 582671.53 4131177.09 0.18481 582711.53 4131177.09 0.16720 582751.53 4131177.09 0.15120 582791.53 4131177.09 0.13508 582831.53 4131177.09 0.12319 582191.53 4131207.09 0.50886 582231.53 4131207.09 0.62482 582271.53 4131207.09 0.73702 582311.53 4131207.09 0.81443 582351.53 4131207.09 0.81501 582391.53 4131207.09 0.71201 582431.53 4131207.09 0.54578 582471.53 4131207.09 0.39239 582551.53 4131207.09 0.21524 Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
582591.53 4131207.09 0.18420 582631.53 4131207.09 0.16575 582671.53 4131207.09 0.15099 582711.53 4131207.09 0.13822 582751.53 4131207.09 0.12710 582791.53 4131207.09 0.11511 582831.53 4131207.09 0.10693 582191.53 4131237.09 0.48155 582231.53 4131237.09 0.56590 582271.53 4131237.09 0.63460 582311.53 4131237.09 0.66528 582351.53 4131237.09 0.63328 582391.53 4131237.09 0.53726 582431.53 4131237.09 0.41256 582471.53 4131237.09 0.30158 582551.53 4131237.09 0.17565 582591.53 4131237.09 0.15125 582631.53 4131237.09 0.13683 582671.53 4131237.09 0.12562 582711.53 4131237.09 0.11591 582751.53 4131237.09 0.10769 582791.53 4131237.09 0.09844 582831.53 4131237.09 0.09265 582191.53 4131267.09 0.44593 Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
*** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino *** 07/21/20 *** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Construction HRA, Residential Receptors *** 09:29:47 PAGE 75
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN
*** THE PERIOD ( 43872 HRS) AVERAGE CONCENTRATION VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: ONSITE *** INCLUDING SOURCE(S): 1 ,
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS ***
** CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 **
X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 582231.53 4131267.09 0.50378 582271.53 4131267.09 0.54105 582311.53 4131267.09 0.54341 582351.53 4131267.09 0.49812 582391.53 4131267.09 0.41455 582431.53 4131267.09 0.32036 582471.53 4131267.09 0.24115 582551.53 4131267.09 0.14620 582591.53 4131267.09 0.12649 582631.53 4131267.09 0.11479 582671.53 4131267.09 0.10613 582711.53 4131267.09 0.09861 582751.53 4131267.09 0.09206 582791.53 4131267.09 0.08453 582831.53 4131267.09 0.08071 582111.53 4131297.09 0.31074 582151.53 4131297.09 0.35967 582191.53 4131297.09 0.40678 582231.53 4131297.09 0.44331 582271.53 4131297.09 0.45907 582311.53 4131297.09 0.44568 582351.53 4131297.09 0.39689 582391.53 4131297.09 0.32638 582431.53 4131297.09 0.25717 582471.53 4131297.09 0.19865 582551.53 4131297.09 0.12362 582591.53 4131297.09 0.10719 582631.53 4131297.09 0.09763 582671.53 4131297.09 0.09079 582711.53 4131297.09 0.08490 582751.53 4131297.09 0.07920 582791.53 4131297.09 0.07345 582831.53 4131297.09 0.07071 582111.53 4131327.09 0.29669 582151.53 4131327.09 0.33396 582191.53 4131327.09 0.36628 582231.53 4131327.09 0.38743 582271.53 4131327.09 0.38913 582311.53 4131327.09 0.36796 582351.53 4131327.09 0.32176 582391.53 4131327.09 0.26334 582431.53 4131327.09 0.21073 582471.53 4131327.09 0.16437 582551.53 4131327.09 0.10582 582591.53 4131327.09 0.09219 582631.53 4131327.09 0.08416 582671.53 4131327.09 0.07857 582711.53 4131327.09 0.07399 582751.53 4131327.09 0.06897 582791.53 4131327.09 0.06523 582831.53 4131327.09 0.06141 582111.53 4131357.09 0.27967 582151.53 4131357.09 0.30744 582191.53 4131357.09 0.32741 582231.53 4131357.09 0.33693 582271.53 4131357.09 0.32985 582311.53 4131357.09 0.30547 582351.53 4131357.09 0.26400 582391.53 4131357.09 0.21569 582431.53 4131357.09 0.17357 582471.53 4131357.09 0.13805 582511.53 4131357.09 0.11018 582551.53 4131357.09 0.09154 582591.53 4131357.09 0.08018 582631.53 4131357.09 0.07333 582671.53 4131357.09 0.06868 582711.53 4131357.09 0.06491 582751.53 4131357.09 0.06080 582791.53 4131357.09 0.05661 582831.53 4131357.09 0.05563
582397.42 4130968.19 3.87683
Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
*** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino *** 07/21/20 *** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Construction HRA, Residential Receptors *** 09:29:47 PAGE 76
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN
*** THE PERIOD ( 43872 HRS) AVERAGE CONCENTRATION VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: HAUL *** INCLUDING SOURCE(S): L0000001 , L0000002 , L0000003 , L0000004 , L0000005 , L0000006 , L0000007 , L0000008 , L0000009 , L0000010 , L0000011 , L0000012 , L0000013 , L0000014 , L0000015 , L0000016 , L0000017 , L0000018 , L0000019 , L0000020 , L0000021 , L0000022 , L0000023 , L0000024 , L0000025 , L0000026 , L0000027 , L0000028 , . . . ,
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS ***
** CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 **
X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 582111.53 4130697.09 0.05167 582151.53 4130697.09 0.06331 582191.53 4130697.09 0.07974 582231.53 4130697.09 0.10132 582271.53 4130697.09 0.13072 582311.53 4130697.09 0.17310 582351.53 4130697.09 0.23498 582391.53 4130697.09 0.32612 582431.53 4130697.09 0.46467 582471.53 4130697.09 0.66271 582511.53 4130697.09 0.91001 582551.53 4130697.09 1.16888 582591.53 4130697.09 1.38560 582631.53 4130697.09 1.51096 582671.53 4130697.09 1.54037 582711.53 4130697.09 1.49919 582751.53 4130697.09 1.41292 582791.53 4130697.09 1.28713 582831.53 4130697.09 1.13567 582111.53 4130727.09 0.05304 582151.53 4130727.09 0.06530 582191.53 4130727.09 0.08140 582231.53 4130727.09 0.10448 582271.53 4130727.09 0.13651 582311.53 4130727.09 0.18076 582351.53 4130727.09 0.24873 582391.53 4130727.09 0.35357 582431.53 4130727.09 0.51553 582471.53 4130727.09 0.75512 582511.53 4130727.09 1.06432 582551.53 4130727.09 1.38424 582591.53 4130727.09 1.63707 582631.53 4130727.09 1.76723 582671.53 4130727.09 1.77899 582711.53 4130727.09 1.71214 582751.53 4130727.09 1.60006 582791.53 4130727.09 1.44895 582831.53 4130727.09 1.26482 582111.53 4130757.09 0.05503 582151.53 4130757.09 0.06765 582191.53 4130757.09 0.08473 582231.53 4130757.09 0.10774 582271.53 4130757.09 0.14117 582311.53 4130757.09 0.19170 582351.53 4130757.09 0.26672 582391.53 4130757.09 0.38865 582431.53 4130757.09 0.57920 582471.53 4130757.09 0.87133 582511.53 4130757.09 1.26118 582551.53 4130757.09 1.66597 582591.53 4130757.09 1.96289 582631.53 4130757.09 2.08739 582671.53 4130757.09 2.06739 582711.53 4130757.09 1.96458 582751.53 4130757.09 1.82865 582791.53 4130757.09 1.64930 582831.53 4130757.09 1.42469 582111.53 4130787.09 0.05636 582151.53 4130787.09 0.06905 582191.53 4130787.09 0.08659 582231.53 4130787.09 0.11153 582271.53 4130787.09 0.14709 582311.53 4130787.09 0.20189 582351.53 4130787.09 0.28329
582391.53 4130787.09 0.42628 582431.53 4130787.09 0.65277 582471.53 4130787.09 1.01510 582511.53 4130787.09 1.51837 Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
582551.53 4130787.09 2.03749 582591.53 4130787.09 2.38798 582631.53 4130787.09 2.49246 582671.53 4130787.09 2.42283 582711.53 4130787.09 2.27891 582751.53 4130787.09 2.11582 582791.53 4130787.09 1.90475 582831.53 4130787.09 1.62696 582111.53 4130817.09 0.05820 582151.53 4130817.09 0.07145 582191.53 4130817.09 0.08888 582231.53 4130817.09 0.11539 *** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino *** 07/21/20 *** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Construction HRA, Residential Receptors *** 09:29:47 PAGE 77
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN
*** THE PERIOD ( 43872 HRS) AVERAGE CONCENTRATION VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: HAUL *** INCLUDING SOURCE(S): L0000001 , L0000002 , L0000003 , L0000004 , L0000005 , L0000006 , L0000007 , L0000008 , L0000009 , L0000010 , L0000011 , L0000012 , L0000013 , L0000014 , L0000015 , L0000016 , L0000017 , L0000018 , L0000019 , L0000020 , L0000021 , L0000022 , L0000023 , L0000024 , L0000025 , L0000026 , L0000027 , L0000028 , . . . ,
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS ***
** CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 **
X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 582271.53 4130817.09 0.15371 582311.53 4130817.09 0.21388 582351.53 4130817.09 0.30388 582391.53 4130817.09 0.46589 582431.53 4130817.09 0.73654 582471.53 4130817.09 1.19003 582511.53 4130817.09 1.86731 582551.53 4130817.09 2.55825 582591.53 4130817.09 2.96581 582631.53 4130817.09 3.01828 582671.53 4130817.09 2.87423 582711.53 4130817.09 2.69283 582751.53 4130817.09 2.49136 582791.53 4130817.09 2.24369 582831.53 4130817.09 1.89265 582111.53 4130847.09 0.06055 582151.53 4130847.09 0.07381 582191.53 4130847.09 0.09200 582231.53 4130847.09 0.11993 582271.53 4130847.09 0.16126 582311.53 4130847.09 0.22684 582351.53 4130847.09 0.31988 582391.53 4130847.09 0.50944 582431.53 4130847.09 0.82585 582471.53 4130847.09 1.41254 582511.53 4130847.09 2.36058 582551.53 4130847.09 3.31987 582591.53 4130847.09 3.77196 582631.53 4130847.09 3.71822 582671.53 4130847.09 3.46970 582711.53 4130847.09 3.23395 582751.53 4130847.09 3.00444 582791.53 4130847.09 2.71420 582831.53 4130847.09 2.25416 582111.53 4130877.09 0.06311 582151.53 4130877.09 0.07722 582191.53 4130877.09 0.09606 582231.53 4130877.09 0.12535 582271.53 4130877.09 0.17059 582311.53 4130877.09 0.24370 582351.53 4130877.09 0.34594 582391.53 4130877.09 0.55532 582431.53 4130877.09 0.92945 582471.53 4130877.09 1.69634 582511.53 4130877.09 3.09613 582551.53 4130877.09 4.49736 582591.53 4130877.09 4.93492 582631.53 4130877.09 4.68033 582671.53 4130877.09 4.29814 582711.53 4130877.09 4.00340 582751.53 4130877.09 3.75841 582791.53 4130877.09 3.40977
582831.53 4130877.09 2.77396 582111.53 4130907.09 0.06602 582151.53 4130907.09 0.08090 582191.53 4130907.09 0.10022 Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
582231.53 4130907.09 0.13144 582271.53 4130907.09 0.17923 582311.53 4130907.09 0.25980 582351.53 4130907.09 0.37613 582391.53 4130907.09 0.59813 582431.53 4130907.09 1.03941 582471.53 4130907.09 2.04509 582511.53 4130907.09 4.28167 582551.53 4130907.09 6.48070 582591.53 4130907.09 6.69201 582631.53 4130907.09 6.09257 582671.53 4130907.09 5.55213 582711.53 4130907.09 5.21053 582751.53 4130907.09 4.95637 582791.53 4130907.09 4.52873 582831.53 4130907.09 3.58090 582111.53 4130937.09 0.06958 582151.53 4130937.09 0.08499 582191.53 4130937.09 0.10663 582231.53 4130937.09 0.13806 582351.53 4130937.09 0.40978 582391.53 4130937.09 0.64673 582431.53 4130937.09 1.16261 582471.53 4130937.09 2.46913 Residential MER *** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino *** 07/21/20 *** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Construction HRA, Residential Receptors *** 09:29:47 PAGE 78
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN
*** THE PERIOD ( 43872 HRS) AVERAGE CONCENTRATION VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: HAUL *** INCLUDING SOURCE(S): L0000001 , L0000002 , L0000003 , L0000004 , L0000005 , L0000006 , L0000007 , L0000008 , L0000009 , L0000010 , L0000011 , L0000012 , L0000013 , L0000014 , L0000015 , L0000016 , L0000017 , L0000018 , L0000019 , L0000020 , L0000021 , L0000022 , L0000023 , L0000024 , L0000025 , L0000026 , L0000027 , L0000028 , . . . ,
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS ***
** CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 **
X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 582511.53 4130937.09 6.46338 582551.53 4130937.09 10.17475 582591.53 4130937.09 9.51216 582631.53 4130937.09 8.37963 582671.53 4130937.09 7.67943 582711.53 4130937.09 7.31784 582751.53 4130937.09 7.08066 582791.53 4130937.09 6.54256 582831.53 4130937.09 4.97111 582111.53 4130967.09 0.07375 582151.53 4130967.09 0.08980 582191.53 4130967.09 0.11471 582231.53 4130967.09 0.14728 582346.84 4130955.96 0.40835 582432.70 4130954.20 1.27035 582591.53 4130967.09 14.50955 582631.53 4130967.09 12.61346 582671.53 4130967.09 11.79222 582711.53 4130967.09 11.50556 582751.53 4130967.09 11.30374 582791.53 4130967.09 10.50606 582831.53 4130967.09 7.71376 582791.53 4130997.09 5.97759 582831.53 4130997.09 13.90706 582111.53 4131027.09 0.08778 582151.53 4131027.09 0.10781 582191.53 4131027.09 0.13747 582231.53 4131027.09 0.17737 582271.53 4131027.09 0.24245 582311.53 4131027.09 0.33929 582351.53 4131027.09 0.52439 582391.53 4131027.09 0.88209 582431.53 4131027.09 1.71829 582551.53 4131027.09 13.06873 582591.53 4131027.09 8.64230 582631.53 4131027.09 7.33676 582671.53 4131027.09 6.65000 582711.53 4131027.09 6.21801 582751.53 4131027.09 5.69418 582791.53 4131027.09 5.61049 582831.53 4131027.09 4.53402 582111.53 4131057.09 0.09609 582151.53 4131057.09 0.11940 582191.53 4131057.09 0.15098 Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
