Bussetto Foods New Campus - Fresno County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
Bussetto Foods New Campus
Fresno County, Winter
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Project site is 18.89 acres, building acreage updated to reflect size of site.
Construction Phase - Construction schedule provided by Applicant.
Trips and VMT - Concrete pouring will require 67 truck trips per day. Worker trips updated to reflect the average number of daily workers per phase.
Grading - Project site is relatively flat, no grading material will need to be haul on or off-site Vehicle Trips - Weekday trip rate adjusted to be consistent with the June 2021 TIA prepared by JLB Traffic.
Vehicle Emission Factors -
Vehicle Emission Factors -
Vehicle Emission Factors -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - SJVAPCD Rule 8021
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Heavy Industry 477.47 1000sqft 10.96 477,470.00 0 Parking Lot 190.00 Space 1.71 76,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
3 Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 45
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company
2023Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
203.98 0.033CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.004N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/17/2021 9:19 AMPage 1 of 30 Bussetto Foods New Campus - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied l------------------------------1------------------------------~-------------------------t------------~-------------~---------------I
2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 150 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 300.00 186.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 30.00 23.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 30.00 23.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 21.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 55.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 20.00
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 69.00 18.89
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 69.00 18.89
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 30.00 18.89
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 67.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 18.00 20.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 20.00 50.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 20.00 50.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 50.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 232.00 150.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 40.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 3.93 4.96
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/17/2021 9:19 AMPage 2 of 30 Bussetto Foods New Campus - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I I
. . ---------------------------••y••----------------------------------------------------------- . . ---------------------------••y•------------------------------------------------------------ . . ---------------------------••y•------------------------------------------------------------ . . ---------------------------••y•------------------------------------------------------------ . . ---------------------------••y••----------------------------------------------------------- . . ---------------------------••y•------------------------------------------------------------ . . ---------------------------••y•------------------------------------------------------------ . . -----------•----•------------T----------------•----•--------------------------------------- . . -----------------------------T------------------------------------------------------------- . . -----------------------------T------------------------------------------------------------- . . -----------------------------T------------------------------------------------------------- . . -----------•----•------------T----------------•----•--------------------------------------- . . -----------------------------T------------------------------------------------------------- . . -----------------------------T------------------------------------------------------------- . . -----------------------------T------------------------------------------------------------- . . -----------•----•------------T----------------•----•--------------------------------------- . . -----------------------------T------------------------------.------------------------------. . . .
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2022 7.5939 77.9382 60.6294 0.1310 19.2322 3.2739 20.8456 10.0824 3.0120 11.5667 0.0000 12,718.17 38 12,718.17
38 3.9137 0.5688 12,822.95
35 2023 3.4549 32.1017 37.3844 0.0940 2.6319 1.2618 3.8937 0.7224 1.1772 1.8996 0.0000 9,403.070 7 9,403.070
7 1.3828 0.5456 9,600.219
1 Maximum 7.5939 77.9382 60.6294 0.1310 19.2322 3.2739 20.8456 10.0824 3.0120 11.5667 0.0000 12,718.17 38 12,718.17
38 3.9137 0.5688 12,822.95
35 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2022 7.5939 77.9382 60.6294 0.1310 8.7449 3.2739 10.3583 4.5611 3.0120 6.2937 0.0000 12,718.17 38 12,718.17
38 3.9137 0.5688 12,822.95
35 2023 3.4549 32.1017 37.3844 0.0940 2.6319 1.2618 3.8937 0.7224 1.1772 1.8996 0.0000 9,403.070 7 9,403.070
7 1.3828 0.5456 9,600.219
1 Maximum 7.5939 77.9382 60.6294 0.1310 8.7449 3.2739 10.3583 4.5611 3.0120 6.2937 0.0000 12,718.17 38 12,718.17
38 3.9137 0.5688 12,822.95
35 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/17/2021 9:19 AMPage 3 of 30 Bussetto Foods New Campus - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I
I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' -------I I
I I
I
•• I •• I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"-------1' - - - - - - -,--------,--------,--------,-------,- - - - - - - - ., .,
I I I
I
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 47.97 0.00 42.39 51.10 0.00 39.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/17/2021 9:19 AMPage 4 of 30 Bussetto Foods New Campus - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 12.0787 6.2000e-
004
0.0681 1.0000e-
005
2.4000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
0.1461 0.1461 3.8000e-
004
0.1557
Energy 0.2920 2.6548 2.2300 0.0159 0.2018 0.2018 0.2018 0.2018 3,185.698 3 3,185.698
3 0.0611 0.0584 3,204.629
3 Mobile 8.2818 15.4939 85.8331 0.1880 18.9382 0.1587 19.0969 5.0562 0.1490 5.2052 19,348.16 68 19,348.16
68 1.1412 1.1253 19,712.02
31 Total 20.6525 18.1492 88.1312 0.2039 18.9382 0.3607 19.2989 5.0562 0.3510 5.4072 22,534.01 11 22,534.01
11 1.2026 1.1837 22,916.80
81 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 12.0787 6.2000e-
004
0.0681 1.0000e-
005
2.4000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
0.1461 0.1461 3.8000e-
004
0.1557
Energy 0.2920 2.6548 2.2300 0.0159 0.2018 0.2018 0.2018 0.2018 3,185.698 3 3,185.698
3 0.0611 0.0584 3,204.629
3 Mobile 8.2818 15.4939 85.8331 0.1880 18.9382 0.1587 19.0969 5.0562 0.1490 5.2052 19,348.16 68 19,348.16
68 1.1412 1.1253 19,712.02
31 Total 20.6525 18.1492 88.1312 0.2039 18.9382 0.3607 19.2989 5.0562 0.3510 5.4072 22,534.01 11 22,534.01
11 1.2026 1.1837 22,916.80
81 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/17/2021 9:19 AMPage 5 of 30 Bussetto Foods New Campus - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I
I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I I
I
•• I •• I
■ I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------••••••••1-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I •• I •• I
■ I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------••••••••1-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ., ., I I
I
I
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 2/1/2022 2/28/2022 5 20 2 Grading/Excavation Grading 3/1/2022 3/31/2022 5 23
3 Drainage/Utilities/Trenching Grading 3/1/2022 3/31/2022 5 23 4 Foundations/Concrete Pour Paving 4/1/2022 4/30/2022 5 21 5 Building Construction Building Construction 5/1/2022 1/16/2023 5 186 6 Paving Paving 11/1/2022 1/16/2023 5 55
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading/Excavation Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading/Excavation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading/Excavation Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 18.89
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 18.89
Acres of Paving: 1.71
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/17/2021 9:19 AMPage 6 of 30 Bussetto Foods New Campus - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I
■ ■ I
-------J------------------------=-----------------------1------------~------------~--------4--------~-------------------------• ■ 1 I I I I ■ ■ I I I I I
-------J------------------------=-----------------------1------------~------------~--------4--------~-------------------------• ■ 1 I I I I ■ ■ I I I I I
-------J------------------------=-----------------------1------------~------------~--------4--------~-------------------------• ■ 1 I I I I ■ ■ I I I I I
-------J------------------------=-----------------------1------------~------------~--------4--------~-------------------------• ■ 1 I I I I ■ ■ I I I I I
-------J------------------------~----------------------..... ------------~------------~--------~--------~-------------------------
I I I I
I
I I
····························1---------------------------~--------------- ········-·····~--------+·············· I I I I
····························1---------------------------~---------------- ·············~--------+·············· I I
····························1---------------------------~---------------- ·······-·····~--------+·············· I I I I
-••--•••••••••••••••••••••••~--------------------------..,_ ________________ ~ -----------~-------------r•••••••••••••• Grading/Excavation Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading/Excavation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37 Drainage/Utilities/Trenching Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38 Drainage/Utilities/Trenching Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Drainage/Utilities/Trenching Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Drainage/Utilities/Trenching Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Drainage/Utilities/Trenching Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37 Foundations/Concrete Pour Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Foundations/Concrete Pour Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36 Foundations/Concrete Pour Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 7 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading/Excavation 8 50.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Drainage/Utilities/Tren
ching
8 50.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Foundations/Concrete
Pour
6 50.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 9 150.00 91.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 40.00 67.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/17/2021 9:19 AMPage 7 of 30 Bussetto Foods New Campus - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied :
----------------------------•--------------------------+-----------------------~-------------~--------------' I ----------------------------:---------------------------~-----------------------------~--------+--------------' I ----------------------------:---------------------------~-----------------------------~--------+--------------' I ----------------------------:---------------------------~-----------------------------~--------+--------------' I ----------------------------:---------------------------~-----------------------------t---------T--------------1 I
----------------------------:---------------------------~-----------------------------~--------+--------------' I ----------------------------:---------------------------~-----------------------------~--------+--------------' I ----------------------------:---------------------------~-----------------------------~--------T--------------1 I
----------------------------:---------------------------~-----------------------------t---------T--------------1 I
----------------------------:---------------------------~-----------------------------~--------+--------------' I ----------------------------:---------------------------~-----------------------------~--------+--------------' I ----------------------------:---------------------------~-----------------------------~--------T--------------1 I
----------------------------:---------------------------~-----------------------------t---------T--------------1 I
----------------------------:---------------------------~-----------------------------~--------+--------------' I ----------------------------:---------------------------~-----------------------------~--------+--------------' I ----------------------------:---------------------------~-----------------------------~--------T--------------1 I I I
----------------------------~---------------------------1------------------ ~ ------------1--------------~-------------- • I I I I I I I I I
• I I I I I I I I I
----------------:---------------~----------l----------~----------l-----------l----------~----------1--------------1----------~----------• I I I I I I I I I • I I I I I I I I I
----------------:---------------~----------l----------~----------l-----------l----------~----------1--------------1----------~----------• I I I I I I I I I • I I I I I I I I I
----------------:---------------~----------l----------~----------l-----------l----------~----------1--------------1----------~----------• I I I I I I I I I • I I I I I I I I I
----------------:---------------~----------l----------~----------l-----------l----------~----------1--------------1----------~----------• I I I I I I I I I • I I I I I I I I I
----------------~---------------1-----------~----------l----------~-----------l-----------~----------I-------------~---------!-----------
3.2 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 19.0679 0.0000 19.0679 10.0388 0.0000 10.0388 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1701 33.0835 19.6978 0.0380 1.6126 1.6126 1.4836 1.4836 3,686.061 9 3,686.061
9 1.1922 3,715.865
5 Total 3.1701 33.0835 19.6978 0.0380 19.0679 1.6126 20.6805 10.0388 1.4836 11.5224 3,686.061 9 3,686.061
9 1.1922 3,715.865
5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/17/2021 9:19 AMPage 8 of 30 Bussetto Foods New Campus - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I
I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
• • • • • • • • • • • •1--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,--------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t • • • • • • •1--------,--------,--------,-------T • • • • • • • I I
I I
3.2 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0688 0.0503 0.5093 1.3700e-
003
0.1643 8.2000e-
004
0.1651 0.0436 7.6000e-
004
0.0443 139.0705 139.0705 5.0500e-
003
4.6600e-
003
140.5844
Total 0.0688 0.0503 0.5093 1.3700e-
003
0.1643 8.2000e-
004
0.1651 0.0436 7.6000e-
004
0.0443 139.0705 139.0705 5.0500e-
003
4.6600e-
003
140.5844
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.5806 0.0000 8.5806 4.5175 0.0000 4.5175 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1701 33.0835 19.6978 0.0380 1.6126 1.6126 1.4836 1.4836 0.0000 3,686.061 9 3,686.061
9 1.1922 3,715.865
5 Total 3.1701 33.0835 19.6978 0.0380 8.5806 1.6126 10.1931 4.5175 1.4836 6.0011 0.0000 3,686.061 9 3,686.061
9 1.1922 3,715.865
5 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/17/2021 9:19 AMPage 9 of 30 Bussetto Foods New Campus - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I
I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I I
I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,-------,--------,--------,-------,-------,-------,--------,-------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,-------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I I
I
3.2 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0688 0.0503 0.5093 1.3700e-
003
0.1643 8.2000e-
004
0.1651 0.0436 7.6000e-
004
0.0443 139.0705 139.0705 5.0500e-
003
4.6600e-
003
140.5844
Total 0.0688 0.0503 0.5093 1.3700e-
003
0.1643 8.2000e-
004
0.1651 0.0436 7.6000e-
004
0.0443 139.0705 139.0705 5.0500e-
003
4.6600e-
003
140.5844
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Grading/Excavation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 6.8931 0.0000 6.8931 3.4043 0.0000 3.4043 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 6.8931 1.6349 8.5280 3.4043 1.5041 4.9084 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/17/2021 9:19 AMPage 10 of 30 Bussetto Foods New Campus - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I
I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I I
I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,-------,--------,--------,-------,-------,-------,--------,-------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,-------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I I
I
3.3 Grading/Excavation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1721 0.1257 1.2732 3.4200e-
003
0.4107 2.0500e-
003
0.4128 0.1090 1.8900e-
003
0.1108 347.6764 347.6764 0.0126 0.0116 351.4609
Total 0.1721 0.1257 1.2732 3.4200e-
003
0.4107 2.0500e-
003
0.4128 0.1090 1.8900e-
003
0.1108 347.6764 347.6764 0.0126 0.0116 351.4609
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.1019 0.0000 3.1019 1.5319 0.0000 1.5319 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 3.1019 1.6349 4.7368 1.5319 1.5041 3.0360 0.0000 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/17/2021 9:19 AMPage 11 of 30 Bussetto Foods New Campus - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I
I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I I
I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,-------,--------,--------,-------,-------,-------,--------,-------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,-------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I I
I
3.3 Grading/Excavation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1721 0.1257 1.2732 3.4200e-
003
0.4107 2.0500e-
003
0.4128 0.1090 1.8900e-
003
0.1108 347.6764 347.6764 0.0126 0.0116 351.4609
Total 0.1721 0.1257 1.2732 3.4200e-
003
0.4107 2.0500e-
003
0.4128 0.1090 1.8900e-
003
0.1108 347.6764 347.6764 0.0126 0.0116 351.4609
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Drainage/Utilities/Trenching - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 6.8931 0.0000 6.8931 3.4043 0.0000 3.4043 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 6.8931 1.6349 8.5280 3.4043 1.5041 4.9084 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/17/2021 9:19 AMPage 12 of 30 Bussetto Foods New Campus - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I
I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I I
I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,-------,--------,--------,-------,-------,-------,--------,-------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,-------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I I
I
3.4 Drainage/Utilities/Trenching - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1721 0.1257 1.2732 3.4200e-
003
0.4107 2.0500e-
003
0.4128 0.1090 1.8900e-
003
0.1108 347.6764 347.6764 0.0126 0.0116 351.4609
Total 0.1721 0.1257 1.2732 3.4200e-
003
0.4107 2.0500e-
003
0.4128 0.1090 1.8900e-
003
0.1108 347.6764 347.6764 0.0126 0.0116 351.4609
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.1019 0.0000 3.1019 1.5319 0.0000 1.5319 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 3.1019 1.6349 4.7368 1.5319 1.5041 3.0360 0.0000 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/17/2021 9:19 AMPage 13 of 30 Bussetto Foods New Campus - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I
I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I I
I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,-------,--------,--------,-------,-------,-------,--------,-------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,-------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I I
I
3.4 Drainage/Utilities/Trenching - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1721 0.1257 1.2732 3.4200e-
003
0.4107 2.0500e-
003
0.4128 0.1090 1.8900e-
003
0.1108 347.6764 347.6764 0.0126 0.0116 351.4609
Total 0.1721 0.1257 1.2732 3.4200e-
003
0.4107 2.0500e-
003
0.4128 0.1090 1.8900e-
003
0.1108 347.6764 347.6764 0.0126 0.0116 351.4609
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Foundations/Concrete Pour - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.1028 11.1249 14.5805 0.0228 0.5679 0.5679 0.5225 0.5225 2,207.660 3 2,207.660
3 0.7140 2,225.510
4 Paving 0.2133 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.3162 11.1249 14.5805 0.0228 0.5679 0.5679 0.5225 0.5225 2,207.660 3 2,207.660
3 0.7140 2,225.510
4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/17/2021 9:19 AMPage 14 of 30 Bussetto Foods New Campus - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I
I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I I
I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,-------,--------,--------,-------,-------,-------,--------,-------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,-------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I I
I
3.5 Foundations/Concrete Pour - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1721 0.1257 1.2732 3.4200e-
003
0.4107 2.0500e-
003
0.4128 0.1090 1.8900e-
003
0.1108 347.6764 347.6764 0.0126 0.0116 351.4609
Total 0.1721 0.1257 1.2732 3.4200e-
003
0.4107 2.0500e-
003
0.4128 0.1090 1.8900e-
003
0.1108 347.6764 347.6764 0.0126 0.0116 351.4609
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.1028 11.1249 14.5805 0.0228 0.5679 0.5679 0.5225 0.5225 0.0000 2,207.660 3 2,207.660
3 0.7140 2,225.510
4 Paving 0.2133 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.3162 11.1249 14.5805 0.0228 0.5679 0.5679 0.5225 0.5225 0.0000 2,207.660 3 2,207.660
3 0.7140 2,225.510
4 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/17/2021 9:19 AMPage 15 of 30 Bussetto Foods New Campus - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I
I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I I
I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,-------,--------,--------,-------,-------,-------,--------,-------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,-------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I I
I
3.5 Foundations/Concrete Pour - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1721 0.1257 1.2732 3.4200e-
003
0.4107 2.0500e-
003
0.4128 0.1090 1.8900e-
003
0.1108 347.6764 347.6764 0.0126 0.0116 351.4609
Total 0.1721 0.1257 1.2732 3.4200e-
003
0.4107 2.0500e-
003
0.4128 0.1090 1.8900e-
003
0.1108 347.6764 347.6764 0.0126 0.0116 351.4609
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/17/2021 9:19 AMPage 16 of 30 Bussetto Foods New Campus - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I
I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' -------I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' ------- ., ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ., ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ., ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ., ' ' '
I I I I
' ' ' '
' '
I I
I
I I I
I I
I
I
' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I I I I
3.6 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1853 5.0101 1.4172 0.0190 0.6169 0.0529 0.6698 0.1776 0.0506 0.2283 2,004.117 2 2,004.117
2 0.0150 0.3021 2,094.516
8 Worker 0.5163 0.3769 3.8196 0.0103 1.2322 6.1600e-
003
1.2384 0.3268 5.6700e-
003
0.3325 1,043.029
1 1,043.029
1 0.0379 0.0349 1,054.382
7 Total 0.7017 5.3870 5.2368 0.0292 1.8491 0.0591 1.9082 0.5045 0.0563 0.5608 3,047.146 3 3,047.146
3 0.0528 0.3370 3,148.899
5 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/17/2021 9:19 AMPage 17 of 30 Bussetto Foods New Campus - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I
I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' -------I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' ------- ., ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ., ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ., ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ., ' ' '
I I I I
' ' ' '
' '
I I
I
I I I
I I
I
I
' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I I I I
3.6 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1853 5.0101 1.4172 0.0190 0.6169 0.0529 0.6698 0.1776 0.0506 0.2283 2,004.117 2 2,004.117
2 0.0150 0.3021 2,094.516
8 Worker 0.5163 0.3769 3.8196 0.0103 1.2322 6.1600e-
003
1.2384 0.3268 5.6700e-
003
0.3325 1,043.029
1 1,043.029
1 0.0379 0.0349 1,054.382
7 Total 0.7017 5.3870 5.2368 0.0292 1.8491 0.0591 1.9082 0.5045 0.0563 0.5608 3,047.146 3 3,047.146
3 0.0528 0.3370 3,148.899
5 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/17/2021 9:19 AMPage 18 of 30 Bussetto Foods New Campus - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I
I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' -------I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' ------- ., ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ., ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ., ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ., ' ' '
I I I I
' ' ' '
' '
I I
I
I I I
I I
I
I
' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I I I I
3.6 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0949 4.0936 1.2208 0.0183 0.6169 0.0257 0.6425 0.1776 0.0246 0.2022 1,931.374 0 1,931.374
0 0.0103 0.2908 2,018.294
8 Worker 0.4762 0.3297 3.5026 9.9300e-
003
1.2322 5.8100e-
003
1.2380 0.3268 5.3500e-
003
0.3322 1,015.975
3 1,015.975
3 0.0340 0.0321 1,026.384
8 Total 0.5711 4.4233 4.7233 0.0282 1.8491 0.0315 1.8806 0.5045 0.0299 0.5344 2,947.349 2 2,947.349
2 0.0443 0.3229 3,044.679
6 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/17/2021 9:19 AMPage 19 of 30 Bussetto Foods New Campus - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I
I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' -------I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' ------- ., ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ., ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ., ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ., ' ' '
I I I I
' ' ' '
' '
I I
I
I I I
I I
I
I
' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I I I I
3.6 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0949 4.0936 1.2208 0.0183 0.6169 0.0257 0.6425 0.1776 0.0246 0.2022 1,931.374 0 1,931.374
0 0.0103 0.2908 2,018.294
8 Worker 0.4762 0.3297 3.5026 9.9300e-
003
1.2322 5.8100e-
003
1.2380 0.3268 5.3500e-
003
0.3322 1,015.975
3 1,015.975
3 0.0340 0.0321 1,026.384
8 Total 0.5711 4.4233 4.7233 0.0282 1.8491 0.0315 1.8806 0.5045 0.0299 0.5344 2,947.349 2 2,947.349
2 0.0443 0.3229 3,044.679
6 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Paving - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.1028 11.1249 14.5805 0.0228 0.5679 0.5679 0.5225 0.5225 2,207.660 3 2,207.660
3 0.7140 2,225.510
4 Paving 0.0815 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.1843 11.1249 14.5805 0.0228 0.5679 0.5679 0.5225 0.5225 2,207.660 3 2,207.660
3 0.7140 2,225.510
4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/17/2021 9:19 AMPage 20 of 30 Bussetto Foods New Campus - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I
I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I I
I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,-------,--------,--------,-------,-------,-------,--------,-------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,-------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I I
I
3.7 Paving - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1365 3.6887 1.0435 0.0140 0.4542 0.0390 0.4932 0.1308 0.0373 0.1681 1,475.558 8 1,475.558
8 0.0110 0.2224 1,542.116
8 Worker 0.1377 0.1005 1.0186 2.7300e-
003
0.3286 1.6400e-
003
0.3302 0.0872 1.5100e-
003
0.0887 278.1411 278.1411 0.0101 9.3100e-
003
281.1687
Total 0.2742 3.7893 2.0620 0.0167 0.7828 0.0406 0.8234 0.2179 0.0388 0.2567 1,753.699 9 1,753.699
9 0.0211 0.2317 1,823.285
5 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.1028 11.1249 14.5805 0.0228 0.5679 0.5679 0.5225 0.5225 0.0000 2,207.660 3 2,207.660
3 0.7140 2,225.510
4 Paving 0.0815 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.1843 11.1249 14.5805 0.0228 0.5679 0.5679 0.5225 0.5225 0.0000 2,207.660 3 2,207.660
3 0.7140 2,225.510
4 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/17/2021 9:19 AMPage 21 of 30 Bussetto Foods New Campus - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I
I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I I
I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,-------,--------,--------,-------,-------,-------,--------,-------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,-------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I I
I
3.7 Paving - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1365 3.6887 1.0435 0.0140 0.4542 0.0390 0.4932 0.1308 0.0373 0.1681 1,475.558 8 1,475.558
8 0.0110 0.2224 1,542.116
8 Worker 0.1377 0.1005 1.0186 2.7300e-
003
0.3286 1.6400e-
003
0.3302 0.0872 1.5100e-
003
0.0887 278.1411 278.1411 0.0101 9.3100e-
003
281.1687
Total 0.2742 3.7893 2.0620 0.0167 0.7828 0.0406 0.8234 0.2179 0.0388 0.2567 1,753.699 9 1,753.699
9 0.0211 0.2317 1,823.285
5 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 1 2,207.584
1 0.7140 2,225.433
6 Paving 0.0815 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.1142 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 1 2,207.584
1 0.7140 2,225.433
6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/17/2021 9:19 AMPage 22 of 30 Bussetto Foods New Campus - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I
I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I I
I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,-------,--------,--------,-------,-------,-------,--------,-------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,-------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I I
I
3.7 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0699 3.0140 0.8988 0.0135 0.4542 0.0189 0.4731 0.1308 0.0181 0.1489 1,422.000 6 1,422.000
6 7.5800e-
003
0.2141 1,485.997
3 Worker 0.1270 0.0879 0.9340 2.6500e-
003
0.3286 1.5500e-
003
0.3301 0.0872 1.4300e-
003
0.0886 270.9267 270.9267 9.0800e-
003
8.5500e-
003
273.7026
Total 0.1969 3.1019 1.8328 0.0161 0.7828 0.0204 0.8032 0.2179 0.0195 0.2374 1,692.927 4 1,692.927
4 0.0167 0.2227 1,759.699
9 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 1 2,207.584
1 0.7140 2,225.433
6 Paving 0.0815 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.1142 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 1 2,207.584
1 0.7140 2,225.433
6 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/17/2021 9:19 AMPage 23 of 30 Bussetto Foods New Campus - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I
I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I
I I
I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,-------,--------,--------,-------,-------,-------,--------,-------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,-------,--------,-------"T' - - - - - - -I I I
I
3.7 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0699 3.0140 0.8988 0.0135 0.4542 0.0189 0.4731 0.1308 0.0181 0.1489 1,422.000 6 1,422.000
6 7.5800e-
003
0.2141 1,485.997
3 Worker 0.1270 0.0879 0.9340 2.6500e-
003
0.3286 1.5500e-
003
0.3301 0.0872 1.4300e-
003
0.0886 270.9267 270.9267 9.0800e-
003
8.5500e-
003
273.7026
Total 0.1969 3.1019 1.8328 0.0161 0.7828 0.0204 0.8032 0.2179 0.0195 0.2374 1,692.927 4 1,692.927
4 0.0167 0.2227 1,759.699
9 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/17/2021 9:19 AMPage 24 of 30 Bussetto Foods New Campus - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I
I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' -------I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - -.,--------,--------,--------,-------,--------,-------,--------,--------,-------"T"--------t - - - - - - -,--------,--------,--------,-------"T' -------I I
I I
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 8.2818 15.4939 85.8331 0.1880 18.9382 0.1587 19.0969 5.0562 0.1490 5.2052 19,348.16 68 19,348.16
68 1.1412 1.1253 19,712.02
31 Unmitigated 8.2818 15.4939 85.8331 0.1880 18.9382 0.1587 19.0969 5.0562 0.1490 5.2052 19,348.16 68 19,348.16
68 1.1412 1.1253 19,712.02
31 4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
General Heavy Industry 2,368.25 3,065.36 2430.32 7,230,768 7,230,768 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 2,368.25 3,065.36 2,430.32 7,230,768 7,230,768
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by General Heavy Industry 9.50 7.30 7.30 59.00 28.00 13.00 92 5 3 Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH General Heavy Industry 0.510058 0.053037 0.175964 0.161396 0.026773 0.007006 0.013819 0.022114 0.000717 0.000291 0.024206 0.001529 0.003090 Parking Lot 0.510058 0.053037 0.175964 0.161396 0.026773 0.007006 0.013819 0.022114 0.000717 0.000291 0.024206 0.001529 0.003090
5.0 Energy Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/17/2021 9:19 AMPage 25 of 30 Bussetto Foods New Campus - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
--------. --.,..-------,.-------.--------.--------.--------.--------,.-------.--------.--------.--------• -. -----,--------.--------,--------.-------.... -----. -., ., ., ., I I
I I
~·····································=--------------~-----------+-----------~------------------------1--------------------------: I I ■ ■ I I
I I I I I I
■ I I ■ ■ •
• I I • I I ■ ••
~ ■ ■ • • • • ■ • • • • • • • • • • • • ■ • • • ., • • • • • • • • • • ,. • • • • • • • • • T • • • • • • • • • • ,r • • • • • • • • ·r • • • • • • • • ·r • • • • • • • • • • • r • • • • • • • • • • • r • • • • • • • • • • r • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I ; I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
------------------------~---------=----------l----------l----------l----------l----------l----------1----------1----------I----------I----------I---------~-------- ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.2920 2.6548 2.2300 0.0159 0.2018 0.2018 0.2018 0.2018 3,185.698 3 3,185.698
3 0.0611 0.0584 3,204.629
3 NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.2920 2.6548 2.2300 0.0159 0.2018 0.2018 0.2018 0.2018 3,185.698 3 3,185.698
3 0.0611 0.0584 3,204.629
3 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
General Heavy
Industry
27078.4 0.2920 2.6548 2.2300 0.0159 0.2018 0.2018 0.2018 0.2018 3,185.698 3 3,185.698
3 0.0611 0.0584 3,204.629
3 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.2920 2.6548 2.2300 0.0159 0.2018 0.2018 0.2018 0.2018 3,185.698 3 3,185.698
3 0.0611 0.0584 3,204.629
3 Unmitigated
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/17/2021 9:19 AMPage 26 of 30 Bussetto Foods New Campus - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied .. .. I I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
----------- .,..-------,--------,--------,--------,--------,--------,--------,--------,--------,--------· ------ -~-------,--------,--------,-------"T -------.. ..
