Action F-1.5, the City must first update standards
for new development hardscape to be consistent
with CALGreen Tier 1 and/or increase the current
fee for installation of new impervious surfaces. The
City has not yet updated its standards and, thus,
consistency with Action F-1.5 is not required.
Strategy B-1: Require new buildings to be
all-electric and incentivize electrification
retrofits of existing buildings.
The proposed project would not include the
development of new buildings or improvements to
existing buildings . Thus, Strategy B -1
is not
applicable to the proposed project.
Action B-1.1: Require new construction to
be all-electric.
See consistency discussion for Strategy B-1.
Action T-1.1: Expand EV infrastructure to
support EV adoption.
The City of Livermore has adopted Reach Code
amendments to the CBSC, which include EV
charging requirements for new development
projects within the City. For non-residential projects
such as the proposed parking lot expansion, the
City’s Reach Code requires that 10 percent of all
parking spaces must be EV Capable, and 10
percent of all parking spaces must provide electric
vehicle supply equipment (EVSE), which is
installed charging receptacles or permanently
installed chargers.
The proposed project is anticipated to include 230
paved parking spaces. Therefore, based on the
City’s Reach Code requirements, the proposed
project would be required to provide 23 EV
Capable spaces, and 23 spaces would be required
(Continued on next page)
EXHIBIT B
223
Table 4
Project Consistency with the Livermore Climate Action Plan Strategies and Actions Consistency Discussion
to include EVSE, in compliance with the City’s
Reach Code. The current site plans include a total
of 26 EVSE spaces and 26 EV Capable spaces .
Therefore, the proposed project would be
consistent with Action T-1.1.
Strategy W -1: Reduce the amount of
waste that is landfilled.
The project would be required to comply with all
applicable provisions of Chapter 8.08, Solid Waste
Management, of the City’s Municipal Code. In
addition, as discussed below, the proposed project
would be required to comply with the CALGreen
Code’s construction waste diversion standards
during construction of the proposed projec t.
Therefore, the proposed project would generally be
consistent with Strategy W-1.
Action W-1.5: Reduce construction waste. The CALGreen Code requires all new construction projects to recycle and/or salvage for reuse a
minimum 65 percent of all non- hazardous
construction and demolition waste. The proposed
project would be required to comply with the
CALGreen Code standards, and, therefore, would
be consistent with Action W-1.5.
Source: City of Livermore, 2022.
Conclusion
Based on the above, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s CAP strategies and actions. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, or could conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Thus, a less-than-significant impact could occur.
EXHIBIT B
224
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the likely release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Discussion
a,b. Casinos are not typically associated with the routine transport, use, disposal, or generation of substantial amounts of hazardous materials. Maintenance and operation of the proposed increased business operations and parking lot expansion may use common household cleaning products, fertilizers, and herbicides on-site, any of which could contain potentially hazardous chemicals; however, such products would be expected to be used in accordance with label instructions. Due to the regulations governing use of s uch products and the amount anticipated to be used on the site, routine use of such products would not represent a substantial risk to public health or the environment.
Construction activities associated with the proposed project would consist of the construction of a new parking lot, which could involve the limited use of equipment that would contain fuels and oils, and various other products such as paints and adhesives.
However, contractors would be required to comply with all California Health and Safety Codes and local City ordinances regulating the handling, storage, and transportation of hazardous and toxic materials. Thus, construction activities related to the proposed project would not represent a substantial risk to public health or the environment.
Based on the above, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
EXHIBIT B
225
c. The project site is located approximately 700 feet southwest from the Acton Academy East Bay, and is therefore located within 0.25-mile of an existing school. However, the project site consists of the existing Parkwest Casino 580 and undeveloped grassland. As such, evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs), controlled RECs or historical RECs have not been identified in connection with the project site. In addition, operation of the site as a casino and associated parking lot would not include any activities that would involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous material. As such, future operations at the project site would not emit any hazardous emissions, substances, or waste. Therefore, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact.
d. The California Environmental Protection Agency ( Cal EPA) has compiled a list of data resources that provide information regarding the facilities or sites identified as meeting the “Cortese List” requirements, pursuant to Government Code 65962.5. The components of the Cortese List include the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List,
18 the list of leaking underground storage tank (UST) sites from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB’s) GeoTracker database, 19 the list of solid waste disposal sites identified by the SWRCB, and the list of active Cease and Desist Orders (CDOs) and Cleanup and Abatement Orders (CAO s) from the SWRCB. 20 The project site is not included on the DTSC Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List.
In addition, the project site is not listed on the SWRCB’s list of solid waste disposal sites, list of leaking UST sites, or list of active CDOs and CAOs. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment related to being located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
e. The nearest airport to the project site is the Livermore Municipal Airport, located approximately 0.3-mile south of the project site. Given the proximity of Livermore Municipal Airport, the project site is included within the Airport’s Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The project site is located within the Airport Protection Area boundaries. 21 Given that the project site is located within an airport land use plan, the proposed project has the potential to expose people residing or working in the project area to a safety hazard or excessive noise associated with such. Impacts related to the exposure of people to excessive noise are discussed in Section XIII, N oise, of this IS/MND . Therefore, the following discussion is focused on whether the proposed project would result in the potential to expose people residing or working in the project area to a safety hazard related to the Livermore Municipal Airport.
The ALUCP has developed land use safety compatibility criteria to minimize the risks to people and property on the ground, as well as people in an aircraft in the event of an accident or emergency landing occurring outside the airport boundary. As such, a total of seven different safety zones are identified within the ALUCP based on runway length and flight patterns, and incompatible, conditional, and permitted uses were identified for each zone. As shown on Figure 3-3 of the ALUCP, the project site is located within Zone 6. 18 Department of Toxic Substances Control. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese). Available at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. Accessed August 2024. 19 State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker. Available at:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?myaddress=California&from=header&cqid=8858350455. Accessed August 2024.
20 CalEPA. Cortese List Data Resources . Available at: https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/. Accessed August 2024.
21 Alameda County Community Development Agency. Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan [Figure 3-1]. August 2012.
EXHIBIT B
226
According to Table 3-2 of the ALUCP, non-residential land uses are permitted uses within Zone 6. In addition, the proposed project would comply with the criteria included within the ALUCP, such as avoiding uses that could create hazards to flights, such as building height and prohibiting critical infrastructure facilities. The proposed project would not require an avigation easement.
Based on the above, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people working in the project area, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
f. The City of Livermore adopted the City of Livermore Emergency Operations Plan in January 2018.
22 The plan provides a basis for future responses to a wide range of citywide hazards and vulnerabilities. The plan outlines the general authority, organization, and response actions for City of Livermore staff when disasters occur. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any substantial modifications to the existing roadway system and, thus, would not physically interfere with the Emergency Operations Plan, particularly with any roadways needed in the case of an emergency evacuation within the City. Furthermore, the proposed project would not include land uses or operations that could impair implementation of the plan.
Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with an emergency evacuation or response plan, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
g. Issues related to wildfire hazards are discussed in Section XX, Wildfire, of this IS/MND .
According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Fire and Resource Assessment Program, the project site is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ).
23 While a High FHSZ is located immediately west of Doolan Road in close proximity to the project site, the expansion of the existing parking lot would include the removal of existing on- site vegetation, which would reduce wildfire risks .
Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. 22 City of Livermore. Emergency Operations Plan. January 2018. 23 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer . Available at:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/03beab8511814e79a0e4eabf0d3e7247/. Accessed August 2024.
EXHIBIT B
227
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or
off-site;
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or offsite;
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff; or
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management
plan?
Discussion
a. The following discussion provides a summary of the proposed project’s potential to violate water quality standards/waste discharge requirements or otherwise degrade water quality during construction and operation.
Construction
During the early stages of construction activities, topsoil would be exposed during ground- disturbance. Prior to overlaying the ground surface with impervious surfaces, the potential exists for wind and water erosion to discharge sediment and/or urban pollutants into stormwater runoff, which could adversely affect water quality downstream.
The SWRCB regulates stormwater discharges associated with construction activities where clearing, grading, or excavation results in a land disturbance of one or more acres.
The City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requires applicants to show proof of coverage under the State’s General Construction Permit prior to receipt of any construction permits. The State’s General Construction Permit requires a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to be prepared for the site. A SWPPP describes Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control or minimize pollutants from entering stormwater and must address both grading/erosion impacts and non-point source pollution impacts of the development project. Because the proposed project would disturb greater than one acre of land, the proposed project would be subject to the requirements of the State’s General Construction Permit.
EXHIBIT B
228
In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with Chapter 13.45, Stormwater Management and Control Program, of the City’s Municipal Code, which includes standards for managing stormwater runoff during construction and operation.
Pursuant to Section 13.45.090, any construction contractor performing work in the City must provide filter materials at the catch basin to retain any debris and dirt flowing into the City’s stormwater system. Therefore, the proposed project would not discharge sedim ent or urban pollutants through soil erosion, violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality during construction.
Operation
The proposed project would not involve operations typically associated with the generation or discharge of polluted water. Following completion of project buildout, disturbed areas of the site would be largely covered with impervious surfaces or landscaping, and topsoil would no longer be exposed. All municipalities within Alameda County (and the County itself) are required to develop more restrictive surface water control standards for new development projects as part of the renewal of the Countywide NPDES permit. Thus, typical operations on the project site would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, nor degrade water quality.
The City of Livermore has adopted the Alameda County C.3 Stormwater Standards, which require new development and redevelopment projects that create or alter 10,000 or more square feet ( sf) of impervious area to contain and treat all stormwater runoff from the project site. A total of approximately 118,506 sf of new impervious surfaces would exist on-site following implementation of the proposed project. Thus, the project would be subject to the requirements of the C.3 Stormwater Standards related to stormwater treatment, which are included in the City’s NPDES General Permit.
Stormwater runoff within the project site would flow to three bioretention planters located within the parking lot that would provide treatment and detention of the on-site stormwater runoff. In addition, the project would include various other landscaping elements that would allow for stormwater infiltration. The bio-treatment planters consist primarily of pervious landscaping, allowing for stormwater to infiltrate underlying soils. The proposed project would also include an approximately 0.45-acre landscaped self-treatment area located in the eastern portion of the project site.
Each of the bio-treatment planters would be sized to adequately handle all runoff from the proposed impervious surfaces and landscaping within the project site. Thus, the proposed project would comply with the requirements of the SWRCB and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and would meet C.3 Standards related to stormwater treatment.
During operation, the project would comply with all relevant water quality standards and waste discharge requirements, and would not degrade water quality.
Conclusion
Based on the above, the proposed project would not result in the violation of water quality standards or degradation of water quality during construction or operation, and a less- than-significant impact would occur.