582231.53 4131057.09 0.19588 582271.53 4131057.09 0.26270 582311.53 4131057.09 0.37166 582351.53 4131057.09 0.57967 582391.53 4131057.09 0.97790 582431.53 4131057.09 1.95677 582551.53 4131057.09 11.08283 582591.53 4131057.09 5.87362 582631.53 4131057.09 4.29355 582671.53 4131057.09 3.63376 582711.53 4131057.09 3.22691 582751.53 4131057.09 2.83303 582791.53 4131057.09 2.39781 582831.53 4131057.09 1.69674 582111.53 4131087.09 0.10460 582151.53 4131087.09 0.12928 582191.53 4131087.09 0.16358 582231.53 4131087.09 0.21530 582271.53 4131087.09 0.29750 582311.53 4131087.09 0.41570 582351.53 4131087.09 0.63543 582391.53 4131087.09 1.07086 582431.53 4131087.09 2.09843 582551.53 4131087.09 10.03954 582591.53 4131087.09 4.74800 582631.53 4131087.09 3.12262 582671.53 4131087.09 2.43297 582711.53 4131087.09 2.05446 582751.53 4131087.09 1.72927 582791.53 4131087.09 1.34769 582831.53 4131087.09 0.98257 582111.53 4131117.09 0.11462 582151.53 4131117.09 0.14405 582191.53 4131117.09 0.18379 582231.53 4131117.09 0.24142 582271.53 4131117.09 0.33054 *** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino *** 07/21/20 *** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Construction HRA, Residential Receptors *** 09:29:47 PAGE 79
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN
*** THE PERIOD ( 43872 HRS) AVERAGE CONCENTRATION VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: HAUL *** INCLUDING SOURCE(S): L0000001 , L0000002 , L0000003 , L0000004 , L0000005 , L0000006 , L0000007 , L0000008 , L0000009 , L0000010 , L0000011 , L0000012 , L0000013 , L0000014 , L0000015 , L0000016 , L0000017 , L0000018 , L0000019 , L0000020 , L0000021 , L0000022 , L0000023 , L0000024 , L0000025 , L0000026 , L0000027 , L0000028 , . . . ,
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS ***
** CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 **
X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 582311.53 4131117.09 0.46162 582351.53 4131117.09 0.69205 582391.53 4131117.09 1.14711 582431.53 4131117.09 2.17961 582471.53 4131117.09 5.25086 582551.53 4131117.09 9.05604 582591.53 4131117.09 4.03365 582631.53 4131117.09 2.48101 582671.53 4131117.09 1.81692 582711.53 4131117.09 1.46229 582751.53 4131117.09 1.19176 582791.53 4131117.09 0.90705 582831.53 4131117.09 0.70126 582111.53 4131147.09 0.12817 582151.53 4131147.09 0.15812 582191.53 4131147.09 0.19975 582231.53 4131147.09 0.26104 582271.53 4131147.09 0.35304 582311.53 4131147.09 0.49772 582351.53 4131147.09 0.73985 582391.53 4131147.09 1.19780 582431.53 4131147.09 2.18580 582471.53 4131147.09 5.54534 582551.53 4131147.09 8.07810 Senior Living MER 582591.53 4131147.09 3.47273 582631.53 4131147.09 2.03535 582671.53 4131147.09 1.43406 582711.53 4131147.09 1.11463 582751.53 4131147.09 0.88494 582791.53 4131147.09 0.67626 582831.53 4131147.09 0.53997 582191.53 4131177.09 0.21200 Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
582231.53 4131177.09 0.27632 582271.53 4131177.09 0.37353 582311.53 4131177.09 0.52444 582351.53 4131177.09 0.76845 582391.53 4131177.09 1.20335 582431.53 4131177.09 2.12790 582471.53 4131177.09 5.82646 582551.53 4131177.09 7.10314 582591.53 4131177.09 2.93618 582631.53 4131177.09 1.68132 582671.53 4131177.09 1.16194 582711.53 4131177.09 0.88512 582751.53 4131177.09 0.69286 582791.53 4131177.09 0.53429 582831.53 4131177.09 0.43484 582191.53 4131207.09 0.22392 582231.53 4131207.09 0.29001 582271.53 4131207.09 0.38993 582311.53 4131207.09 0.53967 582351.53 4131207.09 0.77476 582391.53 4131207.09 1.17754 582431.53 4131207.09 2.10803 582471.53 4131207.09 5.82456 582551.53 4131207.09 5.98920 582591.53 4131207.09 2.43515 582631.53 4131207.09 1.38644 582671.53 4131207.09 0.95496 582711.53 4131207.09 0.72292 582751.53 4131207.09 0.56383 582791.53 4131207.09 0.43992 582831.53 4131207.09 0.36410 582191.53 4131237.09 0.23462 582231.53 4131237.09 0.30005 582271.53 4131237.09 0.39991 582311.53 4131237.09 0.54588 582351.53 4131237.09 0.76509 582391.53 4131237.09 1.14414 582431.53 4131237.09 2.05135 582471.53 4131237.09 5.81887 582551.53 4131237.09 4.82430 582591.53 4131237.09 1.96034 582631.53 4131237.09 1.13834 582671.53 4131237.09 0.79269 582711.53 4131237.09 0.60175 582751.53 4131237.09 0.46952 582791.53 4131237.09 0.36976 582831.53 4131237.09 0.31102 582191.53 4131267.09 0.24272 *** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino *** 07/21/20 *** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Construction HRA, Residential Receptors *** 09:29:47 PAGE 80
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN
*** THE PERIOD ( 43872 HRS) AVERAGE CONCENTRATION VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: HAUL *** INCLUDING SOURCE(S): L0000001 , L0000002 , L0000003 , L0000004 , L0000005 , L0000006 , L0000007 , L0000008 , L0000009 , L0000010 , L0000011 , L0000012 , L0000013 , L0000014 , L0000015 , L0000016 , L0000017 , L0000018 , L0000019 , L0000020 , L0000021 , L0000022 , L0000023 , L0000024 , L0000025 , L0000026 , L0000027 , L0000028 , . . . ,
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS ***
** CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 **
X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 582231.53 4131267.09 0.30747 582271.53 4131267.09 0.40504 582311.53 4131267.09 0.54478 582351.53 4131267.09 0.74653 582391.53 4131267.09 1.10679 582431.53 4131267.09 1.93989 582471.53 4131267.09 5.84643 582551.53 4131267.09 3.62973 582591.53 4131267.09 1.53456 582631.53 4131267.09 0.93176 582671.53 4131267.09 0.66246 582711.53 4131267.09 0.50707 582751.53 4131267.09 0.39549 582791.53 4131267.09 0.31736 582831.53 4131267.09 0.26953 582111.53 4131297.09 0.16431
582151.53 4131297.09 0.20121 582191.53 4131297.09 0.24862 582231.53 4131297.09 0.31327 582271.53 4131297.09 0.40640 Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
582311.53 4131297.09 0.53806 582351.53 4131297.09 0.72082 582391.53 4131297.09 1.05697 582431.53 4131297.09 1.82672 582471.53 4131297.09 5.69981 582551.53 4131297.09 2.50871 582591.53 4131297.09 1.17928 582631.53 4131297.09 0.75941 582671.53 4131297.09 0.55493 582711.53 4131297.09 0.43030 582751.53 4131297.09 0.33540 582791.53 4131297.09 0.27293 582831.53 4131297.09 0.23343 582111.53 4131327.09 0.16747 582151.53 4131327.09 0.20535 582191.53 4131327.09 0.25367 582231.53 4131327.09 0.31494 582271.53 4131327.09 0.40264 582311.53 4131327.09 0.52522 582351.53 4131327.09 0.69299 582391.53 4131327.09 1.00594 582431.53 4131327.09 1.69329 582471.53 4131327.09 4.85240 582551.53 4131327.09 1.66482 582591.53 4131327.09 0.90533 582631.53 4131327.09 0.61717 582671.53 4131327.09 0.46389 582711.53 4131327.09 0.36528 582751.53 4131327.09 0.28576 582791.53 4131327.09 0.23081 582831.53 4131327.09 0.20298 582111.53 4131357.09 0.16775 582151.53 4131357.09 0.20613 582191.53 4131357.09 0.25454 582231.53 4131357.09 0.31391 582271.53 4131357.09 0.39478 582311.53 4131357.09 0.50711 582351.53 4131357.09 0.65401 582391.53 4131357.09 0.92886 582431.53 4131357.09 1.41802 582471.53 4131357.09 2.82995 582511.53 4131357.09 2.11478 582551.53 4131357.09 1.08243 582591.53 4131357.09 0.68512 582631.53 4131357.09 0.49688 582671.53 4131357.09 0.38623 582711.53 4131357.09 0.31095 582751.53 4131357.09 0.24654 582791.53 4131357.09 0.19212 582831.53 4131357.09 0.17279 582397.42 4130968.19 0.77674
Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
*** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino *** 07/21/20 *** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Construction HRA, Residential Receptors *** 09:29:47 PAGE 81
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN
*** THE SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM PERIOD ( 43872 HRS) RESULTS ***
** CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 **
NETWORK
GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZHILL, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID-ID - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Residential MER
ONSITE 1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS 100.09548 AT ( 582471.53, 4130937.09, 119.33, 254.10, 1.50) DC 2ND HIGHEST VALUE IS 82.87908 AT ( 582511.53, 4130937.09, 118.32, 254.10, 1.50) DC 3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS 63.76270 AT ( 582432.70, 4130954.20, 119.91, 254.10, 1.50) DC 4TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 49.39619 AT ( 582511.53, 4130907.09, 118.67, 254.10, 1.50) DC 5TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 47.59861 AT ( 582471.53, 4130907.09, 119.44, 254.10, 1.50) DC 6TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 34.50093 AT ( 582431.53, 4130937.09, 120.06, 254.10, 1.50) DC 7TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 28.81194 AT ( 582511.53, 4130877.09, 118.77, 254.10, 1.50) DC 8TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 26.20561 AT ( 582471.53, 4130877.09, 119.56, 254.10, 1.50) DC 9TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 18.27891 AT ( 582511.53, 4130847.09, 119.02, 254.10, 1.50) DC 10TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 18.27494 AT ( 582431.53, 4130907.09, 120.13, 254.10, 1.50) DC
HAUL 1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS 14.50955 AT ( 582591.53, 4130967.09, 118.21, 254.10, 1.50) DC 2ND HIGHEST VALUE IS 13.90706 AT ( 582831.53, 4130997.09, 119.67, 119.67, 1.50) DC 3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS 13.06873 AT ( 582551.53, 4131027.09, 117.53, 254.10, 1.50) DC 4TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 12.61346 AT ( 582631.53, 4130967.09, 119.30, 254.10, 1.50) DC 5TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 11.79222 AT ( 582671.53, 4130967.09, 119.16, 252.84, 1.50) DC 6TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 11.50556 AT ( 582711.53, 4130967.09, 119.28, 119.28, 1.50) DC 7TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 11.30374 AT ( 582751.53, 4130967.09, 119.72, 119.72, 1.50) DC 8TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 11.08283 AT ( 582551.53, 4131057.09, 116.80, 254.10, 1.50) DC 9TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 10.50606 AT ( 582791.53, 4130967.09, 119.60, 119.60, 1.50) DC 10TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 10.17475 AT ( 582551.53, 4130937.09, 118.24, 254.10, 1.50) DC
*** RECEPTOR TYPES: GC = GRIDCART
GP = GRIDPOLR
DC = DISCCART
DP = DISCPOLR
Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
*** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino *** 07/21/20 *** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Construction HRA, Residential Receptors *** 09:29:47 PAGE 82
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN
*** Message Summary : AERMOD Model Execution ***
--------- Summary of Total Messages --------
A Total of 0 Fatal Error Message(s)
A Total of 0 Warning Message(s)
A Total of 15496 Informational Message(s)
A Total of 43872 Hours Were Processed
A Total of 14061 Calm Hours Identified
A Total of 1435 Missing Hours Identified ( 3.27 Percent)
******** FATAL ERROR MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
************************************
*** AERMOD Finishes Successfully ***
************************************
Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data
Appendix C. Construction Risk Calculations
Table C1
Residential MER Concentrations for Risk Calculations
Contaminant Model Emission Rates 2 MER Total MER Conc.