I, I 1, I 1, I
I 11 I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I, I 1, I 1, I 1, I
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 12.0787 6.2000e-
004
0.0681 1.0000e-
005
2.4000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
0.1461 0.1461 3.8000e-
004
0.1557
Unmitigated 12.0787 6.2000e-
004
0.0681 1.0000e-
005
2.4000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
0.1461 0.1461 3.8000e-
004
0.1557
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
General Heavy
Industry
27.0784 0.2920 2.6548 2.2300 0.0159 0.2018 0.2018 0.2018 0.2018 3,185.698 3 3,185.698
3 0.0611 0.0584 3,204.629
3 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.2920 2.6548 2.2300 0.0159 0.2018 0.2018 0.2018 0.2018 3,185.698 3 3,185.698
3 0.0611 0.0584 3,204.629
3 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/17/2021 9:19 AMPage 27 of 30 Bussetto Foods New Campus - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 1, I 1, I 1, I
I 11 I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••~--------------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• 1, I 1, I 1, I I, I I I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
. -----. --. -~-------.--------,.-------.--------,.----------------.--------.--------,.-------,.-------• --. --. •r--------,.-------,.-------.--------.----. --. . , .,
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
1.8277 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
10.2448 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 6.3100e-
003
6.2000e-
004
0.0681 1.0000e-
005
2.4000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
0.1461 0.1461 3.8000e-
004
0.1557
Total 12.0787 6.2000e-
004
0.0681 1.0000e-
005
2.4000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
0.1461 0.1461 3.8000e-
004
0.1557
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/17/2021 9:19 AMPage 28 of 30 Bussetto Foods New Campus - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I
I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I I
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
1.8277 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
10.2448 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 6.3100e-
003
6.2000e-
004
0.0681 1.0000e-
005
2.4000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
0.1461 0.1461 3.8000e-
004
0.1557
Total 12.0787 6.2000e-
004
0.0681 1.0000e-
005
2.4000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
0.1461 0.1461 3.8000e-
004
0.1557
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/17/2021 9:19 AMPage 29 of 30 Bussetto Foods New Campus - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I
I I
■ I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I
■ I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------•••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I I
11.0 Vegetation
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
8.0 Waste Detail
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type
Number
Hours/Day
Days/Year
Horse Power
Load Factor
Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type
Number
Hours/Day
Hours/Year
Horse Power
Load Factor
Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type
Number
Heat Input/Day
Heat Input/Year
Boiler Rating
Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type
Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 9/17/2021 9:19 AM
Bussetto Foods New Campus - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT ASSESSMENT
October 14, 2021
APPENDIX B
HEALTH RISK CALCULATIONS AND AERMOD OUTPUT FILES
IJ
**
****************************************
**
** AERMOD Input Produced by:
** AERMOD View Ver. 10.0.0
** Lakes Environmental Software Inc.
** Date: 10/5/2021
** File: C:\Lakes\AERMOD View\BussetoFoods\BussetoFoods.ADI **
****************************************
**
**
****************************************
** AERMOD Control Pathway
****************************************
**
**
CO STARTING
TITLEONE C:\Lakes\AERMOD View\BussetoFoods\BussetoFoods.isc MODELOPT DFAULT CONC
AVERTIME 1 ANNUAL
POLLUTID PM_2.5
RUNORNOT RUN
ERRORFIL BussetoFoods.err
CO FINISHED
**
****************************************
** AERMOD Source Pathway
****************************************
**
**
SO STARTING
** Source Location **
** Source ID ‐ Type ‐ X Coord. ‐ Y Coord. **
LOCATION PAREA1 AREAPOLY 247523.144 4066861.600 83.370 ** Source Parameters **
SRCPARAM PAREA1 5.3027E‐08 3.000 4
AREAVERT PAREA1 247523.144 4066861.600 247515.142 4066657.252 AREAVERT PAREA1 247899.833 4066651.097 247907.219 4066856.676 SRCGROUP ALL
SO FINISHED
**
****************************************
** AERMOD Receptor Pathway
****************************************
**
**
RE STARTING
INCLUDED BussetoFoods.rou
RE FINISHED
**
****************************************
** AERMOD Meteorology Pathway
****************************************
**
**
ME STARTING
SURFFILE "C:\Users\kheck\Desktop\Met Data\Fresno_2013‐2017.SFC" PROFFILE "C:\Users\kheck\Desktop\Met Data\Fresno_2013‐2017.PFL" SURFDATA 93193 2013 FRESNO/AIR_TERMINAL
UAIRDATA 23230 2013 OAKLAND/WSO_AP
PROFBASE 112.0 METERS
ME FINISHED
**
****************************************
** AERMOD Output Pathway
****************************************
**
**
OU STARTING
RECTABLE ALLAVE 1ST
RECTABLE 1 1ST
** Auto‐Generated Plotfiles
PLOTFILE 1 ALL 1ST BussetoFoods.AD\01H1GALL.PLT 31
PLOTFILE ANNUAL ALL BussetoFoods.AD\AN00GALL.PLT
32 SUMMFILE BussetoFoods.sum
OU FINISHED
**
****************************************
** Project Parameters
****************************************
** PROJCTN CoordinateSystemUTM
** DESCPTN UTM: Universal Transverse Mercator
** DATUM World Geodetic System 1984
** DTMRGN Global Definition
** UNITS m
** ZONE 11
** ZONEINX 0
**
**
****************************************
**
** AERMOD Input Produced by:
** AERMOD View Ver. 10.0.0
** Lakes Environmental Software Inc.
** Date: 10/5/2021
** File: C:\Lakes\AERMOD View\BussetoFoods\BussetoFoods.ADI **
****************************************
**
**
****************************************
** AERMOD Control Pathway
****************************************
**
**
CO STARTING
TITLEONE C:\Lakes\AERMOD View\BussetoFoods\BussetoFoods.isc MODELOPT DFAULT CONC
AVERTIME 1 ANNUAL
POLLUTID PM_2.5
RUNORNOT RUN
ERRORFIL BussetoFoods.err
CO FINISHED
**
****************************************
** AERMOD Source Pathway
****************************************
**
**
SO STARTING
** Source Location **
**
Source ID ‐ Type ‐ X Coord. ‐ Y Coord. **
LOCATION PAREA1 AREAPOLY 247523.144 4066861.600 83.370 ** Source Parameters **
SRCPARAM PAREA1 5.3027E‐08 3.000 4
AREAVERT PAREA1 247523.144 4066861.600 247515.142 4066657.252 AREAVERT PAREA1 247899.833 4066651.097 247907.219 4066856.676 SRCGROUP ALL
SO FINISHED
**
****************************************
** AERMOD Receptor Pathway
****************************************
**
**
RE STARTING
INCLUDED BussetoFoods.rou
RE FINISHED
**
****************************************
** AERMOD Meteorology Pathway
****************************************
**
**
ME STARTING
SURFFILE "C:\Users\kheck\Desktop\Met Data\Fresno_2013‐2017.SFC" PROFFILE "C:\Users\kheck\Desktop\Met Data\Fresno_2013‐2017.PFL" SURFDATA 93193 2013 FRESNO/AIR_TERMINAL
UAIRDATA 23230 2013 OAKLAND/WSO_AP
PROFBASE 112.0 METERS
ME FINISHED
**
****************************************
** AERMOD Output Pathway
****************************************
**
**
OU STARTING
RECTABLE ALLAVE 1ST
RECTABLE 1 1ST
** Auto‐Generated Plotfiles
PLOTFILE 1 ALL 1ST BussetoFoods.AD\01H1GALL.PLT 31
PLOTFILE ANNUAL ALL BussetoFoods.AD\AN00GALL.PLT
32 SUMMFILE BussetoFoods.sum
OU FINISHED
*** Message Summary For AERMOD Model Setup ***
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Summary of Total Messages ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
A Total of 0 Fatal Error Message(s)
A Total of 2 Warning Message(s)
A Total of 0 Informational Message(s)
******** FATAL ERROR MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
ME
W186 63 MEOPEN: THRESH_1MIN 1‐min ASOS wind speed threshold used
0.50 ME W187 63 MEOPEN: ADJ_U* Option for Stable Low Winds used in AERMET
***********************************
*** SETUP Finishes Successfully ***
***********************************
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\Lakes\AERMOD
View\BussetoFoods\BussetoFoods.isc *** 10/05/21 *** AERMET ‐ VERSION 18081 *** ***
*** 14:44:03
PAGE 1
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV RURAL ADJ_U*
*** 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 RURAL Dispersion Only.
**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.
**Other Options Specified:
ADJ_U* ‐ Use ADJ_U* option for SBL in AERMET
CCVR_Sub ‐ Meteorological data includes CCVR substitutions TEMP_Sub ‐ Meteorological data includes TEMP substitutions
**Model Assumes No FLAGPOLE Receptor Heights.
**The User Specified a Pollutant Type of: PM_2.5
**Model Calculates 1 Short
Term Average(s) of: 1‐HR
and Calculates ANNUAL Averages
**This Run Includes: 1 Source(s); 1 Source Group(s); and 75 Receptor(s)
with: 0 POINT(s), including
0 POINTCAP(s) and 0 POINTHOR(s)
and: 0 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 a total of 0 line(s)
**Model Set To Continue RUNning After the Setup Testing. **The AERMET Input Meteorological Data Version Date: 18081
**Output Options Selected:
Model Outputs
Tables of ANNUAL Averages by Receptor
Model Outputs Tables of Highest Short Term Values by Receptor (RECTABLE Keyword)
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) = 112.00 ; 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 = 3.5 MB of RAM.
**Input Runstream File: aermod.inp
**Output Print File: aermod.out
**Detailed Error/Message File: BussetoFoods.err
**File for Summary of Results: BussetoFoods.sum
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\Lakes\AERMOD
View\BussetoFoods\BussetoFoods.isc *** 10/05/21 *** AERMET ‐ VERSION 18081 *** ***
*** 14:44:03
PAGE 2
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV RURAL ADJ_U*
*** 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
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
PAREA1 0 0.53027E‐07 247523.1 4066861.6 83.4 3.00 4
0.00 NO
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\Lakes\AERMOD
View\BussetoFoods\BussetoFoods.isc *** 10/05/21 *** AERMET ‐ VERSION 18081 *** ***
*** 14:44:03
PAGE 3
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV RURAL ADJ_U*
*** SOURCE IDs DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS
***
SRCGROUP ID SOURCE IDs ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ALL PAREA1 ,
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\Lakes\AERMOD
View\BussetoFoods\BussetoFoods.isc *** 10/05/21 *** AERMET ‐ VERSION 18081 *** ***
*** 14:44:03
PAGE 4
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV RURAL ADJ_U*
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS ***
(X‐COORD, Y‐COORD, ZELEV, ZHILL, ZFLAG)
(METERS)
( 247120.8, 4066784.8, 84.7, 84.7, 0.0); ( 247120.8, 4066804.8, 84.9, 84.9, 0.0);
( 247120.8, 4066824.8, 85.1, 85.1, 0.0); ( 247120.8, 4066844.8, 85.3, 85.3, 0.0);
( 247120.8, 4066864.8, 85.2, 85.2, 0.0); ( 247140.8, 4066784.8, 84.9, 84.9, 0.0);
( 247140.8, 4066804.8, 85.1, 85.1, 0.0); ( 247140.8, 4066824.8, 85.3, 85.3, 0.0);
( 247140.8, 4066844.8, 85.5, 85.5, 0.0); ( 247140.8, 4066864.8, 85.3, 85.3, 0.0);
( 247160.8, 4066784.8, 85.0, 85.0, 0.0); ( 247160.8, 4066804.8, 85.2, 85.2, 0.0);
( 247160.8, 4066824.8, 85.4, 85.4, 0.0); ( 247160.8, 4066844.8, 85.6, 85.6, 0.0);
( 247180.8, 4066784.8, 85.0, 85.0, 0.0); ( 247180.8, 4066804.8, 85.2, 85.2, 0.0);
( 247180.8, 4066824.8, 85.4, 85.4, 0.0); ( 247180.8, 4066844.8, 85.6, 85.6, 0.0);
( 247200.8, 4066784.8, 85.0, 85.0, 0.0); ( 247200.8, 4066804.8, 85.2, 85.2, 0.0);
( 247200.8, 4066824.8, 85.4, 85.4, 0.0); ( 247200.8, 4066844.8, 85.6, 85.6, 0.0);
( 247220.8, 4066784.8, 85.0, 85.0, 0.0); ( 247220.8, 4066804.8, 85.2, 85.2, 0.0);
( 247220.8, 4066824.8, 85.4, 85.4, 0.0); ( 247220.8, 4066844.8, 85.6, 85.6, 0.0);
( 247240.8, 4066784.8, 84.9, 84.9, 0.0); ( 247240.8, 4066804.8, 85.2, 85.2, 0.0);
( 247240.8, 4066824.8, 85.4, 85.4, 0.0); ( 247240.8, 4066844.8, 85.6, 85.6, 0.0);
( 247260.8, 4066784.8, 84.7, 84.7, 0.0); ( 247260.8, 4066804.8, 85.1, 85.1, 0.0);
( 247260.8, 4066824.8, 85.4, 85.4, 0.0); ( 247260.8, 4066844.8, 85.4, 85.4, 0.0);
( 247280.8, 4066784.8, 84.6, 84.6, 0.0); ( 247280.8, 4066804.8, 85.0, 85.0, 0.0);
( 247280.8, 4066824.8, 85.3, 85.3, 0.0); ( 247280.8, 4066844.8, 85.3, 85.3, 0.0);
( 247340.8, 4066784.8, 84.2, 84.2, 0.0); ( 247340.8, 4066804.8, 84.5, 84.5, 0.0);
( 247340.8, 4066824.8, 84.8, 84.8, 0.0); ( 247340.8, 4066844.8, 85.0, 85.0, 0.0);
( 247360.8, 4066784.8, 84.0, 84.0, 0.0); ( 247360.8, 4066804.8, 84.3, 84.3, 0.0);
( 247360.8, 4066824.8, 84.5, 84.5, 0.0); ( 247360.8, 4066844.8, 84.7, 84.7, 0.0);
( 247380.8, 4066784.8, 83.8, 83.8, 0.0); ( 247380.8, 4066804.8, 84.0, 84.0, 0.0);
( 247380.8, 4066824.8, 84.3, 84.3, 0.0); ( 247380.8, 4066844.8, 84.5, 84.5, 0.0);
( 247440.8, 4066804.8, 83.5, 83.5, 0.0); ( 247440.8, 4066824.8, 83.6, 83.6, 0.0);
( 248180.8, 4066424.8, 82.3, 82.3, 0.0); ( 248180.8, 4066444.8, 82.3, 82.3, 0.0);
( 248200.8, 4066424.8, 82.3, 82.3, 0.0); ( 248200.8, 4066444.8, 82.3, 82.3, 0.0);
( 248320.8, 4066164.8, 82.3, 82.3, 0.0); ( 248320.8, 4066184.8, 82.3, 82.3, 0.0);
( 248320.8, 4066204.8, 82.3, 82.3, 0.0); ( 248320.8, 4066224.8, 82.3, 82.3, 0.0);
( 248320.8, 4066244.8, 82.3, 82.3, 0.0); ( 248320.8, 4066264.8, 82.3, 82.3, 0.0);
( 248320.8, 4066284.8, 82.3, 82.3, 0.0); ( 248320.8, 4066304.8, 82.3, 82.3, 0.0);
( 248320.8, 4066324.8, 82.3, 82.3, 0.0); ( 248320.8, 4066344.8, 82.3, 82.3, 0.0);
( 248320.8, 4066364.8, 82.3, 82.3, 0.0); ( 248320.8, 4066384.8, 82.3, 82.3, 0.0);
( 248320.8, 4066404.8, 82.3, 82.3, 0.0); ( 248320.8, 4066424.8, 82.3, 82.3, 0.0);
( 248320.8, 4066444.8, 82.3, 82.3, 0.0); ( 247081.2, 4066093.6, 81.4, 81.4, 0.0);
( 248486.6, 4066060.0, 82.3, 82.3, 0.0); ( 247145.4, 4067694.5, 82.9, 82.9, 0.0);
( 248523.3, 4067660.9, 85.0, 85.0, 0.0);
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\Lakes\AERMOD
View\BussetoFoods\BussetoFoods.isc *** 10/05/21 *** AERMET ‐ VERSION 18081 *** ***
*** 14:44:03
PAGE 5
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV RURAL ADJ_U*
*** 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,
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\Lakes\AERMOD
View\BussetoFoods\BussetoFoods.isc *** 10/05/21 *** AERMET ‐ VERSION 18081 *** ***
*** 14:44:03
PAGE 6
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV RURAL ADJ_U*
*** UP TO THE FIRST 24 HOURS OF METEOROLOGICAL
DATA ***
Surface file: C:\Users\kheck\Desktop\Met Data\Fresno_2013‐2017.SFC Met Version: 18081
Profile file: C:\Users\kheck\Desktop\Met Data\Fresno_2013‐2017.PFL
Surface format: FREE
Profile format: FREE
Surface station no.: 93193 Upper air station no.: 23230 Name: FRESNO/AIR_TERMINAL Name:
OAKLAND/WSO_AP
Year: 2013 Year: 2013 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
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
13 01 01 1 01 ‐10.9 0.141 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 126. 23.0 0.07 2.38
1.00 1.89 113. 10.0 277.0 2.0
13 01 01 1 02 ‐8.2 0.121 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 101. 19.6 0.07 2.38
1.00 1.65 105. 10.0 276.4 2.0
13 01
01 1 03 ‐3.0 0.076 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 51. 13.2 0.07 2.38
1.00 0.97 95. 10.0 276.4 2.0
13 01 01 1 04 ‐3.2 0.078 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 52. 13.4 0.08 2.38
1.00 0.99 63. 10.0 275.4 2.0
13 01 01 1 05 ‐11.6 0.147 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 136. 24.9 0.11 2.38
1.00 1.81 27. 10.0 275.4 2.0
13 01 01 1 06 ‐6.1 0.106 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 83. 17.5 0.10 2.38
1.00 1.35 46. 10.0 275.4 2.0
13 01 01 1 07 ‐3.2 0.079 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 53. 13.9 0.10 2.38
1.00 0.94 56. 10.0 275.9 2.0
13 01 01 1 08 ‐3.9 0.086 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 61. 15.0 0.11 2.38
0.65 1.06 2. 10.0 276.4 2.0
13 01 01 1 09 7.5 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 50. ‐999. ‐99999.0 0.13 2.38
0.36 0.00 0. 10.0 278.1 2.0
13 01 01 1 10 58.7 0.121 0.640 0.005 161. 101. ‐2.8 0.10 2.38
0.26 0.87 34. 10.0 280.9 2.0
13 01 01 1 11 63.3 0.147 0.785 0.005 276. 135. ‐4.5 0.17 2.38
0.22 0.97 261. 10.0 282.5 2.0
13 01 01 1 12 75.8 0.188 1.109 0.007 649. 195. ‐7.9 0.15 2.38
0.21 1.43 277. 10.0 283.8 2.0
13 01 01 1 13 155.3 0.195 1.573 0.008 905. 207. ‐4.3 0.15 2.38
0.21 1.35 275. 10.0 284.9 2.0
13 01 01 1 14 137.7 0.226 1.535 0.007 947. 258. ‐7.6 0.12 2.38
0.22 1.84 321. 10.0 285.9 2.0
13 01 01 1 15 83.1 0.293 1.308 0.006 972. 380. ‐27.2 0.12 2.38
0.26 2.78 312. 10.0 285.9 2.0
13 01 01 1 16 26.9 0.396 0.901 0.006 979. 598. ‐207.9 0.12 2.38
0.35 4.25 309. 10.0 285.4 2.0
13 01 01 1 17 ‐43.4 0.472 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 778. 245.2 0.12 2.38
0.62 5.36 321. 10.0 282.5 2.0
13 01 01 1 18 ‐29.4 0.292 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 406. 94.0 0.12 2.38
1.00 3.39 318. 10.0 281.4 2.0
13 01 01 1 19 ‐25.7 0.255 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 311. 71.7 0.15 2.38
1.00 2.81 293. 10.0 280.9 2.0
13 01 01 1 20 ‐26.2 0.258 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 315. 73.3 0.15 2.38
1.00 2.84 297. 10.0 279.2 2.0
13 01 01 1 21 ‐25.0 0.246 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 293. 66.4 0.15 2.38
1.00 2.71 292. 10.0 278.1 2.0
13 01 01 1 22 ‐11.2 0.146 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 138. 24.8 0.12 2.38
1.00 1.76 319. 10.0 277.5 2.0
13 01 01 1 23 ‐6.7 0.113 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 91. 19.3 0.15 2.38
1.00 1.31 282. 10.0 277.5 2.0
13 01 01 1 24 ‐1.9 0.069 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 44. 15.2 0.11 2.38
1.00 0.65 24. 10.0 275.9 2.0
First hour of profile data
YR MO DY HR HEIGHT F WDIR WSPD AMB_TMP sigmaA sigmaW sigmaV 13 01 01 01 10.0 1 113. 1.89 277.1 99.0 ‐99.00 ‐99.00 F indicates top of profile (=1) or below (=0)
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\Lakes\AERMOD
View\BussetoFoods\BussetoFoods.isc *** 10/05/21 *** AERMET ‐ VERSION 18081 *** ***
*** 14:44:03
PAGE 7
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV RURAL ADJ_U*
*** THE ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION VALUES AVERAGED OVER 5 YEARS FOR SOURCE GROUP: ALL ***
INCLUDING SOURCE(S): PAREA1 ,
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS
***
** CONC OF PM_2.5 IN MICROGRAMS/M**3
**
X‐COORD (M) Y‐COORD (M) CONC X‐COORD (M) Y‐COORD (M) CONC
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
247120.83 4066784.75 0.03204
247120.83
4066804.75 0.03126
247120.83 4066824.75 0.03044 247120.83 4066844.75 0.02957
247120.83 4066864.75 0.02870 247140.83 4066784.75 0.03408
247140.83 4066804.75 0.03323 247140.83 4066824.75 0.03231
247140.83 4066844.75 0.03135 247140.83 4066864.75 0.03039
247160.83 4066784.75 0.03635 247160.83 4066804.75 0.03541
247160.83 4066824.75 0.03439 247160.83 4066844.75 0.03331
247180.83 4066784.75 0.03889 247180.83 4066804.75 0.03785
247180.83 4066824.75 0.03671 247180.83 4066844.75 0.03549
247200.83 4066784.75 0.04174 247200.83 4066804.75 0.04057
247200.83 4066824.75 0.03929 247200.83 4066844.75 0.03791
247220.83 4066784.75 0.04495 247220.83 4066804.75 0.04364
247220.83 4066824.75 0.04217 247220.83 4066844.75 0.04060
247240.83 4066784.75 0.04860 247240.83 4066804.75 0.04711
247240.83 4066824.75 0.04543 247240.83 4066844.75 0.04360
247260.83 4066784.75 0.05278 247260.83 4066804.75 0.05106
247260.83 4066824.75 0.04911 247260.83 4066844.75 0.04701
247280.83 4066784.75 0.05757 247280.83 4066804.75 0.05558
247280.83 4066824.75 0.05329 247280.83 4066844.75 0.05083
247340.83 4066784.75 0.07729 247340.83 4066804.75 0.07407
247340.83 4066824.75 0.07015 247340.83 4066844.75 0.06580
247360.83 4066784.75 0.08643 247360.83 4066804.75 0.08259
247360.83 4066824.75 0.07783 247360.83 4066844.75 0.07249
247380.83 4066784.75 0.09745 247380.83 4066804.75 0.09279
247380.83 4066824.75 0.08691 247380.83 4066844.75 0.08028
247440.83 4066804.75 0.14035 247440.83 4066824.75 0.12882
248180.83 4066424.75 0.03912 248180.83 4066444.75 0.03971
248200.83 4066424.75 0.03671 248200.83 4066444.75 0.03704
248320.83 4066164.75 0.02079 248320.83 4066184.75 0.02144
248320.83 4066204.75 0.02207 248320.83 4066224.75 0.02266
248320.83 4066244.75 0.02321 248320.83 4066264.75 0.02371
248320.83 4066284.75 0.02414 248320.83 4066304.75 0.02449
248320.83 4066324.75 0.02476 248320.83 4066344.75 0.02492
248320.83 4066364.75 0.02497 248320.83 4066384.75 0.02490
248320.83 4066404.75 0.02470 248320.83 4066424.75 0.02438
248320.83 4066444.75 0.02394 247081.22 4066093.63 0.00842
248486.60 4066060.02 0.01485 247145.38 4067694.54 0.00283
248523.27 4067660.94 0.00056
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\Lakes\AERMOD
View\BussetoFoods\BussetoFoods.isc *** 10/05/21 *** AERMET ‐ VERSION 18081 *** ***
*** 14:44:03
PAGE 8
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV RURAL ADJ_U*
*** THE 1ST HIGHEST 1‐HR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION
VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: ALL ***
INCLUDING SOURCE(S): PAREA1 ,
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS
***
** CONC OF PM_2.5 IN MICROGRAMS/M**3
**
X‐COORD (M) Y‐COORD (M) CONC (YYMMDDHH) X‐COORD (M) Y‐COORD (M) CONC (YYMMDDHH)
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
247120.83 4066784.75 1.68375 (13021308) 247120.83 4066804.75 1.57685 (13032407)
247120.83
4066824.75 1.52228 (13032407) 247120.83 4066844.75 1.41593 (13032407)
247120.83 4066864.75 1.39834 (13021708) 247140.83 4066784.75 1.74664 (13021308)
247140.83 4066804.75 1.63397 (13032407) 247140.83 4066824.75 1.57253 (13032407)
247140.83 4066844.75 1.45677 (13032407) 247140.83 4066864.75 1.50829 (13021708)
247160.83 4066784.75 1.81420 (13021308) 247160.83 4066804.75 1.69458 (13032407)
247160.83 4066824.75 1.62598 (13032407) 247160.83 4066844.75 1.50017 (13032407)
247180.83 4066784.75 1.88659 (13021308) 247180.83 4066804.75 1.75928 (13032407)
247180.83 4066824.75 1.68290 (13032407) 247180.83 4066844.75 1.55056 (13021708)
247200.83 4066784.75 1.96410 (13021308) 247200.83 4066804.75 1.82797 (13032407)
247200.83 4066824.75 1.74339 (13032407) 247200.83 4066844.75 1.68311 (13021708)
247220.83 4066784.75 2.04738 (13021308) 247220.83 4066804.75 1.90123 (13032407)
247220.83 4066824.75 1.80809 (13032407) 247220.83 4066844.75 1.82443 (13021708)
247240.83 4066784.75 2.13708 (13021308) 247240.83 4066804.75 1.98233 (13021308)
247240.83 4066824.75 1.87743 (13032407) 247240.83 4066844.75 1.97468 (13021708)
247260.83 4066784.75 2.23507 (13021308) 247260.83 4066804.75 2.07203 (13021308)
247260.83 4066824.75 1.95236 (13032407) 247260.83 4066844.75 2.13525 (13021708)
247280.83 4066784.75 2.34052 (13021308) 247280.83 4066804.75 2.17000 (13021308)
247280.83 4066824.75 2.08117 (13021708) 247280.83 4066844.75 2.30423 (13021708)
247340.83 4066784.75 2.72070 (13021308) 247340.83 4066804.75 2.53190 (13021308)
247340.83 4066824.75 2.68589 (13021708) 247340.83 4066844.75 2.87219 (13021708)
247360.83 4066784.75 2.87426 (13021308) 247360.83 4066804.75 2.68227 (13021308)
247360.83 4066824.75 2.91848 (13021708) 247360.83 4066844.75 3.08913 (13021708)
247380.83 4066784.75 3.04584 (13021308) 247380.83 4066804.75 2.93511 (13021708)
247380.83 4066824.75 3.16742 (13021708) 247380.83 4066844.75 3.32014 (13021708)
247440.83 4066804.75 3.88954 (13021708) 247440.83 4066824.75 4.07221 (13021708)
248180.83 4066424.75 1.13925 (13042106) 248180.83 4066444.75 1.17856 (14010520)
248200.83 4066424.75 1.11275 (14010520) 248200.83 4066444.75 1.14946 (14010520)
248320.83 4066164.75 0.69904 (17120120) 248320.83 4066184.75 0.71688 (13020624)
248320.83 4066204.75 0.72948 (13052105) 248320.83 4066224.75 0.74056 (13052105)
248320.83 4066244.75 0.75727 (14122306) 248320.83 4066264.75 0.78515 (14122306)
248320.83 4066284.75 0.81246 (17121721) 248320.83 4066304.75 0.83099 (13042106)
248320.83 4066324.75 0.85638 (13042106) 248320.83 4066344.75 0.87973 (14010520)
248320.83 4066364.75 0.90051 (14010520) 248320.83 4066384.75 0.93763 (17121817)
248320.83 4066404.75 0.96269 (17121817) 248320.83 4066424.75 1.02409 (13022108)
248320.83 4066444.75 1.09796 (13022108) 247081.22 4066093.63 0.67190 (14121508)
248486.60 4066060.02 0.56174 (13052105) 247145.38 4067694.54 0.72115 (13020908)
248523.27 4067660.94 0.31604 (14021901)
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\Lakes\AERMOD
View\BussetoFoods\BussetoFoods.isc *** 10/05/21 *** AERMET ‐ VERSION 18081 *** ***
*** 14:44:03
PAGE 9
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV RURAL ADJ_U*
*** THE SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM ANNUAL RESULTS
AVERAGED OVER 5 YEARS ***
** CONC OF PM_2.5 IN MICROGRAMS/M**3
**
NETWORK
GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZHILL, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID‐ID
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
ALL 1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.14035 AT ( 247440.83, 4066804.75,
83.55, 83.55, 0.00) DC
2ND HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.12882 AT ( 247440.83, 4066824.75,
83.65, 83.65, 0.00) DC
3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.09745 AT ( 247380.83, 4066784.75,
83.84, 83.84, 0.00) DC
4TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.09279 AT ( 247380.83, 4066804.75,
84.05, 84.05, 0.00) DC
5TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.08691 AT ( 247380.83, 4066824.75,
84.26, 84.26, 0.00) DC
6TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.08643 AT ( 247360.83, 4066784.75,
84.01, 84.01, 0.00) DC
7TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.08259 AT ( 247360.83, 4066804.75,
84.26, 84.26, 0.00) DC
8TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.08028 AT ( 247380.83, 4066844.75,
84.46, 84.46, 0.00) DC
9TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.07783 AT ( 247360.83, 4066824.75,
84.46, 84.46, 0.00) DC
10TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.07729 AT ( 247340.83, 4066784.75,
84.18, 84.18, 0.00) DC
*** RECEPTOR TYPES: GC = GRIDCART
GP = GRIDPOLR
DC = DISCCART
DP = DISCPOLR
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\Lakes\AERMOD
View\BussetoFoods\BussetoFoods.isc *** 10/05/21 *** AERMET ‐ VERSION 18081 *** ***
*** 14:44:03
PAGE 10
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV RURAL ADJ_U*
*** THE SUMMARY OF HIGHEST 1‐HR
RESULTS ***
** CONC OF PM_2.5 IN MICROGRAMS/M**3
**
DATE
NETWORK
GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC (YYMMDDHH) RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZHILL, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID‐ID
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
ALL HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 4.07221 ON 13021708: AT ( 247440.83, 4066824.75, 83.65, 83.65, 0.00) DC
*** RECEPTOR TYPES: GC = GRIDCART
GP = GRIDPOLR
DC = DISCCART
DP =
DISCPOLR
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\Lakes\AERMOD
View\BussetoFoods\BussetoFoods.isc *** 10/05/21 *** AERMET ‐ VERSION 18081 *** ***
*** 14:44:03
PAGE 11
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV RURAL ADJ_U*
*** Message Summary : AERMOD Model Execution ***
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Summary of Total Messages ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
A Total of 0 Fatal Error Message(s)
A Total
of 2 Warning Message(s)
A Total of 2426 Informational Message(s)
A Total of 43824 Hours Were Processed
A Total of 1891 Calm Hours Identified
A Total of 535 Missing Hours Identified ( 1.22 Percent)