EXHIBIT B
229
b,e. Water supplies in the northwest, northeast, and eastern portions of the City of Livermore, including the project site, are provided by Livermore Municipal Water. Pursuant to the City of Livermore 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City does not pump groundwater to meet any water demands of th e municipal water service area and does not overlay an adjudicated/unadjudicated basin. However, the City does retain a pumping quota of approximately 30 acre-feet per year (AFY) from the Livermore-Amador Valley Groundwater Basin, an unadjudicated basin.
Bulletin 118 – Interim Update 2016 defines 517 groundwater basins and subbasins in California. Per the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), the Department of Water Resources (DWR) is required to prioritize the 517 groundwater basins and subbasins as either High, Medium, Low, or Very Low. Prioritization is based on the following considerations:
• The population overlying the basin or subbasin;
• The rate of current and projected growth of the population overlying the basin or subbasin;
• The number of public supply wells that draw from the basin or subbasin; • The total number of wells that draw from the basin or subbasin; • The irrigated acreage overlying the basin or subbasin; • The degree to which persons overlying the basin or subbasin rely on groundwater as their primary source of water;
• Any documented impacts on the groundwater within the basin or subbasin, including overdraft, subsidence, saline intrusion, and other water quality degradation; and
• Any other information determined to be relevant by the department, including adverse impacts on local habitat and local streamflows.
Each basin’s priority determines which provisions of California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring and SGMA apply. SGMA requires Medium and High priority basins to develop groundwater sustainability agencies, develop groundwater sustainability plans, and manage groundwater for long -term sustainability. The Livermore-Amador Valley Groundwater Basin is considered Medium Priority per the DWR 24 and is addressed by the
Zone 7 Groundwater Management Plan (2005 GMP). 25 The DWR has not identified the Basin as either in overdraft or expected to be in overdraft.26
Pursuant to the 2020 UWMP, water supplies are projected to meet expected demand during five-year droughts beginning in 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040, and 2045. The proposed project would involve a relatively modest increase in water demand associated with the casino’s increased capacity. However, the project site is currently developed, and such demand would not represent a substantial increase from existing conditions at the site. In addition, all landscaping improvements would be consistent with Section 13.25 of the Municipal Code, Water Efficient Landscape, and would be irrigated by an automatic irrigation system. Therefore, the project would not result in substantially increased use of 24 Department of Water Resources. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act 2018 Basin Prioritization [Table A- 1]. January 2019.
25 Zone 7 Water Agency. Groundwater Management Plan for Livermore -Amador Valley Groundwater Basin.
September 2005.
26 Zone 7 Water Agency. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan [pg. 6-7]. March 31, 2016.
EXHIBIT B
230
groundwater supplies beyond what has been anticipated for the site by the City and accounted for in the UWMP.
Project development would result in an increase in on-site impervious surfaces, which would reduce the infiltration of groundwater as compared to existing conditions. However, approximately 2.02 acres, or approximately 42 percent of the site, would remain as pervious surfaces, which would allow for the natural percolation of stormwater in those areas, which would continue to contribute to groundwater recharge similar to existing conditions. Furthermore, the proposed project would include the development of three on- site bioretention planters, which would allow for the on-site infiltration of surface water to continue, and contribute to groundwater recharge. Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge on-site or interfere with groundwater recharge in the area.
Based on the above, the proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the Livermore-Amador Valley Groundwater Basin. In addition, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or the 2005 GMP. Thus, a less-than- significant impact would occur.
c.i-iii. A total of approximately 118,506 sf of new impervious surfaces would exist on-site following implementation of the proposed project. As discussed above, the proposed project would be subject to the County C.3 Standards related to stormwater.
Storm water runoff within the project site would flow to three bioretention planters located in the proposed parking lot that would provide treatment and retention of the on-site stormwater runoff. As shown above in Figure 4, the total treatment area on-site would be equal to new impervious area plus 10 percent of the landscaped area, as required by the County C.3 Stormwater Standards. Thus, adequate storage would be provided on-site.
The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site. The proposed project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Consequently, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact.
c.iv. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map number 06001C03329G, the project site is located within an Area of Minimal Flood Hazard (Zone X).
27 The site is not classified as a Special Flood Hazard Area or otherwise located within a 100-year or 500-year floodplain. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not impede or redirect flood flows and no impact would result.
d. As discussed under question ‘c.iv’ above, the project site is not located within a flood hazard zone. Thus, the proposed project would not be subject to substantial flooding risks.
Tsunamis are defined as sea waves created by undersea fault movement, whereas a seiche is a long-wavelength, large-scale wave action set up in a closed body of water such as a lake or reservoir. Due to the project site’s substantial distance from the coast, the 27 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map 06001C0329G. Effective August 3, 2009.
EXHIBIT B
231
proposed project would not be exposed to flooding risks associated with tsunamis.
Seiches do not pose a risk to the proposed project, as the project site is not located adjacent to any closed body of water. Therefore, the proposed project would not pose a risk related to the release of pollutants due to project inundation due to flooding, tsunami, or seiche, and no impact would occur.
EXHIBIT B
232
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Physically divide an established community? b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Discussion
a. A project risks dividing an established community if the project would introduce infrastructure or alter land uses so as to change the land use conditions in the surrounding community, or isolate an existing land use. Currently, the project site is developed with the existing Parkwest Casino 580, and does not contain existing housing. The site is bounded by Doolan Road to the west, North Canyons Parkway to the north, undeveloped land to the east, and I-580 to the south. In addition, the proposed project would be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses in the project area and would not alter the existing general development trends in the area or isolate an existing land use. Therefore, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community, and a less-than- significant impact would occur.
b. The proposed project consists of a parking lot expansion for the existing Parkwest Casino 580 and an increase in business operations. Cardrooms are a conditionally permitted use in the site’s INSP General Commercial designation. The existing cardroom casino is subject to an approved Conditional Use Permit, which would require a modification to increase the business operations; the modification to the existing Conditional Use Permit and the proposed amendments to the City of Livermore Municipal Code are discretionary actions subject to approval by the City of Livermore City Council. As discussed throughout this IS/MND, the proposed project would not result in any significant environmental effects that cannot be mitigated to a less -than-significant level by the mitigation measures provided herein. In addition, the proposed project would not conflict with City policies and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, including, but not limited to, the City’s noise standards, applicable SWRCB regulations related to stormwater, and EACCS standards. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a significant environmental impact in excess of what has already been analyzed and anticipated in the INSP EIR, and would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact.
Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
EXHIBIT B
233
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Discussion
a,b. Pursuant to the City’s General Plan, areas within the vicinity of Livermore are underlain by alluvial deposits, which contain significant reserves of sand and gravel deposits suitable for use as aggregate in the production of Portland Concrete Cement. However, the General Plan does not identify any mineral resources in the project area. 28 The General Plan EIR concluded that buildout of the Planning Area, including the project site, would result in a less -than-significant impact to mineral resources with implementation of applicable General Plan policies, including Policies OSC -4.1.P1 through P5. The aforementioned policies require the City to take into account potentially available mineral resources within the City, while also ensuring mining operations comply with all applicable City policies and standards. In addition, pursuant to the INSP EIR, the INSP Planning Area does not have known mineral resources of regional or statewide value, or locally-important mineral resource recovery sites delineated on a land use plan. Therefore, no impact to mineral resources would occur as a result of development of the project. 28 City of Livermore. City of Livermore General Plan 2003-2025 [Figure 8-3]. December 2014.
EXHIBIT B
234
XIII. NOISE.
Would the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Discussion
a. The discussion below presents information regarding sensitive noise receptors in proximity to the project site, applicable noise standards, the existing noise environment, and the potential for the proposed project to result in noise impacts during project construction and operation. The following terms are referenced in the sections below:
• Decibel (dB): A unit of sound energy intensity. An A -weighted decibel (dBA) is a decibel corrected for the variation in frequency response to the typical human ear at commonly encountered noise levels. All references to decibels (dB) in this report will be A-weighted unless noted otherwise.
• Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): The cumulative noise exposure over a 24-hour period. Weighting factors of +5 and +10 dBA are applied to the evening and nighttime periods, respectively, to account for the greater sensitivity of people to noise during those periods.
• Day-Night Average Level (L
dn): The average sound level over a 24-hour day, with
a +10 decibel weighing applied to noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) hours.
• Equivalent Sound Level (Leq): The average sound level over a given time-period. • Maximum Sound Level (Lmax): The maximum sound level over a given time-period. • Median Sound Level (L50): The sound level exceeded 50 percent of the time over a given time-period.
City Noise Standards
Both the City’s Municipal Code and General Plan include regulations related to the generation of noise.
Chapter 9.36 of the City of Livermore Municipal Code prohibits any person to make or continue, or cause to be made or continued, any loud, disturbing, unnecessary, unusual or habitual noise, or any noise which annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, health, repose, peace or safety of other persons within the City. Noise sources from both construction and operations of the proposed project are discussed in comparison to the foregoing general standard included in the City’s Municipal Code.
EXHIBIT B
235
Pursuant to City of Livermore Municipal Code Chapter 9.36, c onstruction activities associated with development of the proposed project would be prohibited during the following time periods: 6:00 PM Saturday to 7:00 AM Monday; 8:00 PM to 7:00 AM on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursdays; 8:00 PM Friday to 9:00 AM on Saturday; and on all City-observed holidays.
General Plan Policy N -1.5.P1 requires that industrial and commercial uses be designed and operated so as to avoid the generation of noise effects on surrounding sensitive land uses from exceeding the following noise levels for exterior environments:
(a) 55 dBA L
50 (7:00 AM to 10:00 PM)
(b) 45 dBA L50 (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM)
In addition, the City’s General Plan Policy N -1.1.P4 establishes acceptable and unacceptable ranges for exterior noise levels at various land uses within the City. The acceptable and unacceptable noise ranges are included in Table 9-7 of the City’s General Plan, which is reproduced as Table 5 below.
Table 5
Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Exterior Noise (dBA) Land Use
Normally
Acceptable1
Conditionally
Acceptable1
Normally
Unacceptable1
Clearly
Unacceptable1
Residential-
Low Density,
Single-Family,
Duplex,
Mobile Homes
≤60 55-70 70-75 >75
Residential
Multi-Family ≤65 60-70 70-75 >75
Transient
Lodging,
Hotels, Motels
≤65 60-70 70-80 >80
School,
Library,
Church,
Hospital,
Nursing Home
≤70 60-70 70-80 >80
Auditorium,
Concert Hall,
Amphitheater
X <70 X >65
Sports Arena,
Outdoor
Spectator
Sports
X <75 X >70
Playground,
Neighborhood
Park
≤70 X 70-75 >75
Golf Course,
Water
Recreation,
Cemetery
≤75
X 70-80 >80
(Continued on next page)
EXHIBIT B
236
Office
Building,
Business
Commercial,
Professional,
Retail
≤70 70-75 >75 X
Industrial,
Manufacturing
, Utilities,
Agricultural
≤75 70-80 >75 X
1 Where dBA levels overlap between these categories, determination of noise level acceptability will be made on a project -by-project basis. dBA is measured in CNEL or L dn (see General Plan Policy N -
1.1.P4).