Output 1 Conc. Annual Average
(µg/m3) (g/s) (µg/m3)( µg/m3)
( a ) ( c ) ( d ) ( e ) ( f )
Residential Receptors - Unmitigated
DPM 2022 On-Site Emissions 100.1 6.63E-03 6.64E-01 6.64E-01 Truck Route 2.47 4.55E-07 1.12E-06
Total DPM concentrations used for Cancer Risk and Chronic Hazard calculations 2022 On-Site Emissions 100.1 6.29E-03 6.30E-01 6.30E-01 Truck Route 2.47 4.55E-07 1.12E-06
Maximum Annual PM2.5 Concentration 0.63
Residential Receptors - Mitigated Run: Tier 4 Interim Engines for eq. > 25 HP DPM 2022 On-Site Emissions 100.1 5.49E-04 5.50E-02 5.50E-02 Truck Route 2.47 4.55E-07 1.12E-06
Total DPM concentrations used for Cancer Risk and Chronic Hazard calculations 2022 On-Site Emissions 100.1 5.49E-04 5.50E-02 5.50E-02 Truck Route 2.47 4.55E-07 1.12E-06
Maximum Annual PM2.5 Concentration 0.05
Maximum Exposed Receptor (MER) UTM coordinates: 582471.53E, 4130937.09N 1 Model Output at the MER based on unit emission rates for sources (1 g/s). 2 Emission Rates from Emission Rate Calculations (Appendix A - Construction Emissions).
Source
( b )
PM2.5
PM2.5
Table C2
Residential MER Health Risk Calculations
MER Weight Contaminant Total Cancer
Risk
Conc. Fraction URF CPF 3rd Trimester 0 < 2 years 3rd Trimester 0 < 2 years REL RESP (µg/m3) (µg/m 3)-1 (mg/kg/day)-1 (mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day) per million per million per million (µg/m3) ( b ) ( c ) ( d ) ( e ) ( f ) ( g ) ( h ) ( j ) ( k ) ( m ) ( n ) ( o ) Residential Receptors - Unmitigated
2022 6.64E-01 1.00E+00 DPM 3.0E-04 1.1E+00 2.30E-04 6.94E-04 7.32E+00 5.20E+01 59.4 5.0E+00 1.33E-01 Total 59.4 0.133
Residential Receptors - Mitigated Run: Tier 4 Interim Engines for eq. > 25 HP 2022 5.50E-02 1.00E+00 DPM 3.0E-04 1.1E+00 1.90E-05 5.74E-05 6.06E-01 4.31E+00 4.9 5.0E+00 1.10E-02 Total 4.9 0.011
Maximum Exposed Receptor (MER) UTM coordinates: 582471.53E, 4130937.09N OEHHA age bin 3rd Trimester 0 < 2 years
exposure year(s) 2022 2022
Dose Exposure Factors: exposure frequency (days/year) 350 350 inhalation rate (L/kg-day) 1 361 1090
inhalation absorption factor 11
conversion factor (mg/µg; m3/L) 1.0E-06 1.0E-06
Risk Calculation Factors: age sensitivity factor 10 10
averaging time (years) 70 70
per million 1.0E+06 1.0E+06
fraction of time at home 0.85 0.85
exposure durations per age bin
Construction Year Risk Scalar 2 3rd Trimester 0 < 2 years 2022 0.84 0.25 0.59
Total 0.84 0.25 0.59
1 Inhalation rate taken as the 95th percentile breathing rates (OEHHA, 2015). 2 Risk scalar determined for each year of construction to adjust receptor exposures to the exposure durations for each construction year (see App A - Construction Emissions). 3 Chronic Hazards for DPM using the chronic reference exposure level (REL) for the Respiratory Toxicological Endpoint.
Chronic Hazards 3
( a )
Source
On & Off-Site Emissions
On & Off-Site Emissions
Carcinogenic Risks
(by age bin)Dose (by age bin)
exposure durations (year)
Table C3
Senior Living MER Concentrations for Risk Calculations
Contaminant Model Emission Rates 2 MER Total MER Conc.
Output 1 Conc. Annual Average
(µg/m3) (g/s) (µg/m3)( µg/m3)
( a ) ( c ) ( d ) ( e ) ( f )
Senior Living Receptors - Unmitigated
DPM 2022 On-Site Emissions 0.35 6.63E-03 2.33E-03 2.33E-03 Truck Route 8.08 4.55E-07 3.68E-06
Total DPM concentrations used for Cancer Risk and Chronic Hazard calculations PM25 2022 On-Site Emissions 0.35 6.29E-03 2.21E-03 2.21E-03 Truck Route 8.08 4.55E-07 3.68E-06
Maximum Annual PM2.5 Concentration 2.2E-03
Senior Living Receptors - Mitigated Run: Tier 4 Interim Engines for eq. > 50 HP DPM 2022 On-Site Emissions 0.35 5.49E-04 1.92E-04 1.96E-04 Truck Route 8.08 4.55E-07 3.68E-06
Total DPM concentrations used for Cancer Risk and Chronic Hazard calculations 2022 On-Site Emissions 0.35 5.49E-04 1.92E-04 1.96E-04
Truck Route 8.08 4.55E-07 3.68E-06
Maximum Annual PM2.5 Concentration 2.0E-04
Senior Living MER UTM coordinates: 582551.53E, 4131147.09N 2 Emission Rates from Emission Rate Calculations (Appendix A - Construction Emissions).
Source
( b )
1 Model Output at the MER based on unit emission rates for sources (1 g/s).
PM2.5
Table C4
Senior Living MER Health Risk Calculations
MER Weight
Conc. Fraction URF CPF Senior Resident
16 < 70 years
Senior Resident
16 < 70 years REL
RESP
(µg/m3) (µg/ m3)-1 (mg/kg/day)-1 (mg/kg-day) per million (µg/ m3) ( b ) ( c ) ( d ) ( e ) ( f ) ( g ) ( j ) ( n ) ( o )
Senior Living Receptors - Unmitigated
2022 2.33E-03 1.00E+00 DPM 3.0E-04 1.1E+00 6.77E-07 8.51E-03 5.0E+00 4.67E-04 Total 8.5E-03 4.7E-04
Senior Living Receptors - Mitigated Run: Tier 4 Interim Engines for eq. > 50 HP 2022 1.96E-04 1.00E+00 DPM 3.0E-04 1.1E+00 5.68E-08 7.14E-04 5.0E+00 3.92E-05 Total 7.1E-04 3.9E-05
Senior Resident
OEHHA age bin 16 < 70 years
exposure year(s) 2021-2022
Dose Exposure Factors: exposure frequency (days/year) 365 inhalation rate (L/kg-day) 1 290
inhalation absorption factor 1
conversion factor (mg/µg; m3/L) 1.0E-06
Risk Calculation Factors: age sensitivity factor 1
averaging time (years) 70
per million 1.0E+06
Construction Year Risk Scalar 2 Senior Res
2022 0.84 0.84
Total 0.84 0.84
1 Inhalation rate taken as the 95th percentile breathing rates (OEHHA, 2015). 3 Chronic Hazards for DPM using the chronic reference exposure level (REL) for the Respiratory Toxicological Endpoint.
Source Dose (by age bin) Carcinogenic Risks
(by age bin) Chronic Hazards 3Contaminant
( a )
On & Off-
Site
On & Off-
Site
exposure durations
(year)
2 Risk scalar determined for each year of construction to adjust receptor exposures to the exposure durations for each construction year (see App A - Construction Emissions).
exposure durations per age bin
........................................................................................................................
A PPENDIX C :
G EOTECHNICAL R EPORT
........................................................................................................................
Geotechnical Report
For the New Development at
22690 Stevens Creek
Cupertino, CA 95014
APN#342-14-104
Prepared for
Mr. Ali Mozaffari
Alan Enterprise LLC
By
Achievement Engineering Corp.
2455 Autumnvale Drive, Unit E
San Jose, California, 95131
Project Number: 4134
Date: March 03, 2020
Project Number: 4134
Date: March 03, 2020
Mr. Ali Mozaffari
22690 Stevens Creek
Cupertino, CA 95014
Subject: Geotechnical Report for the New Development at 22690 Stevens Creek
Cupertino, CA 95014
APN#342-14-104
Dear Sir,
Achievement Engineering Corp. (AEC) is pleased to submit this Geotechnical Report for the above- referenced project. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the subsurface soil conditions at the proposed site and develop recommendations for the design and construction of the structure foundations.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project and would be happy to discuss our findings with you. We look forward to serving as your geotechnical / environmental engineer on the future projects.
Respectfully Submitted,
Achievement Engineering Corp.
Sadaf M. Safaai, PE
Project Engineer
Copies: Mr. Ali Mozaffari, Alan Enterprise LLC
Achievement Engineering Corp.
ii
Table of Contents
1- Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1-1- Project Description ....................................................................................................................... 1 1-2- Geologic Setting and Faults .......................................................................................................... 1 1-2-1 Regional Geology ............................................................................................................................ 1 2- Project Investigation ............................................................................................................................. 3 2-1- Field Investigation and Exploratory Boreholes ............................................................................ 3 2-1-1- Ground Water Table.............................................................................................................. 4 2-1-2- Standard Penetration Test (SPT) (ASTM: D1586) ............................................................... 4 2-2- Laboratory Test Results ................................................................................................................ 6 2-2-1- Grain Size Analysis ............................................................................................................... 6 2-3- Natural Moisture Content and Density Test ................................................................................. 7 3- Description of Soil Layers .................................................................................................................... 8 3-1- General Description of the Subsurface Soil Layers ...................................................................... 8 3-2- Geotechnical Parameters .............................................................................................................. 8 4- Foundation Design Recommendations ............................................................................................... 10 4-1- Recommended Foundation ......................................................................................................... 10 4-2- Allowable Bearing Capacity ....................................................................................................... 10 4-3- Total Settlement .......................................................................................................................... 11 4-4- Differential Settlement ............................................................................................................... 11 4-5- Modulus of Subgrade Reaction .................................................................................................. 11 4-6- Ground Floor Slabs ..................................................................................................................... 11 4-7- Lateral Resistance ....................................................................................................................... 11 4-8- Site and Foundation Drainage .................................................................................................... 12 4-9- Utility Trenches .......................................................................................................................... 13 5- Liquefaction Consideration................................................................................................................. 13 6- Seismic Design Considerations .......................................................................................................... 14 7- Construction Considerations ............................................................................................................... 14 7-1- General........................................................................................................................................ 14 7-2- Fill Materials............................................................................................................................... 14 7-2-1- Compacted Structural Fill ................................................................................................... 14 7-2-2- Common Fill ....................................................................................................................... 15 7-3- Quality Control ........................................................................................................................... 15 8- Summary of Design recommendation ................................................................................................ 16 9- Limitations .......................................................................................................................................... 16 10- References ........................................................................................................................................... 17
Achievement Engineering Corp.
iii
Exhibit I – Boring Logs
Exhibit II - Lab Results
Exhibit III - Maps
Exhibit IV – USGS Seismic Design
Exhibit V – Shallow Footing Design
Achievement Engineering Corp.
1 1- Introduction
Achievement Engineering Corp. (AEC) has performed a geotechnical investigation at 22690 Stevens Creek, Cupertino, CA 95014 . This report discusses the findings of the geotechnical investigation program, including the site soils and groundwater presence, and presents recommendations for the design and construction of the foundation of the structure.
The objective of this report is to evaluate the charact eristics of the subsurface strata and to obtain geotechnical parameters for the design of the foundation.