******** FATAL ERROR MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
ME W186 63
MEOPEN: THRESH_1MIN 1‐min ASOS wind speed threshold used
0.50 ME W187 63 MEOPEN: ADJ_U* Option for Stable Low Winds used in AERMET
************************************
*** AERMOD Finishes Successfully ***
************************************
**
****************************************
**
** AERMOD Input Produced by:
** AERMOD View Ver. 10.0.0
** Lakes Environmental Software Inc.
** Date: 10/14/2021
** File: C:\Lakes\AERMOD View\BusetoOperational\BusetoOperational.ADI **
****************************************
**
**
****************************************
** AERMOD Control Pathway
****************************************
**
**
CO STARTING
TITLEONE C:\Lakes\AERMOD View\BusetoOperational\BusetoOperational.isc MODELOPT DFAULT CONC
AVERTIME 1 ANNUAL
POLLUTID PM_2.5
RUNORNOT RUN
ERRORFIL BusetoOperational.err
CO FINISHED
**
****************************************
** AERMOD Source Pathway
****************************************
**
**
SO STARTING
** Source Location **
** Source ID ‐ Type ‐ X Coord. ‐ Y Coord. **
LOCATION PAREA1 AREAPOLY 247523.144 4066861.600 83.370 ** Source Parameters **
SRCPARAM PAREA1 3.6536E‐11 3.000 4
AREAVERT PAREA1 247523.144 4066861.600 247515.142 4066657.252 AREAVERT PAREA1 247899.833 4066651.097 247907.219 4066856.676 SRCGROUP ALL
SO FINISHED
**
****************************************
** AERMOD Receptor Pathway
****************************************
**
**
RE STARTING
INCLUDED BusetoOperational.rou
RE FINISHED
**
****************************************
** AERMOD Meteorology Pathway
****************************************
**
**
ME STARTING
SURFFILE "C:\Users\kheck\Desktop\Met Data\Fresno_2013‐2017.SFC" PROFFILE "C:\Users\kheck\Desktop\Met Data\Fresno_2013‐2017.PFL" SURFDATA 93193 2013 FRESNO/AIR_TERMINAL
UAIRDATA 23230 2013 OAKLAND/WSO_AP
PROFBASE 112.0 METERS
ME FINISHED
**
****************************************
** AERMOD Output Pathway
****************************************
**
**
OU STARTING
RECTABLE ALLAVE 1ST
RECTABLE 1 1ST
** Auto‐Generated Plotfiles
PLOTFILE 1 ALL 1ST BUSETOOPERATIONAL.AD\01H1GALL.PLT 31 PLOTFILE ANNUAL ALL BUSETOOPERATIONAL.AD\AN00GALL.PLT
32 SUMMFILE BusetoOperational.sum
OU FINISHED
**
****************************************
** Project Parameters
****************************************
** PROJCTN CoordinateSystemUTM
** DESCPTN UTM: Universal Transverse Mercator
** DATUM World Geodetic System 1984
** DTMRGN Global Definition
** UNITS m
** ZONE 11
** ZONEINX 0
**
**
****************************************
**
** AERMOD Input Produced by:
** AERMOD View Ver. 10.0.0
** Lakes Environmental Software Inc.
** Date: 10/14/2021
** File: C:\Lakes\AERMOD View\BusetoOperational\BusetoOperational.ADI **
****************************************
**
**
****************************************
** AERMOD Control Pathway
****************************************
**
**
CO STARTING
TITLEONE C:\Lakes\AERMOD View\BusetoOperational\BusetoOperational.isc MODELOPT DFAULT CONC
AVERTIME 1 ANNUAL
POLLUTID PM_2.5
RUNORNOT RUN
ERRORFIL BusetoOperational.err
CO FINISHED
**
****************************************
** AERMOD Source Pathway
****************************************
**
**
SO STARTING
** Source Location **
**
Source ID ‐ Type ‐ X Coord. ‐ Y Coord. **
LOCATION PAREA1 AREAPOLY 247523.144 4066861.600 83.370 ** Source Parameters **
SRCPARAM PAREA1 3.6536E‐11 3.000 4
AREAVERT PAREA1 247523.144 4066861.600 247515.142 4066657.252 AREAVERT PAREA1 247899.833 4066651.097 247907.219 4066856.676 SRCGROUP ALL
SO FINISHED
**
****************************************
** AERMOD Receptor Pathway
****************************************
**
**
RE STARTING
INCLUDED BusetoOperational.rou
RE FINISHED
**
****************************************
** AERMOD Meteorology Pathway
****************************************
**
**
ME STARTING
SURFFILE "C:\Users\kheck\Desktop\Met Data\Fresno_2013‐2017.SFC" PROFFILE "C:\Users\kheck\Desktop\Met Data\Fresno_2013‐2017.PFL" SURFDATA 93193 2013 FRESNO/AIR_TERMINAL
UAIRDATA 23230 2013 OAKLAND/WSO_AP
PROFBASE 112.0 METERS
ME FINISHED
**
****************************************
** AERMOD Output Pathway
****************************************
**
**
OU STARTING
RECTABLE ALLAVE 1ST
RECTABLE 1 1ST
** Auto‐Generated Plotfiles
PLOTFILE 1 ALL 1ST BUSETOOPERATIONAL.AD\01H1GALL.PLT 31 PLOTFILE ANNUAL ALL BUSETOOPERATIONAL.AD\AN00GALL.PLT
32 SUMMFILE BusetoOperational.sum
OU FINISHED
*** Message Summary For AERMOD Model Setup ***
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Summary of Total Messages ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
A Total of 0 Fatal Error Message(s)
A Total of 2 Warning Message(s)
A Total of 0 Informational Message(s)
******** FATAL ERROR MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
ME
W186 63 MEOPEN: THRESH_1MIN 1‐min ASOS wind speed threshold used
0.50 ME W187 63 MEOPEN: ADJ_U* Option for Stable Low Winds used in AERMET
***********************************
*** SETUP Finishes Successfully ***
***********************************
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\Lakes\AERMOD
View\BusetoOperational\BusetoOperational.isc *** 10/14/21 *** AERMET ‐ VERSION 18081 *** ***
*** 11:34:45
PAGE 1
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV RURAL ADJ_U*
*** 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 RURAL Dispersion Only.
**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.
**Other Options Specified:
ADJ_U* ‐ Use ADJ_U* option for SBL in AERMET
CCVR_Sub ‐ Meteorological data includes CCVR substitutions TEMP_Sub ‐ Meteorological data includes TEMP substitutions
**Model Assumes No FLAGPOLE Receptor Heights.
**The User Specified a Pollutant Type of: PM_2.5
**Model Calculates 1 Short
Term Average(s) of: 1‐HR
and Calculates ANNUAL Averages
**This Run Includes: 1 Source(s); 1 Source Group(s); and 75 Receptor(s)
with: 0 POINT(s), including
0 POINTCAP(s) and 0 POINTHOR(s)
and: 0 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 a total of 0 line(s)
**Model Set To Continue RUNning After the Setup Testing. **The AERMET Input Meteorological Data Version Date: 18081
**Output Options Selected:
Model Outputs
Tables of ANNUAL Averages by Receptor
Model Outputs Tables of Highest Short Term Values by Receptor (RECTABLE Keyword)
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) = 112.00 ; 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 = 3.5 MB of RAM.
**Input Runstream File: aermod.inp
**Output Print File: aermod.out
**Detailed Error/Message File: BusetoOperational.err
**File for Summary of Results: BusetoOperational.sum
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\Lakes\AERMOD
View\BusetoOperational\BusetoOperational.isc *** 10/14/21 *** AERMET ‐ VERSION 18081 *** ***
*** 11:34:45
PAGE 2
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV RURAL ADJ_U*
*** 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
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
PAREA1 0 0.36536E‐10 247523.1 4066861.6 83.4 3.00 4
0.00 NO
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\Lakes\AERMOD
View\BusetoOperational\BusetoOperational.isc *** 10/14/21 *** AERMET ‐ VERSION 18081 *** ***
*** 11:34:45
PAGE 3
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV RURAL ADJ_U*
*** SOURCE IDs DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS
***
SRCGROUP ID SOURCE IDs ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ALL PAREA1 ,
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\Lakes\AERMOD
View\BusetoOperational\BusetoOperational.isc *** 10/14/21 *** AERMET ‐ VERSION 18081 *** ***
*** 11:34:45
PAGE 4
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV RURAL ADJ_U*
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS ***
(X‐COORD, Y‐COORD, ZELEV, ZHILL, ZFLAG)
(METERS)
( 247120.8, 4066784.8, 84.7, 84.7, 0.0); ( 247120.8, 4066804.8, 84.9, 84.9, 0.0);
( 247120.8, 4066824.8, 85.1, 85.1, 0.0); ( 247120.8, 4066844.8, 85.3, 85.3, 0.0);
( 247120.8, 4066864.8, 85.2, 85.2, 0.0); ( 247140.8, 4066784.8, 84.9, 84.9, 0.0);
( 247140.8, 4066804.8, 85.1, 85.1, 0.0); ( 247140.8, 4066824.8, 85.3, 85.3, 0.0);
( 247140.8, 4066844.8, 85.5, 85.5, 0.0); ( 247140.8, 4066864.8, 85.3, 85.3, 0.0);
( 247160.8, 4066784.8, 85.0, 85.0, 0.0); ( 247160.8, 4066804.8, 85.2, 85.2, 0.0);
( 247160.8, 4066824.8, 85.4, 85.4, 0.0); ( 247160.8, 4066844.8, 85.6, 85.6, 0.0);
( 247180.8, 4066784.8, 85.0, 85.0, 0.0); ( 247180.8, 4066804.8, 85.2, 85.2, 0.0);
( 247180.8, 4066824.8, 85.4, 85.4, 0.0); ( 247180.8, 4066844.8, 85.6, 85.6, 0.0);
( 247200.8, 4066784.8, 85.0, 85.0, 0.0); ( 247200.8, 4066804.8, 85.2, 85.2, 0.0);
( 247200.8, 4066824.8, 85.4, 85.4, 0.0); ( 247200.8, 4066844.8, 85.6, 85.6, 0.0);
( 247220.8, 4066784.8, 85.0, 85.0, 0.0); ( 247220.8, 4066804.8, 85.2, 85.2, 0.0);
( 247220.8, 4066824.8, 85.4, 85.4, 0.0); ( 247220.8, 4066844.8, 85.6, 85.6, 0.0);
( 247240.8, 4066784.8, 84.9, 84.9, 0.0); ( 247240.8, 4066804.8, 85.2, 85.2, 0.0);
( 247240.8, 4066824.8, 85.4, 85.4, 0.0); ( 247240.8, 4066844.8, 85.6, 85.6, 0.0);
( 247260.8, 4066784.8, 84.7, 84.7, 0.0); ( 247260.8, 4066804.8, 85.1, 85.1, 0.0);
( 247260.8, 4066824.8, 85.4, 85.4, 0.0); ( 247260.8, 4066844.8, 85.4, 85.4, 0.0);
( 247280.8, 4066784.8, 84.6, 84.6, 0.0); ( 247280.8, 4066804.8, 85.0, 85.0, 0.0);
( 247280.8, 4066824.8, 85.3, 85.3, 0.0); ( 247280.8, 4066844.8, 85.3, 85.3, 0.0);
( 247340.8, 4066784.8, 84.2, 84.2, 0.0); ( 247340.8, 4066804.8, 84.5, 84.5, 0.0);
( 247340.8, 4066824.8, 84.8, 84.8, 0.0); ( 247340.8, 4066844.8, 85.0, 85.0, 0.0);
( 247360.8, 4066784.8, 84.0, 84.0, 0.0); ( 247360.8, 4066804.8, 84.3, 84.3, 0.0);
( 247360.8, 4066824.8, 84.5, 84.5, 0.0); ( 247360.8, 4066844.8, 84.7, 84.7, 0.0);
( 247380.8, 4066784.8, 83.8, 83.8, 0.0); ( 247380.8, 4066804.8, 84.0, 84.0, 0.0);
( 247380.8, 4066824.8, 84.3, 84.3, 0.0); ( 247380.8, 4066844.8, 84.5, 84.5, 0.0);
( 247440.8, 4066804.8, 83.5, 83.5, 0.0); ( 247440.8, 4066824.8, 83.6, 83.6, 0.0);
( 248180.8, 4066424.8, 82.3, 82.3, 0.0); ( 248180.8, 4066444.8, 82.3, 82.3, 0.0);
( 248200.8, 4066424.8, 82.3, 82.3, 0.0); ( 248200.8, 4066444.8, 82.3, 82.3, 0.0);
( 248320.8, 4066164.8, 82.3, 82.3, 0.0); ( 248320.8, 4066184.8, 82.3, 82.3, 0.0);
( 248320.8, 4066204.8, 82.3, 82.3, 0.0); ( 248320.8, 4066224.8, 82.3, 82.3, 0.0);
( 248320.8, 4066244.8, 82.3, 82.3, 0.0); ( 248320.8, 4066264.8, 82.3, 82.3, 0.0);
( 248320.8, 4066284.8, 82.3, 82.3, 0.0); ( 248320.8, 4066304.8, 82.3, 82.3, 0.0);
( 248320.8, 4066324.8, 82.3, 82.3, 0.0); ( 248320.8, 4066344.8, 82.3, 82.3, 0.0);
( 248320.8, 4066364.8, 82.3, 82.3, 0.0); ( 248320.8, 4066384.8, 82.3, 82.3, 0.0);
( 248320.8, 4066404.8, 82.3, 82.3, 0.0); ( 248320.8, 4066424.8, 82.3, 82.3, 0.0);
( 248320.8, 4066444.8, 82.3, 82.3, 0.0); ( 247081.2, 4066093.6, 81.4, 81.4, 0.0);
( 248486.6, 4066060.0, 82.3, 82.3, 0.0); ( 247145.4, 4067694.5, 82.9, 82.9, 0.0);
( 248523.3, 4067660.9, 85.0, 85.0, 0.0);
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\Lakes\AERMOD
View\BusetoOperational\BusetoOperational.isc *** 10/14/21 *** AERMET ‐ VERSION 18081 *** ***
*** 11:34:45
PAGE 5
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV RURAL ADJ_U*
*** 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,
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\Lakes\AERMOD
View\BusetoOperational\BusetoOperational.isc *** 10/14/21 *** AERMET ‐ VERSION 18081 *** ***
*** 11:34:45
PAGE 6
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV RURAL ADJ_U*
*** UP TO THE FIRST 24 HOURS OF METEOROLOGICAL
DATA ***
Surface file: C:\Users\kheck\Desktop\Met Data\Fresno_2013‐2017.SFC Met Version: 18081
Profile file: C:\Users\kheck\Desktop\Met Data\Fresno_2013‐2017.PFL
Surface format: FREE
Profile format: FREE
Surface station no.: 93193 Upper air station no.: 23230 Name: FRESNO/AIR_TERMINAL Name:
OAKLAND/WSO_AP
Year: 2013 Year: 2013 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
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
13 01 01 1 01 ‐10.9 0.141 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 126. 23.0 0.07 2.38
1.00 1.89 113. 10.0 277.0 2.0
13 01 01 1 02 ‐8.2 0.121 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 101. 19.6 0.07 2.38
1.00 1.65 105. 10.0 276.4 2.0
13 01
01 1 03 ‐3.0 0.076 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 51. 13.2 0.07 2.38
1.00 0.97 95. 10.0 276.4 2.0
13 01 01 1 04 ‐3.2 0.078 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 52. 13.4 0.08 2.38
1.00 0.99 63. 10.0 275.4 2.0
13 01 01 1 05 ‐11.6 0.147 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 136. 24.9 0.11 2.38
1.00 1.81 27. 10.0 275.4 2.0
13 01 01 1 06 ‐6.1 0.106 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 83. 17.5 0.10 2.38
1.00 1.35 46. 10.0 275.4 2.0
13 01 01 1 07 ‐3.2 0.079 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 53. 13.9 0.10 2.38
1.00 0.94 56. 10.0 275.9 2.0
13 01 01 1 08 ‐3.9 0.086 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 61. 15.0 0.11 2.38
0.65 1.06 2. 10.0 276.4 2.0
13 01 01 1 09 7.5 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 50. ‐999. ‐99999.0 0.13 2.38
0.36 0.00 0. 10.0 278.1 2.0
13 01 01 1 10 58.7 0.121 0.640 0.005 161. 101. ‐2.8 0.10 2.38
0.26 0.87 34. 10.0 280.9 2.0
13 01 01 1 11 63.3 0.147 0.785 0.005 276. 135. ‐4.5 0.17 2.38
0.22 0.97 261. 10.0 282.5 2.0
13 01 01 1 12 75.8 0.188 1.109 0.007 649. 195. ‐7.9 0.15 2.38
0.21 1.43 277. 10.0 283.8 2.0
13 01 01 1 13 155.3 0.195 1.573 0.008 905. 207. ‐4.3 0.15 2.38
0.21 1.35 275. 10.0 284.9 2.0
13 01 01 1 14 137.7 0.226 1.535 0.007 947. 258. ‐7.6 0.12 2.38
0.22 1.84 321. 10.0 285.9 2.0
13 01 01 1 15 83.1 0.293 1.308 0.006 972. 380. ‐27.2 0.12 2.38
0.26 2.78 312. 10.0 285.9 2.0
13 01 01 1 16 26.9 0.396 0.901 0.006 979. 598. ‐207.9 0.12 2.38
0.35 4.25 309. 10.0 285.4 2.0
13 01 01 1 17 ‐43.4 0.472 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 778. 245.2 0.12 2.38
0.62 5.36 321. 10.0 282.5 2.0
13 01 01 1 18 ‐29.4 0.292 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 406. 94.0 0.12 2.38
1.00 3.39 318. 10.0 281.4 2.0
13 01 01 1 19 ‐25.7 0.255 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 311. 71.7 0.15 2.38
1.00 2.81 293. 10.0 280.9 2.0
13 01 01 1 20 ‐26.2 0.258 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 315. 73.3 0.15 2.38
1.00 2.84 297. 10.0 279.2 2.0
13 01 01 1 21 ‐25.0 0.246 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 293. 66.4 0.15 2.38
1.00 2.71 292. 10.0 278.1 2.0
13 01 01 1 22 ‐11.2 0.146 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 138. 24.8 0.12 2.38
1.00 1.76 319. 10.0 277.5 2.0
13 01 01 1 23 ‐6.7 0.113 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 91. 19.3 0.15 2.38
1.00 1.31 282. 10.0 277.5 2.0
13 01 01 1 24 ‐1.9 0.069 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 44. 15.2 0.11 2.38
1.00 0.65 24. 10.0 275.9 2.0
First hour of profile data
YR MO DY HR HEIGHT F WDIR WSPD AMB_TMP sigmaA sigmaW sigmaV 13 01 01 01 10.0 1 113. 1.89 277.1 99.0 ‐99.00 ‐99.00 F indicates top of profile (=1) or below (=0)
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\Lakes\AERMOD
View\BusetoOperational\BusetoOperational.isc *** 10/14/21 *** AERMET ‐ VERSION 18081 *** ***
*** 11:34:45
PAGE 7
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV RURAL ADJ_U*
*** THE ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION VALUES AVERAGED OVER 5 YEARS FOR SOURCE GROUP: ALL ***
INCLUDING SOURCE(S): PAREA1 ,
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS
***
** CONC OF PM_2.5 IN MICROGRAMS/M**3
**
X‐COORD (M) Y‐COORD (M) CONC X‐COORD (M) Y‐COORD (M) CONC
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
247120.83 4066784.75 0.00002
247120.83
4066804.75 0.00002
247120.83 4066824.75 0.00002 247120.83 4066844.75 0.00002
247120.83 4066864.75 0.00002 247140.83 4066784.75 0.00002
247140.83 4066804.75 0.00002 247140.83 4066824.75 0.00002
247140.83 4066844.75 0.00002 247140.83 4066864.75 0.00002
247160.83 4066784.75 0.00003 247160.83 4066804.75 0.00002
247160.83 4066824.75 0.00002 247160.83 4066844.75 0.00002
247180.83 4066784.75 0.00003 247180.83 4066804.75 0.00003
247180.83 4066824.75 0.00003 247180.83 4066844.75 0.00002
247200.83 4066784.75 0.00003 247200.83 4066804.75 0.00003
247200.83 4066824.75 0.00003 247200.83 4066844.75 0.00003
247220.83 4066784.75 0.00003 247220.83 4066804.75 0.00003
247220.83 4066824.75 0.00003 247220.83 4066844.75 0.00003
247240.83 4066784.75 0.00003 247240.83 4066804.75 0.00003
247240.83 4066824.75 0.00003 247240.83 4066844.75 0.00003
247260.83 4066784.75 0.00004 247260.83 4066804.75 0.00004
247260.83 4066824.75 0.00003 247260.83 4066844.75 0.00003
247280.83 4066784.75 0.00004 247280.83 4066804.75 0.00004
247280.83 4066824.75 0.00004 247280.83 4066844.75 0.00004
247340.83 4066784.75 0.00005 247340.83 4066804.75 0.00005
247340.83 4066824.75 0.00005 247340.83 4066844.75 0.00005
247360.83 4066784.75 0.00006 247360.83 4066804.75 0.00006
247360.83 4066824.75 0.00005 247360.83 4066844.75 0.00005
247380.83 4066784.75 0.00007 247380.83 4066804.75 0.00006
247380.83 4066824.75 0.00006 247380.83 4066844.75 0.00006
247440.83 4066804.75 0.00010 247440.83 4066824.75 0.00009
248180.83 4066424.75 0.00003 248180.83 4066444.75 0.00003
248200.83 4066424.75 0.00003 248200.83 4066444.75 0.00003
248320.83 4066164.75 0.00001 248320.83 4066184.75 0.00001
248320.83 4066204.75 0.00002 248320.83 4066224.75 0.00002
248320.83 4066244.75 0.00002 248320.83 4066264.75 0.00002
248320.83 4066284.75 0.00002 248320.83 4066304.75 0.00002
248320.83 4066324.75 0.00002 248320.83 4066344.75 0.00002
248320.83 4066364.75 0.00002 248320.83 4066384.75 0.00002
248320.83 4066404.75 0.00002 248320.83 4066424.75 0.00002
248320.83 4066444.75 0.00002 247081.22 4066093.63 0.00001
248486.60 4066060.02 0.00001 247145.38 4067694.54 0.00000
248523.27 4067660.94 0.00000
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\Lakes\AERMOD
View\BusetoOperational\BusetoOperational.isc *** 10/14/21 *** AERMET ‐ VERSION 18081 *** ***
*** 11:34:45
PAGE 8
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV RURAL ADJ_U*
*** THE 1ST HIGHEST 1‐HR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION
VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: ALL ***
INCLUDING SOURCE(S): PAREA1 ,
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS
***
** CONC OF PM_2.5 IN MICROGRAMS/M**3
**
X‐COORD (M) Y‐COORD (M) CONC (YYMMDDHH) X‐COORD (M) Y‐COORD (M) CONC (YYMMDDHH)
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
247120.83 4066784.75 0.00116 (13021308) 247120.83 4066804.75 0.00109 (13032407)
247120.83
4066824.75 0.00105 (13032407) 247120.83 4066844.75 0.00098 (13032407)
247120.83 4066864.75 0.00096 (13021708) 247140.83 4066784.75 0.00120 (13021308)
247140.83 4066804.75 0.00113 (13032407) 247140.83 4066824.75 0.00108 (13032407)
247140.83 4066844.75 0.00100 (13032407) 247140.83 4066864.75 0.00104 (13021708)
247160.83 4066784.75 0.00125 (13021308) 247160.83 4066804.75 0.00117 (13032407)
247160.83 4066824.75 0.00112 (13032407) 247160.83 4066844.75 0.00103 (13032407)
247180.83 4066784.75 0.00130 (13021308) 247180.83 4066804.75 0.00121 (13032407)
247180.83 4066824.75 0.00116 (13032407) 247180.83 4066844.75 0.00107 (13021708)
247200.83 4066784.75 0.00135 (13021308) 247200.83 4066804.75 0.00126 (13032407)
247200.83 4066824.75 0.00120 (13032407) 247200.83 4066844.75 0.00116 (13021708)
247220.83 4066784.75 0.00141 (13021308) 247220.83 4066804.75 0.00131 (13032407)
247220.83 4066824.75 0.00125 (13032407) 247220.83 4066844.75 0.00126 (13021708)
247240.83 4066784.75 0.00147 (13021308) 247240.83 4066804.75 0.00137 (13021308)
247240.83 4066824.75 0.00129 (13032407) 247240.83 4066844.75 0.00136 (13021708)
247260.83 4066784.75 0.00154 (13021308) 247260.83 4066804.75 0.00143 (13021308)
247260.83 4066824.75 0.00135 (13032407) 247260.83 4066844.75 0.00147 (13021708)
247280.83 4066784.75 0.00161 (13021308) 247280.83 4066804.75 0.00150 (13021308)
247280.83 4066824.75 0.00143 (13021708) 247280.83 4066844.75 0.00159 (13021708)
247340.83 4066784.75 0.00187 (13021308) 247340.83 4066804.75 0.00174 (13021308)
247340.83 4066824.75 0.00185 (13021708) 247340.83 4066844.75 0.00198 (13021708)
247360.83 4066784.75 0.00198 (13021308) 247360.83 4066804.75 0.00185 (13021308)
247360.83 4066824.75 0.00201 (13021708) 247360.83 4066844.75 0.00213 (13021708)
247380.83 4066784.75 0.00210 (13021308) 247380.83 4066804.75 0.00202 (13021708)
247380.83 4066824.75 0.00218 (13021708) 247380.83 4066844.75 0.00229 (13021708)
247440.83 4066804.75 0.00268 (13021708) 247440.83 4066824.75 0.00281 (13021708)
248180.83 4066424.75 0.00078 (13042106) 248180.83 4066444.75 0.00081 (14010520)
248200.83 4066424.75 0.00077 (14010520) 248200.83 4066444.75 0.00079 (14010520)
248320.83 4066164.75 0.00048 (17120120) 248320.83 4066184.75 0.00049 (13020624)
248320.83 4066204.75 0.00050 (13052105) 248320.83 4066224.75 0.00051 (13052105)
248320.83 4066244.75 0.00052 (14122306) 248320.83 4066264.75 0.00054 (14122306)
248320.83 4066284.75 0.00056 (17121721) 248320.83 4066304.75 0.00057 (13042106)
248320.83 4066324.75 0.00059 (13042106) 248320.83 4066344.75 0.00061 (14010520)
248320.83 4066364.75 0.00062 (14010520) 248320.83 4066384.75 0.00065 (17121817)
248320.83 4066404.75 0.00066 (17121817) 248320.83 4066424.75 0.00071 (13022108)
248320.83 4066444.75 0.00076 (13022108) 247081.22 4066093.63 0.00046 (14121508)
248486.60 4066060.02 0.00039 (13052105) 247145.38 4067694.54 0.00050 (13020908)
248523.27 4067660.94 0.00022 (14021901)
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\Lakes\AERMOD
View\BusetoOperational\BusetoOperational.isc *** 10/14/21 *** AERMET ‐ VERSION 18081 *** ***
*** 11:34:45
PAGE 9
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV RURAL ADJ_U*
*** THE SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM ANNUAL RESULTS
AVERAGED OVER 5 YEARS ***
** CONC OF PM_2.5 IN MICROGRAMS/M**3
**
NETWORK
GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZHILL, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID‐ID
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
ALL 1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.00010 AT ( 247440.83, 4066804.75,
83.55, 83.55, 0.00) DC
2ND HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.00009 AT ( 247440.83, 4066824.75,
83.65, 83.65, 0.00) DC
3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.00007 AT ( 247380.83, 4066784.75,
83.84, 83.84, 0.00) DC
4TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.00006 AT ( 247380.83, 4066804.75,
84.05, 84.05, 0.00) DC
5TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.00006 AT ( 247380.83, 4066824.75,
84.26, 84.26, 0.00) DC
6TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.00006 AT ( 247360.83, 4066784.75,
84.01, 84.01, 0.00) DC
7TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.00006 AT ( 247360.83, 4066804.75,
84.26, 84.26, 0.00) DC
8TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.00006 AT ( 247380.83, 4066844.75,
84.46, 84.46, 0.00) DC
9TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.00005 AT ( 247360.83, 4066824.75,
84.46, 84.46, 0.00) DC
10TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.00005 AT ( 247340.83, 4066784.75,
84.18, 84.18, 0.00) DC
*** RECEPTOR TYPES: GC = GRIDCART
GP = GRIDPOLR
DC = DISCCART
DP = DISCPOLR
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\Lakes\AERMOD
View\BusetoOperational\BusetoOperational.isc *** 10/14/21 *** AERMET ‐ VERSION 18081 *** ***
*** 11:34:45
PAGE 10
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV RURAL ADJ_U*
*** THE SUMMARY OF HIGHEST 1‐HR
RESULTS ***
** CONC OF PM_2.5 IN MICROGRAMS/M**3
**
DATE
NETWORK
GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC (YYMMDDHH) RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZHILL, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID‐ID
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
ALL HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 0.00281 ON 13021708: AT ( 247440.83, 4066824.75, 83.65, 83.65, 0.00) DC
*** RECEPTOR TYPES: GC = GRIDCART
GP = GRIDPOLR
DC = DISCCART
DP =
DISCPOLR
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\Lakes\AERMOD
View\BusetoOperational\BusetoOperational.isc *** 10/14/21 *** AERMET ‐ VERSION 18081 *** ***
*** 11:34:45
PAGE 11
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV RURAL ADJ_U*
*** Message Summary : AERMOD Model Execution ***
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Summary of Total Messages ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
A Total of 0 Fatal Error Message(s)
A Total
of 2 Warning Message(s)
A Total of 2426 Informational Message(s)
A Total of 43824 Hours Were Processed
A Total of 1891 Calm Hours Identified
A Total of 535 Missing Hours Identified ( 1.22 Percent)
******** FATAL ERROR MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
ME W186 63
MEOPEN: THRESH_1MIN 1‐min ASOS wind speed threshold used
0.50 ME W187 63 MEOPEN: ADJ_U* Option for Stable Low Winds used in AERMET
************************************
*** AERMOD Finishes Successfully ***
************************************
Operational DPM Calculations
Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.1) Emission Rates
Region Type: County
Region: Fresno
Calendar Year: 2023
Season: Annual
Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories
Units: miles/day for CVMT and EVMT, trips/day for Trips, kWh/day for Energy Consumption, g/mile for RUNEX, PMBW and PMTW, g/trip for STREX, HOTSOAK and RUNLOSS, g/vehicle/day for IDLEX and DIURN Region Calendar Year Vehicle Category Model Year Speed Fuel Population Total VMT Percentage of Each Type by VMT Annual Number of
Trips by Fuel Type PM2.5_RUNEX
Miles
Traveled per
Trip
Total Annual PM2.5 within
1,000 feet around facility
(g/year)
PM2.5 Emission Rate (g/s)
Fresno 2023 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 2.180899548 85.06306056 4.13951E-05 0.135610266 0.006139446 1 0.000832572 2.64007E-11 Fresno 2023 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 13888.52548 2030441.285 0.988093646 3236.994784 0.028043132 1 90.77547067 2.87847E-06 Fresno 2023 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 12.29035248 867.7892394 0.000422301 1.383457509 0 1 0 0 Fresno 2023 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 359.2954056 23513.60693 0.011442658 37.48614823 0.004331669 1 0.162377588 5.14896E-09 2054907.744 2.88365E-06
Year PM2.5 Exhaust (tons/year)
2022* 0.1389
2023* 0.00647
Total 0.14537
Average (tons/Year) 0.14537
average (lbs/year) 290.74
Average (lbs/day) 0.796547945
Average (lbs/second) 9.2193E-06
Average (grams/second) 0.004181806
Construction DPM Calculations
Total Annual PM2.5 GeneratedTotal HHDT VMTI I I I I I I I I I I I I ~I
A. Equa tion 5.4.1.1:I Dose..,ir = c.,, x {BR/BW} x Ax EF x 10-&
1. Dose-air
2. c ...