Source: City of Livermore General Plan [Table 9-7]. December 2014.
As shown in Table 5, the normally acceptable exterior noise level range for both office buildings and schools is less than or equal to 7 0 dBA L dn. Should project traffic and operational noise result in exterior noise levels exceeding 70 dBA Ldn at the office buildings located approximately 210 feet to the north of the project site or the Acton Academy East Bay school located approximately 700 feet to the northeast of the project site, the proposed project would be considered to result in a significant noise impact.
The City of Livermore has not established a threshold for significant increases in traffic noise. However, the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) has developed guidance for determining increases in traffic noise. Therefore, in addition to the 7 0 dBA L
dn limit specified in the City of Livermore Noise Element, increases in the ambient noise environment due to the proposed project were evaluated using the criteria developed by FICON. Although the FICON guidelines were originally developed for aircr aft noise impacts, the noise increase thresholds are generally considered appropriate for evaluation of noise increases at noise sensitive uses such as single-family residences or schools.
The significance criteria are provided in Table 6, below.
Table 6
FICON Noise Exposure Increases for Determining Level of Significance
Noise Exposure without Project Potential Significant Impact < 60 dB CNEL 5 dB or more
60-65 dB CNEL 3 dB or more
>65 dB CNEL 1.5 dB or more
Source: Federal Interagency Committee on Noise.
As shown in the table, according to the FICON, an increase in the traffic noise level of 5 dB or more would be significant where the pre-project noise levels are less than 60 dB L dn.
In areas where the pre-project noise levels range from 60 to 65 dBA, a 3 dBA barely perceptible noise level increase appears to be appropriate for most people. When the pre- project noise levels already exceed 65 dBA, any increase in community noise louder than
1.5 dBA or greater is considered a significant impact, given that the noise increase likely contributes to an existing noise exposure exceedance.
EXHIBIT B
237
Sensitive Noise Receptors
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others, and, thus, are referred to as sensitive noise receptors. Land uses often associated with sensitive noise receptors generally include residences, schools, libraries, hospitals, and passive recreational areas. Noise sensitive land uses are typically given special attention in order to achieve protection from excessive noise. In the vicinity of the project site, the neares t existing noise sensitive land uses is Acton Academy East Bay, located approximately 700 feet northeast of the project site’s northern boundary.
Existing Noise Environment
The existing ambient noise environment at the project site is primarily defined by traffic noise emanating from I-580, located immediately south of the project site, existing on-site parking lot movements, and by adjacent commercial operations.
Project Construction Noise
During construction of the proposed project, heavy equipment would be used for site grading and paving, which would increase ambient noise levels in the project area when in use. Standard construction equipment, such as graders, backhoes, loaders, and trucks, would be used on-site. Noise levels would vary depending on the type of equipment used, how the equipment is operated, and how well the equipment is maintained. In addition, noise exposure at any single point outside the project site would vary dependi ng on the proximity of construction activities to that point.
Table 7 shows maximum noise levels associated with typical construction equipment.
Based on the table, activities involved in typical construction would generate maximum noise levels ranging from 76 to 90 dB at a distance of 50 feet.
As one increases the
distance between equipment, or increases separation of areas with simultaneous construction activity, dispersion and distance attenuation reduce the effects of combining separate noise sources. The noise levels from a source decrease at a rate of approximately 6 dB per every doubling of distance from the noise source.
Table 7
Construction Equipment Noise
Type of Equipment Maximum Level, dB at 50 feet
Auger Drill Rig 84
Backhoe 78
Compactor 83
Compressor (air) 78
Concrete Saw 90
Dozer 82
Dump Truck 76
Excavator 81
Generator 81
Jackhammer 89
Pneumatic Tools 85
Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide, January 2006.
The City of Livermore has not adopted a formal standard for evaluating temporary construction noise which occurs within allowable hours. However, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) defines a significant increase due to noise as an
EXHIBIT B
238
increase of 12 dBA over existing ambient noise levels. Construction equipment is predicted to generate noise levels of up to 90 dBA L max at 50 feet. The nearest noise- sensitive use, Acton Academy East Bay, is located approximately 700 feet as measured from the northeastern boundary of the proposed parking lot expansion. At such a distance, maximum construction noise levels would be approximately 67.5 dBA. According to Figure 9-1 of the General Plan EIR, the project site and the Acton Academy East Bay are located within the existing 60 dBA CNEL noise contour. Therefore, project construction would not cause an increase of greater than 12 dBA over existing maximum noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptor.
In addition, the noise increase during construction would be of short duration and would likely occur primarily during daytime hours, pursuant to City of Livermore Municipal Code Chapter 9.36. Although construction activities associated with the proposed project could result in infrequent periods of high noise, the construction noise would not be sustained and would occur only during the City’s permitted construction noise hours. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur related to construction noise.
Project Operational Noise
Noise generated during operations of the proposed project would consist of typical commercial noise and traffic noise, as discussed in further detail below.
On-Site Operational Noise
On-site operational noise sources would include on-site noise associated with parking lot activity, including engines starting and stopping, car doors opening and closing, and persons conversing as they entered and exited the vehicles.
According to the Environmental Noise and Vibration Assessment prepared for the Livermore Valley Academy Project by Bollard Acoustical Consultants, individual parking lot movements generate mean noise levels of approximately 70 dB sound exposure level (SEL) at a reference distance of 50 feet. The maximum noise level associated with parking lot activity typically do not exceed 65 dB L
max at the same reference distance.
To compute hourly average (L eq) noise levels generated by parking lot activities, the approximate number of hourly operations in any given area and distance to the effective noise center of the activities is required. To be conservative, the analysis herein assumes that all of the 230 proposed parking stalls could fill or empty during a given peak hour. The hourly average noise level generated by parking lot movements is computed using the following formula:
Peak Hour L
eq = 70+10*log (N) – 35.6
Where 70 is the mean SEL for an automobile parking lot arrival or departure, N is the number of parking lot operations in a given hour, and 35.6 is 10 times the logarithm of the number of seconds in an hour. Median (L
50) parking lot noise levels would be
approximately 5 dB less than hourly average noise levels (L eq). As such, parking lot activities would be approximately 53.02 dB L50 at a reference distance of 50 feet.
Using the information provided above, and assuming a standard 6 dB decrease in noise levels per doubling of distance, the L50 noise levels at the nearest off-site existing sensitive
EXHIBIT B
239
uses, the Acton Academy East Bay, associated with on-site parking activities w ould be approximately 30 dB L50.
The City of Livermore General Plan establishes an exterior daytime noise level standard of 55 dB L
50 for sensitive land uses. As indicated above, noise level exposure from the project parking lot movements would satisfy the General Plan 55 dB L 50 exterior daytime noise level standard at the nearest sensitive land use.
In addition, as shown above in Table 5, the City of Livermore General Plan establishes acceptable and unacceptable ranges for exterior noise levels measured in CNEL at various land uses. It can be reasonably assumed that L 50 noise measurements would be greater than the CNEL measurement, as L50 was calculated as the sound level exceeded 50 percent of the time within one peak hour, and CNEL occurs over a 24-hour period. The L50 noise level calculated for the proposed project is also a conservative assumption of parking lot operations, as every space was assumed to empty and fill within one peak hour. As such, because parking lot activity noise was calculated to be approximately 53.4 dB L
50 at a reference distance of 50 feet, it is reasonable to conclude that the parking lot activities associated with the proposed project would be below the acceptable 70 dB CNEL noise level at all nearest uses.
Because parking lot movement noise level exposure from on-site noise sources is calculated to satisfy applicable City of Livermore General Plan daytime noise level standards at the nearest existing off- site noise-sensitive uses, noise level exposure from parking lot movement noise sources is not expected to result in a significant increase in ambient noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors. As such, noise level increases that could occur due to on-site noise sources during project operation would result in a less-than-significant impact.
Traffic Noise
The primary noise source associated with the operation of the proposed project would be traffic noise on local roadways. As part of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report conducted for the proposed project, TJKM determined the proposed project would generate an increase of approximately 304 trips per day, including 26 weekday AM peak hour trips and 25 weekday PM peak hour trips.
29 Based on Figure 9-1 of the General Plan, the project site is located in an area with existing noise levels of 60 dBA CNEL. Pursuant to the FICON criteria presented in Table 6, where existing traffic noise levels are between 60 and 65 dB L dn at the outdoor activity areas of
noise-sensitive uses, a +3 dB L dn increase in roadway noise levels would be considered significant. Generally, a doubling in traffic volumes is required to increase traffic noise levels by 3 dB, which is considered to be the threshold for a significant increase pursuant to the FICON. The increase of approximately 304 trips per day associated with the proposed project would not result in a doubling of traffic volumes along area roadways.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in noise levels related to vehicle traffic, and increased traffic noise generated from implementation of the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact.
29 TJKM. Traffic Impact Analysis Report – Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion. November 6, 2024.
EXHIBIT B
240
Conclusion
Noise associated with construction or operations of the proposed project would not result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of the standards established in the City’s General Plan, or applicable standards of other agencies. Thus, a less-than-significant impact related to the generation of a substantial temporary and permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies could occur.
b. Similar to noise, vibration involves a source, a transmission path, and a receiver. However, noise is generally considered to be pressure waves transmitted through air, whereas vibration usually consists of the excitation of a structure or surface. As with noise, vibration consists of an amplitude and frequency. A person’s perception to the vibration depends on their individual sensitivity to vibration, as well as the amplitude and frequency of the source and the response of the system which is vibrating.
Vibration is measured in terms of acceleration, velocity, or displacement. A common practice is to monitor vibration in terms of peak particle velocities (PPV) in inches per second (in/sec). Standards pertaining to perception, as well as damage to structures, have been developed for vibration levels defined in terms of PPV.
Human and structural response to different vibration levels is influenced by a number of factors, including ground type, distance between source and receptor, duration, and the number of perceived vibration events. Table 8, which was developed by Caltrans, shows the vibration levels that would normally be required to result in damage to structures. As shown in the table, the threshold for architectural damage to structures is 0.20 in/sec PPV and continuous vibrations of 0.10 in/sec PPV, or greater, would likely cause annoyance to sensitive receptors.