The following report highlights the significant findings and conclusions representing our best professional judgment based on information and data av ailable to us during the course of this investigation.
1-1- Project Description
The purpose of this study was to investigate the subsurface soil and groundwater presence at the site of 22690 Stevens Creek, Cupertino, CA 95014 and to develop foundation design recommendations for the project based on our evaluation of subsurface conditions. In addition, comments and recommendations related to foundation are provided in this report. Other geotechnical aspects of the project design, including lateral earth pressu res, drainage and backfill requirements, are also discussed.
The Site is located at 22690 Stevens Creek, Cupertino, CA 95014 , with coordinates of 3 7° 19’
18.32” N and 122° 04’ 8.12” W.
The vicinity map of the project is illustrated in Exhibit III. The Site Location in Topographic Map and Landslide Map have also been presented in Exhibit III of the report showing the subject site is located on Class 0 – No Susceptibility Landslide Zone (Source USGS).
1-2- Geologic Setting and Faults
1-2-1 Regional Geology
The project site is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province. Local uplift of the Santa Cruz Mountains within the last 2 to 3 million years has occurred due to a restraining bend of the San Andreas Fault, producing transpressional forces across the plate boundary. Thrust faults bound the San Andreas Fault, are responsible for uplift of the range. The range is characterized by rugged hills with moderate relief, steep valleys, and locally steep hillsides abutting drainages. East -flowing
Achievement Engineering Corp.
2 drainages result in dissection of the mountain range and alluvial deposition within the San Francisco Bay structural trough.
The site is underlain by surficial sediments (Qoa/Qt), older surficial sediments (age; late Pleistocene) older alluvial terrace gravel; sand and clay, un-deformed.
The Site Location on 7.5' Series Geologic Map by USGS, has been represented in Exhibit III of the report.
1-2-2- Faults
Fault activity map of California (CGS, 2010) shows that there are some faults around the site location (Exhibit III). Among the eight faults of Monte Vista -Shannon, Berrocal, Cascade, Stanford, San Andreas San Jose, Pulgas and Butano, the nearest one to the site location is Monte Vista - Shannon fault with a distance of 0.5 mile (Exhibit III) and the most major one is San Andreas with a distance of 4.7 miles.
The project site is located on the north of Monte Vista-Shannon (0.5 mi.), northeast of Berrocal Fault (1.91 mi.), northwest of Cascade Fault (2.13), southwest of Stanford Fault (4.0 mi.), northeast of San Andreas fault (4.7 mi.), southwest of San Jose (6.32 mi.) , southeast of Pulgas (7.29 mi.) and northeast of Butano Fault (8.45 mi).
The Monte Vista Shannon Fault is a potentially active fault. It is a relatively short fault that runs between and generally p arallel to the much longer San Andreas Fault and Hayward Fault Zones, trending northwest along the eastern foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains in the Coast Range Geomorphic Province. The most recent activity has been estimated to have been approximately 700,000 years ago. It has a slip rate of 0.4 mm/year. The fault runs through the campus of the Foothill College.
The Berrocal is a late Quaternary southwest -dipping, reverse -dextral oblique slip fault zone that forms a part of what has been referred to as the Southwestern Santa Clara Valley thrust belt. The Berrocal fault zone, which is commonly associated with the Monte Vista-Shannon fault zone, offsets sediment of the Pliocene -Pleistocene Santa Clara Formation and probably deforms late Pleistocene fluvial and alluvial fan deposits. It has been concluded that the Berrocal fault zone lacks evidence of Holocene displacement. Late Quaternary slip rate is poorly constrained and the recurrence interval is not known. The amount of uplift of late Pleistocene terr aces (about 250 ka) of ancestral Los Gatos Creek suggests a post-250 ka incision rate of 0.6 mm/yr.
The Cascade fault is a potentially active fault. It is a relatively short fault that stretches from City of Los Gatos to City of Los Altos in Southern Bay Area. This fault is an undifferentiated Quaternary possibly active in Late Quaternary or Holocene, reverse to reverse -dextral oblique slip fault that
Achievement Engineering Corp.
3 forms a part of what McLaughlin et al. (1996) refer to as the Southwestern Santa Clara Valley thrust belt, which is located generally along the foothills of the northeastern Santa Cruz Mountains. Slip rates for the Cascade fault is still unknown, although Hitchcock and Kelson (1999) determined a
0.2±0.05 mm/yr incision rate of Regnart Creek across the trace of the Cascade fault.
Stanford and Pulgas Faults are Quaternary fault with undifferentiated ages. The San Andreas is the best-known and largest fault system in North America. This fault trends in a northwesterly direction for nearly 780 miles through much o f western California. It is a transform boundary separating two crustal plates that move very slowly. The Pacific plate located at the west, moves northwestward relative to the North America plate, causing earthquakes along the faults. The slip rate for th is fault is up to 1.5 in./year.
The San Jose fault dips steeply to the north. Type of Faulting is left -lateral strike-slip; minor reverse component possible with a length of 18 km, close to Claremont, La Verne and Pomona. Its last Significant Quake was Feb. 28, 1990 (ML 5.4). Its most recent surface rupture was Late Quaternary.
It has a slip rate between 0.2 and 2.0 mm/yr with probable magnitude of ML 5 to 6.
The San Andreas is the best -known and largest fault system in North America. This fault trends in a northwesterly direction for nearly 780 miles through much of western California. It is a transform boundary separating two crustal plates that move very slowly. The Pacific plate located at the west, moves northwestward relative to the North America pla te, causing earthquakes along the faults. The slip rate for this fault is up to 1.5 in./year.
The Butano Fault extends for 46 km from San Gregorio to the San Andreas Fault; it exhibits right lateral motion, at slip rate of less than 0.2 mm/yr. (Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States).
2- Project Investigation
A subsurface exploration program consisting of two test borings was conducted on 2 February 2020 under the supervision of AEC.
2-1- Field Investigation and Exploratory Boreholes
The test borings were drilled up to depths of 7 and 8 ft. below the ground surface. Boring s were advanced using 3 1/2” diameter hollow stem augers. Borings were terminated at th ese depths due to refusal. Table 1 shows the specifications of the boreholes; the boreholes location is shown in Exhibit III. Boreholes log is also presented in Exhibit I of the report.
Achievement Engineering Corp.
4 Table 1- Specifications of the borehole
Borehole Name Depth (ft.) Diameter (inch)
B1 7 3 1/2”
B2 8 3 1/2”
2-1-1- Ground Water Table
According to the boreholes log, no water table has been encountered in borehole up to depth of 8 ft.
2-1-2- Standard Penetration Test (SPT) (ASTM: D1586)
Soil samples were typically recovered continuously at 1-2 ft. intervals by driving a standard split - spoon sampler ((1-3/8 in). I.D., (2 in.) O.D., a distance of 18 inches or 24 inches into the undisturbed soil under the impact of a 140 lb. hammer free-falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampler through each 6 in. interval was recorded. The “N” value is taken as the number of blows required to advance the sampler the last 12 in. of the 18-in. sampling range. When the split- spoon sampler was advanced over 24 -in. range, the “N” value is the number of blows required to drive the sampler the middle 12 in. Variations of SPT versus depth , in different boreholes , are presented in Figure 1 and Table 2.
Table 2-The value of SPT versus depth in borehole
Depth (ft) Nspt
B1
2 >50
5 >50
B2
2 15
5 >50
Achievement Engineering Corp.
5 Figure 1-Variation of SPT versus depth in different boreholes
According to SPT test results, the SPT value is more than 50 in B1 which is due to a very dense layer of clayey sand, also the SPT values are 15 near the ground surface in B2 and are more than 50 in other depths, this shows existence of a firm layer of clay near ground at B2, but eventually that the consistency will change to hard.
According to the US Army Corps of Engineers, ENGINEER MANUAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN, Geotechnical Investigations, the descriptive consistency of fine -grained soils may be classified as “very firm” to “hard” per SPT correlation and “very dense” for coarse-grained soils.
Table 3- Granular soils classification based on SPT number (US Army Corps of Engineers Manual)
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 0 20 40 60 80 100
Depth (ft)
NSPT
SPT vs Depth
B1
B2
Achievement Engineering Corp.
6 Table 4- Strength of fine-grained soils (US Army Corps of Engineers Manual)
2-2- Laboratory Test Results
A laboratory soil testing program was performed to determine soil classification and for correlation of engineering properties. Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples of the soils. Testing consisted of geot echnical index tests including water content and density determinations and grain size distributions and Atterberg Limits. The results of these tests have been used to estimate the main parameters required for designing of the foundation , such as internal friction angle and cohesion.
The details of Lab tests are presented in Exhibit II.
2-2-1- Grain Size Analysis
Particle size analysis ASTM (D421-85(02)), (D422-63(02)) Atterberg limits (AASHTO T89 and T90 – ASTM D4318)
The particle size analysis is conducted on the selected soil samples in accordance with the abovementioned standards.
According to particle distribution results, soil classification is determined in compliance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) (ASTM D2487 and ASTM D2488 ) and is re corded on the borehole log . Grain size distribution tests results are presented in Table 5. According to grain size distribution tests results, alluvial part of the site is categorized mainly as clay of low plastici ty and clayey sand.
Achievement Engineering Corp.
7 Table 5- Grain size distribution tests results
Classification
(USCS)
Atterberg
Limits Graining (%) Sample
Depth (ft.)
Borehole
No. PI % LL % Clay and
Silt Sand Gravel
SC 9 23.9 32.9 44.3 22.8 2 B1
CL 9.5 22.8 54.2 36.3 9.5 2 B1
2-3- Natural Moisture Content and Density Test
- Natural moisture content ASTM (D2216-98)
The natural moisture content s of soil samples are measured for the selected samples, the value of each is indicated in borehole logs.
- Density Tests
Density of the selected soil samples has been determined by measuring the weight and volume of the samples obtained from sample liners. Water content and dry density tests results of the soil samples are summarized in Table 6.
Table 6- Water content and dry unit weight
Borehole
No.
Sample
Depth (ft.)
Height of
Sample w (%) Dry Density
(pcf)
B1 1-2 - 12 -
B1 2-3.5 6” 10 122.2
B1 4-5 - 11 -
B1 5-6.5 6” 11 120.7
B2 1-2 - 9 -
B2 2-3.5 6” 10 107.4
B2 4-5 - 11 -
B2 5-6.5 6” 12 116.5
Achievement Engineering Corp.
8 3- Description of Soil Layers
3-1- General Description of the Subsurface Soil Layers
Based on the visual observations during the drilling, in -situ test result s and laboratory testing, the encountered soil is generally classified as:
Clayey sand (SC)
Clay of low plasticity (CL)
The soil is classified as very dense clayey sand in B1 and a very firm low plasticity clay in B2 (at surface).
3-2- Geotechnical Parameters
The SPT has been used to correlate engineer ing parameters such as strength, angle of internal friction (Table 7) and the stress-strain modulus (Es) as shown in Table 8.
Table 7- Typical values of soil friction angle for different soils according to USCS
Description USCS
Soil friction angle [°]
Reference
min max
Inorganic clays, silty clays, sandy clays
of low plasticity CL 27 35
[1]
Silty clay OL, CL,
OH, CH 18 32 [2]
Clay CL, CH,
OH, OL 18 28 [2]
1. Swiss Standard SN 670 010b, Characteristic Coefficients of soils, Association of Swiss Road and Traffic Engineers
2. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Pavement Design, 2007
Achievement Engineering Corp.
9 Table 8-Equations for stress-strain modulus Es by several test methods (Bowles, 2002) Es in kPa for SPT and units of qc for CPT; divide kPa by 50 to obtain ksf.
Final values of geotechnical parameters for the subject site using the field observations, in-situ and laboratory tests are summarized in Table 9.
Table 9- Geotechnical Parameters Estimates
Material γwet (pcf) γsat (pcf) c (ksf) φ
(degrees) Es (ksf) ν K0 Ka Kp
SC 134 138 0.3 30 600 0.3 0.5 0.33 3.0
CL 124 132 0.35 27 350 0.4 0.55 0.38 2.66
γwet : wet unit weight in the field. Es : elasticity modulus γsat : saturated unit weight. ν : poisson ratio
c : cohesion. K0 : at rest earth pressure
φ : angle of internal friction Ka , Kp: active and passive earth pressure
Achievement Engineering Corp.
10 4- Foundation Design Recommendations
Recommendations presented herein are based on the proposed building layout and site development plan as understood at this time. The development is muli -family residential and commercial structures of three story. However, at the time of preparation of this report, structural column loads were not available and no construction document is available . As further information is developed by the architect and/or structural engineer concerning these items, the design criteria should be reviewed by AEC for continued applicability. As a general recommendation, foundation and below - grade elements of the buildin g should be designed in accordance with the building code selected for design. The following sections provide specific geotechnical design recommendations for the foundation and below-grade structure, if any.
The foundation bearing soils are typically very firm low plasticity clay and very dense clayey sand .