3. {ijl-<fijW}
4. A
5. EF
6. 10-&
= Dose through inhalation (mg/kg/d)
Concentra tion in air (µglm 3)
= ua,Iy ljreath Ing rate normalized to body weight (Ukg body weight - day)
- Inhalation absorption factor (unitless)
= Exposure freQuency (uniUess). days/365 days
Micrograms to milligrams con version, liters to cubic meters conversion
a: Recommended defa ult values for EQ 6.4 .1.1:
1. {BRIBW} = Oai\y brea\hing ra\es by age groupings. see As supp\emen\a\ informatio n, the assessor may wish to e valuate the inhalation dose by using the mean point estimates in Table 5.6 to
prnvic!P." r,ingP. of brP-'llhing r,i!P.s for c,in c,., risk ,is.<:P.ssmP.n! to the risk manage r.
2. Table (point estimates) ana Table 5.7 (parametnc model dlstrlllUttons ror Tier 111 stochastic risk assessment ). For ner 1 residenti al estimates, use 95th percentile breathing ra1es in Table 5 .6.
3. A = 1
4. EF - 0 .96 (350 days/365 days in a year for a resident) A. Equat ion 8.2.4 A: I RISKin h..-es = DOSE air x CPF x ASF x ED/ AT x FAH
7. RISK inh-res = Residentia l inhalation cancer risk
= Daily inhalation dose (mg/kg-day) 8. DOSEa ir
9. CPF
10.ASF
11. ED
12.AT
13. FAH
= Inhalation cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day- 1 )
= Age sens itivity factor for a specified age group (uniUess) = Expos ure duration (in years ) for a specified age g roup = Averag ing lime for lifetime cancer risk (years )
= Fraction of lime spent at home (unitless )
a : Recommended defau lt values for EQ 8.2.4 A :
5. DOSEa ir
6. CPF
7. ASF
8. ED
9. AT
10. FAH
=
=
=
=
=
=
Calculated for each age group from Eq. 5.4.1
Substance -spe cific (see Tab le 7.1)
See Section 8 .2. 1
0.25 years for 3"' trimester , 2 years for 0<2, 7 years for 2<9, 14 years for 2<16, 14 yea rs for 16<30, 54 years for 16-70
70 years•
See Tab le 8 .4
Exposure Age Concentration
(ug/m3)
Breathing Rate
L/kg body
weight-day)
Inhalation
Absorption Factor EF Multiplier DOSE
(mg/kg/day) Exposure Age Concentration
(ug/m3)
Breathing Rate L/kg
body weight-day)
Inhalation
Absorption Factor EF Multiplier DOSE (mg/kg/day) Exposure Age Phase of Project Duration of Exposure Risk
3rd trimester 0.14 361 1 0.95890411 0.000001 4.8463E-05 Infant 0.0001 1090 1 0.95890411 0.000001 1.04521E-07 3rd trimester Construction 0.25 1.62E-06 Infant 0.14 1090 1 0.95890411 0.000001 0.000146329 Child 0.0001 572 1 0.95890411 0.000001 5.48493E-08 Infant Construction 0.75 1.47E-05 Child 0.14 572 1 0.95890411 0.000001 7.6789E-05 Adult 0.0001 261 1 0.95890411 0.000001 2.50274E-08 Infant Operation 1.25 1.75E-08 Adult 0.14 261 1 0.95890411 0.000001 3.50384E-05 Child Operation 14 2.61E-08 Adult Operation 54 1.56E-07
1.65E-05
Exposure Age DOSE
(mg/kg/day)
CPF (mg/kg-
day^-1) ASF
Exposure
Duration
(years)/Averaging
Time (years)
FAH RISK Exposure Age DOSE (mg/kg/day) CPF (mg/kg-day^-1) ASF Exposure Duration
(years)/Averaging
Time (years)
FAH RISK
3rd trimester 4.8463E-05 1.1 10 0.003571429 0.851 1.62E-06 Infant 1.04521E-07 1.1 10 0.017857143 0.851 1.75E-08 Infant 0.000146329 1.1 10 0.010714286 0.851 1.47E-05 Child 5.48493E-08 1.1 3 0.2 0.721 2.61E-08
1.63E-05 Adult 2.50274E-08 1.1 1 7.771428571 0.73 1.56E-07 Child 7.6789E-05 1.1 3 0.014285714 0.721 2.61E-06 2.00E-07 Adult 3.50384E-05 1.1 1 0.014285714 0.73 4.02E-07
Microsoft Word - Draft Staff Report - 9-23-14 v2.docx (valleyair.org) Total Cancer RiskConstruction Cancer Risk Calculations Operational Cancer Risk Calculations Dose (Equation 5.4.1.1)
TOTAL OPERATIONAL RISK
Cancer Risk (Equation 8.2.4A) TOTAL
70-Year Cancer Risk
Dose (Equation 5.4.1.1)
Cancer Risk (Equation 8.2.4A)
Infant Construction Risk (3rd Trimester and Infant)
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 203 Appendix B: Habitat Assessment
Prepared by Precision Civil Engineering, Inc. on January 12, 2021.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 204 Appendix C: CHRIS Record Search Results
Prepared by San Joaquin Valley Information Center on October 5, 2020.
To: Jenna Chilingerian Record Search 20-352
Precision Civil Engineering, Inc.
1234 O Street
Fresno, CA 93721
Date: October 5, 2020
Re: Food Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project
County: Fresno
Map(s): Fresno South 7.5’
CULTURAL RESOURCES RECORDS SEARCH
The California O ffice of Historic Preservation (OHP) contracts with the California Historical R esources Information System’s (CHRIS) regional Information Centers (ICs) to maintain information in the CHRIS inventory and make it available to local, state, and federal agencies, cultural resource professionals, Native American tribes, researchers, and t he public. Re commendations made by IC c oordinators or their staff regarding the interpretation and application of this information are advisory only. Such recommendations do not necessarily represent the eval uation or opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer in carrying out the OHP’s regulatory authority under federal and state law.
The following are the results of a search of the cultural resource files at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center. These files include known and recorded cultural resources sites, inventory an d excavation reports filed with this office, a nd resources listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the OHP Built Environment Resources Directory, California State His torical L andmarks, Californi a Register of Historical Resources, California Inventory of Historic Resources, an d California Points of Historical Interest. Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitt ed to the OHP are availa ble via this rec ords search. A dditional information may be a vailable through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area.
PRIOR CULTURAL RESOURCE STUDIES CONDUCTED WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA AND THE ONE-HALF MILE RADIUS
According to the information in our files, there have been no previous cultural resource studies conducted within the project area. There have been two studies conducted within the one-half mile radius, FR- 02140 and FR-02175.
Record Search 20-352
KNOWN/RECORDED CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA AND THE ONE-HALF MILE RADIUS
There are no known resources within the project area, and it is not known if any exist th ere. There has been one recorded resource within the one -half mile radius , P-10-004337, and historic era radio broadcasting station.
There are no recorded cultural resources within the project area or radius that are listed in the National Register o f Historic Places, the California Reg ister of Historical R esources, the California Points of H istorical Interest, California Inventory of Historic Resources, or the California State Historic Landmarks.
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
We understand this project consists of construction of a f ood processing, warehousing, and distribution facility on land that is currently vacan t and has not been previously developed. Because a cultural resources study has not been conducted on the project area, it is not know n if any cultural resources are present there.
Therefore, we recommend a qualified, professional archaeologist conduct a field survey prior to ground disturbance activities to determine if cultural resources are present. A list of qualified consultants can be found at www.chrisinfo.org.
We also recommend that you contact the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento. They will provide you with a current list of N ative A merican individuals/organizations that can assist you wi th information regarding cultural resources that may not be included in the CHRIS Inventory and that may be of concern to the Native groups in the area. The Commission can consult their "Sacred Lands Inventory" file to determine what sacred resources, if any, exist within this project area and the way in which these resources might be ma naged. F inally, ple ase co nsult with the lead agency on this project to determine if any other cultural re source investigation is required. If you need any additional information or have any questions or concerns, please contact our office at (661) 654-2289.
By:
Celeste M. Thomson, Coordinator Date: October 5, 2020
Please note that invoices for Information Center services will be sent under separate cover from the California State University, Bakersfield Accounting Office.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 205 Appendix D: Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
Prepared by JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. on June 10, 2021.
Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
June 10, 2021
Busseto Foods
Located on the Southeast Corner of
West Avenue and Church Boulevard
In the City of Fresno, California
Prepared for:
Busseto Foods
1090 W. Church Avenue
Fresno, CA 93706
Project No. 039‐003
Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704
Phone: (559) 570‐8991
www.JLBtraffic.com
Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions Z:\01 Projects\004 Fresno\004‐129 Busseto TIA\Report\VMT\R06102021 Busseto VMT Analysis.docx
Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704
Phone: (559) 570‐8991
www.JLBtraffic.com
Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
For the Busseto Foods Project located on the Southeast Corner of West Avenue and Church Boulevard
In the City of Fresno, CA
June 10, 2021
This Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis has been prepared under the direction of a licensed Traffic Engineer. The licensed Traffic Engineer attests to the technical information contained therein and has judged the qualifications of any technical specialists providing engineering data from which recommendations, conclusions and decisions are based.
Prepared by:
_________________________________
Jose Luis Benavides, P.E., T.E.
President
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | iii
(559) 570‐8991
Busseto Foods ‐ City of Fresno
Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
June 10, 2021
Table of Contents
Project Description ............................................................................................................................... .. 1 VMT Analysis ............................................................................................................................... ........... 1 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................................................ 1 VMT Results ................................................................................................................................................. 3 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................... 4 Study Participants ............................................................................................................................... .... 5 References ............................................................................................................................... ............... 6
List of Tables
Table I: VMT Results ............................................................................................................................... ................ 4
List of Appendices
Appendix A: VMT Output
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 1
(559) 570‐8991
Busseto Foods ‐ City of Fresno
Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
June 10, 2021
Project Description
This report describes a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis prepared by JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. (JLB) for the Busseto Foods Facility (Project) located on the southeast corner of West Avenue and Church Avenue in the City of Fresno. The Project proposes to develop a 477,470 square foot facility on 18.89 acres to use on for the processing, freezing and distribution of product. Based on information provided to JLB, the Project will undergo a General Plan Amendment and Rezone through the City of Fresno to change the land use designation from Medium Density Residential to General Light Industrial.
VMT Analysis
Regulatory Setting
Senate Bill (SB) 743 requires that relevant California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis of transportation impacts be conducted using a metric known as VMT instead of level of service (LOS). VMT measures how much actual auto travel (additional miles driven) a proposed project would create on California roads. If the project adds excessive car travel onto our roads, the project may cause a significant transportation impact.
The State CEQA Guidelines were amended to implement SB 743, by adding Section 15064.3. Among its provisions, Section 15064.3 confirms that, except with respect to transportation projects, a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact. Therefore, LOS measures of impacts on traffic facilities are no longer a relevant CEQA criteria for transportation impacts.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(4) states that “[a] lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revision to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.”
On June 25, 2020, the City of Fresno adopted guidelines or thresholds for VMT pursuant to Senate Bill 743 to be effective July 1, 2020. The thresholds described therein are referred to herein as the City of Fresno VMT Thresholds. The City of Fresno VMT Thresholds document was prepared and adopted consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.3 and 15064.7. The December 2018 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (TA) published by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR), was utilized as a reference and guidance document in the preparation of the Fresno VMT Thresholds.
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 2
(559) 570‐8991
Busseto Foods ‐ City of Fresno
Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
June 10, 2021
The City of Fresno VMT Thresholds adopted a screening standard and criteria that can be used to screen out qualified development projects that meet the adopted criteria from needing to prepare a detailed VMT Analysis. These criteria may be size, location, proximity to transit, of trip making potential. In general development projects that are consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning and that that meet one or more of the following criteria can be screened out from a quantitative VMT analysis.
1. Project Located in a Transit Priority Area/High Quality Transit Corridor (within 0.5 miles of a transit stop).
2. Project is Local‐serving Retail of less than 50,000 square feet.
3. Project is a Low Trip Generator (Less than 500 average daily trips)
4. Project has a High Level of Affordable Housing Units
5. Project is an institutional/Government and Public Service Uses
6. Project is located in a Low VMT Zone
This screening tool is consistent with the OPR December 2018 Guidance referenced above. The screening tool includes an analysis of those portions of the City that satisfy the standard of reducing VMT by 13% from existing per capita and per employee VMT averages within the relevant region. The relevant region adopted by the City of Fresno VMT Thresholds is Fresno County.
However, the City of Fresno VMT Thresholds Section 3.1 regarding Development Projects states that "If a project constitutes a General Plan Amendment (GPA) or a Zone Change (ZC), none of the screening criteria may apply". Since this particular Project includes both a General Plan Amendment and a Zone Change, it does not meet the screening criteria. As such, a quantitative VMT analysis is required, and such was prepared utilizing the Fresno COG Activity Based Model (ABM).
For projects that are not screened out, a quantitative analysis of VMT impacts must be prepared and compared against the adopted VMT thresholds of significance. The Fresno VMT Thresholds document includes thresholds of significance for development projects, transportation projects, and land use plans.
These thresholds of significance were developed using the County of Fresno as the applicable region, and the required reduction of VMT (as adopted in the Fresno VMT Thresholds) corresponds to Fresno County’s contribution to the statewide GHG emission reduction target. In order to reach the statewide GHG reduction target of 15%, Fresno County must reduce its GHG emissions by 13%. The method of reducing GHG by 13% is to reduce VMT by 13% as well.
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 3
(559) 570‐8991
Busseto Foods ‐ City of Fresno
Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
June 10, 2021
VMT Results
VMT is simply the product of a number of trips and those trips’ lengths. The first step in a VMT analysis is to establish the baseline average VMT, which requires the definition of a region. The CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds for the City of Fresno provide that the Fresno County average VMT per Capita (appropriate for residential land uses) and Employee (appropriate for office/commercial non‐retail land uses) are 16.1 and 25.6, respectively. The City’s threshold targets a 13% reduction in VMT for residential and office/commercial non‐retail land uses.
The City’s adopted thresholds for development projects correspond to the regional averages modeled by Fresno COG's ABM. For residential and non‐residential (except retail) development projects, the adopted threshold of significance is a 13% reduction, which means that projects that generate VMT in excess of a 13% reduction from the existing regional VMT per capita or per employee would have a significant environmental impact. Projects that reduce VMT by 13% or more are less than significant. For retail projects, the adopted threshold is any net increase in Regional VMT compared to the existing Regional VMT.
Quantitative assessments of the VMT generated by a development project are determined using the COG ABM, which is a tour‐based model.
For mixed use projects, the City of Fresno VMT Thresholds state that the VMT can be estimated based on each component of the project, independently, after taking credit for internal trip capture. It also confirms that mixed use projects must use the Fresno COG’s Activity Based Model. The VMT per capita (for the residential component) and the total VMT (for the retail component) is then compared against the relevant threshold.
The target VMT for residential and commercial non‐retail land uses are (16.1 X (1‐.13) = 14.0) 14.0 VMT per capita and (25.6 X (1‐.13) = 22.3) 22.3 VMT per employee, respectively. In addition, for retail land uses the City’s threshold targets a net zero (0) increase in Regional VMT for retail land uses (City of Fresno, 2020).
The Project’s trip generation, anticipated maximum number of employment and square footages were provided to Fresno COG in order to conduct a Project‐specific VMT analysis using the Fresno COG ABM for specific Project components. Table I summarizes the VMT results for the Project derived from Fresno COG ABM and the relevant threshold. Based on Fresno COG ABM VMT results, the Project has an average VMT per employee of 17.60 which is within the City’s VMT threshold for commercial non‐retail uses of 22.30 VMT per employee. Therefore, there are no impacts to VMT associated with this Project. Appendix A presents the Project VMT output from the Fresno COG model.
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 4
(559) 570‐8991
Busseto Foods ‐ City of Fresno
Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
June 10, 2021
Conclusion
As can be seen in Table I below, Project VMT per employee is 17.60. This VMT per employee is within the City's Threshold for the commercial non‐retail land use of a maximum of 22.30 VMT per employee. In conclusion, there are no impacts to VMT associated with this Project pursuant to the City of Fresno VMT analysis guidelines.
Table I: VMT Results
Project Components Fresno COG
plus Project VMT Results1 City of Fresno VMT Threshold² Significant VMT Impact? Commercial Non‐Retail 17.60 / employee 22.30 / employee No Note: 1 = VMT Results per Fresno COG ABM.
2 = VMT Threshold per CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds for the City of Fresno. Per the Fresno COG ABM, the Project's VMT output is projected to be 17.60 VMT per employee. The City of Fresno VMT threshold for commercial non‐retail land uses is a maximum of 22.30 VMT per employee.
As a result, there are no impacts to VMT associated with this Project.
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 5
(559) 570‐8991
Busseto Foods ‐ City of Fresno
Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
June 10, 2021
Study Participants
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. Personnel
Jose Luis Benavides, PE, TE Project Manager
Susana Maciel, EIT Project Engineer
Matthew Arndt, EIT Engineer I/II
Jesus Garcia Engineer I/II
Dennis Wynn Sr. Engineering Technician
Adrian Benavides Engineering Aide
Christian Sanchez Engineering Aide
Persons Consulted:
Michael Grazier Busseto Foods
Jill Gormley City of Fresno
Harmanjit
Dhaliwal City of Fresno
Gloria Hensley Fresno County
Brian Spaunhurst Fresno County
David Padilla Caltrans
Christopher Nicholas Caltrans
Jamaica Gentry Caltrans
Kai Han Fresno COG
Santosh Bhattarai Fresno COG
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 6
(559) 570‐8991
Busseto Foods ‐ City of Fresno
Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
June 10, 2021
References
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2010. "Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource For Local Government To Assess Emission Reductions From Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures". Sacramento: State of California.
California Department of Transportation. 2002. "Guide For The Preparation Of Traffic Impact Studies".
State of California.
California Department of Transportation. 2020. "California Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices, FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2 as amended for use in California ".
Sacramento: 2014 ed. State of California.
City of Fresno. 2014. "Fresno General Plan". Fresno: City of Fresno.
City of Fresno. 2016. "Active Transportation Plan". Fresno: City of Fresno.
City of Fresno. 2020. "CEQA Guidelines For Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds". Fresno: City of Fresno, Fresno County. 2000. "Fresno County General Plan". Fresno: Fresno County.
Governor's Office of Planning and Research. 2018. Technical Advisory On Evaluating Transportation Impacts In CEQA. Ebook. Sacramento: State of California, pp.1‐34. Available at:
<https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122‐743_Technical_Advisory.pdf> [Accessed 20 January 2021].
Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2017. "Trip Generation Manual". Washington: Institute of Transportation Engineers. Vol. 1‐3.
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 A pp | A
(559) 570‐8991
Appendix A: Fresno COG Activity Based Model VMT Output
TAZ Employment Veh VMT Veh Trips Trip Length VMT per capita 2856 210 3698.05 372 9.93 17.6
Busseto Foods
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
June 10, 2021
Busseto Foods
Located on the Southeast Corner of
West Avenue and Church Avenue
In the City of Fresno, California
Prepared for:
Busseto Foods
1090 W. Church Avenue
Fresno, CA 93706
Project No. 004‐129
Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704
Phone: (559) 570‐8991
www.JLBtraffic.com
Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions Z:\01 Projects\004 Fresno\004‐129 Busseto TIA\Report\R06102021 Busseto Foods TIA.docx Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704
Phone: (559) 570‐8991
www.JLBtraffic.com
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
For the Busseto Foods Project located on the Southeast Corner of West Avenue and Church Avenue
In the City of Fresno, CA
June 10, 2021
This Traffic Impact Analysis Report has been prepared under the direction of a licensed Traffic Engineer. The licensed Traffic Engineer attests to the technical information contained therein and has judged the qualifications of any technical specialists providing engineering data from which recommendations, conclusions and decisions are based.
Prepared by:
_________________________________
Jose Luis Benavides, PE, TE
President
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | iii
(559) 570‐8991
Busseto Foods ‐ City of Fresno
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
June 10, 2021
Table of Contents
Introduction and Summary ..................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 Existing Traffic Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 1 Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions .................................................................................................... 1 Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions ............................................................................................... 2 Cumulative Year 2035 No Project Traffic Conditions ............................................................................... 2 Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Traffic Conditions ............................................................................. 2 Scope of Work ............................................................................................................................... ......... 3 Study Facilities ............................................................................................................................................. 4 Study Intersections .................................................................................................................................. 4 Project Only Trip Assignment to State Facilities ...................................................................................... 4 Study Scenarios ............................................................................................................................................ 5 Existing Traffic Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 5 Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions .................................................................................................... 5 Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions ............................................................................................... 5 Cumulative Year 2035 No Project Traffic Conditions ............................................................................... 5 Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Traffic Conditions ............................................................................. 5 LOS Methodology ............................................................................................................................... .... 6 LOS Thresholds ............................................................................................................................... ........ 7 Operational Analysis Assumptions and Defaults ..................................................................................... 8 Existing Traffic Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 9 Roadway Network ........................................................................................................................................ 9 Collision Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 11 Traffic Signal Warrants ............................................................................................................................... 12 Results of Existing Level of Service Analysis .............................................................................................. 13 Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions .................................................................................................. 16 Project Description..................................................................................................................................... 16 Project Access ............................................................................................................................................ 16 Project Trip Generation ............................................................................................................................. 16
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | iv
(559) 570‐8991
Busseto Foods ‐ City of Fresno
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
June 10, 2021
Trip Distribution ......................................................................................................................................... 17 Active Transportation Plan ........................................................................................................................ 17 Bikeways .................................................................................................................................................... 18 Walkways ................................................................................................................................................... 18 Transit ........................................................................................................................................................ 18 Traffic Signal Warrants ............................................................................................................................... 19 Results of Existing plus Project Level of Service Analysis .......................................................................... 19 Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions ............................................................................................... 23 Description of Near Term Projects ............................................................................................................. 23 Traffic Signal Warrants ............................................................................................................................... 24 Results of Near Term plus Project Level of Service Analysis ...................................................................... 24 Cumulative Year 2035 No Project Traffic Conditions .............................................................................. 27 Traffic Signal Warrants ............................................................................................................................... 27 Results of Cumulative Year 2035 No Project Level of Service Analysis ....................................................... 27 Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Traffic Conditions ............................................................................ 30 Traffic Signal Warrants ............................................................................................................................... 30 Results of Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Level of Service Analysis ................................................... 30 Project Only Trip Assignment to State Facilities ........................................................................................ 31 Queuing Analysis ............................................................................................................................... ... 36 Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 39 Existing Traffic Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 39 Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions .................................................................................................. 39 Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions ............................................................................................. 39 Cumulative Year 2035 No Project Traffic Conditions ............................................................................. 39 Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Traffic Conditions ........................................................................... 40 Study Participants ............................................................................................................................... .. 41 References ............................................................................................................................... ............. 42
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | v
(559) 570‐8991
Busseto Foods ‐ City of Fresno
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
June 10, 2021
List of Figures
Figure 1: Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................................... ........... 14 Figure 2: Existing ‐ Traffic Volumes, Geometrics and Controls ............................................................................... 15 Figure 3: Project Site Plan ............................................................................................................................... ...... 20 Figure 4: Project Only Trips ............................................................................................................................... ... 21 Figure 5: Existing plus Project ‐ Traffic Volumes, Geometrics and Controls ............................................................ 22 Figure 6: Near Term Projects' Trip Assignment ...................................................................................................... 25 Figure 7: Near Term plus Project ‐ Traffic Volumes, Geometrics and Controls ........................................................ 26 Figure 8: Cumulative Year 2035 No Project ‐ Traffic Volumes, Geometrics and Controls ........................................ 29 Figure 9: Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project ‐ Traffic Volumes, Geometrics and Controls ...................................... 32 Figure 10: State Route 41 at Jensen Avenue ‐ Project Only Trips ........................................................................... 33 Figure 11: State Route 99 at Jensen Avenue ‐ Project Only Trips ........................................................................... 34 Figure 12: State Route 180 at Marks Avenue ‐ Project Only Trips .......................................................................... 35
List of Tables
Table I: Five‐Year (2015‐2019) Intersection Collision Analysis ............................................................................... 12 Table II: Existing Intersection LOS Results ............................................................................................................. 13 Table III: Project Trip Generation .......................................................................................................................... 17 Table IV: Existing General Plan Land Use Trip Generation ..................................................................................... 17 Table V: Difference in Trip Generation .................................................................................................................. 17 Table VI: Existing plus Project Intersection LOS Results ......................................................................................... 19 Table VII: Near Term Projects’ Trip Generation ..................................................................................................... 23 Table VIII: Near Term plus Project Intersection LOS Results .................................................................................. 24 Table IX: Cumulative Year 2035 No Project Intersection LOS Results ..................................................................... 28 Table X: Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Intersection LOS Results .................................................................... 31 Table XI: Queuing Analysis ............................................................................................................................... .... 37
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Scope of Work
Appendix B: Traffic Counts
Appendix C: Traffic Modeling
Appendix D: Methodology
Appendix E: Collision Data
Appendix F: Existing Traffic Conditions
Appendix G: Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions
Appendix H: Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions
Appendix I: Cumulative Year 2035 No Project Traffic Conditions Appendix J: Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Traffic Conditions Appendix K: Traffic Signal Warrants
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 1
(559) 570‐8991
Busseto Foods ‐ City of Fresno
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
June 10, 2021
Introduction and Summary
Introduction
This Report describes a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. (JLB) for the Busseto Foods Facility (Project) located on the southeast corner of West Avenue and Church Avenue in the City of Fresno. The Project is proposing to develop a 477,470 square foot facility on 18.89 acres to use for the processing, freezing and distribution of product. Based on information provided to JLB, the Project will undergo a General Plan Amendment and Rezone through the City of Fresno to change the land use designation from Medium Density Residential to General Light Industrial. Figure 1 shows the location of the proposed Project site relative to the surrounding roadway network.