Table 8
Effects of Vibration on People and Buildings
PPV
Human Reaction Effect on Buildings mm/sec in/sec
0.15 to
0.30 0.006 to
0.019
Threshold of perception;
possibility of intrusion
Vibrations unlikely to cause damage
of any type
2.0 0.08 Vibrations readily perceptible
Recommended upper level of the
vibration to which ruins and ancient
monuments should be subjected
2.5 0.10 Level at which continuous
vibrations begin to annoy people
Virtually no risk of “architectural”
damage to normal buildings
5.0 0.20
Vibrations annoying to people in
buildings (this agrees with the
levels established for people
standing on bridges and
subjected to relative short periods
of vibrations)
Threshold at which there is a risk of
“architectural” damage to normal
dwelling - houses with plastered
walls and ceilings. Special types of
finish such as lining of walls, flexible
ceiling treatment, etc., would
minimize “architectural” damage
10 to 15 0.4 to 0.6
Vibrations considered unpleasant
by people subjected to
continuous vibrations and
unacceptable to some people
walking on bridges
Vibrations at a greater level than
normally expected from traffic, but
would cause “architectural” damage
and possibly minor structural
damage
Source: Caltrans. Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations. TAV-02-01-R9601. February 20, 2002.
EXHIBIT B
241
The primary vibration-generating activities associated with the proposed project would occur during grading activities and construction of the proposed parking lot. Table 9 shows the typical vibration levels produced by construction equipment at various distances. As shown in the table, the most substantial source of groundborne vibrations associated with project construction would be the use of vibratory compactors during construction of the proposed parking areas within the project site.
Table 9
Vibration Levels for Various Construction Equipment
Type of Equipment PPV at 25 feet (in/sec) PPV at 50 feet (in/sec) Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.029
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.025
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.000
Auger/drill Rigs 0.089 0.029
Jackhammer 0.035 0.011
Vibratory Hammer 0.070 0.023
Vibratory Compactor/roller 0.210 0.070
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines, May 2006.
As shown in the table, construction vibration levels are less than 0.2 in/sec threshold at distances of 26 feet. Sensitive receptors which could be impacted by construction-related vibrations, especially compactors/rollers, are located further than 26 feet from construction activities. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not expose people to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels, and a less-than- significant impact would occur.
c. The nearest airport to the project site is the Livermore Municipal Airport, located approximately 0.3-mile south of the site. According to Figure 3-2 (Noise Compatibility Zones) of the Livermore Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the project area is geographically located within the Airport Protection Area. The project site is located within the 55 dB CNEL airport noise contour. According to Table 3-1 of the ALUCP, commercial uses are compatible within the 55 and 60 CNEL contours. Thus, a less-than- significant impact would occur.
EXHIBIT B
242
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through
projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Discussion
a. Development of the project site would not result in direct population growth by proposing new homes or a new business . The project could indirectly attract residents to the area for employment opportunities through the expansion of existing commercial uses ; however, new employment opportunities would be limited due to the relatively small increase in operational activities, and new employees would likely be drawn from current residents in the project area. Therefore, the proposed project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth either directly or indirectly, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
b. The project site currently includes undeveloped land and the existing Parkwest Casino 580 and does not include existing housing or other habitable structures. As such, the proposed project would not displace existing housing or people and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, no impact would occur.
EXHIBIT B
243
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES.
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks?
e. Other Public Facilities?
Discussion
a,b. Fire protection services are currently provided to the site by the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department (LPFD). The nearest fire station to the project site is Station #10, located at 330 Airway Boulevard, approximately 0.65-mile southeast from the project site. The LPFD maintains ten fire stations and is staffed by approximately 100 fire suppression staff. The LPFD operates a total of 52 vehicles. The LPFD does not maintain a minimum fire protection staff/population ratio; however, the General Plan EIR determined that population growth resultant from General Plan buildout would require the hiring of additional staff. Implementation of the applicable General Plan policies would ensure that adequate capital improvements are made to accommodate any increased demand in fire protection services. Nonetheless, the CEQA Guidelines do not require identification of impacts associated with the need for increased staffing levels; rather, determination of impacts is based on whether the project would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with construction of new or physically altered governmental facilities in order to meet acceptable service ratios, response times , or other performance objectives.
The City of Livermore Police Department provides police protection services at the project site. The City’s Police Department headquarters is located at 1110 South Livermore Avenue, approximately 5.5 miles southeast from the project site. The General Plan implements policies that ensure 1.25 police officers are provided per 1,000 residents. The increase in casino operations could result in periodic calls for service, but the need for law enforcement would not be anticipated to be substantial and necessitate the construction of additional law enforcement facilities.
Because the proposed project is consistent with the project site’s current INSP land use and zoning designations, potential increases in demand for fire and police protection services associated with the proposed project have been anticipated by the City and analyzed in the INSP EIR , which concluded that environmental impacts related to the potential need for new facilities would be less than significant. Additionally, any potential demand for fire or police protection services associated with the proposed project would not be substantial as to require new or expanded fire and police protection facilities . The project would comply with all applicable State and local requirements related to fire safety and security. Compliance with such standards would minimize fire and police protection demands associated with the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact related to the need for new or physically altered fire
EXHIBIT B
244
or police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts.
c-e. The proposed project is commercial in nature, and, therefore, would not include any development that would result in direct population growth such that demand for schools, parks, or other public facilities would increase. The nearest park to the project site is Cayetano Park, located approximately 1.6 miles to the east.
The proposed project would not bring school-age children to the area; thus, an impact to schools would not occur with implementation of the proposed project. Nonetheless , the project would be subject to payment of School Impact Mitigation Development Fees to fund local school services. Furthermore, pursuant to Section 12.60 of the City of Livermore Municipal Code, the City’s park facility fee is based on the number of employees per square foot for non-residential uses. Therefore, the proposed project would be subject to payment of the City’s park facility fee, as applicable, if additional employees are hired due to the expanded casino operations. The fee would help to fund expanded park facilities and services within the City. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than- significant impact related to the need for new or physically altered schools, parks, or other public facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts.
EXHIBIT B
245
XVI. RECREATION.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Discussion
a,b. The nearest park to the project site is Cayetano Park, located approximately 1.6 miles to the east. The proposed project would include the expansion of the existing parking lot and casino operations, and would not result in direct population growth that could result in increased demand on existing recreational facilities or cause the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Furthermore, as discussed above, the project would be subject to payment of the City’s park facility fee in accordance with Section 12.60 of the Livermore Municipal Code, as applicable. The fee would help to fund expanded park facilities and services within the City. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
EXHIBIT B
246
XVII. TRANSPORTATION.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-
Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
Discussion
a. The law has changed with respect to how transportation-related impacts may be addressed under CEQA. Traditionally, lead agencies used level of service (LOS) to assess the significance of such impacts, with greater levels of congestion considered to be more significant than lesser levels. Enacted as part of SB 743 (2013), PRC Section 21099, subdivision (b)(1), directed the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare, develop, and transmit to the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency for certification and adoption proposed CEQA Guidelines addressing “criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas. Those criteria shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.”
Pursuant to SB 743, the Natural Resources Agency promulgated CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 in late 2018. It became effective in early 2019. Subdivision (a) of that section provides that “[g]enerally, vehicle miles traveled is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. For the purposes of this section, ‘vehicle miles traveled’ refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized travel.
Except as provided in subdivision (b)(2) below (regarding roadway capacity), a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact.”
Please refer to Question ‘b’ for a discussion of VMT.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Currently, pedestrian and bicycle facilities are present in the project area. Specifically, paved sidewalks are located within the project vicinity on the eastern side of Doolan Road and the northern side of North Canyons Parkway . Along North Canyons Parkway, the width of the sidewalk is approximately 8.3 feet. All intersections in the project vicinity have marked crosswalks and signalized intersections, and are equipped with pedestrian push buttons and pedestrian signal heads (see Figure 5). ADA compliant curb-ramps are located at the intersection of North Canyons Parkway/Airway Boulevard.
The City of Livermore maintains four classes of bicycle facilities, including Class I Shared- Use Paths, Class II Bike Lanes, Class III Bike Routes, and Class IV Bikeways. The nearest existing bicycle facility in the vicinity of the project site is an existing Class II bicycle lane on North Canyons Parkway . Class II bicycle facilities are also located along Airway Boulevard to the east of the project site.
EXHIBIT B
247
Figure 5
Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
EXHIBIT B
248
According to Figure 3-1 of the Livermore Bicycle and Trails Active Transportation Plan, proposed bikeways in the project vicinity include a Class IA paved share use path on Doolan Road and the northern side of North Canyons Parkway, and a Class IIA bicycle lane on the southern side of North Canyons Parkway .30 The proposed project would include off-site improvements along North Canyons Parkway, including developing a Class IV separated bikeway on North Canyons Parkway. Such improvements would implement the upgraded bicycle facilities previously planned in the Livermore Bicycle and Trails Active Transportation Plan and would be consistent with the INSP. Improvements associated with the proposed project would not preclude the City’s ability to implement additional bicycle facilities in the future. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the existing or proposed facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would implement previously proposed bicycle facilities, and would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing pedestrian or bicycle facilities.
Transit Service and Facilities
Transit service in the City of Livermore is provided by the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA). The LAVTA provides the WHEELS service, which provides local public transit to the cities of Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton, as well as the adj acent unincorporated areas of Alameda County. LAVTA provides a variety of transportation services, including fixed routes, direct access responsive transit (DART), prime time express bus routes, shuttle service, and Dial-A-Ride. The main transit center in the City is the Livermore Transit Center, located in Downtown Livermore. From the Transit Center, riders can connect to Dublin/Pleasanton BART, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Las Positas College, as well as local destinations.
Route 30R provides a loop service to destinations throughout the City of Dublin and the City of Livermore and stops near the project site on North Canyons Parkway. Route 30R operates Monday through Sunday from 4:43 AM to 11:16 PM. 31 The proposed project
would include off-site improvements along North Canyons Parkway including shifting the bus turnout and future bus shelter pad north for future use and installation as determined by LAVTA. The proposed project does not include any features which could conflict with existing or planned transit facilities, nor would the project result in substantial increases in transit demand, and existing pedestrian facilities in the project vicinity provide adequate connectivity for pedestrians to the transit stops . Therefore, current transit facilities are adequate and the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts to the nearby transit network.
Conclusion
Based on the above, the project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
b. Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines provides specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts. Pursuant to Section 15064.3, analysis of VMT attributable to a project is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. The OPR released a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA in December 2018, which provides recommendations regarding VMT evaluation 30 City of Livermore. Livermore Bicycle and Trails Active Transportation Plan. June 11, 2018. 31 Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority. 30R Dublin-Livermore via Las Positas College. August 10, 2024.
EXHIBIT B
249
methodology, significance thresholds, and screening thresholds for land use projects .32 The City of Livermore has not yet adopted a policy or thresholds of significance regarding VMT and, thus, the City typically relies on the recommendations set forth by OPR to evaluate transportation impacts pursuant to CEQA.
Pursuant to the Governor’s OPR, certain projects are presumed to have a less -than- significant effect on VMT due to project size, project location, or project type. Specifically, according to OPR, local -serving uses may generally be presumed to have a less -than- significant VMT impact and can generally be screened from further VMT analysis. OPR based the presumption on substantial research demonstrating that adding local -serving uses typically improves destination accessibility to residents, often reducing trip distances because residents need to travel shorter distances than they previously did, as adding new local -serving uses typically shifts trips away from another use rather than adding entirely new trips to the region.