It is necessary to build up the subgrade to achieve the proposed footing subgrade level, for this it is recommended that compacted structural fill be used. The compacted structural fill should be grad ed in accordance with the recommendations in Section 7.2.1. 4-1- Recommended Foundation
Based on the loading conditions assumed by us and subsurface conditions as observed in the field investigations it is our opinion that direct soil bearing foundations such as reinforced concrete strip foundation will likely provide the most technically-feasible and cost-effective foundation system for the proposed structure.
4-2- Allowable Bearing Capacity
As noted above, the foundation bearing soils at the site consist of very firm low plasticity clay and very dense clayey sand. The recommended maximum allowable gross bearing pressure for design of strip footing in these soils in undisturbed condition is 3.3 ksf for 18 in. width and 3.2 ksf for 15 in. widths. This bearing pressure value applies to the total dead load plus permanently and/or frequently applied live loads including the weight of the foundation elements. This bearing pressure may however, be increased by one-third when considering transient loads such as earthquake forces.
The least lateral dimension of continuous footings should be 18 in., for the structures. Exterior footings and footings in unheated areas should bear a minimum of 12 in. below the adjacent ground surface. The bottom of footings should be establi shed below a 2 horizontal to 1 vertical (2H:1V) slope line drawn upward and outward from the bottom of any adjacent utility or structure.
The outputs of foundation bearing capacity are presented in Exhibit V and can be consulted for other footing widths, in case of existence of detached parkings in the development for example.
Achievement Engineering Corp.
11 4-3- Total Settlement
Settlement considerations, rather than bearing capacity, generally control spread footing or reinforced concrete mat foundation selection and design at these depths in these soils. It is our opinion that for the maximum allowable bearing pressure recommended above, soil bearing foundations should experience a maximum post -construction settlement of approximately 1 in. We anticipate that the majority of the settlements will occur during or soon after construction with the largest settlements occurring at the center of the structure. As noted above, the anticipated bearing pressure is more than the existing pressure of the overburden soils at the proposed bearing elevati on so settlement will control foundation selection.
4-4- Differential Settlement
Differential settlements are generally caused by variations in soil profile (including layer thickness), compressibility characteristics, applied load, bearing pressures, foundati on dimension, and foundation stiffness. At this time, it is expected that the differential settlement should be on the order of ½ inch. However, when the design documents are ready, this value should be re-evaluated. 4-5- Modulus of Subgrade Reaction
If a rei nforced concrete strip is selected as the preferred option, the structural design of reinforced concrete strip foundations typically requires a modulus of subgrade reaction (Winkler spring) or a similar elastic analysis method to determine thickness and re inforcing requirements for the strip foundation. We recommend that a modulus of subgrade reaction (k s) of 116 kips per cubic foot (kcf) be used.
4-6- Ground Floor Slabs
It is recommended that the ground floor slabs of buildings and structures , if any, be designed as soil- supported slabs-on-grade, bearing on a minimum 6-inch thick layer of crushed stone that is graded in accordance with the recommendations in Section 7.2. We also recommend that a 10 mil -thick polyethylene vapor barrier be placed on top of the a ggregate layer to reduce moisture condensation on the underside of the slab-on-grade.
4-7- Lateral Resistance
Shallow foundations bearing on a reinforced subgrade or on compacted structural fill may be designed to resist lateral forces using a friction coefficient of 0.4 along the bottom of the foundations and a passive resistance of 365 pounds per square foot per foot (pcf) of depth on the vertical sides of the foundations. This value does not include a safety factor; a safety factor of 1.5 should be used
Achievement Engineering Corp.
12 against sliding in the design. The frictional and passive pressure components of lateral resistance may be combined, provided that passive resistance does not exceed two -thirds of the total. The top 24-in of soil should be neglected when calculating passive la teral earth pressures unless the area around the foundation is covered with pavement.
Retaining wall, if any, will be subjected to lateral earth pressures. A soil wet unit weight and coefficient of active lateral earth pressure (k a) of 129 pcf and 0. 42, respectively, should be utilized for design of walls.
Additional active pressure should be added for a surcharge condition due to sloping ground, vehicular traffic or adjacent structures and should be designed for each condition as the project progresses.
4-8- Site and Foundation Drainage
As previously discussed, and as shown on the test boring logs, groundwater was not encountered in any of the other explorations. However, during periods of significant precipitation, or during the spring thaw, there is a possi bility that water could become trapped on the outside face of the walls, with no way to relieve the pressure head from the accumulated water, the water could exert excess pressure on the walls and leak into the finished below grade spaces.
To drain such water, it is recommended that a perimeter wall drain be provided along the outside of the wall. The perimeter drain should consist of a 0.1 m (4 -inch) diameter perforated pipe surrounded by 0.15 m (6 inches) of crushed stone, graded in accordance with the r ecommendations in Section
7.2.2, placed inside a non -woven geotextile filter fabric to limit silting. The perimeter drain trench should be backfilled with compacted structural fill. Pipe invert elevations should be kept below the bottom of the adjacent sl ab but above the footing bearing elevation. The perimeter drain should be pitched to drain by gravity to the site storm drain system.
All grades must provide effective drainage away from the structures, during and after construction.
Water ponding next to the structures can result in greater than calculated soil movement and differential floor slab settlement, cracked slab and wall movement or leaked roof. Effective drainage should be maintained during life time of the building.
Exposed ground should be sloped at a minimum 5 percent away from the structure for the at least 10 ft. beyond the perimeter of the structure. After the construction (building and landscape), we recommend final grades to be inspected for effective drainage. Grades of the around of t he building should also be inspected periodically during life time of the building.
Planters located within 10 ft. of the structure should be self -contained to prevent water accessing the building and pavement subgrade soil (if any). Sprinkler main and sp ray heads should be located a minimum 5 ft. away from the building lines. Low volume, drip styled landscaped irrigation should
Achievement Engineering Corp.
13 not be used near the building. Roof run off should be located in the drains or gutters. Roof drain and downspouts should discharg e onto pavements that slope away from building /structures or the downspouts should extend a minimum of 10 ft. away from the structures.
4-9- Utility Trenches
Utility trenches should be properly backfilled. The pipes should be bedded on clean sands (Sand Equivalent greater than 30) to a depth of at least 1 foot over the pipe, and the bedding material must be inspected and approved in writing by a representative from our firm. The use of gravel is not acceptable unless used in conjunction with filter fabric to p revent the gravel from having direct contact with soil. The remainder of the trench backfill may be derived from onsite soil or approved import soil, compacted as necessary, until the required compaction is obtained as below:
Utility trenches should be ba ckfilled with fill placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in uncompacted thickness. Native backfill materials should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction and granular import material should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative co mpaction. These compaction recommendations assume a reasonable “cushion” layer around the pipes.
If imported granular soil is used, sufficient water should be added during the trench backfilling operations to prevent the soil from “bulking” during compaction.
5- Liquefaction Consideration
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose, saturated, relatively cohesionless soil deposits lose shear strength during strong ground motions. Primary factors controlling liquefaction include intensity and duration of grou nd motion, gradation characteristics of the subsurface soils, in -situ stress conditions, and the depth to groundwater. Liquefaction is typified by a loss of shear strength in the liquefied layers due to rapid increases in pore water pressure generated by e arthquake accelerations.
Liquefaction typically occurs in areas where the soils below the water table are composed of poorly consolidated, fine to medium -grained, primarily sandy soil. In addition to the requisite soil conditions, the ground acceleration and duration of the earthquake must also be of a sufficient level to induce liquefaction.
The project location on liquefaction map (Source CGS) site is not within liquefaction hazard zone, thus further study was not within the scope of services for this report.
Achievement Engineering Corp.
14 6- Seismic Design Considerations
The details of USGS seismic design are presented in Exhibit IV. 7- Construction Considerations
7-1- General
The primary purpose of this section of the report is to comment on items related to excavation, earthwork and related geotechnical aspects of the proposed foundation design. It is written primarily for the engineer having responsibility of preparation for the plans and specifications of the foundation, but it may also aid personnel who monitor the construction. Prospective contractors for this project must evaluate construction problems on the basis of their experience on similar projects, taking into account their own construction methods and procedures.
7-2- Fill Materials
7-2-1- Compacted Structural Fill
The structural fill should be a well -graded granular material. Caltrans AB Class II is recommended to be used for this purpose with the following specifications.
Table 10-CALTRANS AB Class II recommended parameters
Material γd (pcf) γsat (pcf) c (ksf) φ
(degrees)
CALTRANS AB CLASS
II
(92% compacted)
125 130 0.1 38
Minimum 5 feet of the compacted backfill behind any wall is required for wall of 10’ tall , shorter wall can have narrower backfill zone.
Imported structural fill should be used if the on-site excavated soils cannot meet the gradatio n requirements indicated above.
In addition to the above requirements, structural fill to be placed in the upper 3 ft . of filled areas during periods of wet and/or freezing weather should contain less than 5 percent passing the No. 200
Achievement Engineering Corp.
15 sieve. Material proposed as structural fill should be tested and approved by a qualified geotechnical engineer prior to its use.
To evaluate the suitability and the quality of the fill source, we recommend that the laborator y testing of fill material be performed in accordance with the ASTM Test Methods indicated below.
Table 11- Summary of ASTM Test Methods
Summary of ASTM Test Methods
Test ASTM Designation
Moisture Content D 2216
Modified Proctor D 1557
Sieve Analysis D 422
Atterberg Limits D 4318
Structural fill in unconfined areas should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 9 -in. in loose thickness and compacted to at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM Test D 1557 (Modified Proctor). Structural fill should be moisture conditioned to within 2 percentage points of the optimum moisture content.
Structural fill should be compacted by self -propelled vibratory rollers or other approved com paction equipment. Where compaction occurs in confined areas, the loose lift thickness should be reduced to a maximum of 6 in. and compaction performed by hand-guided vibratory compactors or tampers.
Before placing fill materials, the exposed natural soil sh ould be observed and proof rolled to identify any soft compressible layers. At the end of each day’s operations, the last lift should be rolled by a smooth-wheel roller to eliminate ridges of un -compacted soil to aid runoff and drainage. No layer of fill should be placed until the underlying materials have been approved.
7-2-2- Common Fill
Common (non-structural) fill should consist of sandy or gravelly soil with a maximum particle size of 3 inches, with less than 35 percent passing the No. 200 sieve, and with a plasticity index of 20 or less.
7-3- Quality Control
Placement and compaction of all fill materials should be monitored and tested by a qualified technician under supervision of a professional geotechnical engineer. We recommend that all structural fill placements be tested in accordance with ASTM D2922 and D3017 (Nuclear Density Method) to verify the density, degree of compaction, and moisture content of the fill. The
Achievement Engineering Corp.
16 specifications should call for frequent testing on each lift. In the event where any portion of the fill fails to meet the compaction requirements, the area should be reworked, re -compacted, and retested until the specified compaction is achieved.
8- Summary of Design recommendation
The site soil parameters need to be chosen from Table 9.
The in -fill soil back of any wall in contact with geogrid in general needs to be in compliance of section 7.2.
All the design methods and parameters including factor of safeties need to be followed per requirements of the engineer designing the structure . All the construction details are required to be per direction of the engineer designing the structure.
Drainage is required per detail and specs of footings.
All the deviations from this report needs to be brou ght to the attention of A EC as will be discussed in section 9.
Section 7.3 of this report and all the special inspection requirements mentioned in the report are required to be performed by AEC and needs to be identified on the cover sheet of the construction documents before being submitted to the authority having jurisdiction. The plans are required to be reviewed by AEC and be verified to be in compliance with the requirements of this report before being submitted to jurisdiction having authority.
9- Limitations
This Report was prepared pursuant to an Agreement dated 01/24/2020 between Mr. Ali Mozaffari (Alan Enterprise LLC ) and AEC. All uses of this Report are subject to, and deemed acceptance of, the conditions and restricti ons contained in the Agreeme nt. The observations and conclusions described in this Report are based solely on the Scope of Services provided pursuant to the Agreement. AEC has not performed any additional observations, investigations, studies or other testing not specified in the Agr eement and the Report . AEC shall not be liable for the existence of any condition the discovery of which would have required the performance of services not authorized under the Agreement.
This Report is prepared for the exclusive use Alan Enterprise LLC in connection with the design and construction of the mentioned development. There are no intended beneficiaries other than Alan Enterprise LLC AEC shall owe no duty , whatsoever, to any other person or entity on account of the
Achievement Engineering Corp.
17 Agreement or the Report. Use of this Report by any person or entity other than Alan Enterprise LLC for any purpose whatsoever is expressly forbidden unless such other person or entity obtains written authorization from Alan Enterprise LLC and from AEC. Use of this Report by such othe r person or entity without the written authorization of Alan Enterprise LLC and AEC shall be at such other person's or entities sole risk, and shall be without legal exposure or liability to AEC.