The purpose of the TIA is to evaluate the potential on‐site and off‐site traffic impacts, identify short‐term and long‐term roadway needs, determine potential roadway improvement measures and identify any critical traffic issues that should be addressed in the ongoing planning process. The TIA primarily focused on evaluating traffic conditions at study intersections that may potentially be impacted by the proposed Project and an analysis of the Project’s impact to Regional Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). The Scope of Work was prepared via consultation with City of Fresno, Fresno County and Caltrans staff.
Summary
The potential traffic impacts of the proposed Project were evaluated in accordance with the standards set forth by the Level of Service (LOS) policies of the City of Fresno, Fresno County and Caltrans, as well as the City of Fresno policy on VMT.
Existing Traffic Conditions
JLB conducted a search of the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) to obtain collision reports for the most recent five‐year period. Based on a review of the collision reports, a total of twenty‐four (24) collisions were reported within the influence zone of the study intersections. In the year 2019 the intersection of Walnut Avenue and Jensen Avenue experienced four (4) collisions. Of these collisions, two (2) were considered correctable by a change in traffic control. At present, all study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS during both peak periods.
Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions
The Project proposes to have two (2) access points along the east side of West Avenue and two (2) access points along the south side of Church Avenue.
JLB analyzed the location of the existing and proposed roadways and access points and noticed that one access point is planned across the street from an existing access point. However, the relatively low volumes allow drivers of both driveways to access the road safely. At buildout, the proposed Project is estimated to generate a maximum of 2,368 daily trips, 334 AM peak hour trips and 301 PM peak hour trips.
It is recommended that the Project implement Class II Bikeways along its frontages to West Avenue and Church Avenue.
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 2
(559) 570‐8991
Busseto Foods ‐ City of Fresno
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
June 10, 2021
It is recommended that the Project implement ADA compliant sidewalks along its frontages to West Avenue and Church Avenue.
Under this scenario, all study intersections are projected to continue operating at an acceptable LOS during both peak periods.
Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions
The total trip generation for the Near Term Projects is 39,855 weekday daily trips, 3,804 weekday AM peak hour trips and 4,014 weekday PM peak hour trips.
Under this scenario, all study intersections are projected to continue operating at an acceptable LOS during both peak periods.
Cumulative Year 2035 No Project Traffic Conditions
Under this scenario, the intersection of Walnut Avenue and Jensen Avenue is projected to exceed its LOS threshold during the PM peak period. To improve the LOS at this intersection, the addition of lanes and modification of traffic control mechanisms is recommended. Additional details as to the recommended improvements for these intersections are presented later in this Report.
Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Traffic Conditions
Under this scenario, the intersections of West Avenue and Church Avenue, Fruit Avenue and Jensen Avenue and Walnut Avenue and Jensen Avenue are projected to exceed their LOS thresholds during one or both peak periods. To improve the LOS at this intersection, the addition of lanes and modification of traffic control mechanisms is recommended. Additional details as to the recommended improvements for these intersections are presented later in this Report.
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 3
(559) 570‐8991
Busseto Foods ‐ City of Fresno
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
June 10, 2021
Scope of Work
The TIA focused on evaluating traffic conditions at study intersections that may potentially be impacted by the proposed Project. On September 11th, 2020, a Draft Scope of Work for the preparation of a Traffic Impact Analysis for this Project was provided to the City of Fresno, Fresno County and Caltrans for their review and comment. Any comments to the proposed Scope of Work were to be provided by October 2nd, 2020.
On September 22nd, 2020, Caltrans responded and requested a trip trace to the state facilities of SR 99 and Ventura Street, SR 41 and Jensen Avenue, SR 99 and Jensen Avenue and SR 180 and Marks Avenue. On January 26th, 2021, Caltrans responded to the trip trace saying that they had no comments. On February 3rd, 2021, Caltrans replied again with a letter stating the TIA should use HCM 6.0 summary results, 3‐5 year rolling average for counts due to COVID‐19 and a cost per trip for some of the nearby interchanges was given. To account for the reduction in traffic volumes as a result of COVID‐19, JLB coordinated with the City of Fresno and County of Fresno and such procedure is explained in the next paragraph. Caltrans questioned how the difference in trip generation between the Project and that which could be developed under the current General Plan would be used in the TIA. The only purpose of the TIA including trip generation for that which could be developed consistent with the General Plan is to simply provide the Lead Agency and Responsible Agencies with the associated differences in trip generation between the proposed Project and that which otherwise be developed; however, this TIA does not reduce the Project's trip generation in any way as a result of the Project being a lower trip generator than that previously contemplated by the City of Fresno General Plan. Caltrans also commented that the TIA should include near term projects and include a VMT analysis. On October 1st, 2020, the City of Fresno responded that a model from Fresno COG and a trip trace for the Project was necessary to determine if the Draft Scope of Work was acceptable. On December 22nd, 2020, JLB delivered a trip trace to the City of Fresno and on January 6th, 2021 the City replied with their comments. The City requested that the intersections of Marks Avenue and Church Avenue and Hughes Avenue and Church Avenue be removed and that the intersections of Fruit Avenue and Church Avenue and Elm Avenue and Jensen Avenue be added to the study facilities. Also, the City requested that the trip generation be based on square footage and not the number of employees. On January 12th, 2021, the County of Fresno responded and approved the Draft Scope of Work as presented. On January 14th, 2021, the County stated that they were defaulting to the City of Fresno's recommendation to use square feet for trip generation purposes instead of employees.
Moreover, a proposed procedure to arrive at the mutually agreeable baseline year 2020 traffic volumes for study facilities included in the analysis for this Project was provided to the City of Fresno and County of Fresno for their review and comment. Upon further communication, the City of Fresno and County of Fresno agreed that expansion factors of 27%, 20% and 8% be applied to the AM peak hours, PM peak hours and every other hour, respectively. These expansion rates were then utilized to arrive at the baseline 2020 traffic volumes as a result of Covid‐19 reductions in traffic volumes. As all study intersections were within the City of Fresno or County of Fresno, the methodology requested and agreed upon by the City and County were utilized instead of the Caltrans suggested three to five year rolling averages.
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 4
(559) 570‐8991
Busseto Foods ‐ City of Fresno
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
June 10, 2021
Based on the comments received, the TIA includes the intersections of Fruit Avenue and Church Avenue and Elm Avenue and Jensen Avenue and does not include the intersections of Marks Avenue and Church Avenue and Hughes Avenue and Church Avenue as requested by the City of Fresno. Also, the trip generation for the Project is based on square feet rather than on employees as requested by the City of Fresno and County of Fresno. After a discussion with Caltrans, this TIA continues to include VMT analysis, near term projects and HCM 6 Edition results, but cost per trip on the interchanges and rolling averages for baseline volumes would not be included in this TIA. The Draft Scope of Work and the comments received from the lead agency and responsible agencies are included in Appendix A.
Study Facilities
The existing intersection peak hour turning movement and segment volume counts were conducted at the study intersections and segments between September 2020 and February 2021, while schools in the vicinity of the Project site were in session. Expansion factors were applied to new traffic counts affected by the global COVID‐19 pandemic. Per communication with the City of Fresno and County of Fresno, a 27 percent expansion factor was applied to the AM peak hours, a 20 percent expansion factor was applied to the PM peak hours and an 8 percent expansion factor was applied to segment volume counts on hours outside the AM and PM peak hours. The intersection turning movement counts included pedestrian and bicycle volumes. The traffic counts for the existing study intersections are contained in Appendix B. The existing intersection turning movement volumes, intersection geometrics and traffic controls are illustrated in Figure 2.
Study Intersections
Location
1. West Avenue / Church Avenue
2. Fruit Avenue / Church Avenue
3. West Avenue / Jensen Avenue
4. Fruit Avenue / Jensen Avenue
5. Walnut Avenue / Jensen Avenue
6. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard / Jensen Avenue
7. Elm Avenue / Jensen Avenue
Project Only Trip Assignment to State Facilities
Location
1. State Route 41 / Jensen Avenue Interchange
2. State Route 99 / Jensen Avenue Interchange
3. State Route 180 / Marks Avenue Interchange
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 5
(559) 570‐8991
Busseto Foods ‐ City of Fresno
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
June 10, 2021
Study Scenarios
Existing Traffic Conditions
This scenario evaluates the Existing Traffic Conditions based on existing traffic volumes and roadway conditions from traffic counts and field surveys conducted in September 2020 and February 2021 that were adjusted upward as noted in the aforementioned section.
Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions
This scenario evaluates the Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions based on traffic volumes obtained by adding the Project Only Trips to the Existing Traffic Conditions scenario. The Project Only Trips to the study facilities were developed based on existing travel patterns, the Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG) Project Select Zone, the existing roadway network, engineering judgment, data provided by the developer, knowledge of the study area, existing residential and commercial densities, and the Fresno General Plan Circulation Element in the vicinity of the Project site. The Fresno COG Project Select Zone results are contained in Appendix C.
Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions
This scenario evaluates the Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions based on traffic volumes obtained by adding the Near Term related trips to the Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario.
Cumulative Year 2035 No Project Traffic Conditions
This scenario evaluates the Cumulative Year 2035 No Project Traffic Conditions based on traffic volumes obtained by subtracting the Project Only Trips from the Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project scenario.
Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Traffic Conditions
This scenario evaluates the Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Traffic Conditions based on traffic volumes obtained from using a combination of the Fresno COG activity‐based model (ABM) (Base Year 2020 and Cumulative Year 2035) and existing traffic counts. Under this scenario, the increment method, as recommended by the Model Steering Committee was utilized to determine the Cumulative Year 2035 traffic volumes. The Fresno COG ABM results are contained in Appendix C.
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 6
(559) 570‐8991
Busseto Foods ‐ City of Fresno
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
June 10, 2021
LOS Methodology
LOS is a qualitative index of the performance of an element of the transportation system. LOS is a rating scale running from “A” to “F”, with “A” indicating no congestion of any kind and “F” indicating unacceptable congestion and delays. LOS in this study describes the operating conditions for signalized and unsignalized intersections.
The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition is the standard reference published by the Transportation Research Board and contains the specific criteria and methods to be used in assessing LOS.
U‐turn movements were analyzed using HCM 2000 methodologies and would yield more accurate results for the reason that HCM 6 Edition methodologies do not allow the analysis of U‐turns. Lane configurations not reflective of existing conditions are a result of software limitations and thus represent a worst‐case scenario. Synchro software was used to define LOS in this study. Details regarding these calculations are included in Appendix D.
While LOS is no longer the criteria of significance for traffic impacts in the state of California, the City of Fresno continues to apply congestion‐related conditions or requirements for land development projects through planning approval processes outside of CEQA Guidelines in order to continue the implementation of Fresno General Plan policies.
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 7
(559) 570‐8991
Busseto Foods ‐ City of Fresno
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
June 10, 2021
LOS Thresholds
The Fresno General Plan has established various degrees of acceptable LOS on its major streets, which are dependent on four (4) Traffic Impact Zones (TIZ) within the City (City of Fresno 2014). The standard LOS threshold for TIZ I is LOS F, that for TIZ II is LOS E, that for TIZ III is LOS D, and that for TIZ IV is LOS E.
Additionally, the 2035 MEIR made findings of overriding consideration to allow a lower LOS threshold than that established by the underlying TIZ’s. For those cases in which a LOS criterion for a roadway segment differs from that of the underlying TIZ, such criteria are identified in the roadway description. As all the study facilities besides Elm Avenue and Jensen Avenue fall within TIZ III, LOS D is used to evaluate the potential LOS impacts for those intersections within this TIA pursuant to the Fresno General Plan. While Elm Avenue and Jensen Avenue falls within TIZ II, LOS E is used to evaluate the potential LOS impacts for this intersection pursuant to the Fresno General Plan.
The Fresno County General Plan has established LOS C as the acceptable level of traffic congestion on county roads and streets that fall entirely outside the Sphere of Influence (SOI) of a City (Fresno County 2000). For those areas that fall within the SOI of a City, the LOS threshold of the City is used in this report.
LOS C is used to evaluate the potential LOS impacts to Fresno County intersections that fall outside the City of Fresno SOI. In this case, all study facilities fall within the City of Fresno SOI, therefore, the City of Fresno LOS thresholds are utilized.
Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS C and D on State highway facilities consistent with the Guide for The Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (Caltrans 2002). However, Caltrans acknowledges that this may not always be feasible and recommends that the lead agency consult with Caltrans to determine the appropriate target LOS. In this TIA, no facilities fall within Caltrans’ jurisdiction. Since, all study facilities fall within the City of Fresno SOI, the City of Fresno LOS thresholds are utilized.
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 8
(559) 570‐8991
Busseto Foods ‐ City of Fresno
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
June 10, 2021
Operational Analysis Assumptions and Defaults
The following operational analysis values, assumptions and defaults were used in this study to ensure a consistent analysis of LOS among the various scenarios. Yellow time consistent with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) based on approach speeds (Caltrans 2020)
Yellow time of 3.2 seconds for left‐turn phases
All‐red clearance intervals of 1.0 second for all phases Walk intervals of 7.0 seconds
Flashing Don’t Walk based on 3.5 feet/second walking speed with yellow plus all‐red clearance subtracted and 2.0 seconds added
All new or modified traffic signal controls utilize protective left‐turn phasing At existing intersections, the heavy vehicle factor observed for each approach was utilized under all scenarios.
The number of observed pedestrians at existing intersections was utilized under all study scenarios. An average of 10 pedestrian calls per hour at signalized intersections. At existing intersections, the observed approach Peak Hour Factor (PHF) is utilized in the Existing, Existing plus Project and Near Term plus Project scenarios. For the Cumulative Year 2035 scenario, the following PHF’s were utilized to reflect school traffic operations and an increase in future traffic volumes. As roadways start to reach their saturated flow rates, PHF’s tend to increase to 0.90 or higher in urban settings. The PHF’s were established based on historical traffic counts collected by JLB for intersections in proximity of school sites. o For the intersection of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Jensen Avenue, the following PHF’s were utilized:
A PHF of 0.86, or the existing PHF if higher, is utilized during the AM peak. A PHF of 0.90, or the existing PHF if higher, is utilized during the PM peak. o A PHF of 0.92, or the existing PHF if higher, is utilized for all remaining study intersections.
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 9
(559) 570‐8991
Busseto Foods ‐ City of Fresno
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
June 10, 2021
Existing Traffic Conditions
Roadway Network
The Project site and surrounding study area are illustrated in Figure 1. Important roadways serving the Project are discussed below.
West Avenue is an existing north‐south two‐lane undivided collector adjacent to the Project site. In this area, West Avenue extends throughout the City of Fresno’s boundary into the County of Fresno. West Avenue is a four‐lane divided arterial between Alluvial Avenue and McKinley Avenue, a two‐lane divided collector between Whitesbridge Avenue and Kearney Boulevard, a three‐ to four‐lane divided collector between Kearney Boulevard and Eden Avenue and a two‐lane undivided collector from Eden Avenue through the City of Fresno's southern boundary. The Fresno General Plan Circulation Element designates West Avenue as a two‐lane collector between Whitesbridge Avenue and the City of Fresno's southern boundary.
Fruit Avenue is an existing north‐south two‐lane undivided collector in the vicinity of the Project site. In this area, Fruit Avenue extends south of Herndon Avenue through the City of Fresno's southern boundary into the County of Fresno. Fruit Avenue is a four‐lane undivided collector between Herndon Avenue and Shaw Avenue, a two‐lane undivided collector between Shaw Avenue and Ashlan Avenue, a two‐lane collector divided by a two‐way left‐turn lane between Ashlan Avenue and Cambridge Avenue and a two‐ lane undivided collector from Cambridge Avenue through the City of Fresno's southern boundary. The Fresno General Plan Circulation Element designates Fruit Avenue as a two‐lane collector south of Kearney Boulevard through the City of Fresno's southern boundary.
Walnut Avenue is an existing north‐south two‐lane undivided collector in the vicinity of the Project site. In this area, Walnut Avenue extends south of California Avenue through the City of Fresno's southern boundary into the County of Fresno. Walnut Avenue is a two‐lane undivided collector from California Avenue through the City of Fresno's southern boundary. The Fresno General Plan Circulation Element designates Walnut Avenue as a four‐lane collector between California Avenue and Jensen Avenue and a two‐lane collector from Jensen Avenue through the City of Fresno's southern boundary.
Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard is an existing north‐south two‐lane undivided collector in the vicinity of the Project site. In this area, Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard extends south of California Avenue through the City of Fresno's southern boundary into the County of Fresno. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard is a two‐lane collector divided by a two‐way left‐turn lane between California Avenue and Grove Avenue and a two‐lane undivided collector from Grove Avenue through the City of Fresno's southern boundary. The Fresno General Plan Circulation Element designates Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard as a two‐lane collector from California Avenue through the City of Fresno's southern boundary.
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 10
(559) 570‐8991
Busseto Foods ‐ City of Fresno
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
June 10, 2021
Elm Avenue is an existing north‐south four‐lane divided arterial in the vicinity of the Project site. In this area, Elm Avenue extends south of California Avenue through the City of Fresno's southern boundary into the County of Fresno. Elm Avenue is a four‐lane divided arterial between California Avenue and North Avenue and a two‐lane undivided arterial from North Avenue through the City of Fresno's southern boundary. The Fresno General Plan Circulation Element designates Elm Avenue as a four‐lane arterial between California Avenue and North Avenue and a two‐lane arterial from North Avenue through the City of Fresno's southern boundary.
Church Avenue is an existing east‐west two‐lane undivided collector adjacent to the Project site. In this area, Church Avenue extends throughout the City of Fresno’s boundary into the County of Fresno. Church Avenue is a two‐lane undivided collector between Marks Avenue and Elm Avenue and a two‐lane collector divided by a two‐way left‐turn lane between Elm Avenue and Golden State Boulevard. The Fresno General Plan Circulation Element designates Church Avenue as a two‐lane collector between Marks Avenue and Clara Avenue and a four‐lane collector between Clara Avenue and Golden State Boulevard.
Jensen Avenue is an existing east‐west two‐lane undivided arterial in the vicinity of the Project site. In this area, Jensen Avenue extends throughout the City of Fresno’s boundary into the County of Fresno. Jensen Avenue is a two‐lane undivided arterial between Marks Avenue and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and a four‐lane divided arterial between Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Golden State Boulevard. The Fresno General Plan Circulation Element designates Jensen Avenue as a four‐lane arterial between Marks Avenue and Golden State Boulevard.
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 11
(559) 570‐8991
Busseto Foods ‐ City of Fresno
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
June 10, 2021
Collision Analysis
JLB conducted a search of SWITRS to obtain collision reports for the most recent five‐year period (January 1st, 2015 to December 31st, 2019). The SWITRS “is a database that serves as a means to collect and process data gathered from a collision scene. The internet SWITRS application is a tool by which the California Highway Patrol (CHP) staff and members of its Allied Agencies throughout California can request various types of statistical reports in an electronic format.” All collision reports between January 1st, 2015 and December 31st, 2019 were included in the collision analysis. In the five‐year period, a total of twenty‐four (24) collisions were reported within the influence zone (assumed to be within 250 feet) of the study intersections. The SWITRS collision data are found in Appendix E.
Table I summarizes the type of collision, severity, violation, and identifies involvement with another vehicle, a pedestrian/bicyclist or a fixed object. Based on the five‐year collision data contained within SWITRS, all study intersections have experienced a relatively low number and severity of collisions per year with one exception. The exception is the intersection of Walnut Avenue and Jensen Avenue. The intersection of Walnut Avenue and Jensen Avenue experienced a total of ten (10) collisions during the five‐year period. The types of collisions reported include eight (8) broadsides, one (1) rear‐end and one (1) sideswipe. There were zero (0) fatal or severe injuries reported.
Furthermore, the type of collisions reported include three (3) traffic signals and signs, two (2) right‐of‐way, one (1) unsafe speed, three (3) improper turning and one (1) driving under the influence.
After thorough review of the data contained within the collision reports for the five‐year analysis period, JLB found that for the intersection of Walnut Avenue and Jensen Avenue four (4) of the collisions occurred within a twelve (12) month period in 2019. However, of the four (4) collisions that occurred in 2019, only two (2) are deemed to be correctable by a change in traffic controls.
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 12
(559) 570‐8991
Busseto Foods ‐ City of Fresno
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
June 10, 2021
Table I: Five‐Year (2015‐2019) Intersection Collision Analysis ID Intersection
Number of Collisions
Type of Collision Severity Type of Violation
Motor Vehicle
Involved
with...
Broadside
Rear End
Head‐On
Hit Object
Sideswipe
Other
Fatal
Severe Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain/Injury
Property Damage Only
Traffic Signals & Signs
Right of Way
Unsafe Speed
Improper Turning
Driving Under Influence
Too Close
Pedestrian Violation
Other
Pedestrian/Bicyclist
Other Motor Vehicle
Fixed Object
Other
1 West Avenue / Church Avenue 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ 2 Fruit Avenue / Church Avenue ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 West Avenue / Jensen Avenue 4 1 ‐ 1 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4 ‐ 3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ 2 2 ‐ 4 Fruit Avenue / Jensen Avenue 6 5 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 4 1 1 4 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 6 ‐ ‐ 5 Walnut Avenue / Jensen Avenue 10 8 1 ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5 5 3 2 1 3 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 10 ‐ ‐ 6 MLK Jr Boulevard / Jensen Avenue ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 7 Elm Avenue / Jensen Avenue 3 2 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1 1 1 ‐ 1 ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 2 ‐ ‐
Traffic Signal Warrants
The CA MUTCD indicates that an engineering study of traffic conditions, pedestrian characteristics and physical features of an intersection shall be conducted to determine whether the installation of traffic signal controls are justified. The CA MUTCD provides a total of nine (9) warrants to evaluate the need for traffic signal controls. These warrants include 1) Eight‐Hour Vehicular Volume, 2) Four‐Hour Vehicular Volume, 3) Peak Hour, 4) Pedestrian Volume, 5) School Crossing, 6) Coordinated Signal System, 7) Crash Experience, 8) Roadway Network and 9) Intersection Near a Grade Crossing. Signalization of an intersection may be appropriate if one or more of the signal warrants is satisfied. However, the CA MUTCD also states that “[t]he satisfaction of a signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal” (Caltrans 2020).
If traffic signal warrants are satisfied when a LOS threshold impact is identified at an unsignalized intersection, then installation of a traffic signal control may serve as an improvement measure. For instances where traffic signal warrants are satisfied, a traffic signal control is not considered to be the default improvement measure. Since the installation of a traffic signal control typically requires the construction of additional lanes, an attempt is made to improve the intersection approach lane geometrics in order to improve its LOS while maintaining the existing intersection controls. If the additional lanes did not result in acceptable LOS at the intersection, then in those cases implementation of a traffic signal control would be considered.
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 13
(559) 570‐8991
Busseto Foods ‐ City of Fresno
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
June 10, 2021
Warrants 1, 2 and 3 were prepared for the unsignalized intersections under the Existing Traffic Conditions scenario. These warrants are contained in Appendix K. Under this scenario, no unsignalized study intersection satisfies either Warrant 1, 2 or 3. Based on the traffic signal warrants, operational analysis and engineering judgment, it is not recommended that the City consider implementing traffic signal controls at any of the unsignalized study intersections especially since these operate at an acceptable LOS during both peak periods under stop sign control.
Results of Existing Level of Service Analysis
Figure 2 illustrates the Existing Traffic Conditions turning movement volumes, intersection geometrics and traffic controls. LOS worksheets for the Existing Traffic Conditions scenario are provided in Appendix F.
Table II presents a summary of the Existing peak hour LOS at the study intersections.
At present, all study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS during both peak periods.
Table II: Existing Intersection LOS Results
ID Intersection Intersection Control
AM (7 ‐ 9) Peak Hour PM (4 ‐ 6) Peak Hour
Average Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Average Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
1 West Avenue / Church Avenue TWSC 9.7 A 10.3 B
2 Fruit Avenue / Church Avenue AWSC 8.2 A 8.4 A
3 West Avenue / Jensen Avenue TWSC 11.8 B 13.2 B
4 Fruit Avenue / Jensen Avenue TWSC 14.7 B 18.1 C 5 Walnut Avenue / Jensen Avenue TWSC 15.7 C 19.4 C 6 MLK Jr Boulevard / Jensen Avenue SIGNALIZED 6.2 A 7.2 A 7 Elm Avenue / Jensen Avenue SIGNALIZED 27.1 C 27.4 C Note: LOS = Level of Service based on average delay on signalized intersections and All‐Way STOP Controls LOS for two‐way and one‐way STOP controlled intersections are based on the worst approach/movement of the minor street. 004-129 - 06/01/21 - AB/CSPHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: [email protected], www.JLBtraffic.com 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93704
Busseto TIA - City of FresnoVicinity MapFigure 1
FRUIT AVE
ANNADALE AVE
1 2
3 4 5 6
LEGEND= STUDY INTERSECTION#
7 WEST AVE
WALNUT AVE
MLK JR BLVDJENSEN AVE
CHURCH AVE
CALIFORNIA AVE
KEARNEY BLVD
FRESNO STTULARE STB STVENTURA ST
PROJECT SITE
WHITESBRIDGE AVE
TRINITY ST
G STH ST
THORNE AVE
POTTLE AVE
NNot To ScaleELM AVE
004-129 - 06/07/21 - AB/CSPHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: [email protected], www.JLBtraffic.com 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93704
Busseto TIA - City of FresnoExisting - Traffic Volumes, Geometrics and ControlsFigure 2
FRUIT AVE
ANNADALE AVE
1 2
3 4 5 6
LEGEND= STUDY INTERSECTION#
7 WEST AVE
WALNUT AVEJENSEN AVE
CHURCH AVE
CALIFORNIA AVEB ST
6(11)44(65)14(20)
56(132)
Jensen AveMLK Jr BlvdJensen AveMLK Jr Blvd &6.
51(83)27(25)
32(42)229(338)102(68)
33(23)282(350)4(17)
3(5)15(18)20(14)
3(7)Church AveWest AveChurch AveWest Ave &1.
14(16)5(1)
10(28)30(72)3(8)
3(4)58(66)1(1)
4(7)32(11)42(38)
5(29)Jensen AveFruit AveJensen AveFruit Ave &4.
18(29)5(11)
61(34)169(227)10(14)
6(10)182(277)13(20)
6(11)15(11)43(31)
6(7)Jensen AveWalnut AveJensen AveWalnut Ave &5.
15(20)3(7)
34(55)212(310)5(5)
5(2)263(349)8(12)
10(11)33(42)13(20)
1(4)Church AveFruit AveChurch AveFruit Ave &2.
39(65)42(12)
15(29)41(52)1(6)
24(18)60(68)13(19)
4(8)11(10)5(13)
1(6)Jensen AveWest AveJensen AveWest Ave &3.
6(12)0(2)
5(5)159(236)6(1)
3(2)198(282)3(4)
VENTURA ST
PROJECT SITE
28(53)90(89)85(119)
126(343)
Jensen AveElm AveJensen AveElm Ave &7.