The OPR Technical Advisory notes that retail projects less than 50,000 sf can generally be considered local -serving. According to the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report prepared for the proposed project, the proposed project would generate 304 new daily trips. The generation of 304 new daily trips would result in the equivalent retail square footage of approximately 8,053 sf (Institute of Transportation Engineers [ITE ] Land Use Code 820, where 37.75 trips is equivalent to 1,000 sf). Thus, the project’s equivalent retail square footage would be below 50,000 sf, and, as a result, could be considered local - serving.
33 Based on the above, the proposed project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b), and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
c,d. The proposed parking lot would connect to the existing casino parking lot to the west, which is currently accessed from driveways on Doolan Road and North Canyons Parkway.
The proposed parking lot would also connect to a new driveway on North Canyons Parkway, at the northeast corner of the project site. The proposed project would not result in any changes to the existing driveway that would affect site access, safety, or sight distance.
The proposed project would include a new driveway on North Canyons Parkway, extending from the existing Waxie Driveway on the northern side of North Canyons Parkway. The North Canyons Parkway/Waxie Driveway intersection would serve as a new access point to the parking lot expansion. A queuing analysis was conducted for exclusive
left- and right-turn pockets at the study intersections for Existing Plus Project and Cumulative Plus Project conditions as part of the TIA Report prepared for the proposed project. The queuing analysis presented that the existing storage length of the westbound left-turn lane at North Canyons Parkway/Waxie Driveway is sufficient under both Existing Plus Project and Cumulative Plus project Conditions for the additional trips that would use the new parking lot because very light commute peak traffic would be generated by the proposed project.
In addition, emergency response vehicles would be able to access the site by way of North Canyons Parkway. The proposed vehicular access and the existing driveway would meet 32 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA.
December 2018.
33 TJKM. Traffic Impact Analysis Report – Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion. November 6, 2024.
EXHIBIT B
250
the access requirements for emergency vehicles. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to design features or incompatible uses, and emergency access to the site would be adequate. The proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact.
EXHIBIT B
251
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k).
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Discussion
a,b. As discussed in Section V, Cultural Resources, of this IS/MND, a Phase 1 Cultural Resources Study was prepared for the proposed project by HRA. Based on historic photographs, maps, and other documents, and the lack of precontact archeological resources identified within 0.25-mile of the project site, HRA determined that the archeological site sensitivity of the site was low.
34 In addition, a records search of the
NAHC Sacred Lands File was completed and the results did not yield any information regarding the presence of cultural resources within the project site or the immediate area.
35 Cultural resources were also not discovered on-site during the August 10, 2024, site visit conducted by HRA.
In compliance with AB 52 (PRC Section 21080.3.1), project notification letters were distributed to the the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Baustista, Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation, Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe, Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area, Northern Valley Yokut/Ohlone Tribe, the Ohlone Indian Tribe, Wilton Rancheria, and Wuksachi Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band on July 24, 2024. Three responses were received by the City on July 24, 2024, and one additional response was received on August 13, 2024, within the mandatory 30-day response period.
The Ohlone Indian Tribe requested NAHC Sacred Lands File results and archaeological reports. The Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation requested consultation, and requested to be notified of any findings regarding the proposed project. The Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation also requested implementation of the tribe’s standard unanticipated discoveries mitigation measures be included in this IS/MND which are incorporated as Mitigation Measures V -1, XVIII-2, and XVIII-3 . The Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Baustista and the Indian Canyon Band of Costanoan Ohlone People both recommended cultural sensitivity training for construction personnel and a 34 Historic Resource Associates. Phase 1 Cultural Resources Study Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project 968 North Canyons Parkway, Livermore, Alameda County, California 94550 August 2024. 35 Native American Heritage Commission. Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project, Alameda County. July 12, 2024.
EXHIBIT B
252
monitor to be present during ground-disturbing activities, incorporated as Mitigation Measures XVIII-2 and XVIII-4.
While known Tribal Cultural Resources do not exist within the site, the possibility exists that the proposed project could result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource if previously unknown Tribal Cultural Resources are uncovered during ground-disturbing activities. Thus, a potentially significant impact to Tribal Cultural Resources could occur.
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
XVIII-1 Implement Mitigation Measures V-1 and V-2.
XVIII-2 Tribal Monitoring. Prior to ground disturbing activities, the project applicant shall coordinate with the Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation, the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of San Juan Bautista, and the Indian Canyon Band of Costanoan Ohlone People to retain a representative Tribal Monitor(s). The Tribal Monitor(s) shall have the authority to halt and redirect work should any archeological or T ribal Cultural Resources be identified during monitoring. If archeological or Tribal C ultural Resources are encountered during ground disturbing activities, work within 100 feet of the find must halt and the find must be evaluated for listing in the CRHR and NRHP.
Monitoring may be reduced or halted at the discretion of the Tribal Monitor(s), in consultation with the City of Livermore Community Development Department, as warranted by conditions such as encountering bedrock, sediments being excavated are fill, negative findings during the first 50 percent of the entire area of ground disturbance, etc. If monitoring is reduced to spot checking, spot checking shall occur when ground disturbing activities moves to a new location within the project site and when ground disturbance will extend to depths not previously reached (unless those depths are within bedrock).
XVIII-3 Inadvertent D
iscovery of Tribal Cultural Resources. If cultural resources of Native American origin are identified during grading or excavation of the proposed project, all ground disturbing activities within 100 feet shall cease until an archeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find as a cultural resource and a representative from culturally affiliated Native American Tribes is consulted by the government agency. The archeologist will stake the area of discovery, placing stakes no more than 10 feet apart, forming a circle having a radius of no less than 100 feet from the point of discovery. If the entity in consultation with the consulting Tribe(s), determines that the resource is a Tribal Cultural Resource and thus significant under CEQA and/or the Tribe, the entity shall retain a qualified archeologist and a Tribal monitor, at the applicant’s expense, to prepare a mitigation plan, which shall be implemented by the entity in accordance with state guidelines and in consultation with the consulting Tribe. The mitigation plan shall include avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of the resource is not feasible, the plan shall outline appropriate treatment of the resource in coordination with the consulting Tribe and, if applicable, a
EXHIBIT B
253
qualified archeologist. Examples of appropriate mitigation for the Tribal cultural resources include, but are not limited to, protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resources, protecting traditional use of the resources, protecting the confidentiality of the resources , or heritage recovery.
XVIII-4 Tribal Cultural Resources Awareness Training. The following language shall be noted on project Improvement Plans, subject to review and approval by the City of Livermore Community Development Department:
Prior t
o the initiation of construction, all construction crew members, consultants, and other personnel involved in project implementation shall receive project-specific Tribal Cultural Resource (TCR) Awareness Training. The training shall be conducted in coordination with qualified cultural resource specialists and representatives from culturally affiliated Native American Tribes. The training will emphasize the requirement for confidentiality and culturally appropriate, respectful treatment of any finds of significance to culturally affiliated Native American Tribes. All personnel required to receive the training shall also be required to sign a form that acknowledges receipt of the training, which shall be submitted to the City of Livermore Community Development Department for review and approval. As a component of the training, a brochure will be distributed to all personnel associated with the project implementation. At a minimum the brochure shall discuss the following topics in clear and straightforward language:
• Field indicators of potential archaeological or cultural resources (i.e., what to look for, for example: archaeological artifacts, exotic or non-native rock, unusually large amounts of shell or bone, significant soil color variations, etc.)
• Regulations governing archeological resources and tribal cultural resources.
• Consequences of disregarding or violating laws protecting archeological or tribal cultural resources.
• Steps to take if a worker encounters a possible resource.
The training shall include project specific guidance for on-site personnel including protocols for resource avoidance, when to stop work, and whom to contact if potential archeological or TCRs are identified. The training shall also address the stoppage of work if potentially significant cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, and in the case of possible human remains the proper course of action requiring immediate contact with the County Coroner and the NAHC.
EXHIBIT B
254
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or
storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple dry
years?
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
Discussion
a. The proposed project would not include any new development or modifications that would require the relocation or expansion of water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities. All utilities for the proposed project would be provided by way of existing infrastructure located within the existing project site and vicinity. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-than - significant impact related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
b. Livermore Municipal Water would provide water to the project site. According to the City of Livermore Water Resources Division 2020 UWMP, all potable water distributed through the Livermore Water Resources Division is purchased wholesale from Zone 7 Water Agency.
36 Zone 7 oversees water issues within the Livermore-Amador Valley and is a State Water Project (SWP) contractor. Water sources for the City of Livermore Water Resources Division through Zone 7 include surface water from the SWP, water transferred from the Byron Bethany Irrigation District, local surface runoff captured in Del Valle Reservoir, groundwater extraction from the Livermore Valley Main Groundwater Basin, non-local groundwater storage in the Semitropic Water Storage District and Cawelo Water District, and future local storage in the Chain-of-Lakes.
The City of Livermore Water Resources Division water service area consists of three water service area zones within the City’s urban growth boundary (UGB): the Zone 1 Water 36 City of Livermore Water Resources Division. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan [pg. 4-1]. June 28, 2021.
EXHIBIT B
255
Service Area on the west side of the City, and the Zone 2 and Zone 3 Water Service Areas on the east side of the City. The project site is located within Zone 1.37 Currently, the water service area zones encompass approximately 23 -square miles and include over 28,000 residential and commercial customers .38 Pursuant to the Livermore 2020 UWMP, adequate water supplies will be available to accommodate buildout of the City under normal year, single year, and multiple-dry year demand scenarios. 39 While the project site currently includes water demands associated with the casino use and irrigation of landscaping features, given the nature of the proposed parking lot expansion and increased casino operations , the proposed project would not involve substantially increased water demand relative to what currently exists on-site. All landscaping improvements would be consistent with the State MWELO requirements, pursuant to Section 13.25, Water Efficient Landscape, of the City’s Municipal Code. T he proposed project would require a landscape documentation package, which would include water budget calculations, a soils management report, and landscaping, irrigation, and grading design plans. The proposed project would be required to be irrigated by an automatic irrigation system to ensure the efficient use of water. In addition, the site would be consistent with the General Plan land use and zoning designations. Therefore, the City of Livermore Water Resources Division would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
c. Within the City of Livermore, sewer service is provided by the City of Livermore’s Public Works Department. With the exception of two pump stations, all of the wastewater flow in Livermore is conveyed to the City of Livermore Water Reclamation Plant by gravity.
Currently, over six million gallons of wastewater per day from throughout the Livermore area are processed at the Water Reclamation Plant, which has a design capacity of 8.5 million gallons per day.