Use of this Report by any person or entity, including by Alan Enterprise LLC for a purpose other than for the design and construction of the proposed development is expressly prohibited unless such person or entity obtains written authorization from AEC indicating that the Report is adequate for such other use. Use of this Report by any person or entity for such other purpose without written authorization by AEC shall be at such person's or entities sole risk and shall be without legal exposure or liability to AEC.
This report reflects site conditions observed and described by records available to AEC as of the date of report preparation. The passage of time may result in significant changes in site conditions, technology, or economic conditions which could alter the findings and/or recommendations of the report. Accordingly, Alan Enterprise LLC and any other party to whom the report is provided recognize and agree that AEC shall bear no liability for deviations from observed conditions or available records after the time of report preparation.
Use of this Report b y any person or entity in violation of the restrictions expressed in this Report shall be deemed and a ccepted by the user as conclusive evidence that such use and the reliance placed on this Report, or any portions thereof, is unreasonable, and that the user accepts full and exclusive responsibility and liability for any losses, damages or other liability which may result.
10- References
1- 7.5' Series Geologic Map, USGS.
2- 7.5' Series Topographic Map, USGS.
3- ASTM test methods.
4- Department of the U.S. army corps of engineers Washington, DC 20314 -1000, Engineering and design geotechnical investigations, Manual No. 1110-1-1804. 5- Fault activity map of California, CGS, 2010.
6- Foundation analysis and design, Joseph E. Bowles, McGraw-Hill, fifth edition. 7- Liquefaction map, USGS.
Achievement Engineering Corp.
18 8- Landslide map, USGS.
9- Minnesota Department of Transportation, Pavement Design, 2007. 10- Swiss Standard SN 670 010b, Characteristic Coefficients of soils, Association of Swiss Road and Traffic Engineers.
11- Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States.
Exhibit I
Boring Log
Address:
SPT
C2
C2.5
Notes:
0.0 - 7 ft
Brown clayey sand with gravel ( SC ) - 1
Damp - Particle is angular with elongated 12.0
shape and gravel maximum size - None 2 40
reaction with HCL - Hard to very hard C2.5 49 66 >4.5 122.2 10 32.9 44.3 22.8 23.9 9.0 consistency - Strong cementation - Blocky 3 53
structure - None dilatancy - Low to none
dry strength - High toughness - Non 4
plastic - Very dense. 11.0
5 58
C2.5 67 91 >4.5 120.7 11.0
6 73
7 No underground water encountered 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
---
Weather:
BLOWS PER FOOT
POCKET PEN. (tsf)
DRY DENSITY (pcf)
Sunny
B1
Logged By : NamiTest Date : 2/4/2020
BORING ELEV.: BORING DIA.:
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG Project No : Borehole No. : 4134 Cupertino
SAMPLER:
SPT
:cal. 2"
Company Drilling: AEC Drilling Corp.
:cal. 2.5"
LIQUID LIMIT
PLASTICITY INDEX
Refusal depth at 7 ft
LOACATION OF BOREHOLE : Specified on Plan
Description:
SANDS (%)
GRAVELS (%)
USCS SOIL TYPE
DEPTH (feet)
MOIST. CONT. (%)
N-SPT
SAMPLE
FINES (%)
FORM#: S-10 REV.2 DATE PREPARED: 10/20/2014 DATE REVISED: 11/25/2014 Address:
SPT
C2
C2.5
Notes:
0.0 - 4 ft
Brown to light brown sandy lean clay ( CL) 1
Wet - Maximum particle size is cobble and 9.0
angular with elongated shape - No odor - 2 7
None reaction with HCL-Hard consistency C2.5 11 15 >4.5 107.4 10 54.2 36.3 9.5 22.8 9.5 Strong cementation - Blocky structure - 3 12
None dilatancy - None dry strength - High
Toughness - None plastic - Stiff. 4
11.0 4.0 - 8.0 ft 5 44
Same as above but hard. C2.5 68 92 >4.5 116.5 12.0
6 73
7 8
Refusal depth at 8 ft
No underground water encountered 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 SAMPLE
FINES (%)
LOACATION OF BOREHOLE : Specified on Plan
Description:
SANDS (%)
GRAVELS (%)
USCS SOIL TYPE
DEPTH (feet)
MOIST. CONT. (%)
N-SPT
LIQUID LIMIT
PLASTICITY INDEX
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG Project No : Borehole No. : 4134 Cupertino
SAMPLER:
SPT
:cal. 2"
Company Drilling: AEC Drilling Corp.
:cal. 2.5"
B2
Logged By : NamiTest Date : 2/4/2020
BORING ELEV.: BORING DIA.: ---
Weather:
BLOWS PER FOOT
POCKET PEN. (tsf)
DRY DENSITY (pcf)
Sunny
FORM#: S-10 REV.2 DATE PREPARED: 10/20/2014 DATE REVISED: 11/25/2014
Exhibit II
Lab Results
Moisture Density
(AASHTO T265 - ASTM D2216)
Report Date:
Project No:
Project Name:
Project Address:
Technician:
Type of Material:
Source:
Sampled by: Sample Date:
Sample No: B1 1'- 2' B1 2' - 3.5' B1 4' - 5' B1 5' - 6.5' Ht. of Sample: Disturbed 6.00 Disturbed 6.00
Tare No: CA - 17 CA - 10 CA - 5 CA - 14
Gross Wet Wt: 1057.69 1255.72 1270.78 1241.74
Gross Dry Wt: 977.95 1167.76 1174.42 1152.29
Tare Wt: 309.93 315.16 313.25 310.13
Net Dry Wt: 668.02 852.60 861.17 842.16
Wt. of Water: 79.74 87.96 96.36 89.45
% Moisture 12% 10% 11% 11%
Liners Dia 2.5" 2.5"
Density Factors 0.860 0.860
Dry Density 122.21 120.71
Tested By: Reviewed By:
Signature: Signature:
2/17/2020
4134
Alan
Cupertino
Nami
Soil Sample Description:
Field
Nami 2/4/2020
Nami A.F
|Form #L-19| Date Prepared: | Rev #2| Revised: 05/26/2018| 2455 Autumnvale Drive, Unit E | San Jose, CA 95131| Tel: (408) 217-9174 | Fax: (408) 217-9632 www.achieveng.com
Moisture Density
(AASHTO T265 - ASTM D2216)
Report Date:
Project No:
Project Name:
Project Address:
Technician:
Type of Material:
Source:
Sampled by: Sample Date:
Sample No: B2 1'- 2' B2 2' - 3.5' B2 4' - 5' B2 5' - 6.5' Ht. of Sample: Disturbed 6.00 Disturbed 6.00
Tare No: CA - 2 CA - 3 CA - 6 CA - 15
Gross Wet Wt: 1221.66 1139.35 1328.28 1217.07
Gross Dry Wt: 1144.92 1060.98 1224.34 1123.01
Tare Wt: 311.43 311.66 311.80 309.96
Net Dry Wt: 833.49 749.32 912.54 813.05
Wt. of Water: 76.74 78.37 103.94 94.06
% Moisture 9% 10% 11% 12%
Liners Dia 2.5" 2.5"
Density Factors 0.860 0.860
Dry Density 107.40 116.54
Tested By: Reviewed By:
Signature: Signature:
Sample Description:
Field
Nami 2/4/2020
Nami A.F
2/17/2020
4134
Alan
Cupertino
Nami
Soil
|Form #L-19| Date Prepared: | Rev #2| Revised: 05/26/2018| 2455 Autumnvale Drive, Unit E | San Jose, CA 95131| Tel: (408) 217-9174 | Fax: (408) 217-9632 www.achieveng.com
SIEVE ANALYSIS SHEET
(AASHTO T27-ASTM C136 and D6913)
2/20/2020
B1 2' - 3.5' 4134
½” Alan
2 [4] Cupertino
8" Nami
Soil
Sieve
Size
Sieve
Size
Wt. Ret.
(gr) % Ret. % Passing Retained
Limit (kg) Pan #: CA - 10
4 100mm 4” 0 0.00% 100.00% DntUse Pan weight (gr): 315.16 3 75mm 3” 0 0.00% 100.00% DntUse
2 50mm 2” 0 0.00% 100.00% 3.6 Mass of pan & dried sample 1 37.5mm 1 ½” 0 0.00% 100.00% 2.7 before wash (gr): 609.13 1 25mm 1” 0 0.00% 100.00% 1.8
1 19mm ¾” 0 0.00% 100.00% 1.4 Original mass before wash (gr): 293.97 0 12.5mm ½” 23.15 7.87% 92.13% 0.89
0 9.5mm 3/8” 8.56 2.91% 89.21% 0.67 Min. readability of scale (gr) = 0.29 0 4.75mm #4 35.44 12.06% 77.16% 0.33
0 2.36mm #8 27.6 9.39% 67.77% Mass of pan & dried sample 0 1.18mm #16 18.9 6.43% 61.34% after wash (gr): 512.6
0 600µm #30 16.07 5.47% 55.87%
0 300µm #50 22.47 7.64% 48.23% Mass of sample after wash & 0 150µm #100 24.18 8.23% 40.00% being dried (gr): 197.44 0 75µm #200 21.01 7.15% 32.86%
Mass after mechanical shake (gr): 197.38
SampleSE= Df Percent of Gravel = 22.84%
Fine Content = 32.86%
100 Percent of Sand = 44.30%
D10 (mm)= 0.0750
D30 (mm)= 0.0750
D60 (mm)= 1.0379
D50 (mm)= 0.3695
Fineness Modules (FM): Total Percentages of Coarser Than #100 = 100 Cc= 13.8
Cu= 0.1
Total H²O:
Check for waste limt (0.3%) : 0.03%
Material:
Wt Ret: %Passing:
Project Address:
Date:
Project No.:
Project Name:
Tested By:
Borehole Number and Depth:
Min. Test Sample size in kg [lb] =
Nominal Max. Size in sample =
Nominal Dimension of seive =
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
0.1110100
Finer than (%)
Particle Size (mm)
Series4
| Form # L-20 | Date Prepared: 10/20/2014 | Revised: 10/22/2018 | Revision #: 5 | 2455 Autumnvale Drive, Unit E | San Jose, CA 95131 | Tel: 408-217-9174 | Fax: 408-217-9632 www.achieveng.com
SIEVE ANALYSIS SHEET
(AASHTO T27-ASTM C136 and D6913)
2/20/2020
B2 2' - 3.5' 4134
½” Alan
2 [4] Cupertino
8" Nami
Soil
Sieve
Size
Sieve
Size
Wt. Ret.
(gr) % Ret. % Passing Retained
Limit (kg) Pan #: CA - 3
4 100mm 4” 0 0.00% 100.00% DntUse Pan weight (gr): 311.66 3 75mm 3” 0 0.00% 100.00% DntUse
2 50mm 2” 0 0.00% 100.00% 3.6 Mass of pan & dried sample 1 37.5mm 1 ½” 0 0.00% 100.00% 2.7 before wash (gr): 609.98 1 25mm 1” 0 0.00% 100.00% 1.8
1 19mm ¾” 0 0.00% 100.00% 1.4 Original mass before wash (gr): 298.32 0 12.5mm ½” 7.43 2.49% 97.51% 0.89
0 9.5mm 3/8” 5.59 1.87% 95.64% 0.67 Min. readability of scale (gr) = 0.30 0 4.75mm #4 15.17 5.09% 90.55% 0.33
0 2.36mm #8 12.91 4.33% 86.22% Mass of pan & dried sample 0 1.18mm #16 13.15 4.41% 81.81% after wash (gr): 448.3
0 600µm #30 14.83 4.97% 76.84%
0 300µm #50 22.92 7.68% 69.16% Mass of sample after wash & 0 150µm #100 23.68 7.94% 61.22% being dried (gr): 136.64 0 75µm #200 20.87 7.00% 54.23%
Mass after mechanical shake (gr): 136.55
SampleSE= Df Percent of Gravel = 9.45%
Fine Content = 54.23%
100 Percent of Sand = 36.32%
D10 (mm)= 0.0750
D30 (mm)= 0.0750
D60 (mm)= 0.1369
D50 (mm)= 0.0750
Fineness Modules (FM): Total Percentages of Coarser Than #100 = 100 Cc= 1.8
Cu= 0.5
Total H²O:
Check for waste limt (0.3%) : 0.07%
Material:
Wt Ret: %Passing:
Project Address:
Date:
Project No.:
Project Name:
Tested By:
Borehole Number and Depth:
Min. Test Sample size in kg [lb] =
Nominal Max. Size in sample =
Nominal Dimension of seive =
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
0.1110100
Finer than (%)
Particle Size (mm)
Series4
| Form # L-20 | Date Prepared: 10/20/2014 | Revised: 10/22/2018 | Revision #: 5 | 2455 Autumnvale Drive, Unit E | San Jose, CA 95131 | Tel: 408-217-9174 | Fax: 408-217-9632 www.achieveng.com
Atterberg Limits
(AASHTO T89 and T90 - ASTM D4318)
Sample Description: Report Date:
Boring No: Project No:
Sample ID: Project Name:
Sample Depth: Project Address:
Material: Technician:
0 1 2 3 4 1 2 3
29 26 17 13
AB - 2 LB - 6 AE - 2 AD - 1 LB - 8 AC - 2 AD - 2
20.63 23.33 23.90 21.82 5.42 5.21 5.38
18.82 21.02 21.42 19.69 5.29 5.08 5.25
11.17 11.28 11.30 11.23 4.35 4.27 4.37
7.65 9.74 10.12 8.46 0.94 0.81 0.88
1.81 2.31 2.48 2.13 0.13 0.13 0.13
23.66% 23.72% 24.51% 25.18% 13.83% 16.05% 14.77%
20.00%
3.37 3.26 2.83 2.56
Group Symbol CL
-0.019136 0.3001706 25
0.0017126 0.0051777
0.9842326 0.0011079 23.9% Shrinkage Limit Results
Liquid Limit % 23.86
Plastic Limit % 14.88
Plasticity Index 8.97
Shrinkage Limit %
B – Value
Toughness Index
Tested By: Reviewed By:
Signature: Signature:
Net Dry Weight (gr)
Weight of Water (gr)
Water Content (%)
Nami A.F
No. of blows
Tare No.