55(154)38(77)
69(178)311(504)311(158)
25(20)433(552)41(76)
THORNE AVE
= AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS= PM PEAK HOUR TRIPSXX(XX)= STOP SIGN= TRAFFIC SIGNALMLK JR BLVD14(18)5(11)1(8)10(20) NNot To ScaleELM AVE
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 16
(559) 570‐8991
Busseto Foods ‐ City of Fresno
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
June 10, 2021
Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions
Project Description
The Project is proposing to develop a 477,470 square feet facility on 18.89 acres to use for the processing, freezing and distribution of products. Based on information provided to JLB, the Project will undergo a General Plan Amendment and Rezone through the City of Fresno to change the land use designation from Medium Density Residential to General Light Industrial. Figure 3 illustrates the latest Project Site Plan.
Project Access
Based on the Project Site Plan, access to and from the Project site will predominantly be from four (4) access points. Two (2) access points will be located along the east side of West Avenue approximately 325 feet and 575 feet south of Church Avenue. These access points are proposed as full access points and are primarily going to be used by trucks. The other two (2) access points will be located along the south side of Church Avenue approximately 325 feet and 950 feet east of West Avenue. These access points are proposed as full access points and are primarily going to be used by employees and occasional visitors.
JLB analyzed the location of the existing and proposed roadways and access points relative to those in the vicinity of the Project site. A review of the existing and proposed roadways and access points indicates that they are located at points that minimize traffic operational impacts to existing and future roadway networks with only one potential concern. The access point on the east side of West Avenue approximately 325 feet south of Church Avenue is located across the street from an existing driveway.
However, the relatively low volumes on this segment of West Avenue should allow drivers of both driveways to access the road safely. A Project Site Plan can be found in Figure 3.
Project Trip Generation
The trip generation rates for the proposed Project were obtained from the 10th Edition of the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Table III presents the trip generation for the Project with trip generation rates for 477.470 thousand square feet of General Light Industrial. At buildout, the proposed Project is estimated to generate a maximum of 2,368 daily trips, 334 AM peak hour trips and 301 PM peak hour trips. Based on information provided to JLB this Project is expected to undergo a General Plan Amendment and Rezone through the City of Fresno to change the land use designation from Medium Density Residential to General Light Industrial. Table IV presents the trip generation for the Existing General Plan Land Use with trip generation rates for Single‐Family Detached Housing. If the Project site were developed consistent with the Existing General Plan Land Use designated, the site is estimated to generate a maximum of 1,520 daily trips, 119 AM peak hour trips and 159 PM peak hour trips. Compared to the Existing General Plan Land Use, the proposed Project is estimated to yield a higher trip generation by 848 daily trips, 215 AM peak hour trips and 142 PM peak hour trips. The difference in the trip generation between the proposed Project and the Existing General Plan Land Use is summarized in Table V.
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 17
(559) 570‐8991
Busseto Foods ‐ City of Fresno
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
June 10, 2021
Table III: Project Trip Generation
Land Use (ITE Code) Size Unit
Daily AM (7‐9) Peak Hour PM (4‐6) Peak Hour
Rate Total Trip
Rate
In Out
In Out Total Trip
Rate
In Out
In Out Total
% %
General Light Industrial
(110) 477.470 k.s.f. 4.96 2,368 0.70 88 12 294 40 334 0.63 13 87 39 262 301 Total Driveway Trips 2,368 294 40 334 39 262 301 Note: k.s.f. = A Thousand Square Feet
Table IV: Existing General Plan Land Use Trip Generation Land Use (ITE Code) Size Unit
Daily AM (7‐9) Peak Hour PM (4‐6) Peak Hour
Rate Total Trip
Rate
In Out
In Out Total Trip
Rate
In Out
In Out Total
% %
Single‐Family Detached
Housing (210) 160 d.u. 9.44 1,520 0.74 25 75 30 89 119 0.99 63 37 100 59 159 Total Driveway Trips 1,520 30 89 119 10 59 159 Note: d.u. = Dwelling Units
Table V: Difference in Trip Generation
Trip Distribution
The trip distribution assumptions were developed based on existing travel patterns, the Fresno COG Project Select Zone, the existing roadway network, engineering judgment, data provided by the developer, knowledge of the study area, existing residential and commercial densities and the Fresno General Plan Circulation Element in the vicinity of the Project site. The Project’s trip generation data was provided to Fresno COG in order to conduct a Project‐specific Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) analysis using the Fresno COG ABM (Cumulative Year 2035). The Fresno COG Project Select Zone results are contained in Appendix C.
Figure 4 illustrates the Project Only Trips at the study intersections.
Active Transportation Plan
The Fresno Active Transportation Plan (ATP) is an extensive guide detailing the conception for active transportation in the City of Fresno that was adopted in December 2016. This ATP aims to improve the safety, increase non‐motorized trips, improve access and fill in gaps in networks for Fresno's pedestrians and bicyclists. In order to achieve these goals for active transportation, this ATP proposes a comprehensive network of citywide bikeways, trails and sidewalks. The recommended network would add 166 miles of Class I Bike Paths, 691 miles of Class II Bike Lanes, 69 miles of Class III Bike Routes, 21 miles of Class IV Separated Bikeways and 661 miles of sidewalks. This ATP also recommends bicycle detection at Land Use (ITE Code) Daily AM (7‐9) Peak Hour PM (4‐6) Peak Hour Total In Out Total In Out Total
Project Trip Generation 2,368 294 40 334 39 262 301 Existing General Plan Land Use 1,520 30 89 119 10 59 159 Net New Project Trips 848 264 ‐ 49 215 ‐ 61 203 142
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 18
(559) 570‐8991
Busseto Foods ‐ City of Fresno
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
June 10, 2021
traffic signals, destination signage, bicycle parking, showers and changing facilities and bikeway maintenance. This network will be constructed in conjunction with adjacent land developments, roadway maintenance and active transportation infrastructure projects using funds from different local, state and federal sources.
Bikeways
The Fresno ATP classifies bicycle facilities into the following types:
Class I Bikeway (Bike Path) – Provides a completely separated right‐of‐way for exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflow minimized.
Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane) – Provides a striped lane for one‐way bike travel on a street or highway. Class III Bikeway (Bike Route) – Provides a shared use with pedestrians or motor vehicle traffic, typically on lower volume roadways.
Class IV Bikeways (Separated Bikeways) – Provides a protected lane for one‐way bike travel (one‐way cycle track) and protected lanes for two‐way bike travel (two‐way cycle track) on a street or highway.
Class II (Bike Lane) Bikeways exist in the vicinity of the Project site. In the vicinity of the Project site, Class II Bikeways exist along portions of Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard, Elm Avenue, Jensen Avenue and Church Avenue. The Fresno ATP recommends that a combination of Class I and Class II Bikeways be implemented adjacent to and in the vicinity of the Project site (City of Fresno 2016). Adjacent to the Project site, Class II Bikeways are recommended along West Avenue and Church Avenue. In the vicinity of the Project site, Class II Bikeways are recommended along West Avenue, Fruit Avenue, Walnut Avenue, Martin Luther King Jr., Church Avenue and Jensen Avenue. Class I Bikeways are recommended on portions of Church Avenue.
Therefore, it is recommended that the Project construct Class II Bikeways on its frontages to West Avenue and Church Avenue.
Walkways
The Fresno ATP classifies pedestrian facilities into sidewalks and Class I Bike Paths. Pedestrian sidewalks exist in the vicinity of the Project site. In the vicinity of the Project site, pedestrian sidewalks exist along portions of Fruit Avenue, Walnut Avenue, Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, Elm Avenue, Church Avenue and Jensen Avenue. The Fresno ATP recommends that pedestrian sidewalks be implemented in the vicinity of the Project site along West Avenue and the remainder of portions of Fruit Avenue, Walnut Avenue, Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Church Avenue. Therefore, it is recommended the Project construct sidewalks along its frontages to West Avenue and Church Avenue.
Transit
Fresno Area Express (FAX), is the transit operator in the City of Fresno. At present, there are two (2) FAX transit routes that operate in the vicinity of the proposed Project site, Routes 32 and 38. FAX Route 38, which runs on Church Avenue, operates at 15‐minute to hour long intervals on weekdays and weekends.
The nearest stop on this route to the Project site is located along the south side of Church Avenue approximately 80 feet east of Walnut Avenue. This route provides a direct connection to the downtown transit center, Kearney Palms Shopping Center, Edison High, Hinton Center, Fresno Interactive Media, Roosevelt High, McLane High, Betty Rodriguez Regional Library, Duncan Polytech High, Fresno State, West
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 19
(559) 570‐8991
Busseto Foods ‐ City of Fresno
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
June 10, 2021
Coast Bible College and River Park. FAX Route 32, which runs on Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard, operates at 15‐minute to hour long intervals on weekdays and weekends. The nearest stop on this route to the Project site is located along the west side of Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard approximately 80 feet north of Church Avenue. This route provides a direct connection to the downtown transit center, Kearney Palms Shopping Center, Chukchansi Park, Sequoia Health Clinic, Ivy Center, Community Regional Medical Center, Sequoia Health Center, San Joaquin Memorial High, VA Medical Center, Manchester Transit Center, San Joaquin Valley College, Kaiser Hospital and River Park. It is worth noting that retention of the existing and expansion of future transit routes is dependent on transit ridership demand and available funding.
Traffic Signal Warrants
Warrant 3 was prepared for the unsignalized intersections under the Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario. These warrants are contained in Appendix K. Under this scenario, no unsignalized study intersection is projected to satisfy Warrant 3. Based on the traffic signal warrants, operational analysis and engineering judgment, it is not recommended that the City consider implementing traffic signal controls at any of the unsignalized study intersections especially since these are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during both peak periods under stop sign control.
Results of Existing plus Project Level of Service Analysis The Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario assumes the existing roadway geometrics and traffic controls will remain in place. Figure 5 illustrates the Existing plus Project turning movement volumes, intersection geometrics and traffic controls. LOS worksheets for the Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario are provided in Appendix G. Table VI presents a summary of the Existing plus Project peak hour LOS at the study intersections.
Under this scenario, all study intersections are projected to continue operating at an acceptable LOS during both peak periods.
Table VI: Existing plus Project Intersection LOS Results ID Intersection Intersection Control
AM (7 ‐ 9) Peak Hour PM (4 ‐ 6) Peak Hour
Average Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Average Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
1 West Avenue / Church Avenue Two‐Way Stop 11.4 B 11.4 B 2 Fruit Avenue / Church Avenue All‐Way Stop 9.0 A 9.8 A 3 West Avenue / Jensen Avenue Two‐Way Stop 12.2 B 14.1 B 4 Fruit Avenue / Jensen Avenue Two‐Way Stop 16.1 C 22.4 C 5 Walnut Avenue / Jensen Avenue Two‐Way Stop 17.6 C 21.4 C 6 MLK Jr Boulevard / Jensen Avenue Traffic Signal 6.1 A 7.3 A 7 Elm Avenue / Jensen Avenue Traffic Signal 27.4 C 27.9 C Note: LOS = Level of Service based on average delay on signalized intersections and All‐Way STOP Controls LOS for two‐way and one‐way STOP controlled intersections are based on the worst approach/movement of the minor street.
004-129 - 06/01/21 - AB/CS
NNot To Scale
PHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: [email protected], www.JLBtraffic.com 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93704
Busseto TIA - City of FresnoProject Site PlanFigure 3
004-129 - 06/01/21 - AB/MMPHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: [email protected], www.JLBtraffic.com 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93704
Busseto TIA - City of FresnoProject Only TripsFigure 4
FRUIT AVE
ANNADALE AVE
1 2
3 4 5 6
NNot To Scale
LEGEND= STUDY INTERSECTION#
7 WEST AVE
WALNUT AVEJENSEN AVE
CHURCH AVE
CALIFORNIA AVEB STVENTURA ST
PROJECT SITE
THORNE AVE
= AM PROJECT ONLY TRIPS= PM PROJECT ONLY TRIPSXX(XX) MLK JR BLVD Jensen AveMLK Jr BlvdJensen AveMLK Jr Blvd &6.
3(0)
63(13)
0(3)11(47)
91(6)
23(4)Church AveWest AveChurch AveWest Ave &1. 8(76)1(28)1(12)38(3) 1(2)3(35)Jensen AveFruit AveJensen AveFruit Ave &4.
2(1)
37(5)30(8)
8(16)
Jensen AveWalnut AveJensen AveWalnut Ave &5. 66(13)
11(50)
35(5)Church AveFruit AveChurch AveFruit Ave &2.
39(6)
61(11)
4(37)12(65)7(40)
8(16)Jensen AveWest AveJensen AveWest Ave &3. 30(8)
Jensen AveElm AveJensen AveElm Ave &7. 61(12)
10(45)
ELM AVE
004-129 - 06/07/21 - AB/MMPHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: [email protected], www.JLBtraffic.com 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93704
Busseto TIA - City of FresnoExisting plus Project - Traffic Volumes, Geometrics and ControlsFigure 5
FRUIT AVE
ANNADALE AVE
1 2
3 4 5 6
LEGEND= STUDY INTERSECTION#
7 WEST AVE
WALNUT AVEJENSEN AVE
CHURCH AVE
CALIFORNIA AVEB ST
6(11)44(65)14(20)
56(132)
Jensen AveMLK Jr BlvdJensen AveMLK Jr Blvd &6.
51(83)30(25)
32(42)292(351)102(68)
33(26)293(397)4(17)
3(5)15(18)111(20)
26(11)Church AveWest AveChurch AveWest Ave &1.
14(16)5(1)
18(104)31(100)4(20)
3(4)96(69)1(1)
4(7)33(13)45(73)
5(29)Jensen AveFruit AveJensen AveFruit Ave &4.
20(30)5(11)
98(39)199(235)10(14)
6(10)190(293)13(20)
6(11)15(11)43(31)
6(7)Jensen AveWalnut AveJensen AveWalnut Ave &5.
15(20)3(7)
34(55)278(323)5(5)
5(2)274(399)8(12)
45(16)33(42)13(20)
1(4)Church AveFruit AveChurch AveFruit Ave &2.
39(65)81(18)
15(29)102(63)1(6)
28(55)72(133)20(59)
4(8)11(10)13(29)
1(6)Jensen AveWest AveJensen AveWest Ave &3.
6(12)0(2)
35(13)159(236)6(1)
3(2)198(282)3(4)
VENTURA ST
PROJECT SITE
28(53)90(89)85(119)
126(343)
Jensen AveElm AveJensen AveElm Ave &7.
55(154)38(77)
69(178)372(516)311(158)
25(20)443(597)41(76)
THORNE AVE
= AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS= PM PEAK HOUR TRIPSXX(XX)= STOP SIGN= TRAFFIC SIGNALMLK JR BLVD14(18)5(11)1(8)10(20) NNot To ScaleELM AVE
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 23
(559) 570‐8991
Busseto Foods ‐ City of Fresno
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
June 10, 2021
Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions
Description of Near Term Projects
Near Term Projects consist of developments that are either under construction, built but not fully occupied, are not built but have final site development review (SDR) approval, or for which the lead agency or responsible agencies have knowledge of. The City of Fresno, County of Fresno and Caltrans staff were consulted throughout the preparation of this TIA regarding Near Term Projects that could potentially impact the study intersections. JLB staff conducted a reconnaissance of the surrounding area to confirm the Near Term Projects. Therefore, the Near Term Projects listed in Table VII were within the proximity of the Project site.
Table VII: Near Term Projects’ Trip Generation
Near Term
Project ID
Near Term
Project Name
Daily
Trips
AM
Peak Hour
PM
Peak Hour
A BDM Builders¹ 10,432 727 833
B Church Avenue Apartments¹ 6,206 201 245
C Dorothy Avenue¹ 667 87 82
D FCC West Fresno Career Technical Center (portion of)³,4 6,044 357 576 E Malaga TIA¹ 4,640 603 568
F North and Orange Commercial Development¹ 4,418 402 293 G North Pointe (portion of)¹ 1,729 228 243
H Orange Industrial Park² 6,260 839 873
I RP East Industrial¹ 1,041 135 128
J Sikh Temple Expansion² 382 75 28
K 4780 S Maple Avenue Rezone¹ 1,036 150 145
Total Near Term Project Trips5 39,855 3,804 4,014
Note: 1 = Trip Generation prepared by JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. based on readily available information 2 = Trip Generation based on Precision Civil Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Report 3 = Trip Generation based on City of Fresno Traffic Impact Analysis Report 4 = Trip generation in the Cumulative Year 2035 Scenarios is 26,279 daily trips, 1,554 AM peak hour trips and 2,503 PM peak hour trips. 5 = Trip generation in the Cumulative Year 2035 Scenarios is 60,090 daily trips, 5,001 AM peak hour trips and 5,941 PM peak hour trips.
The trip generation listed in Table VII is that which is anticipated to be added to the streets and highways by Near Term Projects between the time of the preparation of this Report and five (5) years after buildout of the proposed Project. As shown in Table VII, the total trip generation for the Near Term Projects is 39,855 weekday daily trips, 3,804 weekday AM peak hour trips and 4,014 weekday PM peak hour trips.
Figure 6 illustrates the location of the Near Term Projects and their combined trip assignment to the study intersections under the Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario.
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 24
(559) 570‐8991
Busseto Foods ‐ City of Fresno
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
June 10, 2021
Traffic Signal Warrants
Warrant 3 was prepared for the unsignalized intersections under the Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario. These warrants are contained in Appendix K. Under this scenario, no unsignalized study intersection is projected to satisfy Warrant 3. Based on the traffic signal warrants, operational analysis and engineering judgment, it is not recommended that the City consider implementing traffic signal controls at any of the unsignalized study intersections especially since these are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during both peak periods under stop sign control.
Results of Near Term plus Project Level of Service Analysis The Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario assumes the existing roadway geometrics and traffic controls will remain in place. Figure 7 illustrates the Near Term plus Project turning movement volumes, intersection geometrics and traffic controls. LOS worksheets for the Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario are provided in Appendix H. Table VIII presents a summary of the Near Term plus Project peak hour LOS at the study intersections.
Under this scenario, all study intersections are projected to continue operating at an acceptable LOS during both peak periods.
Table VIII: Near Term plus Project Intersection LOS Results ID Intersection Intersection Control
AM (7 ‐ 9) Peak Hour PM (4 ‐ 6) Peak Hour
Average Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Average Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
1 West Avenue / Church Avenue Two‐Way Stop 12.8 B 12.9 B 2 Fruit Avenue / Church Avenue All‐Way Stop 9.5 A 10.8 B 3 West Avenue / Jensen Avenue Two‐Way Stop 13.6 B 17.0 C 4 Fruit Avenue / Jensen Avenue Two‐Way Stop 17.1 C 25.4 D 5 Walnut Avenue / Jensen Avenue Two‐Way Stop 20.1 C 26.9 D 6 MLK Jr Boulevard / Jensen Avenue Traffic Signal 6.5 A 8.0 A 7 Elm Avenue / Jensen Avenue Traffic Signal 29.2 C 31.3 C Note: LOS = Level of Service based on average delay on signalized intersections and All‐Way STOP Controls LOS for two‐way and one‐way STOP controlled intersections are based on the worst approach/movement of the minor street.
004-129 - 06/01/21 - AB/MMPHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: [email protected], www.JLBtraffic.com 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93704
Busseto TIA - City of FresnoNear Term Projects' Trip AssignmentFigure 6
FRUIT AVE
ANNADALE AVE
1 2
3 4 5 6
NNot To Scale
= STUDY INTERSECTION#
7 WEST AVE
WALNUT AVEJENSEN AVE
CHURCH AVE
CALIFORNIA AVEB STVENTURA ST
PROJECT SITE
THORNE AVE
MLK JR BLVD
12(15)10(11)29(42)
1(0)Jensen AveMLK Jr BlvdJensen AveMLK Jr Blvd &6.
8(25)3(5)
40(49)17(32)0(1)
1(2)24(16)4(9)
9(3)19(19)Church AveWest AveChurch AveWest Ave &1.
3(11)1(4)
10(21)13(31)
4(3)28(24)
2(3)Jensen AveFruit AveJensen AveFruit Ave &4. 14(24)2(2)22(24) 0(1)4(2)4(6)
7(7)Jensen AveWalnut AveJensen AveWalnut Ave &5.
1(3)0(3)
3(6)19(30)2(7)
3(0)29(32)
13(10)Church AveFruit AveChurch AveFruit Ave &2. 6(16)23(52) 46(39)
11(3)2(3)
1(2)Jensen AveWest AveJensen AveWest Ave &3.
3(13)7(50)
1(2)13(21)1(1)
47(6)19(19)61(17)24(18)
6(3)Jensen AveElm AveJensen AveElm Ave &7.
10(61)5(12)
9(24)55(76)3(5)
11(7)48(56)
ELM AVE
= AM NEAR TERM TRIPS= PM NEAR TERM TRIPSXX(XX)= NEAR TERM PROJECT LOCATION# A
B
C
D
E
F
GHIJ KLEGEND
004-129 - 06/01/21 - AB/MMPHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: [email protected], www.JLBtraffic.com 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93704
Busseto TIA - City of FresnoNear Term plus Project - Traffic Volumes, Geometrics and ControlsFigure 7
FRUIT AVE
ANNADALE AVE
1 2
3 4 5 6
NNot To Scale
LEGEND= STUDY INTERSECTION#
7 WEST AVE
WALNUT AVEJENSEN AVE
CHURCH AVE
CALIFORNIA AVEB STVENTURA ST
PROJECT SITE
THORNE AVE
MLK JR BLVD
18(26)54(76)43(62)
57(132)
Jensen AveMLK Jr BlvdJensen AveMLK Jr Blvd &6.
59(108)33(30)
72(91)309(383)102(69)
34(28)317(413)8(26)
3(5)24(21)130(39)
26(11)Church AveWest AveChurch AveWest Ave &1.
17(27)6(5)
28(125)44(131)4(20)
7(7)124(93)1(1)
4(7)33(13)45(73)
7(32)Jensen AveFruit AveJensen AveFruit Ave &4.
20(30)5(11)
98(39)213(259)12(16)
6(10)212(317)13(20)
6(12)19(13)47(37)
13(14)Jensen AveWalnut AveJensen AveWalnut Ave &5.
16(23)3(10)
37(61)297(353)7(12)
8(2)303(431)8(12)
45(16)33(42)26(30)
1(4)Church AveFruit AveChurch AveFruit Ave &2.
39(65)81(18)
21(45)125(115)1(6)
28(55)118(172)20(59)
4(8)22(13)15(32)
2(8)Jensen AveWest AveJensen AveWest Ave &3.
9(25)7(52)
36(15)172(257)7(2)
50(8)217(301)3(4)28(53)151(106)109(137)
132(346)
Jensen AveElm AveJensen AveElm Ave &7.
65(215)43(89)
78(202)427(592)314(163)
36(27)491(653)41(76)
ELM AVE
= AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS= PM PEAK HOUR TRIPSXX(XX)= STOP SIGN= TRAFFIC SIGNAL14(18)5(11)1(8)10(20)
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 27
(559) 570‐8991
Busseto Foods ‐ City of Fresno
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
June 10, 2021
Cumulative Year 2035 No Project Traffic Conditions
Traffic Signal Warrants
Warrant 3 was prepared for the unsignalized intersections under the Cumulative Year 2035 No Project Traffic Conditions scenario. These warrants are contained in Appendix K. The effects of right‐turning traffic from the minor approach onto the major approach were taken into account using engineering judgment pursuant to CA MUTCD guidelines for the preparation of traffic signal warrants. Under this scenario, the intersection of Walnut Avenue and Jensen Avenue satisfies Warrant 3 during the PM Peak Period only.
Based on the signal warrants, the intersection operational analysis and engineering judgment, signalization of this intersection is recommended.
Results of Cumulative Year 2035 No Project Level of Service Analysis The Cumulative Year 2035 No Project Traffic Conditions scenario, the existing roadway geometrics and traffic controls will remain in place. Figure 8 illustrates the Cumulative Year 2035 No Project turning movement volumes, intersection geometrics and traffic controls. LOS worksheets for the Cumulative Year 2035 No Project Traffic Conditions scenario are provided in Appendix I. Table IX presents a summary of the Cumulative Year 2035 No Project peak hour LOS at the study intersections.
Under this scenario, the intersection of Walnut Avenue and Jensen Avenue is projected to exceed its LOS threshold during the PM peak period. To improve the LOS at this intersection, it is recommended that the following improvements be considered for implementation. Walnut Avenue / Jensen Avenue
o Add an eastbound left‐turn lane;
o Modify the eastbound left‐through‐right lane to a through‐right lane; o Add a westbound left‐turn lane;
o Modify the westbound left‐through‐right lane to a through‐right lane; o Add a northbound left‐turn lane;
o Modify the northbound left‐through‐right lane to a through‐right lane; o Add a southbound left‐turn lane;
o Modify the southbound left‐through‐right lane to a through‐right lane; and o Signalize the intersection with protective left‐turn phasing in all directions.
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 28
(559) 570‐8991
Busseto Foods ‐ City of Fresno
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
June 10, 2021
Table IX: Cumulative Year 2035 No Project Intersection LOS Results ID Intersection Intersection Control
AM (7 ‐ 9) Peak Hour PM (4 ‐ 6) Peak Hour
Average Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Average Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
1 West Avenue / Church Avenue Two‐Way Stop 21.7 C 20.6 C 2 Fruit Avenue / Church Avenue All‐Way Stop 10.7 B 11.9 B 3 West Avenue / Jensen Avenue Two‐Way Stop 18.6 C 27.2 D 4 Fruit Avenue / Jensen Avenue Two‐Way Stop 22.1 C 34.0 D 5 Walnut Avenue / Jensen Avenue
Two‐Way Stop 24.3 C 50.5 F
Traffic Signal (Improved) 15.7 B 16.0 B
6 MLK Jr Boulevard / Jensen Avenue Traffic Signal 8.3 A 11.8 B 7 Elm Avenue / Jensen Avenue Traffic Signal 28.6 C 36.6 D Note: LOS = Level of Service based on average delay on signalized intersections and All‐Way STOP Controls.
LOS for two‐way STOP controlled intersections are based on the worst approach/movement of the minor street
004-129 - 06/01/21 - ABPHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: [email protected], www.JLBtraffic.com 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93704
Busseto TIA - City of FresnoCumulative Year 2035 No Projects - Traffic Volumes, Geometrics and ControlsFigure 8
FRUIT AVE
ANNADALE AVE
1 2
3 4 5 6
NNot To Scale
LEGEND= STUDY INTERSECTION#
7 WEST AVE
WALNUT AVEJENSEN AVE
CHURCH AVE
CALIFORNIA AVEB STVENTURA ST
PROJECT SITE
THORNE AVE
MLK JR BLVD
45(71)72(108)130(199)
57(135)
Jensen AveMLK Jr BlvdJensen AveMLK Jr Blvd &6.
83(174)35(47)
201(244)278(408)104(69)
62(30)364(418)27(47)
28(70)130(83)75(63)
3(9)Church AveWest AveChurch AveWest Ave &1.
77(109)12(13)
70(95)100(193)8(8)
44(18)158(183)46(13)
4(7)32(37)42(38)
39(90)Jensen AveFruit AveJensen AveFruit Ave &4.
86(29)5(11)
61(34)206(289)36(50)
23(10)242(354)13(20)
8(16)22(27)59(59)
73(32)Jensen AveWalnut AveJensen AveWalnut Ave &5.
38(33)7(10)
46(81)257(382)10(35)
8(4)337(445)8(12)
10(17)35(59)62(60)
1(4)Church AveFruit AveChurch AveFruit Ave &2.
52(65)58(19)
33(90)102(240)1(10)
27(18)215(198)53(19)
37(23)100(53)37(27)
5(13)Jensen AveWest AveJensen AveWest Ave &3.
36(68)7(52)
11(20)190(288)9(6)
50(8)246(338)18(22)35(62)151(106)109(137)
140(348)
Jensen AveElm AveJensen AveElm Ave &7.
65(215)50(94)
78(202)521(767)321(163)
39(35)580(761)42(124)
ELM AVE
= AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS= PM PEAK HOUR TRIPSXX(XX)= STOP SIGN= TRAFFIC SIGNAL14(18)5(11)1(8)10(20)
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 30
(559) 570‐8991
Busseto Foods ‐ City of Fresno
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
June 10, 2021
Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Traffic Conditions
Traffic Signal Warrants
Warrant 3 was prepared for the unsignalized intersections under the Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario. These warrants are contained in Appendix K. The effects of right‐turning traffic from the minor approach onto the major approach were taken into account using engineering judgment pursuant to CA MUTCD guidelines for the preparation of traffic signal warrants. Under this scenario, the intersections of West Avenue and Church Avenue, Fruit Avenue and Jensen Avenue and Walnut Avenue and Jensen Avenue satisfy Warrant 3 during the one or both peak periods. Based on the signal warrants, the intersection operational analysis and engineering judgment, it is recommended that the intersections of Fruit Avenue and Jensen Avenue and Walnut Avenue and Jensen Avenue be signalized. It is not recommended that the intersection of West Avenue and Church Avenue be signalized because this intersection can operate at an acceptable LOS with minor improvements to lane geometrics.