40 Consequently, the Water Reclamation Plant has existing capacity to treat 1.5 million gallons of additional wastewater per day. Per the General Plan, new facilities at the Water Reclamation Plant would be needed to handle projected ultimate flows occurring under buildout of the City’s Planning Area.41 The City has planned a Phase VI expansion project to address future increases in demand and has a sanitary sewer impact fee program in place to fund the required improvements. Completion of the Phase VI project would provide sufficient capacity for the plant to process the projected ultimate flows.
The proposed project would be consistent with the project site’s current General Plan land use designation and INSP designation. Thus, increased demand for wastewater collection and treatment facilities associated with the project site have been generally anticipated by the City and analyzed in the General Plan EIR and INSP EIR. Thus, the City would have adequate capacity to serve the wastewater demand projected for the proposed project in addition to the City’s existing commitments, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
37 City of Livermore. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan [Figure 1-1]. June 28, 2021. 38 City of Livermore. Livermore Municipal Water . Available at: https://www.livermoreca.gov/departments/public - works/water-resources/livermore-municipal-water. Accessed August 2024. 39 City of Livermore. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan [pg. 14]. June 28, 2021. 40 City of Livermore. Livermore Water Reclamation Plant. Available at:
http://www.cityoflivermore.net/citygov/pw/public_works_divisions/wrd/water_reclamation_plant/lwrp.htm.
Accessed May 2021.
41 City of Livermore. General Plan, 2003-2025. Amended December 2014.
EXHIBIT B
256
d,e. Solid waste, recyclable materials, and compostable material collection within the City of Livermore is provided through a franchise agreement with Livermore Sanitation, Inc.
Currently, Livermore Sanitation, Inc. transports solid waste from Livermore to the Republic Services Vasco Road, LLC Landfill for disposal. The Republic/Vasco Road Landfill is designated as a Class III disposal site that permits the disposal of municipal waste, with separate disposal areas required for asbestos and auto-shredder waste. The Vasco Road Landfill has a remaining capacity of approximately 11,560,000 CY, or 28.7 percent of the total permitted capacity of the landfill (40,207,100 CY). 42 The addition of six gaming tables and increased operations to an existing casino would produce relatively small waste generation as compared to the residential or commercial uses within the City. Additionally, because the proposed project would be consistent with the project site’s current General Plan and INSP land use designations , construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in increased solid waste generation beyond what has been previously anticipated for the site by the City and analyzed in the General Plan EIR and the INSP EIR. In addition, the project would be required to comply with all applicable provisions of Chapter 8.08, Solid Waste Management, of the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals and would comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
Therefore, a less-than-significant impact related to solid waste would occur as a result of the proposed project.
42 Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. SWIS Facility Detail, Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill (01-AA- 0010). Available at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/9?siteID=8. Accessed August 2024.
EXHIBIT B
257
XX. WILDFIRE.
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones,
would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
Discussion
a-d. According to the CAL FIRE Fire and Resource Assessment Program, the project site is not located within a State Responsibility Area or a Very High FHSZ . However, a High FHSZ is located immediately west of Doolan Road in close proximity to the project site. 43 However, the expansion of the existing parking lot would include the removal of existing on-site vegetation, which would reduce wildfire risks. Furthermore, the existing Parkwest Casino 580 is required to include fire sprinklers, and other fire suppression features, consistent with the CBSC and California Fire Code (CFC).
As noted in Section IX, implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with potential evacuation or response routes used by emergency response teams. The project would not conflict with the City of Livermore Emergency Operations Plan. In addition, the proposed project would not include any development on, or at the base of, a substantial slope. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would not exacerbate any existing conditions or hazards related to downslope flooding or landslides , slope i nstability, or drainage changes. Therefore, the project area does not include any existing features that would substantially increase fire risk for customers and employees.
The proposed project would not require the development of additional utility infrastructure, and, thus, would not result in substantial fire risks related to installation or maintenance of such infrastructure. Therefore, the proposed project would not be subject to substantial risks related to wildfires, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
43 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer . Available at:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/03beab8511814e79a0e4eabf0d3e7247/. Accessed August 2024.
EXHIBIT B
258
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Discussion
a. As discussed in Section IV, Biological Resources, of this IS/MND, with implementation of Mitigation Measures IV -1 through IV-3, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts to special-status plant or wildlife species. The project site is disturbed and does not contain any known historic or prehistoric resources. Thus, implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to have the potential to result in impacts related to historic or prehistoric resources. Nevertheless, Mitigation Measures V-1 and V-2 would ensure that in the event that historic or prehistoric resources are discovered within the project site during construction activities, such resources would be protected in compliance with the requirements of CEQA. Additionally, Mitigation Measures XVIII-2 through XVIII-4 would require monitoring of construction activities by a tribal monitor, appropriate avoidance and preservation measures in the case of inadvertent discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources, and Tribal Cultural Resources awareness training for construction crew members.
Considering the above, the proposed project would not: 1) degrade the quality of the environment; 2) substantially reduce or impact the habitat of fish or wildlife species; 3) cause fish or wildlife populations to drop below self-sustaining levels; 4) threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; 5) reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; or 6) eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
b. The proposed project in conjunction with other development within the City of Livermore could incrementally contribute to cumulative impacts in the area. However, as demonstrated in this IS/MND, all potential environmental impacts that could occur as a result of project implementation would be reduced to a less -than-significant level through compliance with the mitigation measures included in this IS/MND, as well as applicable General Plan policies, INSP standards, Municipal Code standards, and other applicable local and State regulations. The proposed project would include operational changes and the expansion of the existing casino parking lot, consistent with the site’s existing land use and zoning designations.
EXHIBIT B
259
Therefore, when viewed in conjunction with other closely related past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts in the City of Livermore, and the project’s incremental contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
c. As described in this IS/MND, the proposed project would comply with all applicable General Plan policies, INSP standards, Municipal Code standards, other applicable local and State regulations, and mitigation measures included herein. In addition, as discussed in the Air Quality, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Noise sections of this IS/MND, the proposed project would not cause substantial effects to human beings, which cannot be mitigated to less -than- significant levels, including effects related to exposure to air pollutant and GHG emissions, geologic hazards, hazardous materials, and excessive noise. Therefore, the proposed project’s impact would be less than significant.
EXHIBIT B
260
APPENDIX A
AIR QUALITY MODELING RESULTS
EXHIBIT B
261
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 1 / 58
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
2.3. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Mitigated
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated
3.2. Demolition (2025) - Mitigated
3.3. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
EXHIBIT B
262
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 2 / 58
3.4. Site Preparation (2025) - Mitigated
3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
3.6. Grading (2025) - Mitigated
3.7. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
3.8. Paving (2025) - Mitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.1.2. Mitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
4.3.2. Mitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
EXHIBIT B
263
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 3 / 58
4.4.1. Unmitigated
4.4.2. Mitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
4.5.2. Mitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
4.6.2. Mitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.7.2. Mitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.8.2. Mitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.9.2. Mitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
EXHIBIT B
264
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 4 / 58
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.2.2. Mitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.3.2. Mitigated
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
EXHIBIT B
265
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 5 / 58
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.9.2. Mitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.1.2. Mitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.11.2. Mitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
EXHIBIT B
266
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 6 / 58
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.12.2. Mitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.13.2. Mitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.14.2. Mitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.15.2. Mitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
EXHIBIT B
267
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 7 / 58
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
8. User Changes to Default Data
EXHIBIT B
268
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 8 / 58
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project
Construction Start Date 4/1/2025
Operational Y ear 2025
Lead Agency City of Livermore
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.00
Precipitation (days) 33.2
Location 37.70203565920632, -121.82178414339562
County Alameda
City Livermore
Air District Bay Area AQMD
Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area
TAZ 1677
EDFZ 1
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.28
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Parking Lot 252 Space 4.70 0.00 87,120 — — —
EXHIBIT B
269
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 9 / 58
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0.35 Acre 0.35 0.00 0.00 — — —
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-5 Use Advanced Engine Tiers
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 5.41 4.16 68.2 39.3 0.31 1.53 19.8 21.2 1.47 10.1 11.4 — 46,048 46,048 2.39 6.96 95.9 48,277 Mit. 3.67 3.64 54.0 39.1 0.31 0.87 19.8 19.9 0.87 10.1 10.2 — 46,048 46,048 2.39 6.96 95.9 48,277 %
Reduced
32% 13% 21% < 0.5% — 44% — 6% 41% — 10% — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.26 0.18 2.53 1.67 0.01 0.07 0.58 0.65 0.06 0.21 0.27 — 1,372 1,372 0.07 0.19 1.15 1,432 Mit. 0.15 0.08 1.67 1.63 0.01 0.03 0.58 0.61 0.03 0.21 0.24 — 1,372 1,372 0.07 0.19 1.15 1,432 %
Reduced
43% 52% 34% 2% — 61% — 6% 58% — 14% — — — — — — —
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.05 0.03 0.46 0.31 < 0.005 0.01 0.11 0.12 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 227 227 0.01 0.03 0.19 237 Mit. 0.03 0.02 0.31 0.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 0.11 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 — 227 227 0.01 0.03 0.19 237
EXHIBIT B
270
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 10 / 58
%
Reduced
43% 52% 34% 2% — 61% — 6% 58% — 14% — — — — — — —
2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 5.41 4.16 68.2 39.3 0.31 1.53 19.8 21.2 1.47 10.1 11.4 — 46,048 46,048 2.39 6.96 95.9 48,277 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.26 0.18 2.53 1.67 0.01 0.07 0.58 0.65 0.06 0.21 0.27 — 1,372 1,372 0.07 0.19 1.15 1,432 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.05 0.03 0.46 0.31 < 0.005 0.01 0.11 0.12 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 227 227 0.01 0.03 0.19 237
2.3. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 3.67 3.64 54.0 39.1 0.31 0.87 19.8 19.9 0.87 10.1 10.2 — 46,048 46,048 2.39 6.96 95.9 48,277 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.15 0.08 1.67 1.63 0.01 0.03 0.58 0.61 0.03 0.21 0.24 — 1,372 1,372 0.07 0.19 1.15 1,432 EXHIBIT B271
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 11 / 58
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.03 0.02 0.31 0.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 0.11 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 — 227 227 0.01 0.03 0.19 237
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.22 1.13 0.95 9.44 0.02 0.02 2.12 2.13 0.01 0.54 0.55 0.00 2,522 2,522 0.11 0.10 9.34 2,565 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.18 1.08 1.11 8.93 0.02 0.02 2.12 2.13 0.01 0.54 0.55 0.00 2,384 2,384 0.12 0.11 0.24 2,422 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.16 1.07 1.05 8.60 0.02 0.02 2.07 2.09 0.01 0.53 0.54 0.00 2,396 2,396 0.12 0.11 4.03 2,436 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.21 0.19 0.19 1.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.38 0.38 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 0.00 397 397 0.02 0.02 0.67 403
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.19 1.09 0.95 9.44 0.02 0.02 2.12 2.13 0.01 0.54 0.55 — 2,419 2,419 0.09 0.10 9.34 2,461 Area 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 100 100 0.02 < 0.005 — 101
EXHIBIT B
272
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 12 / 58
Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 2.73 2.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.76 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 1.22 1.13 0.95 9.44 0.02 0.02 2.12 2.13 0.01 0.54 0.55 0.00 2,522 2,522 0.11 0.10 9.34 2,565 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.15 1.05 1.11 8.93 0.02 0.02 2.12 2.13 0.01 0.54 0.55 — 2,281 2,281 0.11 0.11 0.24 2,318 Area 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 100 100 0.02 < 0.005 — 101 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 2.73 2.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.76 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 1.18 1.08 1.11 8.93 0.02 0.02 2.12 2.13 0.01 0.54 0.55 0.00 2,384 2,384 0.12 0.11 0.24 2,422 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.13 1.03 1.05 8.60 0.02 0.02 2.07 2.09 0.01 0.53 0.54 — 2,293 2,293 0.10 0.11 4.03 2,332 Area 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 100 100 0.02 < 0.005 — 101 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 2.73 2.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.76 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 1.16 1.07 1.05 8.60 0.02 0.02 2.07 2.09 0.01 0.53 0.54 0.00 2,396 2,396 0.12 0.11 4.03 2,436 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.21 0.19 0.19 1.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.38 0.38 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 — 380 380 0.02 0.02 0.67 386 Area 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 16.6 16.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.8 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.45 0.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.46 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.21 0.19 0.19 1.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.38 0.38 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 0.00 397 397 0.02 0.02 0.67 403