Gross Wet Weight (gr)
Gross Dry Weight (gr)
Tare Weight (gr)
Liquid Limit Plastic Limit
2' - 3.5'
Alan
Cupertino
SOIL Nami
SOIL 2/28/2020
B1 4134
228204134
23.66%23.72%
24.51%
25.18%
23.9%
y = -0.019ln(x) + 0.3002
23.40%
23.60%
23.80%
24.00%
24.20%
24.40%
24.60%
24.80%
25.00%
25.20%
25.40%
10 100
WATER CONTENT (%)
NUMBER OF BLOWS
Flow curve
-
10.00 20.00
30.00 40.00
50.00 60.00
- 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
Plasticity Index (%)
Liquid Limit (%)
Plasticity chart
CH or OH
MH or OH
CL or OL
ML or OLCL - ML
|Form #L-21 | Date Prepared: | Rev #2| Revised: 05/26/2018| 2455 Autumnvale Drive, Unit E | San Jose, CA 95131| Tel: (408) 217-9174 | Fax: (408) 217-9632 www.achieveng.com
Atterberg Limits
(AASHTO T89 and T90 - ASTM D4318)
Sample Description: Report Date:
Boring No: Project No:
Sample ID: Project Name:
Sample Depth: Project Address:
Material: Technician:
0 1 2 3 4 1 2 3
35 31 28 24
AL - 2 AE - 3 AD - 2 LB - 1 L - 3 AC - 3 AE - 6
24.86 22.92 24.38 23.76 5.45 5.48 5.82
22.44 20.83 22.00 21.41 5.32 5.34 5.66
11.15 11.21 11.26 11.25 4.32 4.36 4.39
11.29 9.62 10.74 10.16 1 0.98 1.27
2.42 2.09 2.38 2.35 0.13 0.14 0.16
21.43% 21.73% 22.16% 23.13% 13.00% 14.29% 12.60%
20.00%
3.56 3.43 3.33 3.18
Group Symbol CL
-0.045344 0.3741577 25
0.0067981 0.0229623
0.9569798 0.0018818 22.8% Shrinkage Limit Results
Liquid Limit % 22.82
Plastic Limit % 13.29
Plasticity Index 9.53
Shrinkage Limit %
B – Value
Toughness Index
Tested By: Reviewed By:
Signature: Signature:
Plastic Limit
2' - 3.5'
Alan
Cupertino
SOIL Nami
SOIL 2/28/2020
B2 4134
22820 -4134
No. of blows
Tare No.
Gross Wet Weight (gr)
Gross Dry Weight (gr)
Tare Weight (gr)
Liquid Limit
Net Dry Weight (gr)
Weight of Water (gr)
Water Content (%)
Nami A.F
21.43%
21.73%
22.16%
23.13%
22.8%
y = -0.045ln(x) + 0.3742
21.00%
21.50%
22.00%
22.50%
23.00%
23.50%
10 100
WATER CONTENT (%)
NUMBER OF BLOWS
Flow curve
-
10.00 20.00
30.00 40.00
50.00 60.00
- 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
Plasticity Index (%)
Liquid Limit (%)
Plasticity chart
CH or OH
MH or OH
CL or OL
ML or OLCL - ML
|Form #L-21 | Date Prepared: | Rev #2| Revised: 05/26/2018| 2455 Autumnvale Drive, Unit E | San Jose, CA 95131| Tel: (408) 217-9174 | Fax: (408) 217-9632 www.achieveng.com
Exhibit III
Maps
MM/DD/YYYY REMARKS
0 02/29/2020
1 ___ / ___/___
2 ___ / ___/___
3 ___ / ___/___
4 ___ / ___/___
Project Number:
4134
01 M
Project Title:
Ali Mozaffari - 22690 Stevens Creek Blv –
Exhibit III
REVISIONS
Vicinity Map
22690 Stevens Creek
Boulevard, Cupertino, CA
MM/DD/YYYY REMARKS
0 02/29/2020
1 ___ / ___/___
2 ___ / ___/___
3 ___ / ___/___
4 ___ / ___/___
Project Number:
4134
02 M
Project Title:
Ali Mozaffari - 22690 Stevens Creek Blv –
Exhibit III
REVISIONS
Boring Location Map
MM/DD/YYYY REMARKS
0 02/29/2020
1 ___ / ___/___
2 ___ / ___/___
3 ___ / ___/___
4 ___ / ___/___
Project Number:
4134
03 M
Project Title:
Ali Mozaffari - 22690 Stevens Creek Blv –
Exhibit III
REVISIONS
Site Location on 7.5' quadrangle Series
Topographical Map by USGS
22690 Stevens Creek
Boulevard, Cupertino, CA
MM/DD/YYYY REMARKS
0 02/29/2020
1 ___ / ___/___
2 ___ / ___/___
3 ___ / ___/___
4 ___ / ___/___
Project Number:
4134
04 M
Project Title:
Ali Mozaffari - 22690 Stevens Creek Blv –
Exhibit III
REVISIONS
Site Location on 7.5' quadrangle Series
Geological Map by USGS
22690 Stevens Creek
Boulevard, Cupertino, CA
MM/DD/YYYY REMARKS
0 02/29/2020
1 ___ / ___/___
2 ___ / ___/___
3 ___ / ___/___
4 ___ / ___/___
Project Number:
4134
05 M
Project Title:
Ali Mozaffari - 22690 Stevens Creek Blv –
Exhibit III
REVISIONS
Site Location on State Map for Earthquake Zone of required investigation by CGS (site is NOT located within hazard zone) 22690 Stevens Creek
Boulevard, Cupertino, CA
MM/DD/YYYY REMARKS
0 02/29/2020
1 ___ / ___/___
2 ___ / ___/___
3 ___ / ___/___
4 ___ / ___/___
Project Number:
4134
06 M
Project Title:
Ali Mozaffari - 22690 Stevens Creek Blv –
Exhibit III
REVISIONS
Site Location on Fault Activity Map
of California (2010) by CGS
22690 Stevens Creek
Boulevard, Cupertino, CA
MM/DD/YYYY REMARKS
0 02/29/2020
1 ___ / ___/___
2 ___ / ___/___
3 ___ / ___/___
4 ___ / ___/___
Project Number:
4134
07 M
Project Title:
Ali Mozaffari - 22690 Stevens Creek Blv –
Exhibit III
REVISIONS
Site Location distance to Nears Faults
(10-mile Radius)
Fault Name and Distance to Project Site
1 Monte Vista-Shannon Fault System 0.5 Miles
2 Berrocal Faults 1.91 Miles
3 Cascade Fault 2.13 Miles
4 Stanford Fault 4 Miles
5 San Andreas Fault System 4.7 Miles
6 San Jose Fault 6.32 Miles
7 Pulgas Fault 7.29 Miles
8 Butano Fault 8.45 Miles
MM/DD/YYYY REMARKS
0 02/29/2020
1 ___ / ___/___
2 ___ / ___/___
3 ___ / ___/___
4 ___ / ___/___
Project Number:
4134
08 M
Project Title:
Ali Mozaffari - 22690 Stevens Creek Blv –
Exhibit III
REVISIONS
Project Location on Landslide Susceptibility Map (Source USGS) site is within Class 0 – No Susceptibility
22690 Stevens Creek
Boulevard, Cupertino, CA
Exhibit IV
USGS Seismic Design
2/13/2020 U.S. Seismic Design Maps
https://seismicmaps.org 1/2
4134
22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino, CA 95014, USA
Latitude, Longitude: 37.3217554, -122.068922
Date 2/13/2020, 2:11:29 PM
Design Code Reference Document ASCE7-16
Risk Category II
Site Class D - Stiff Soil
Type Value Description
SS 2.281 MCER ground motion. (for 0.2 second period)
S1 0.821 MCER ground motion. (for 1.0s period)
SMS 2.281 Site-modified spectral acceleration value
SM1 null -See Section 11.4.8 Site-modified spectral acceleration value SDS 1.521 Numeric seismic design value at 0.2 second SA SD1 null -See Section 11.4.8 Numeric seismic design value at 1.0 second SA Type Value Description
SDC null -See Section 11.4.8 Seismic design category
Fa 1 Site amplification factor at 0.2 second
Fv null -See Section 11.4.8 Site amplification factor at 1.0 second PGA 0.943 MCEG peak ground acceleration
FPGA 1.1 Site amplification factor at PGA
PGAM 1.037 Site modified peak ground acceleration
TL 12 Long-period transition period in seconds
SsRT 2.335 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion. (0.2 second) SsUH 2.573 Factored uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration SsD 2.281 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (0.2 second) S1RT 0.941 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion. (1.0 second) S1UH 1.054 Factored uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration.
S1D 0.821 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (1.0 second) PGAd 0.943 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (Peak Ground Acceleration) CRS 0.907 Mapped value of the risk coefficient at short periods CR1 0.893 Mapped value of the risk coefficient at a period of 1 s
Exhibit V
Shallow Footing Design
05001000150020002500300035004000450050000 2 4 6 8 10 12q (psf)B (ft)Strip Footing
00.20.40.60.811.20 2 4 6 8 10 12settlement (in)B (ft)Strip Footing
Address: 2455 Autumnvale Drive, Unit E, San Jose, CA 95131, Tel: (408) 217-9174, Fax: (408) 217-9632 www.achieveng.com
Form #: R-15, V-Ι, C-ΙΙ, S-8 Date Prepared: 7/29/2014 Revision No.: 1 Revised: 11/26/2014
Project Number: 4134
Date: March 25, 2020
Mr. Ali Mozaffari
22690 Stevens Creek
Cupertino, CA 95014
Subject: Addendum to Geotechnical Report (Pavement Design) for the New Development at 22690 Stevens Creek
Cupertino, CA 95014
APN#342-14-104
Dear Sir,
In response to your inquiry, and your authorization, the following professional services were provided:
Two sets of CBR test (ASTM D1383) have been performed on selected samples collected from the site (Please refer to the attached test results). Recommendations for pavement design and pedestrian concrete sidewalk.
Pavement Design and Pedestrian Rigid Concrete Sidewalk
Recommendations
As previously discussed, two sets of CBR test s (per ASTM D1383) have been performed for two surficial samples collected from the Site. California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test results indicated that near surface soils have an average CBR value of approximately 1.4 that is classified as poor subgrade per Reference 1. Based on the correlations between CBR and MR (Resilient Modulus) per Reference 2, the corresponding MR and California R-Value for the surficial soil at the Site are 2025 psi and 3, respectively. The soil classification test shows the surface soil of the site is SC /CL, in Unified Soil Classification System.
Subgrade Preparation
Remove all debris, large rocks, vegetation and topsoil from the area to be paved. These items either do not compact well or cause non-uniform compaction and mat thickness.
It is recommended that the poor soil undergo subgrade treatment or replacement before placing aggregate and asphalt. For more information on subgrade treatments refer to Chapter 4.0 of Reference
1. Address: 2455 Autumnvale Drive, Unit E, San Jose, CA 95131, Tel: (408) 217-9174, Fax: (408) 217-9632 www.achieveng.com
Form #: R-15, V-Ι, C-ΙΙ, S-8 Date Prepared: 7/29/2014 Revision No.: 1 Revised: 11/26/2014
The subgrade should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557 to ensure the compacted subgrade is able to support construction traffic.
If the subgrade ruts excessively under construction traffic , it should be repaired before being paved over. Left unrepaired subgrade ruts may reflectively cause premature pavement rutting.