Results of Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Level of Service Analysis The Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario the existing roadway geometrics and traffic controls will remain in place. Figure 9 illustrates the Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project turning movement volumes, intersection geometrics and traffic controls. LOS worksheets for the Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario are provided in Appendix J. Table X presents a summary of the Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project peak hour LOS at the study intersections.
Under this scenario, the intersections of West Avenue and Church Avenue, Fruit Avenue and Jensen Avenue and Walnut and Jensen Avenue are projected to exceed their LOS threshold during one or both peak periods. To improve the LOS at these intersections, it is recommended that the following improvements be considered for implementation.
West Avenue / Church Avenue
o Add a northbound left‐turn lane.
o Modify the northbound left‐through‐right lane to a through‐right lane; o Add a southbound left‐turn lane; and
o Modify the southbound left‐through‐right lane to a through‐right lane. Fruit Avenue / Jensen Avenue
o Add an eastbound left‐turn lane;
o Modify the eastbound left‐through‐right lane to a through‐right lane; o Add a westbound left‐turn lane;
o Modify the westbound left‐through‐right lane to a through‐right lane; o Add a northbound left‐turn lane;
o Modify the northbound left‐through‐right lane to a through‐right lane; o Add a southbound left‐turn lane;
o Modify the southbound left‐through‐right lane to a through‐right lane; and o Signalize the intersection with protective left‐turn phasing in all directions. Walnut Avenue / Jensen Avenue
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 31
(559) 570‐8991
Busseto Foods ‐ City of Fresno
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
June 10, 2021
o Add an eastbound left‐turn lane;
o Modify the eastbound left‐through‐right lane to a through‐right lane; o Add a westbound left‐turn lane;
o Modify the westbound left‐through‐right lane to a through‐right lane; o Add a northbound left‐turn lane;
o Modify the northbound left‐through‐right lane to a through‐right lane; o Add a southbound left‐turn lane;
o Modify the southbound left‐through‐right lane to a through‐right lane; and o Signalize the intersection with protective left‐turn phasing in all directions.
Table X: Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Intersection LOS Results ID Intersection Intersection Control
AM (7 ‐ 9) Peak Hour PM (4 ‐ 6) Peak Hour
Average Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Average Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
1 West Avenue / Church Avenue Two‐Way Stop 54.0 F 29.4 D Two‐Way Stop (Improved) 21.7 C 20.4 C
2 Fruit Avenue / Church Avenue All‐Way Stop 12.4 B 14.9 B 3 West Avenue / Jensen Avenue Two‐Way Stop 19.9 C 27.6 D 4 Fruit Avenue / Jensen Avenue Two‐Way Stop 26.3 D 60.2 F Traffic Signal (Improved) 16.5 B 18.1 B
5 Walnut Avenue / Jensen Avenue Two‐Way Stop 29.0 D 64.4 F Traffic Signal (Improved) 16.0 B 16.3 B
6 MLK Jr Boulevard / Jensen Avenue Traffic Signal 8.4 A 12.0 B 7 Elm Avenue / Jensen Avenue Traffic Signal 28.4 C 37.1 D Note: LOS = Level of Service based on average delay on signalized intersections and All‐Way STOP Controls.
LOS for two‐way STOP controlled intersections are based on the worst approach/movement of the minor street.
Project Only Trip Assignment to State Facilities
Figure 10 illustrates the Project Only Trips to the State Route 41 at Jensen Avenue interchange. Similarly, Figure 11 illustrates the Project Only Trips to the State Route 99 at Jensen Avenue interchange. Similarly, Figure 12 illustrates the Project Only Trips to the State Route 180 at Marks Avenue interchange. 004-129 - 06/01/21 - ABPHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: [email protected], www.JLBtraffic.com 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93704
Busseto TIA - City of FresnoCumulative Year 2035 plus Projects - Traffic Volumes, Geometrics and ControlsFigure 9
FRUIT AVE
ANNADALE AVE
1 2
3 4 5 6
NNot To Scale
LEGEND= STUDY INTERSECTION#
7 WEST AVE
WALNUT AVEJENSEN AVE
CHURCH AVE
CALIFORNIA AVEB STVENTURA ST
PROJECT SITE
THORNE AVE
MLK JR BLVD
45(71)72(108)130(199)
57(135)
Jensen AveMLK Jr BlvdJensen AveMLK Jr Blvd &6.
83(174)38(47)
201(244)341(421)104(69)
62(33)375(465)27(47)
28(70)130(83)166(69)
26(13)Church AveWest AveChurch AveWest Ave &1.
77(109)12(13)
78(171)101(221)9(20)
44(18)196(186)46(13)
4(7)33(39)45(73)
39(90)Jensen AveFruit AveJensen AveFruit Ave &4.
88(30)5(11)
98(39)236(297)36(50)
23(10)250(370)13(20)
8(16)22(27)59(59)
73(32)Jensen AveWalnut AveJensen AveWalnut Ave &5.
38(33)7(10)
46(81)323(395)10(35)
8(4)348(495)8(12)
45(22)35(59)62(60)
1(4)Church AveFruit AveChurch AveFruit Ave &2.
52(65)97(25)
33(90)163(251)1(10)
31(55)227(263)60(59)
37(23)100(53)45(43)
5(13)Jensen AveWest AveJensen AveWest Ave &3.
36(68)7(52)
41(28)190(288)9(6)
50(8)246(338)18(22)35(62)151(106)109(137)
140(348)
Jensen AveElm AveJensen AveElm Ave &7.
65(215)50(94)
78(202)582(779)321(163)
39(35)590(806)42(124)
ELM AVE
= AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS= PM PEAK HOUR TRIPSXX(XX)= STOP SIGN= TRAFFIC SIGNAL14(18)5(11)1(8)10(20) 004-129 - 06/01/21 - ABPHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: [email protected], www.JLBtraffic.com 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93704
Busseto TIA - City of FresnoState Route 41 and Jensen Avenue - Project Only TripsFigure 10 NNot To Scale
LEGEND
JENSEN AVE
ELM AVE
CHERRY AVE
= PM PROJECT ONLY TRIPS= AM PROJECT ONLY TRIPSXX(XX)
37(5)3(21)
0(0)0(0)
0(0)3(21)1(13)
30(3)1(13)
30(3)
0(0)
0(0)
1(13)0(0)0(0)0(0)0(0)
7(2) 7(2)2(8)
004-129 - 06/01/21 - ABPHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: [email protected], www.JLBtraffic.com 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93704
Busseto TIA - City of FresnoState Route 99 and Jensen Avenue - Project Only TripsFigure 11 NNot To Scale
LEGEND
GOLDEN STATE BLVD
JENSEN AVE
EAST AVE
= PM PROJECT ONLY TRIPS= AM PROJECT ONLY TRIPSXX(XX)
5(1)2(6)
5(1)
EAST AVE
1(6)
0(0)1(0)0(0)
0(0)1(0)5(1)
0(0)0(0)
0(0)0(0)0(0)0(0)
0(0)0(0)1(6)5(1)
004-129 - 06/01/21 - ABPHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: [email protected], www.JLBtraffic.com 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93704
Busseto TIA - City of FresnoState Route 180 and Marks Avenue - Project Only TripsFigure 12 NNot To Scale
LEGEND
JENSEN AVE
MARKS AVE
= PM PROJECT ONLY TRIPS= AM PROJECT ONLY TRIPSXX(XX)
0(0)0(0)
42(2)0(12)
0(0)0(0) 37(1)0(9)0(0)0(0)0(0)0(0) 37(1)0(9)0(0)
0(0)
5(1)0(3)42(2)
0(3)
0(0)0(0) 0(11)26(0)16(2)0(1)
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 36
(559) 570‐8991
Busseto Foods ‐ City of Fresno
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
June 10, 2021
Queuing Analysis
Table XI provides a queue length summary for left‐turn and right‐turn lanes at the study intersections under all study scenarios. The queuing analyses for the study intersections are contained in the LOS worksheets for the respective scenarios. Appendix D contains the methodologies used to evaluate these intersections. Queuing analyses were completed using SimTraffic output information. Synchro provides both 50th and 95th percentile maximum queue lengths (in feet). According to the Synchro manual, “the 50th percentile maximum queue is the maximum back of queue on a typical cycle and the 95th percentile queue is the maximum back of queue with 95th percentile volumes” (Synchro Studio 10 User Guide 2017).
The queues shown in Table XI are the 95th percentile queue lengths for the respective lane movements.
The California Highway Design Manual (CA HDM) provides guidance for determining deceleration lengths for the left‐turn and right‐turn lanes based on design speeds. According to the CA HDM, tapers for right‐ turn lanes are “usually unnecessary since main line traffic need not be shifted laterally to provide space for the right‐turn lane. If, in some rare instances, a lateral shift were needed, the approach taper would use the same formula as for a left‐turn lane” (Caltrans 2019). Therefore, a bay taper length pursuant to the CA HDM would need to be added, as necessary, to the recommended storage lengths presented in Table XI.
The storage capacity for the Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Traffic Conditions shall be based on the SimTraffic output files and engineering judgment. The values in bold presented in Table XI are the projected queue lengths that will likely need to be accommodated by the Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario. At the remaining approaches of the study intersections, the existing storage capacity will be sufficient to accommodate the maximum queue. For the intersection of Elm Avenue and Jensen Avenue, the westbound left‐turn movement is projected to experience a queuing issue by the Cumulative Year 2035. This storage can be extended to approximately 325 feet; however, an existing left‐turn pocket east of this intersection does not allow for this left‐turn pocket to be expanded to be any longer.
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 37
(559) 570‐8991
Busseto Foods ‐ City of Fresno
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
June 10, 2021
Table XI: Queuing Analysis
ID Intersection Existing Queue
Storage Length (ft.)
Existing Existing plus
Project
Near Term
plus Project
Cumulative
Year 2035 No
Project
Cumulative
Year 2035 plus
Project
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1 West Avenue
/
Church Avenue
EB LTR >500 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 22 50 26
WB LTR >500 0 0 6 12 0 7 10 15 16 30
NB L 250 * * * * * * * * 26 20
NB TR >500 * * * * * * * * 58 100
NB LTR >500 38 49 43 43 41 57 54 71 * *
SB L 250 * * * * * * * * 95 55
SB TR >500 * * * * * * * * 74 60
SB LTR >500 40 39 50 42 49 51 101 78 * *
2 Fruit Avenue
/
Church Avenue
EB LTR >500 67 65 80 84 71 79 95 75 110 124
WB LTR >500 54 47 73 53 72 68 63 93 91 123
NB LT >500 67 50 60 54 71 46 68 59 80 54
NB R >500 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0
SB LTR >500 57 49 65 65 61 37 69 58 67 56
3 West Avenue
/
Jensen Avenue
EB LTR >500 0 0 8 0 0 12 23 38 15 29
WB LTR >500 0 0 0 0 12 0 12 23 8 17
NB LTR >500 27 47 14 45 36 61 50 95 40 83
SB LTR >500 37 40 37 50 41 44 71 68 65 70
4 Fruit Avenue
/
Jensen Avenue
EB L 250 * * * * * * * * 41 48
EB TR >500 * * * * * * * * 155 193
EB LTR >500 38 22 19 32 31 43 9 17 * *
WB L 250 * * * * * * * * 74 93
WB TR >500 * * * * * * * * 236 187
WB LTR >500 9 24 48 9 19 46 46 70 * *
NB L 250 * * * * * * * * 21 36
NB TR >500 * * * * * * * * 99 102
NB LTR >500 47 52 52 52 46 53 79 71 * *
SB L 250 * * * * * * * * 72 94
SB TR >500 * * * * * * * * 43 48
SB LTR >500 63 52 75 81 74 85 64 85 * *
Note: * = Does not exist or is not projected to exist
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 38
(559) 570‐8991
Busseto Foods ‐ City of Fresno
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
June 10, 2021
Table XI: Queuing Analysis (continued)
ID Intersection Existing Queue
Storage Length (ft.)
Existing Existing plus
Project
Near Term
plus Project
Cumulative
Year 2035 No
Project
Cumulative
Year 2035 plus
Project
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
5 Walnut Avenue
/
Jensen Avenue
EB L 250 * * * * * * 41 34 44 22
EB TR >500 * * * * * * 186 195 180 259
EB LTR >500 32 12 0 47 24 12 * * * *
WB L 250 * * * * * * 30 57 35 70
WB TR >500 * * * * * * 147 239 226 195
WB LTR >500 19 9 45 10 18 10 * * * *
NB L 250 * * * * * * 26 30 18 16
NB TR >500 * * * * * * 68 58 83 48
NB LTR >500 38 39 39 42 44 46 * * * *
SB L 250 * * * * * * 56 82 62 79
SB TR >500 * * * * * * 43 57 39 60
SB LTR >500 47 57 62 63 57 89 * * * *
6 MLK Jr Boulevard
/
Jensen Avenue
EB L 220 14 36 21 32 35 67 45 90 49 69
EB T >500 85 93 86 126 93 107 108 102 120 129 EB TR >500 75 110 73 116 105 117 124 124 109 145 WB L 215 83 79 94 75 105 96 98 107 165 104
WB T >500 166 204 143 178 147 197 163 215 263 226 WB TR >500 34 123 38 87 78 85 117 153 132 177 NB L 75 44 47 44 46 36 51 50 54 57 75
NB TR >500 75 113 73 99 76 112 88 147 94 156 SB L 100 28 42 23 30 55 70 118 144 94 140
SB TR >500 53 70 51 65 52 72 83 111 100 108
7 Elm Avenue
/
Jensen Avenue
EB UL 205 93 134 68 125 88 130 86 154 77 198 EB T >500 168 240 183 216 203 214 247 236 224 262 EB TR >500 162 241 184 214 236 236 265 266 248 301 WB UL 240 282 223 306 222 427 219 367 215 295 294 WB T >500 185 208 138 195 649 237 325 330 242 358 WB TR >500 112 230 134 241 545 265 169 379 221 369 NB UL 250 91 117 89 190 110 113 102 169 109 140 NB T >500 87 122 72 107 79 138 78 125 76 174 NB TR >500 102 219 105 222 146 223 121 223 154 232 SB UL 230 113 170 110 170 115 193 203 243 143 218 SB T >500 55 64 59 73 84 69 87 72 84 74
SB TR >500 59 65 70 108 88 84 83 87 102 87
Note: * = Does not exist or is not projected to exist
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 39
(559) 570‐8991
Busseto Foods ‐ City of Fresno
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
June 10, 2021
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions and recommendations regarding the proposed Project are presented below.
Existing Traffic Conditions
JLB conducted a search of the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) to obtain collision reports for the most recent five‐year period. Based on a review of the collision reports, a total of twenty‐four (24) collisions were reported within the influence zone of the study intersections. In the year 2019 the intersection of Walnut Avenue and Jensen Avenue experienced four (4) accidents. Of these accidents, two (2) were considered correctable by a change in traffic control. At present, all study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS during both peak periods.
Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions
The Project proposes to have two (2) access points along the east side of West Avenue and two (2) access points along the south side of Church Avenue.
JLB analyzed the location of the existing and proposed roadways and access points and noticed that one access point is planned across the street from an existing access point. However, the relatively low volumes allow drivers of both driveways to access the road safely. At buildout, the proposed Project is estimated to generate a maximum of 2,368 daily trips, 334 AM peak hour trips and 301 PM peak hour trips.
It is recommended that the Project implement Class II Bikeways along its frontages to West Avenue and Church Avenue.
It is recommended that the Project implement ADA compliant sidewalks along its frontages to West Avenue and Church Avenue.
Under this scenario, all study intersections are projected to continue operating at an acceptable LOS during both peak periods.
Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions
The total trip generation for the Near Term Projects is 39,855 weekday daily trips, 3,804 weekday AM peak hour trips and 4,014 weekday PM peak hour trips.
Under this scenario, all study intersections are projected to continue operating at an acceptable LOS during both peak periods.
Cumulative Year 2035 No Project Traffic Conditions
Under this scenario, the intersection of Walnut Avenue and Jensen Avenue is projected to exceed its LOS threshold during the PM peak period. To improve the LOS at this intersection, it is recommended that the following improvements be considered for implementation. o Walnut Avenue / Jensen Avenue
Add an eastbound left‐turn lane;
Modify the eastbound left‐through‐right lane to a through‐right lane; Add a westbound left‐turn lane;
Modify the westbound left‐through‐right lane to a through‐right lane; Add a northbound left‐turn lane;
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 40
(559) 570‐8991
Busseto Foods ‐ City of Fresno
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
June 10, 2021
Modify the northbound left‐through‐right lane to a through‐right lane; Add a southbound left‐turn lane;
Modify the southbound left‐through‐right lane to a through‐right lane; and Signalize the intersection with protective left‐turn phasing in all directions.
Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Traffic Conditions
Under this scenario, the intersections of West Avenue and Church Avenue, Fruit Avenue and Jensen Avenue and Walnut Avenue and Jensen Avenue are projected to exceed their LOS thresholds during one or both peak periods. To improve the LOS at these intersections, it is recommended that the following improvements be considered for implementation. o West Avenue / Church Avenue
Add a northbound left‐turn lane;
Modify the northbound left‐through‐right lane to a through‐right lane; Add a southbound left‐turn lane; and
Modify the southbound left‐through‐right lane to a through‐right lane. o Fruit Avenue / Jensen Avenue
Add an eastbound left‐turn lane;
Modify the eastbound left‐through‐right lane to a through‐right lane; Add a westbound left‐turn lane;
Modify the westbound left‐through‐right lane to a through‐right lane; Add a northbound left‐turn lane;
Modify the northbound left‐through‐right lane to a through‐right lane; Add a southbound left‐turn lane;
Modify the southbound left‐through‐right lane to a through‐right lane; and Signalize the intersection with protective left‐turn phasing in all directions. o Walnut Avenue / Jensen Avenue
Add an eastbound left‐turn lane;
Modify the eastbound left‐through‐right lane to a through‐right lane; Add a westbound left‐turn lane;
Modify the westbound left‐through‐right lane to a through‐right lane; Add a northbound left‐turn lane;
Modify the northbound left‐through‐right lane to a through‐right lane; Add a southbound left‐turn lane;
Modify the southbound left‐through‐right lane to a through‐right lane; and Signalize the intersection with protective left‐turn phasing in all directions.
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 41
(559) 570‐8991
Busseto Foods ‐ City of Fresno
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
June 10, 2021
Study Participants
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. Personnel:
Jose Luis Benavides, PE, TE Project Manager
Susana Maciel, EIT Project Engineer
Matthew Arndt, EIT Engineer I/II
Jove Alcazar, EIT Engineer I/II
Jesus Garcia Engineer I/II
Dennis Wynn Sr. Engineering Technician
Adrian Benavides Engineering Aide
Christian Sanchez Engineering Aide
Persons Consulted:
Michael Grazier Busseto Foods
Jill
Gormley City of Fresno
Harmanjit Dhaliwal City of Fresno
Gloria Hensley Fresno County
Brian Spaunhurst Fresno County
David Padilla Caltrans
Christopher Nicholas Caltrans
Jamaica Gentry Caltrans
Kai Han Fresno COG
Santosh Bhattarai Fresno COG
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 42
(559) 570‐8991
Busseto Foods ‐ City of Fresno
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
June 10, 2021
References
Caltrans. 2002. "Guide for The Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies". State of California.
Caltrans. 2019. "Highway Design Manual". Sacramento: State of California.
Caltrans. 2020. "California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices". Sacramento: State of California.
City of Fresno. 2009. "Traffic Impact Study Guidelines". Fresno: City of Fresno.
City of Fresno. 2014. "Fresno General Plan". Fresno: City of Fresno.
City of Fresno. 2016. "City of Fresno Active Transportation Plan". Fresno: City of Fresno.
City of Fresno. 2020. "CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds". Fresno: City of Fresno.
County of Fresno. 2014. "Guidelines for The Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies Within the County of Fresno". Fresno: County of Fresno.
"Department of Transportation | FAX". 2021. Fresno.Gov. https://www.fresno.gov/transportation/fax/.
Fresno County. 2000. "Fresno County General Plan". Fresno: Fresno County.
Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2017. "Trip Generation Manual". Washington: Institute of Transportation Engineers.
Synchro Studio 10 User Guide. 2017. Sugar Land: Trafficware, LLC.
Transportation Research Board. 2016. "Highway Capacity Manual". Washington: The National Academy of Sciences.
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | A
(559) 570-8991
Appendix A: Scope of Work
www.JLBtraffic.com
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 1
[email protected] (559) 570‐8991
September 11, 2020
Mr. Harmanjit Dhaliwal, P.E.
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721‐3616
Via Email Only: [email protected]
Subject: Proposed Scope of Work for the Preparation of a Traffic Impact Analysis for the Busseto Foods Project in the City of Fresno (JLB Project 004‐129) Dear Mr. Dhaliwal,
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. (JLB) hereby submits this Draft Scope of Work for the preparation of a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the Busseto Foods (Project) located at the south east corner of Church Avenue and West Avenue in the City of Fresno. The Project proposes to develop a 477,470 square foot food processing plant on 18.89 acres. Based on information provided to JLB, the Project will undergo a General Plan Amendment and Rezone through the City of Fresno to change the land use designation from Medium Density Residential to General Light Industrial. An aerial of the Project vicinity and Project Site Plan are shown in Exhibits A and Exhibit B, respectively.
The purpose of the TIA is to evaluate the potential on‐site and off‐site traffic impacts, identify short‐ term roadway and circulation needs, conduct a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis, determine potential mitigation measures and identify any critical traffic issues that should be addressed in the on‐ going planning process. To evaluate the on‐site and off‐site traffic impacts of the proposed Project, JLB proposes the following Scope of Work.
Scope of Work
JLB will request a Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG) traffic forecast model run for the Project (Select Zone Analysis) which will include the Project and the streets to be analyzed. The Fresno COG traffic forecasting model will be used to forecast traffic volumes for the Base Year 2020 and Cumulative Year 2035 scenarios.
JLB proposes to utilize a combination of historical counts as the collection of new traffic counts may not be reflective of the typical travel demands. These counts will include pedestrians and vehicles. JLB will perform a site visit to observe existing traffic conditions, especially during the AM and PM peak hours. Existing roadway conditions including intersection geometrics and traffic controls will be verified.
JLB will evaluate on‐site circulation and provide recommendations as necessary to improve circulation to and within the Project site.
JLB will prepare California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) Warrant 1 “8‐ hour” and Warrant 2 “4‐hour” for existing unsignalized study intersections under the Existing scenario.
www.JLBtraffic.com
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 2
[email protected] (559) 570‐8991
Mr. Dhaliwal
Busseto Foods TIA ‐ Draft Scope of Work
September 11, 2020
JLB will prepare CA MUTCD Warrant 3 “Peak Hour” for unsignalized study intersections under all study scenarios.
JLB will qualitatively analyze existing and planned transit routes in the vicinity of the Project. JLB will qualitatively analyze existing and planned bikeways in the vicinity of the Project. JLB will forecast trip distribution based on turn count information and knowledge of the existing and planned circulation network in the vicinity of the Project. JLB will prepare the Project’s trip distribution from the Fresno COG modeling (Select Zone will be included for the area bounded by Marks Avenue to the west, North Avenue to the south, SR 99 to the east, and SR 180 to the north.
JLB will evaluate existing and forecasted levels of service (LOS) at the study intersection(s). JLB will use HCM 6th or HCM 2000 methodologies (as appropriate) within Synchro to perform this analysis for the AM and PM peak hours. JLB will identify the causes of poor LOS. JLB will prepare a five‐year collision analysis based on the Statewide Integrated Traffic Reporting System (SWITRS) database for all existing study facilities. JLB will prepare the Project's Vehicles Miles Travelled (VMT) based on output from the Fresno COG ABM Model and the City’s VMT guidelines.
Study Scenarios
1. Existing Traffic Conditions with needed improvements (if any);
2. Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions with proposed improvement measures (if any);
3. Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions with proposed improvement measures (if any);
4. Cumulative Year 2035 No Project Traffic Conditions with proposed improvements (if any); and
5. Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Traffic Conditions with proposed improvement measures (if any).
Weekday peak hours to be analyzed (Tuesday through Thursday only)
1. 7 ‐ 9 AM peak hour
2. 4 ‐ 6 PM peak hour
Study Intersections
1. Marks Avenue / Church Avenue
2. Hughes Avenue / Church Avenue
3. West Avenue / Church Avenue
4. West Avenue / Jensen Avenue
5. Fruit Avenue / Jensen Avenue
6. Walnut Avenue / Jensen Avenue
7. Martin Luther King Boulevard / Jensen Avenue
Queuing analysis is included in the proposed Scope of Work for the study intersection(s) listed above under all study scenarios. This analysis will be utilized to recommend minimum storage lengths for left‐ turn and right‐turn lanes at all study intersections.
Study Segments
1. none
www.JLBtraffic.com
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 3
[email protected] (559) 570‐8991
Mr. Dhaliwal
Busseto Foods TIA ‐ Draft Scope of Work
September 11, 2020
Project Only Trip Assignment to State Facilities
1. State Route 41 / Jensen Avenue
2. State Route 99 / Jensen Avenue
3. State Route 180 / Marks Avenue
Project Trip Generation
The trip generation rates for the proposed Project were obtained from the 10th Edition of the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Table I presents the trip generation for the proposed Project with trip generation rates for General Light Industrial. The Project will consist of various shifts for a combined maximum of 160 full‐time employees and an additional 20 to 50 part‐time employees during peak season demand (Sep‐Dec).
For purposes of this TIA, a maximum 210 (160 full time and 50 part time) employees is used to determine the project’s maximum trip generation. At buildout, the proposed Project is estimated to generate a maximum of 641 daily trips, 109 AM peak hour trips, and 103 PM peak hour trips. Table II presents the trip generation of that which could otherwise be developed for the Existing Land Use with trip generation rates for Single‐Family Detached Housing. The Existing General Plan land use is anticipated to generate a maximum of 1,510 daily trips, 118 AM peak hour trips, and 158 PM peak hour trips. Compared to the Existing General Plan land use, the proposed Project is estimated to yield a lower trip generation by 869 daily trips, 9 AM peak hour trips, and 55 PM peak hour trips. The difference in trip generation between the proposed Project and the Existing Land Use is summarized in Table III.
Table I: Project Trip Generation
Note: emp. = Employees
Table II: Existing General Plan Trip Generation
Note: d.u. = Dwelling Units
Land Use (ITE Code) Size Unit
Daily AM (7‐9) Peak Hour PM (4‐6) Peak Hour
Rate Total Trip
Rate
In Out
In Out Total Trip
Rate
In Out
In Out Total
% %
General Light Industrial (110) 210 emp. 3.05 641 0.52 83 17 90 19 109 0.49 22 78 23 80 103 Total Project Trips 641 90 19 109 23 80 103 Land Use (ITE Code) Size Unit
Daily AM (7‐9) Peak Hour PM (4‐6) Peak Hour
Rate Total Trip
Rate
In Out
In Out Total Trip
Rate
In Out
In Out Total
% %
Single‐Family Detached Housing
(210) 160 d.u. 9.44 1,510 0.74 25 75 29 89 118 0.99 63 37 100 58 158 Total Project Trips 1,510 29 89 118 100 58 158
www.JLBtraffic.com
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 4
[email protected] (559) 570‐8991
Mr. Dhaliwal
Busseto Foods TIA ‐ Draft Scope of Work
September 11, 2020
Table III: Difference in Trip Generation
Daily AM (7‐9) Peak Hour PM (4‐6) Peak Hour
Total In Out Total In Out Total
Project 641 90 19 109 23 80 103
Existing General Plan 1,510 29 89 118 100 58 158 Difference in Trip
Generation ‐869 61 ‐ 70 ‐ 9 ‐ 77 22 ‐ 55
Access to the Project
Access to and from the Project site will predominantly be from three (3) access points. One access point will be along the east side of West Avenue approximately 325 feet south of Church Avenue and is proposed as a full access point for trucks. The second access point will be along the south side of Church Avenue approximately 320 feet east of West Avenue and is proposed as a full access point for non‐trucks. The third access point will be along the south side of Church Avenue approximately 955 feet east of West Avenue and is proposed as a full access point for non‐trucks. Additional Project details can be found on Exhibit B.
Near Term Projects to be Included
Based on our local knowledge of the study area and consulting with City of Fresno Planning & Development staff, JLB proposes to include near term projects in the vicinity of the proposed Project under the Near Term plus Project scenario. The near term projects proposed to be included in the Near Term scenario are:
Project Name General Location
1. G3 Development (Ulta) (Portion of) NWQ East Avenue and Central Avenue
2. TPM 2012‐06 (Amazon) (Portion of) NWQ Orange Avenue and Central Avenue
3. Orange Industrial Park NEQ Orange Avenue and Central Avenue
4. North Pointe (Portion of) SWC Orange Avenue and North Avenue
5. Commercial Development NEC Orange Avenue and North Avenue
6. RP East Industrial NEQ East Avenue and Central Avenue
Other Near Term Projects the City, County or Caltrans has knowledge and for which it is anticipated that said project(s) is/are projected to be whole or partially built by the Near Term Project Year 2025. City, County and Caltrans as appropriate would provide JLB with project details such as a project description, location, proposed land uses with breakdowns and type of residential units and amount of square footages for non‐residential uses.
www.JLBtraffic.com
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 5
[email protected] (559) 570‐8991
Mr. Dhaliwal
Busseto Foods TIA ‐ Draft Scope of Work
September 11, 2020
The Scope of Work is based on our understanding of this Project and our experience with similar TIAs. In the absence of comments by October 2, 2020 it will be assumed that the Scope of Work is acceptable to the agency(ies) that have not submitted any comments. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me by phone at (559) 664‐3159, or via email at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Jesus Garcia
Engineer I/II
cc: Jill Gormley, City of Fresno
Brian Spaunhurst, County of Fresno
David Padilla, Caltrans
Jose Benavides, JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.