2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
EXHIBIT B
273
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 13 / 58
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.19 1.09 0.95 9.44 0.02 0.02 2.12 2.13 0.01 0.54 0.55 — 2,419 2,419 0.09 0.10 9.34 2,461 Area 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 100 100 0.02 < 0.005 — 101 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 2.73 2.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.76 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 1.22 1.13 0.95 9.44 0.02 0.02 2.12 2.13 0.01 0.54 0.55 0.00 2,522 2,522 0.11 0.10 9.34 2,565 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.15 1.05 1.11 8.93 0.02 0.02 2.12 2.13 0.01 0.54 0.55 — 2,281 2,281 0.11 0.11 0.24 2,318 Area 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 100 100 0.02 < 0.005 — 101 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 2.73 2.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.76 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 1.18 1.08 1.11 8.93 0.02 0.02 2.12 2.13 0.01 0.54 0.55 0.00 2,384 2,384 0.12 0.11 0.24 2,422 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.13 1.03 1.05 8.60 0.02 0.02 2.07 2.09 0.01 0.53 0.54 — 2,293 2,293 0.10 0.11 4.03 2,332 Area 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 100 100 0.02 < 0.005 — 101 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 2.73 2.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.76 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 1.16 1.07 1.05 8.60 0.02 0.02 2.07 2.09 0.01 0.53 0.54 0.00 2,396 2,396 0.12 0.11 4.03 2,436 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.21 0.19 0.19 1.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.38 0.38 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 — 380 380 0.02 0.02 0.67 386
EXHIBIT B
274
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 14 / 58
Area 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 16.6 16.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.8 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.45 0.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.46 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.21 0.19 0.19 1.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.38 0.38 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 0.00 397 397 0.02 0.02 0.67 403
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
2.86 2.40 22.2 19.9 0.03 0.92 — 0.92 0.84 — 0.84 — 3,425 3,425 0.14 0.03 — 3,437 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.63 0.63 — 0.09 0.09 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.05 0.05 0.43 0.38 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 65.7 65.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 65.9
EXHIBIT B
275
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 15 / 58
———————< 0.005< 0.005—0.010.01——————Demoliti
on
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.08 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 10.9 10.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.9 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 130 130 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.52 132 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.04 0.01 0.61 0.24 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 501 501 0.03 0.08 1.11 527 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.33 2.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.36 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.61 9.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 10.1 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.39 0.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.39 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.59 1.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.67
EXHIBIT B
276
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 16 / 58
3.2. Demolition (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.36 0.36 4.51 18.2 0.03 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 3,425 3,425 0.14 0.03 — 3,437 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.63 0.63 — 0.09 0.09 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.09 0.35 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 65.7 65.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 65.9 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 10.9 10.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.9 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B
277
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 17 / 58
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 130 130 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.52 132 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.04 0.01 0.61 0.24 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 501 501 0.03 0.08 1.11 527 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.33 2.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.36 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.61 9.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 10.1 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.39 0.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.39 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.59 1.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.67
3.3. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B
278
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 18 / 58
5,314—0.040.215,2955,295—1.26—1.261.37—1.370.0530.231.63.313.94Off-Roa d
Equipm
ent
Dust
From
Material
Mo
vement
— — — — — — 19.7 19.7 — 10.1 10.1 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.09 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 14.5 14.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.6 Dust
From
Material
Mo
vement
— — — — — — 0.05 0.05 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.40 2.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.41 Dust
From
Material
Mo
vement
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B
279
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 19 / 58
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 152 152 < 0.005 0.01 0.60 154 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.39 0.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.39 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.4. Site Preparation (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.50 0.50 2.59 28.3 0.05 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 — 5,295 5,295 0.21 0.04 — 5,314
EXHIBIT B
280
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 20 / 58
———————10.110.1—19.719.7——————Dust
From
Material
Mo
vement
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 14.5 14.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.6 Dust
From
Material
Mo
vement
— — — — — — 0.05 0.05 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.40 2.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.41 Dust
From
Material
Mo
vement
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 152 152 < 0.005 0.01 0.60 154
EXHIBIT B
281
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 21 / 58
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.39 0.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.39 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
2.07 1.74 16.3 17.9 0.03 0.72 — 0.72 0.66 — 0.66 — 2,959 2,959 0.12 0.02 — 2,970 Dust
From
Material
Mo
vement
— — — — — — 7.41 7.41 — 3.47 3.47 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
EXHIBIT B
282
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 22 / 58
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.06 0.05 0.45 0.49 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 81.1 81.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 81.4 Dust
From
Material
Mo
vement
— — — — — — 0.20 0.20 — 0.10 0.10 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.08 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.4 13.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.5 Dust
From
Material
Mo
vement
— — — — — — 0.04 0.04 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 130 130 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.52 132 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 3.28 0.97 51.9 20.8 0.28 0.81 11.4 12.2 0.81 3.11 3.92 — 42,959 42,959 2.27 6.93 95.4 45,175 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B
283
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 23 / 58
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.32 3.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.37 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.09 0.03 1.47 0.57 0.01 0.02 0.31 0.33 0.02 0.08 0.11 — 1,177 1,177 0.06 0.19 1.13 1,236 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.55 0.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.56 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.02 < 0.005 0.27 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 195 195 0.01 0.03 0.19 205
3.6. Grading (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.29 0.29 2.04 17.8 0.03 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 2,959 2,959 0.12 0.02 — 2,970 Dust
From
Material
Mo
vement
— — — — — — 7.41 7.41 — 3.47 3.47 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B
284
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 24 / 58
81.4—< 0.005< 0.00581.181.1—< 0.005—< 0.005< 0.005—< 0.005< 0.0050.490.060.010.01Off-Roa d
Dust
From
Material
Mo
vement
— — — — — — 0.20 0.20 — 0.10 0.10 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.4 13.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.5 Dust
From
Material
Mo
vement
— — — — — — 0.04 0.04 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 130 130 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.52 132 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 3.28 0.97 51.9 20.8 0.28 0.81 11.4 12.2 0.81 3.11 3.92 — 42,959 42,959 2.27 6.93 95.4 45,175 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.32 3.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.37 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.09 0.03 1.47 0.57 0.01 0.02 0.31 0.33 0.02 0.08 0.11 — 1,177 1,177 0.06 0.19 1.13 1,236 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B 285
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 25 / 58
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.55 0.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.56 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.02 < 0.005 0.27 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 195 195 0.01 0.03 0.19 205
3.7. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.95 0.80 7.45 9.98 0.01 0.35 — 0.35 0.32 — 0.32 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,517 Paving 3.31 3.31 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.08 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 16.6 16.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.6 Paving 0.04 0.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B
286
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 26 / 58
2.75—< 0.005< 0.0052.742.74—< 0.005—< 0.005< 0.005—< 0.005< 0.0050.020.01< 0.005< 0.005Off-Roa d
Equipm
ent
Paving 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 130 130 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.52 132 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.33 1.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.35 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.22 0.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.22 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.8. Paving (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B
287
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 27 / 58
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.31 0.28 3.36 10.4 0.01 0.11 — 0.11 0.10 — 0.10 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,517 Paving 3.31 3.31 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 16.6 16.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.6 Paving 0.04 0.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.74 2.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.75 Paving 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 130 130 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.52 132
EXHIBIT B
288
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 28 / 58
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.33 1.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.35 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.22 0.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.22 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot
1.19 1.09 0.95 9.44 0.02 0.02 2.12 2.13 0.01 0.54 0.55 — 2,419 2,419 0.09 0.10 9.34 2,461 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1.19 1.09 0.95 9.44 0.02 0.02 2.12 2.13 0.01 0.54 0.55 — 2,419 2,419 0.09 0.10 9.34 2,461 EXHIBIT B289
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 29 / 58
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot
1.15 1.05 1.11 8.93 0.02 0.02 2.12 2.13 0.01 0.54 0.55 — 2,281 2,281 0.11 0.11 0.24 2,318 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1.15 1.05 1.11 8.93 0.02 0.02 2.12 2.13 0.01 0.54 0.55 — 2,281 2,281 0.11 0.11 0.24 2,318 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot
0.21 0.19 0.19 1.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.38 0.38 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 — 380 380 0.02 0.02 0.67 386 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.21 0.19 0.19 1.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.38 0.38 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 — 380 380 0.02 0.02 0.67 386
4.1.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot
1.19 1.09 0.95 9.44 0.02 0.02 2.12 2.13 0.01 0.54 0.55 — 2,419 2,419 0.09 0.10 9.34 2,461 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1.19 1.09 0.95 9.44 0.02 0.02 2.12 2.13 0.01 0.54 0.55 — 2,419 2,419 0.09 0.10 9.34 2,461 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B
290
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 30 / 58
2,3180.240.110.112,2812,281—0.550.540.012.132.120.020.028.931.111.051.15Parking Lot
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1.15 1.05 1.11 8.93 0.02 0.02 2.12 2.13 0.01 0.54 0.55 — 2,281 2,281 0.11 0.11 0.24 2,318 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot
0.21 0.19 0.19 1.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.38 0.38 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 — 380 380 0.02 0.02 0.67 386 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.21 0.19 0.19 1.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.38 0.38 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 — 380 380 0.02 0.02 0.67 386
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 100 100 0.02 < 0.005 — 101
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 100 100 0.02 < 0.005 — 101 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 100 100 0.02 < 0.005 — 101
EXHIBIT B
291
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 31 / 58
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 100 100 0.02 < 0.005 — 101 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 16.6 16.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.8 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 16.6 16.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.8
4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 100 100 0.02 < 0.005 — 101
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 100 100 0.02 < 0.005 — 101 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 100 100 0.02 < 0.005 — 101
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 100 100 0.02 < 0.005 — 101
EXHIBIT B
292
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 32 / 58
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 16.6 16.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.8 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 16.6 16.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.8
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
EXHIBIT B
293
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 33 / 58
0.00—0.000.000.000.00—0.00—0.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.000.00Other Asphalt
Surfaces
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
EXHIBIT B
294
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 34 / 58
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s
0.02 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.02 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s
0.02 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.02 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B
295
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 35 / 58
————————————————< 0.005< 0.005Consum
er
Product
Architect
ural
Coating
s
< 0.005 <
0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s
0.02 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.02 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B
296
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 36 / 58
————————————————0.020.02Consum
er
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.02 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s
< 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