It is recommended that a representative from our firm be present at the site and observe the integrity of the subgrade during the construction. In case the poor soil is present or unsuitable materials are encountered as predicted , the subgrade may require stabilization (such as lime treatment), over - excavation (and replacing t he unsuitable soil with gravel borrows) and adding a base course and perhaps a subbase course over the subgrade , that proper methods will be recommended if needed during construction observation.
After final grading (often called fine -grading), the subgrade elevation should generally conform closely to the construction plan subgrade elevation. Large elevation discrepancies should not be compensated for by varying pavement or base thickness because hot mix asphalt (HMA) and aggregates are more expensive than subgrade.
Rigid Concrete Pavement Recommendation for a TI (Traffic Index) below 9
Utilizing the Reference 3 rigid pavement catalog decision tree, the site surface soil is classified as Type II of subgrade and the Site is located in Caltrans Pavement Climate Region of Central Coast.
Thus, the recommended rigid pavement structural depth for TI ≤ 9, with lateral support is 0.70 ft . doweled JPCP (Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement) or 1.00 ft. AB (Class 2 Aggregate Base) and for the case without lateral support is 0.75 ft. doweled JPCP or 1.00 ft. AB and the (Table 623.1E, Reference 3).
AC (Asphalt Concrete) pavement recommendations for a TI of 5, 6 and 7
Considerations regarding worker safety, short construction windows, or the amount of area to be paved may make it desirable to reduce the total thickness of the pavement by placing full depth hot mix asphalt (HMA). Also, full depth hot mix asphalt is less affected by moisture or frost, does not allow moisture build up in the subgrade , provides no permeable layers that entrap water, and has a more uniform pavement structure. In this step of design, assuming a full depth HMA for pavement and using the Reference 3, the recommendation for AC pavement structural depth has been summarized in the table below.
Address: 2455 Autumnvale Drive, Unit E, San Jose, CA 95131, Tel: (408) 217-9174, Fax: (408) 217-9632 www.achieveng.com
Form #: R-15, V-Ι, C-ΙΙ, S-8 Date Prepared: 7/29/2014 Revision No.: 1 Revised: 11/26/2014
Table 1- Recommended AC pavement structural depth
TI GE
1(ft.)
HMA Thickness (ft.)
5 1.6 0.60
6 2.0 0.75
7 2.3 0.90
1) Gravel Equivalent in ft.
Proper mix of AC with Performance Grade for climate region of Central Coast can be used for full depth pavement (please refer to Table 632.1 of Reference 3).
Please note that the thicknesses determined and outlined in this section, are not intended to preclude other combinations and thicknesses of materials. Adjustments to the thickness of the various materials may be made to accommodate construction restrictions or practices, and minimize costs, provided the minimum thicknesses, maximum thicknesses, and minimum GE requirements (including safety factors) of the entire pavement structure and each layer are as specified and the contractor can modify them based on credible references as the project progresses and more data will be available (Per Reference 3).
It is our pleasure to provide you our professional services. If you have any question or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to call us at your convenience.
Sincerely Yours,
Sadaf M. Safaai P.E.
State of California Licensed Civil Engineer
Reference
1- Asphalt Paving Design Guide, Asphalt Pavement Association of Oregon, Revised October 2003.
2- FHWA, Geotechnical Aspects of Pavements Reference Manual / Participant Workbook, Publication No. FHWA NHI-05-037, May 2006.
3- California Department of Transportation, Highway Design Manual, Sixth Edition, 2017.
CBR
Test Result
Alan
Enterprise LLc
# 4134
C B R 1
California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
ASTM: D 1883 - AASHTO: T193-99
3/23/2020 AEC Project#:
Alan Enterprise Sample No.:
Page #: 1
Date Prepared: 02/11/2019 Revision No: 1 Revised: 04/06/2019Form#: L-50 12 Dry Density, (Lbs/C.F) 126.72
NamiTested by (Name / Initial): Signature:NH
Water Content Data
10 4.59
0 0.022
0.022
Final Dial Gauge Reading, (in)
After SoakingBefore SoakingCondition of specimen
Density Data
6 Wt. of Sample, (Lb)
032320 - 4134 - L50 - NH
Cupertino
Report Date:
*Client:
Report ID:
*Project Address:
4134
CBR1-1
Surcharge Weight, (Lb) Expansion Ratio (ER):
25.848 25.951Wt. of Compacted Sample,
Mold and Base Plate, (Lb)
Wt. of Mold and Base Plate, (Lb) 15.83
10.018
Height of Speciment, (in3) 4.59
Vol. of Specimen, (in3)
Moisture Content, (%)
Gross wet weight
Gross Dry Weight
Tare No
Expansion Ratio Determination
Sample Condition:
Initial Dial Gauge Reading, (in)
Difference, (in)
Initial Height of Specimen, (in)
Sample No CBR1-1
Net Dry weight
Weight of Water
Tare Weight
Moisture (%)
After Soakingbefore Soaking
CA - 19
589.15
562.13
336.93
225.2
27.02 12
Remark:
𝐸𝑅 = 0.022
4.59 = 0.479
2455 Autumnvale Drive, Unit E, San Jose, CA 95131, Tel: (408) 217-9174, Fax: (408) 217-9632 / www.achieveng.com California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
ASTM: D 1883 - AASHTO: T193-99
3/23/2020 AEC Project#:
Alan Enterprise Sample No.:
Page #: 2
Date Prepared: 02/11/2019 Revision No: 1 Revised: 04/06/2019Form#: L-50 12 Dry Density, (Lbs/C.F) 126.72
NamiTested by (Name / Initial): Signature:NH
Water Content Data
10 4.59
0 0.022
0.022
Final Dial Gauge Reading, (in)
After SoakingBefore SoakingCondition of specimen
Density Data
6 Wt. of Sample, (Lb)
032320 - 4134 - L50 - NH
Cupertino
Report Date:
*Client:
Report ID:
*Project Address:
4134
CBR1-2
Surcharge Weight, (Lb) Expansion Ratio (ER):
26.019 25.951Wt. of Compacted Sample,
Mold and Base Plate, (Lb)
Wt. of Mold and Base Plate, (Lb) 15.866
10.153
Height of Speciment, (in3) 4.59
Vol. of Specimen, (in3)
Moisture Content, (%)
Gross wet weight
Gross Dry Weight
Tare No
Expansion Ratio Determination
Sample Condition:
Initial Dial Gauge Reading, (in)
Difference, (in)
Initial Height of Specimen, (in)
Sample No CBR1-2
Net Dry weight
Weight of Water
Tare Weight
Moisture (%)
After Soakingbefore Soaking
CA - 22
535.63
514.41
336.73
177.68
21.22 12
Remark:
𝐸𝑅 = 0.022
4.59 = 0.479
2455 Autumnvale Drive, Unit E, San Jose, CA 95131, Tel: (408) 217-9174, Fax: (408) 217-9632 / www.achieveng.com California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
ASTM: D 1883 - AASHTO: T193-99
3/23/2020 AEC Project#:
Alan Enterprise Sample No.:
Page #: 3
Date Prepared: 02/11/2019 Revision No: 1 Revised: 04/06/2019Form#: L-50 12 Dry Density, (Lbs/C.F) 126.72
NamiTested by (Name / Initial): Signature:NH
Water Content Data
10 4.59
0 0.022
0.022
Final Dial Gauge Reading, (in)
After SoakingBefore SoakingCondition of specimen
Density Data
6 Wt. of Sample, (Lb)
032320 - 4134 - L50 - NH
Cupertino
Report Date:
*Client:
Report ID:
*Project Address:
4134
CBR1-3
Surcharge Weight, (Lb) Expansion Ratio (ER):
25.949 26.028Wt. of Compacted Sample,
Mold and Base Plate, (Lb)
Wt. of Mold and Base Plate, (Lb) 15.792
10.157
Height of Speciment, (in3) 4.59
Vol. of Specimen, (in3)
Moisture Content, (%)
Gross wet weight
Gross Dry Weight
Tare No
Expansion Ratio Determination
Sample Condition:
Initial Dial Gauge Reading, (in)
Difference, (in)
Initial Height of Specimen, (in)
Sample No CBR1-3
Net Dry weight
Weight of Water
Tare Weight
Moisture (%)
After Soakingbefore Soaking
CA - 21
526.28
505.99
337.93
168.06
20.29 12
Remark:
𝐸𝑅 = 0.022
4.59 = 0.479
2455 Autumnvale Drive, Unit E, San Jose, CA 95131, Tel: (408) 217-9174, Fax: (408) 217-9632 / www.achieveng.com
ELE International Page 1 of 2 California Bearing Ratio of Laboratory
Compacted Soils (CBR)
Client AEC Lab Ref
Project Alan Enterprise LLC Job 4134
Borehole CBR1-1 Sample CBR1-1
Test Details
Standard ASTM D1883-99 / AASHTO T193-98
Sample Type Bulk disturbed sample
Sample Description Silty Sand
Location Cupertino
Variations from Procedure None
Specimen & Equipment Details
Specimen Reference A Method of Sample
Preparation
ASTM D 1883
Diameter 6.0000 in
Height 4.5900 in
Dry Density before Soak 1.91 lb/ft3 Dry Density after Soak 1.91 lb/ft3 Surcharge Weight 10.0000 lb Comments
Moisture Content
Before Compaction 1.00 % After Compaction 12.00 %
Top 1” Layer after penetration 0.00 % Average after soak 13.15 %
Soaking Details
Soaking Time 96.00 hrs
Sample Weight after Soaking 10.1210 lb
Soaking Travel 0.0220 in
Swell 0.48 %
Tested By
and Date:
Nami 03/23/20
Checked By
and Date:
A.F 03/23/20
Approved By
and Date:
S.H 03/236/20
ELE International Page 2 of 2 California Bearing Ratio of Laboratory
Compacted Soils (CBR)
Client AEC Lab Ref
Project Alan Enterprise LLC Job 4134
Borehole CBR1-1 Sample CBR1-1
ELE International Page 1 of 2 California Bearing Ratio of Laboratory
Compacted Soils (CBR)
Client AEC Lab Ref
Project Alan Enterprise LLC Job 4134
Borehole CBR1 Sample CBR1-2
Test Details
Standard ASTM D1883-99 / AASHTO T193-98
Sample Type Bulk disturbed sample
Sample Description Silty Sand
Location Cupertino
Variations from Procedure None
Specimen & Equipment Details
Specimen Reference B Method of Sample
Preparation
ASTM D 1883
Diameter 6.0000 in
Height 4.5900 in
Dry Density before Soak 1.93 lb/ft3 Dry Density after Soak 1.93 lb/ft3 Surcharge Weight 1.0000 lb Comments
Moisture Content
Before Compaction 1.00 % After Compaction 12.00 %
Top 1” Layer after penetration 0.00 % Average after soak 12.88 %
Soaking Details
Soaking Time 96.00 hrs
Sample Weight after Soaking 10.2330 lb
Soaking Travel 0.0220 in
Swell 0.48 %
Tested By
and Date:
Nami 03/23/2020
Checked By
and Date:
A.F 03/23/2020
Approved By
and Date:
S.H 03/23/2020
ELE International Page 2 of 2 California Bearing Ratio of Laboratory
Compacted Soils (CBR)
Client AEC Lab Ref
Project Alan Enterprise LLC Job 4134
Borehole CBR1 Sample CBR1-2
ELE International Page 1 of 2 California Bearing Ratio of Laboratory
Compacted Soils (CBR)
Client AEC Lab Ref
Project Alan Enterprise LLC Job 4134
Borehole CBR1 Sample CBR1-3
Test Details
Standard ASTM D1883-99 / AASHTO T193-98
Sample Type Bulk disturbed sample
Sample Description Silty Sand
Location Cupertino
Variations from Procedure None
Specimen & Equipment Details
Specimen Reference C Method of Sample
Preparation
ASTM D 1883
Diameter 6.0000 in
Height 4.5900 in
Dry Density before Soak 1.93 lb/ft3 Dry Density after Soak 1.93 lb/ft3 Surcharge Weight 10.0000 lb Comments
Moisture Content
Before Compaction 1.00 % After Compaction 12.00 %
Top 1” Layer after penetration 0.00 % Average after soak 12.87 %
Soaking Details
Soaking Time 96.00 hrs
Sample Weight after Soaking 10.2360 lb
Soaking Travel 0.0220 in
Swell 0.48 %
Tested By
and Date:
Nami 03/23/2020
Checked By
and Date:
A.F 03/23/2020
Approved By
and Date:
S.H 03/23/2020
ELE International Page 2 of 2 California Bearing Ratio of Laboratory
Compacted Soils (CBR)
Client AEC Lab Ref
Project Alan Enterprise LLC Job 4134
Borehole CBR1 Sample CBR1-3
LABORATORY COMPACTION (Modified)
(ASTM D1557)
3/10/2020
4134
Sample #: Alan Enterprise LLC
Sample ID: 22690 Stevens Creek BLVD, Cupertino
Curve No. GIVO