Z:\01 Projects\004 Fresno\004‐129 Busetto TIA\Draft Scope of Work\L09112020 Busseto Foods Draft Scope of Work.docx
www.JLBtraffic.com
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 6
[email protected] (559) 570‐8991
Mr. Dhaliwal
Busseto Foods TIA ‐ Draft Scope of Work
September 11, 2020
Exhibit A – Project Vicinity
www.JLBtraffic.com
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 7
[email protected] (559) 570‐8991
Mr. Dhaliwal
Busseto Foods TIA ‐ Draft Scope of Work
September 11, 2020
Exhibit B – Project Site Plan
1 Jesus Garcia
From: Harmanjit Dhaliwal <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 5:23 PM
To: Jesus Garcia
Cc: [email protected]; Jill Gormley; Jose Benavides Subject: RE: Busseto Foods TIA: Draft Scope of Work
Good Afternoon Jesus,
The City will need the COG model and a trip trace for the subject project prior to determining if the SOW will be acceptable.
Thanks,
Harmanjit Dhaliwal, PE
Public Works Department
Traffic Operations & Planning Division
2600 Fresno Street, Room 4064
Fresno, CA 93721
Ph: (559) 621‐8694
[email protected]
Effective January 2, 2020, new security measures have been implemented at City Hall to include security screening for all visitors. For additional information please see the following link:
https://www.fresno.gov/news/city‐announces‐new‐security‐measures‐at‐city‐hall/
From: Jesus Garcia <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 5:05 PM
To: Harmanjit Dhaliwal <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; Jill Gormley <[email protected]>; Jose Benavides <[email protected]>
Subject: Busseto Foods TIA: Draft Scope of Work
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Good evening Harman,
I just want to follow up with you and see how the review process is going for the Busseto Foods Draft Scope of Work. If you have any questions or require additional information from us please let us know. I am looking forward to hearing from you. Thank you.
1 Jesus Garcia
From: Harmanjit Dhaliwal <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2021 5:44 PM
To: Jesus Garcia
Cc: [email protected]; Hensley, Gloria; Jose Benavides; Jill Gormley Subject: RE: Busseto Foods
Attachments: COUNTS FOR JLB.xlsx
Good Afternoon Jesus,
The City has reviewed the trip distribution and per previous discussions the City would recommend to remove the intersections of Marks/Church & Hughes/Church but would like to add Elm/Jensen and Fruit/Church. Also, the trips shall be determined by KSF and not employees. I’ve looked through our past industrial projects and they are all based off KSR and not employees. If counts need to be collected, the City’s requirement of requiring when school is in session will remain (I have attached historically counts from the area).
Thanks,
Harmanjit Dhaliwal, PE
Public Works Department
Traffic Operations & Planning Division
2600 Fresno Street, Room 4064
Fresno, CA 93721
Ph: (559) 621‐8694
[email protected]
From: Jesus Garcia <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 11:22 AM
To: Harmanjit Dhaliwal <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; Hensley, Gloria <[email protected]>; Jose Benavides <[email protected]>
Subject: Busseto Foods
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Good morning Harman,
Just checking in with you to see if you had any questions regarding the trip distribution for the Busseto Foods Project?
Sincerely,
Jesus Garcia
Engineer I/II
1 Jesus Garcia
From: Hensley, Gloria <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 4:14 PM
To: Jose Benavides; Jesus Garcia
Subject: RE: Busseto Foods TIA
Good Afternoon Jose,
At this time, the County is defaulting to the City’s recommendation to study SF rather than employees.
Gloria Hensley| Planner
Department of Public Works and Planning | Design Division 2220 Tulare St. 7th Floor Fresno, CA 93721
Main Office: (559) 600‐4109 Direct: (559) 600‐0523
Your input matters! Customer Service Survey
From: Jose Benavides <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 3:34 PM
To: Hensley, Gloria <[email protected]>; Jesus Garcia <[email protected]>; Spaunhurst, Brian <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Busseto Foods TIA
Thanks Gloria,
I just want to confirm that we are still working with the City of Fresno to utilize employment as the trip generator.
Regarding study facilities we
will do that which the City has requested.
Please confirm that the County has no objection to the use employment as the trip generator.
Sincerely,
Jose Luis Benavides, P.E., T.E.
President
Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning and Parking Solutions Certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) and Small Business Enterprise (SBE)
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704
Direct: (559) 317‐6249
Main: (559) 570‐8991
Cell: (559) 694‐6000
2 Fax: (559) 317‐6854
www.JLBtraffic.com
From: Hensley, Gloria <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 3:29 PM
To: Jesus Garcia <[email protected]>; Spaunhurst, Brian <[email protected]> Cc: Jose Benavides <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Busseto Foods TIA
Jesus,
The county is satisfactory with the updated TIA. No further comments from us!
Gloria Hensley| Planner
Department of Public Works and Planning | Design Division 2220 Tulare St. 7th Floor Fresno, CA 93721
Main Office: (559) 600‐4109 Direct: (559) 600‐0523
Your input matters! Customer Service Survey
From: Jesus Garcia <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 4:02 PM
To: Spaunhurst, Brian <[email protected]>
Cc: Hensley, Gloria <[email protected]>; Jose Benavides <[email protected]> Subject: Busseto Foods TIA
CAUTION!!! ‐ EXTERNAL EMAIL ‐ THINK BEFORE YOU CLICK
Good afternoon Brian,
Since we have not received any comments regarding the Busseto Foods Project can we assume that the County of Fresno is satisfied with what was resolved with the City of Fresno? If you do have comments can you let us know by the end of the week?
Sincerely,
Jesus Garcia
Engineer I/II
Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning and Parking Solutions Certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) and Small Business Enterprise (SBE)
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704
Main: (559) 664‐3159
Fax: (559) 317‐6854
1 Jesus Garcia
From: Gentry, Jamaica@DOT <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 3:00 PM
To: Jesus Garcia
Cc: Padilla, Dave@DOT
Subject: FW: Busseto Foods TIA: Draft Scope of Work
Attachments: L09112020 Busseto Foods Draft Scope of Work.pdf Hello Jesus,
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Scope of Work for the Busseto Foods Traffic Impact Analysis. It was observed that JLB has not yet performed a select zone analysis (SZA) despite having already proposed study intersections. Caltrans requests to review the SZA print out prior to commenting on potential concerns with our interchanges.
Caltrans also requests a trip trace to the following location:
1. SR 99 / Ventura Street (would like to see the SZA, first)
In addition to those interchanges already identified:
2. SR 41 / Jensen Avenue
3. SR 99 / Jensen Avenue
4. SR 180 / Marks Avenue
Caltrans does not have projects planned for construction within the study area. We do have an identified cost per trip for the SR 99/Jensen Avenue interchange, but not the other locations.
Warm Regards,
Jamaica Gentry
Associate Transportation Planner
Transportation Planning - North
From: Padilla, Dave@DOT <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 5:40 PM
To: Gentry, Jamaica@DOT <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Busseto Foods TIA: Draft Scope of Work
Hello Jamaica,
Please take the lead on this review.
Thank you,
David Padilla
Branch Chief
Division of Planning, Local Programs, and Environmental Analysis Caltrans District 6
1352 W. Olive Ave
Fresno, California 93778‐2616
2 Office: (559) 444‐2493
Cell: (559) 905‐9371
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Jesus Garcia <[email protected]>
Date: September 11, 2020 at 4:47:12 PM PDT
To: Harmanjit Dhaliwal <[email protected]>
Cc: Jose Benavides <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "Padilla, Dave@DOT" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Busseto Foods TIA: Draft Scope of Work
EXTERNAL EMAIL. Links/attachments may not be safe.
Good afternoon Harman,
Attached you will find a Draft Scope of Work for the preparation of a Traffic Impact Analysis for a Project in the City of Fresno.
We kindly ask that you take a moment to review and comment on the proposed Scope of Work. In the absence of
comments by October 2, 2020, it will be assumed that the proposed Scope of Work is acceptable to the agency(ies) that have not submitted any comments.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me by phone at 559.664.3159 or by e‐mail at [email protected]. We appreciate your time and attention to this
matter and look forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincerely,
Jesus Garcia
Engineer I/II
1 Jose Benavides
From: Nicholas, Christopher@DOT <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 1:36 PM
To: Jesus Garcia
Cc: Jose Benavides; Padilla, Dave@DOT
Subject: RE: Busseto Foods TIA
Good Afternoon Jesus:
I have no comment.
Thanks
Christopher Nicholas, |ATP| D6-LD-IGR||[email protected] | Caltrans Division of Transportation Planning (Rotation Assignment in District 6) *DUE TO THE COVID 19 PANDEMIC, I AM WORKING FROM HOME, I CAN BE REACH ON MY CELLPHONE (707) 980-2669 Please consider the environment before printing this email.
This e-mail message, including attachments, is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C., Sections 2510-2522.
From: Jesus Garcia <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 11:29 AM
To: Nicholas, Christopher@DOT <[email protected]> Cc: Jose Benavides <[email protected]>; Padilla, Dave@DOT <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Busseto Foods TIA
EXTERNAL EMAIL. Links/attachments may not be safe.
Good morning Christopher,
Have you had time to review the Project’s trip distribution for the Busseto Foods Project? If you have no further comments or need anything from me please let me know. Thanks.
Sincerely,
Jesus Garcia
Engineer I/II
Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning and Parking Solutions Certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) and Small Business Enterprise (SBE)
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704
Main: (559) 664‐3159
Fax: (559) 317‐6854
Cell: (559) 871‐8210
www.JLBtraffic.com
2 From: Nicholas, Christopher@DOT <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 5:40 PM
To: Jesus Garcia <[email protected]>
Cc: Jose Benavides <[email protected]>; Padilla, Dave@DOT <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Busseto Foods TIA
Hey Jesus:
I having Traffic Operation doing a quick review of the document. It should be done soon.
Thanks
Christopher Nicholas, |ATP|HQ LD-IGR| [email protected] |(916) 653-4287 Caltrans Division of Transportation Planning
*DUE TO THE COVID 19 PANDEMIC, I AM WORKING FROM HOME, I CAN BE REACH ON MY CELLPHONE (707) 980-2669 Please consider the environment before printing this email.
This e-mail message, including attachments, is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C., Sections 2510-2522.
From: Jesus Garcia <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 4:09 PM
To: Nicholas, Christopher@DOT <[email protected]> Cc: Jose Benavides <[email protected]>; Padilla, Dave@DOT <[email protected]> Subject: Busseto Foods TIA
EXTERNAL EMAIL. Links/attachments may not be safe.
Good afternoon Christopher,
I just wanted to follow up with you to see how the review process was coming along for the Busseto Foods TIA. If you have any questions for me please let me know.
Sincerely,
Jesus Garcia
Engineer I/II
Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning and Parking Solutions Certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) and Small Business Enterprise (SBE)
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704
Main: (559) 664‐3159
Fax: (559) 317‐6854
Cell: (559) 871‐8210
www.JLBtraffic.com
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor “Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability”
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 6 OFFICE
1352 WEST OLIVE AVENUE
P.O. BOX 12616
FRESNO, CA 93778-2616
PHONE (559) 445-5421
FAX (559) 488-4088
TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
Making Conservation
a California Way
of Life
February 3, 2021
06-FRE-2020-00999
Busseto Foods TIS_Fresno
Early Involvement
Mr. Jesus Garcia
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704
JLB Traffic Engineering, INC.
Dear Jesus Garcia:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the scope of work for the: preparation of the proposed food processing facility. The project is proposing to construct a 477,470 square foot food processing plant on a 18.889-acre site located on the southeast corner of West and Church Avenues, approximately two miles west of State Route (SR) 41/Jensen Avenue interchange, 2.5 miles west of SR 99/Jensen Avenue interchange, and one mile south of SR 180/Mark Avenue interchange in the City of Fresno. The project would employ maximum of 210 employees per the submitted scope of work.
The existing land use is zoned for median density residential and it will be changed to general industrial zone. The following are our comments:
• The traffic turning movement count for the existing condition on State routes will be conducted, from a 3-5 year rolling average due to Covid-19. • Provide Caltrans HCM 6.0 summary results for State routes. • Caltrans prepared a mitigation cost per trip for the roadway improvement on SR 99/Jensen Avenue at $560/trip for northbound off-ramp widening, and SR 99/Ventura at $262/trip for the northbound off-ramp widening. Caltrans has not established mitigation cost per trip for SR 41/Jensen and SR 180/Mark, which are included in the select zone analysis.
• Provide clarification as where the project trip reduction from the existing general plan land use (residential) in Table 2 and the negative project trips would be applied in the study.
• Near-term projects within the study areas should be included. • A VMT analysis should be included within the traffic impact study report.
Mr. Jesus Garcia
February 3, 2021
“Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability”
If you have any further questions, contact Christopher Nicholas at (707) 980-2669 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
DAVID PADILLA, Branch Chief
Transportation Planning - North
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 1
(559) 570-8991
September 17, 2020
Mr. Harmanjit Dhaliwal, P.E.
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721-3616
Via Email Only: [email protected]
Subject: Proposed Procedure to Arrive at Baseline Year 2020 Traffic Volumes for Study Facilities to be included in the Traffic Impact Analysis for the Busseto Foods Project in the City of Fresno (JLB Project 004-129)
Dear Mr. Dhaliwal,
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. (JLB) hereby submits this proposed procedure to arrive at mutually agreeable baseline year 2020 traffic volumes for study facilities to be included in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the Busseto Foods (Project) located at 2325 S. West Avenue in the City of Fresno. JLB seeks approval from the County on proposed use of historical and new traffic counts to arrive at baseline year 2020 traffic volumes.
The Situation
While traffic volumes in the Central Valley dropped significantly after the statewide stay-at-home order, traffic volumes have steadily increased since then. Nevertheless, we cannot expect them to normalize (i.e., return to the levels observed prior to COVID-19 restrictions) anytime soon. Many businesses and services throughout the Central Valley continue to be closed. While some are starting to reopen, they are operating at reduced capacities. Also, telework remains strongly encouraged for office-based businesses. California State University, Fresno (Fresno State) and Fresno Unified School District (FUSD) have decided to offer a mix of online and in-person classes in the upcoming fall 2020 semester.
Furthermore, Fresno State is planning to limit the number of students living on campus housing and has suspended major events and activities. Since Fresno State serves the Central Valley, a decision to continue virtual instruction would delay normalization of traffic volumes all the more.
In addition, the Official California State Government Website has published a Blueprint for a Safer Economy (last updated September 17, 2020 at 2:00 PM). The blueprint details “revised criteria for loosening and tightening restrictions on activities” to reduce COVID-19 in the state. The City of Fresno Corona Virus (COVID-19) website describes the blueprint as a stringent, slow plan for living with COVID- 19 for the long haul. The Blueprint for a Safer Economy was created to replace the County Data Monitoring List used to determine what businesses can and cannot open. Every county in California is assigned to a tier based on its adjusted case and positivity rate. The tiers are determined based on the county level of risk: widespread, substantial, moderate, and minimal. New data is reviewed every week and tiers are updated on Tuesdays. In order for a county to move forward, it must meet the next tier’s criteria for two consecutive weeks.
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 2
(559) 570-8991
Mr. Dhaliwal
Busseto Foods TIA - Baseline Year 2020 Traffic Volumes
September 17, 2020
Fresno County is classified in the widespread tier. Counties in the widespread tier (many non-essential indoor business operations are closed) are either recording more than 7 daily new cases per 100 thousand and/or more than an 8 percent positivity rate. As of August 31, 2020, counties in the widespread tier may open some businesses and activities with modifications, including restaurants with outdoor dining, all retail and shopping centers at 25 percent maximum capacity, and hair salons and barbershops indoors. Moreover, schools in the widespread tier are not allowed to reopen for in-person instruction, unless they receive a waiver from the local health department for TK-6 grades. Schools can open after the county has been in a substantial tier for at least two weeks. To be in the substantial tier (some non-essential indoor business operations are closed), Fresno County needs to record between 4 to 7 daily new cases per 100 thousand and/or between 5 to 8 percent positivity rate.
While reduced traffic volumes have been observed throughout the State, the Project area is removed from urban areas where traffic volumes have been largely affected due to COVID restrictions. For example, the City of Fresno near State Route 41 and Nees Avenue observed reduced traffic volumes by 17 percent. Similarly, Madera County near State Route 41 and Avenue 12 observed reduced traffic volumes by 27 percent.
Baseline Year 2020 Traffic Volumes
Given the current situation, it is not anticipated that traffic volumes will normalize immediately after COVID-19 restrictions are lifted. In fact, we foresee traffic volumes will be affected long after COVID-19 restrictions are lifted due to implementation of telework and virtual instruction practices. However, it is unknown when the ‘new normal’ will be notable. Since waiting for the new normal to collect traffic counts is not feasible, JLB proposes to use a combination of historical and new traffic counts for each study facility so as to arrive at mutually agreeable baseline year 2020 traffic volumes. JLB will use historical count data to determine historical annual average growth rates. Then, JLB will apply the historical growth rate to the historical counts to arrive at draft baseline year 2020 traffic volumes.
JLB also proposes to collect new traffic counts. Then, JLB will find a relationship between the expanded historical and new traffic counts. JLB will expand new traffic counts based on the relationship between the expanded historical and new traffic counts. For example, if the expanded historical count is 11 percent greater than the new traffic count, then JLB will expand the new traffic counts by 11 percent.
Finally, JLB will import the draft baseline year 2020 traffic volumes in Synchro and perform volume balancing.
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 3
(559) 570-8991
Mr. Dhaliwal
Busseto Foods TIA - Baseline Year 2020 Traffic Volumes
September 17, 2020
Please review the proposed methodology to be used on the determination of the baseline year 2020 traffic volumes for the study facilities. Please confirm the City approves of this methodology or notify me if additional information is needed prior to making a decision. If you have any questions or require any additional information, please feel welcome contact me by phone at (559)570-8991 or email at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Jose Luis Benavides, P.E., T.E.
President
cc: Brian Spaunhurst, County of Fresno
Z:\01 Projects\004 Fresno\004-129 Busetto TIA\Draft Scope of Work\L09172020 Busseto Baseline Year 2020 Traffic Volumes.docx
From: Harmanjit Dhaliwal
To: Jose Benavides; Susana Maciel
Cc: Spaunhurst, Brian ([email protected]); Jill Gormley Subject: RE: Busseto Foods TIA: Baseline Year 2020 Traffic Volumes Date: Friday, October 23, 2020 12:50:48 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Jose/Susana,
We do not have an objection to collecting the 24-hour counts now, but the intersections will not be finalized until the COG model is sent to Traffic for review.
Thanks,
Harmanjit Dhaliwal, PE
Public Works Department
Traffic Operations & Planning Division
2600 Fresno Street, Room 4064
Fresno, CA 93721
Ph: (559) 621-8694
[email protected]
Effective January 2, 2020, new security measures have been implemented at City Hall to include security screening for all visitors. For additional information please see the following link:
https://www.fresno.gov/news/city-announces-new-security-measures-at-city-hall/
From: Jose Benavides <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2020 10:33 AM
To: Harmanjit Dhaliwal <[email protected]>; Susana Maciel <[email protected]> Cc: Spaunhurst, Brian ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Jill Gormley <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Busseto Foods TIA: Baseline Year 2020 Traffic Volumes
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Good morning Harman,
I am just following up on this item. Can you give me an approximate timeframe for the City to review and reply to our suggestion listed below?
Currently Fresno COG is taking a long time to complete modeling for projects and with this in mind we would like to know if the City would be opposed to us having 24-hour volume counts collected now so that the City can review these and determine an escalation factor for us to use?
We understand that the study facilities are not finalized and that some of these could differ from what we have presented; however, I would assume that most of the ultimate study facilities will be around and near the proposed project.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jose Luis Benavides, P.E., T.E.
President
Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning and Parking Solutions Certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) and Small Business Enterprise (SBE)
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704
Direct: (559) 317-6249
Main: (559) 570-8991
Cell: (559) 694-6000
Fax: (559) 317-6854
www.JLBtraffic.com
From: Harmanjit Dhaliwal <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 5:26 PM
To: Susana Maciel <[email protected]>
Cc: Spaunhurst, Brian ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Jill Gormley <[email protected]>; Jose Benavides <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Busseto Foods TIA: Baseline Year 2020 Traffic Volumes
Good Afternoon Susana,
For this project, the City will need the trip trace to determine if any additional intersections will need to be analyzed. Once the intersections are determined, JLB can perform counts at the intersections on a Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday during an active school year (Minus winter & summer breaks) and submit to the City. The City will then determine the escalation percentage that can be applied to the counts to arrive at the 2020 baseline.
Thanks,
Harmanjit Dhaliwal, PE
Public Works Department
Traffic Operations & Planning Division
2600 Fresno Street, Room 4064
Fresno, CA 93721
Ph: (559) 621-8694
[email protected]
Effective January 2, 2020, new security measures have been implemented at City Hall to include security screening for all visitors. For additional information please see the following link:
https://www.fresno.gov/news/city-announces-new-security-measures-at-city-hall/
From: Susana Maciel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 9:24 AM
To: Harmanjit Dhaliwal <[email protected]>
Cc: Spaunhurst, Brian ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Jill Gormley <[email protected]>; Jose Benavides <[email protected]> Subject: Busseto Foods TIA: Baseline Year 2020 Traffic Volumes
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Good morning, Mr. Dhaliwal,
JLB hereby submits this proposed procedure (see attached) to arrive at mutually agreeable baseline year 2020 traffic volumes for study facilities included in the Traffic Impact Analysis for the Busseto Foods Project located at 2325 S. West Avenue in the City of Fresno. For this particular Project, JLB proposes to use historical and new traffic counts to arrive at baseline year 2020 traffic volumes.
We kindly ask that you take some time to review the proposed procedure and contact us if you have any questions or require any additional information. We sincerely appreciate your time and attention to this matter.
Have a great day!
Best,
Susana Maciel
1 Matt Arndt
From: Harmanjit Dhaliwal <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 4:26 PM
To: Matt Arndt
Cc: Jose Benavides; Jill Gormley
Subject: RE: Busseto Foods TIA: Expansion Rates
Matt,
Per our discussion, since we do not have historic counts at all study intersections, the City would accept the following percentages.
27% (700‐800, 800‐900)
8% (900‐1000, 1000‐1100, 1100‐1200, 1200‐1300, 1300‐1400, 1400‐1500, 1500‐1600) 20% (1600‐1700, 1700‐1800)
Thanks,
Harmanjit Dhaliwal, PE
Supervising Professional Engineer
Public Works Department
Traffic Operations & Planning Division
2600 Fresno Street, Room 4064
Fresno, CA 93721
Ph: (559) 621‐8694
[email protected]
From: Harmanjit Dhaliwal
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 4:09 PM
To: 'Matt Arndt' <[email protected]>
Cc: Jose Benavides <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Busseto Foods TIA: Expansion Rates
Matt,
After internal discussions, can your team use the historic counts provide and apply the turn movement percentages from your current counts.
Thanks,
Harmanjit Dhaliwal, PE
Supervising Professional Engineer
Public Works Department
2 Traffic Operations & Planning Division
2600 Fresno Street, Room 4064
Fresno, CA 93721
Ph: (559) 621‐8694
[email protected]
From: Matt Arndt <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 2:10 PM
To: Harmanjit Dhaliwal <[email protected]>
Cc: Jose Benavides <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Busseto Foods TIA: Expansion Rates
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Hello Harman,
Good afternoon. Has the City come to any decision regarding these expansion rates?
Sincerely,
Matthew Arndt
Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning and Parking Solutions Certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) and Small Business Enterprise (SBE)
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704
Office: (559) 570‐8991
Direct: (559) 317‐6243
https://smex‐ctp.trendmicro.com:443/wis/clicktime/v1/query?url=www.JLBtraffic.com&umid=b82d88a7‐2f5c‐4999‐ 9863‐01fa330a57a2&auth=0a81477128c7f570370805a57bdfce5cac280762‐ 9c885efc1134a7456cf45d454f8f06f8832c3259
From: Matt Arndt
Sent: Friday, March 5, 2021 9:03 AM
To: Harmanjit Dhaliwal <[email protected]>
Cc: Jose Benavides <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Busseto Foods TIA: Expansion Rates
Hello Harman,
3 Yes, they were from the spreadsheet you had provided and Leslie Barkley was able to send the hourly breakdown of three counts from that spreadsheet. The counts and dates were Jensen east of Walnut on 1.8.19, Jensen east of West on
1.23.19 and Walnut south of Grove on 12.12.18
Sincerely,
Matthew Arndt
Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning and Parking Solutions Certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) and Small Business Enterprise (SBE)
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704
Office: (559) 570‐8991
Direct: (559) 317‐6243
www.JLBtraffic.com
From: Harmanjit Dhaliwal <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, March 5, 2021 8:36 AM
To: Matt Arndt <[email protected]>
Cc: Jose Benavides <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Busseto Foods TIA: Expansion Rates
Matt,
Do you know the date of the historic counts? Are they from the spreadsheet I sent over previously?
Thanks,
Harmanjit Dhaliwal, PE
Supervising Professional Engineer
Public Works Department
Traffic Operations & Planning Division
2600 Fresno Street, Room 4064
Fresno, CA 93721
Ph: (559) 621‐8694
[email protected]
From: Matt Arndt <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2021 2:37 PM
4 To: Harmanjit Dhaliwal <[email protected]> Cc: Jose Benavides <[email protected]>
Subject: Busseto Foods TIA: Expansion Rates
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Hello Harman,
We compared historical and new segment counts in the area to come up with expansion rates to be used on the Busseto Foods TIA. We focused on the hours of 7:00 AM ‐ 6:00 PM to account for any period that would potentially be included in the signal warrants 1 & 2 (8hr and 4hr, respectively) or by the peak hours of 7‐9 AM and 4‐6 PM. As can be seen in the table below, for the AM peak period of 7:00‐9:00 AM we propose an expansion rate of 26.7%, for the period of 9:00 AM‐ 4:00 PM we propose an expansion rate of 7.7%, and for the PM peak period of 4:00‐6:00 PM we propose an expansion rate of 19.6%.
Let me know if the City approves of these expansion rates being used to establish the equivalent Base Year 2021 traffic volumes for the Busseto Foods TIA.
Feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Matthew Arndt
Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning and Parking Solutions Certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) and Small Business Enterprise (SBE)
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | B
(559) 570-8991
Appendix B: Traffic Counts
Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 516 W. Shaw Ave, Suite 103
www.metrotrafficdata.com Fresno, CA 93704
LOCATION LATITUDE
COUNTY LONGITUDE
COLLECTION DATE WEATHER
Time Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 7:00 AM - 7:15 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 18 1 4 0 5 0 0
7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 1 0 1 14 3 2
7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 0 2 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 13 0 1 0 2 1 0
7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 1 3 0 0 1 5 0 0 1 9 1 0 1 5 0 0
8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 1 2 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 12 0 1 1 4 2 0
8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 1 5 0 0 2 4 1 0 0 10 1 1 0 5 2 1
8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 1 1 2 0 5 2 1 0 0 9 0 0 1 7 2 2
8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 1 3 0 0 6 3 0 0 1 15 1 0 0 8 2 0
TOTAL 6 17 3 0 21 21 2 0 3 92 5 7 4 50 12 5
Time Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 0 4 3 0 1 2 1 0 0 13 1 0 1 17 7 2
4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 0 2 1 0 4 5 0 0 0 11 2 1 3 15 4 1
4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 0 5 1 1 5 3 2 0 0 13 1 0 2 20 6 5
4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 1 3 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 13 0 0 1 8 5 1
5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 0 3 3 0 3 5 0 0 1 18 0 0 1 17 8 0
5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 1 2 0 0 3 3 1 1 1 5 0 0 1 15 4 0
5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 2 5 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 8 5 0
5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 1 3 1 1 4 2 0 0 1 6 3 0 0 14 4 2
TOTAL 5 27 11 3 21 24 7 1 3 86 7 1 9 114 43 11
PEAK HOUR Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 8:00 AM - 9:00 AM 4 11 2 0 16 12 2 0 1 46 2 2 2 24 8 3
4:15 PM - 5:15 PM 1 13 6 1 12 15 4 0 1 55 3 1 7 60 23 7 PHF Trucks PHF
AM 0.813 3.8%
PM 4 15 12 0.775
PM 0.847 4.5%
AM 2 12 16 0.833
PHF 0.776 0.721
AM PM
1 1 8 23
55 46 24 60
3 2 2 7
PM AM
PHF
0.85 0.804 PHF
0.708 4 11 2 AM
0.833 1 13 6 PM
Southbound
Southbound Eastbound
Northbound Westbound
Eastbound WestboundNorthbound