< 0.005 <
0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 2.73 2.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.76
EXHIBIT B
297
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 37 / 58
0.00—0.000.000.000.000.00———————————Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 2.73 2.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.76 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 2.73 2.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.76 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 2.73 2.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.76 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.45 0.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.46 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.45 0.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.46
4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 2.73 2.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.76 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 2.73 2.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.76
EXHIBIT B
298
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 38 / 58
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 2.73 2.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.76 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 2.73 2.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.76 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.45 0.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.46 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.45 0.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.46
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
EXHIBIT B
299
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 39 / 58
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B
300
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 40 / 58
0.00—0.000.000.000.000.00———————————Parking
Lot
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.6.2. Mitigated
EXHIBIT B
301
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 41 / 58
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B
302
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 42 / 58
4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B
303
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 43 / 58
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B 304
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 44 / 58
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B
305
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 45 / 58
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B
306
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 46 / 58
——————————————————Remove
d
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
EXHIBIT B
307
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 47 / 58
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B
308
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 48 / 58
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B
309
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 49 / 58
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 4/1/2025 4/9/2025 5.00 7.00 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 4/10/2025 4/10/2025 5.00 1.00 — Grading Grading 4/11/2025 4/24/2025 5.00 10.0 —
Paving Paving 4/25/2025 4/30/2025 5.00 4.00 —
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Av erage 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
EXHIBIT B
310
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 50 / 58
5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Excavators Diesel Tier 4 Final 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 4 Final 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Grading Graders Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Pavers Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 7.14 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
EXHIBIT B 311
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 51 / 58
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 15.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 613 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 7.14 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
EXHIBIT B
312
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 52 / 58
Grading Worker 15.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 613 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic
Y ards)
Material Exported (Cubic
Y ards)
Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Ton of
Debris)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 200 —
Site Preparation 0.00 0.00 1.50 0.00 —
Grading 0.00 49,000 10.0 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.05
EXHIBIT B
313
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 53 / 58
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Parking Lot 4.70 100%
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.35 100%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Y ear kWh per Y ear CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Parking Lot 305 305 305 111,296 2,999 2,999 2,999 1,094,487 Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Parking Lot 305 305 305 111,296 2,999 2,999 2,999 1,094,487 Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5.10. Operational Area Sources
EXHIBIT B
314
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 54 / 58
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.1.2. Mitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 13,199
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Parking Lot 179,345 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
EXHIBIT B
315
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 55 / 58
5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Parking Lot 179,345 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Parking Lot 0.00 989,797
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Parking Lot 0.00 989,797
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Parking Lot 0.00 —
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —
5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
EXHIBIT B
316
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 56 / 58
Parking Lot 0.00 —
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced
5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)
EXHIBIT B
317
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 57 / 58
5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
EXHIBIT B
318
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion Project Custom Report, 11/5/2024 58 / 58
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Applicant provided information.
Other asphalt surf
aces land uses representative of frontage bike lane improvements.
Construction: Construction Phases Building Construction and Architectural Coating not required for parking lot expansion.
Applicant provided
construction timing.
Construction: Dust From Material Movement Applicant provided information.
Construction: Paving Applicant provided information.
Operations: Vehicle Data Trip generation of 304 trips per day provided by Traffic Impact Analysis Report prepared for the proposed project b
y TJKM. Trip rate equal to trip generation/total spaces. Increase in trips associated with the new games and six additional gaming tables to be proposed to be added to the interior of the casino.
Construction: Trips and VMT Applicant provided haul length information
EXHIBIT B
319
APPENDIX B
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
EXHIBIT B
320
Biological Resource Technical Report
Casino Parkwest 580 Parking Lot Expansion
Livermore, Alameda County, California
Prepared for: Prepared by:
Raney Planning and Management Inc
1501 Sports Drive, Suite A
Sacramento, CA, 95834
Attn: Nancy Pham
[email protected]
WRA, Inc.
2169 G East Francisco Boulevard
San Rafael, CA 94901
Attn: Carla Angulo
[email protected]
November 2024 WRA#26166-1
EXHIBIT B
321
EXHIBIT B
322
Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Overview and Purpose ................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Project Description ....................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Summary of Results ..................................................................................................... 2
2.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND .................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Federal and State Regulatory Setting ......................................................................... 6
2.1.1 Vegetation and Aquatic Communities ............................................................ 6
2.1.2 Special-status Species ..................................................................................... 7
2.2 Local Plans and Policies ............................................................................................... 9
3.0 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... 12
3.1 Vegetation Communities and Other Land Cover Types ........................................... 12
3.1.1 General Assessment ....................................................................................... 13
3.2 Wildlife Corridors and Native Wildlife Nursery Sites ................................................ 14
4.0 ECOLOGICAL SETTING ............................................................................................................ 15
4.1 Soils and Topography ................................................................................................ 15
4.2 Climate and Hydrology .............................................................................................. 15
4.3 Land Use ..................................................................................................................... 16
5.0 ASSESSMENT RESULTS ........................................................................................................... 16
5.1 Vegetation Communities and Other Land Cover ...................................................... 16
5.1.1 Terrestrial Land Cover ................................................................................... 16
5.1.2 Aquatic Resources .......................................................................................... 17
5.2 Special-status Species ............................................................................................... 17
5.2.1 Special-status Plants ..................................................................................... 17
5.2.2 Special-status Wildlife................................................................................... 20
5.3 Wildlife Corridors and Native Wildlife Nursery Sites ................................................ 23
6.0 ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY AND SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD CRITERIA ......................... 24
7.0 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION EVALUATION ............................................................................. 25
7.1 Special-status Species ............................................................................................... 25
7.1.1 Special-status Plant Species ......................................................................... 25
7.1.2 Special-status Wildlife Species ..................................................................... 26
7.2 Sensitive Natural Communities and Land Cover Types ........................................... 28
7.3 Aquatic Resources ...................................................................................................... 28
7.4 Wildlife Corridors and Native Wildlife Nursery Sites ................................................ 28
7.5 Local Policies and Ordinances ................................................................................... 28
EXHIBIT B
323
7.6 Habitat Conservation Plans ....................................................................................... 30
8.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 31
List of Tables
Table 1. Summary of Biological Resources Evaluation ....................................................................... 4 Table 2. Description of East Bay CNPS Locally Rare Plant Rankings............................................... 11 Table 3. Vegetation Communities and Other Land Cover Types ..................................................... 16 Table 4. Potential Special-status Plants ............................................................................................ 18 Table 5. Potential Special-status Wildlife ......................................................................................... 20 List of Appendices
APPENDIX A. FIGURES
Figure 1. Study Area Location
Figure 2. Land Cover within the Study Area
Figure 3. Study Area Soils
Figure 4. Proposed Project Impacts
APPENDIX B. SPECIES OBSERVED IN AND AROUND THE STUDY AREA APPENDIX C. SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES POTENTIAL TABLE
EXHIBIT B
324
List of Preparers
Rob Schell Principal in Charge
Carla Angulo Wildlife Biologist
Maya Avendano Botanist
Peter Kobylarz GIS Analyst
EXHIBIT B
325
List of Acronyms
AMM Avoidance and Minimization Measure
APN Accessor’s Parcel Number
BCC USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern
BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
BRA Biological Resources Assessment
BRTR Biological Resources Technical Report
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CCC California Coastal Commission
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFGC California Fish and Game Code
CFP California Fully Protected Species
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNPS California Native Plant Society
County County of Alameda
Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CPRC California Public Resources Code
CRLF California Red Legged Frog
CSRL California Soils Resource Lab
CTS California Tiger Salamander
CWA Clean Water Act
CZ Conservation Zone
EACCS East Alameda County Conservation Strategy
EFH Essential Fish Habitat
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Federal Endangered Species Act
ESHA Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area
INSP Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan
Inventory California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Inventory Magnuson-Stevens Act Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation & Management Act MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MM Mitigation Measure
MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act
NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan
NETR National Environmental Title Research
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NPPA California Native Plant Protection Act
NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service
NWI National Wetland Inventory
NWPL National Wetland Plant List
OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark
Rank California Rare Plant Ranks
RHA Rivers and Harbors Act
EXHIBIT B
326
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SC State Candidate
SFEI San Francisco Estuary Institute
SSC Species of Special Concern
SWRCB State Water Resource Control Board
TOB Top of Bank
USC U.S. Code
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
WBWG Western Bat Working Group
WRA WRA, Inc.
EXHIBIT B
327
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Biological Resources Technical Report evaluates existing biological resources, potential impacts, and mitigation measures (if required) for the Casino Parkwest 580 Parking Lot Expansion Project (Project) proposed at Accessor Parcel Number (APN) 905-000-901-303 adjacent to 968 North Canyons Parkway, Livermore, Alameda County, California (Appendix A – Figure 1, Study Area). The approximately 11.31 acre Study Area is boarded by North Canyons Parkway and a business park to the north, Airway Boulevard and a gas station, restaurant and three hotels to the east, an on ramp to Interstate 580 to the south and the Las Positas Golf Course further south and a parking lot for commercial building, Doolan Road and undeveloped land past Doolan Road to the west. The Study Area is within the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan (INSP) area and is designated as a General Commercial. The proposed Project involves developing a 252-space parking lot to accommodate patrons of the Parkwest Casino at 968 North Canyons Parkway.
1.1 Overview and Purpose
This Biological Resources Technical Report provides an assessment of biological resources the Study Area and immediate vicinity and gather information on sensitive land cover types and special-status plant and wildlife species to support an evaluation of the Project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This report includes an update to the previous biological resources report and wetland assessment (cite) . This report describes the results of the site visit, which assessed the Study Area for (1) the presence of sensitive land cover types, special-status plant species, and special-status wildlife species, (2) the potential for the site to support special-status plant and wildlife species and potential impacts to sensitive land cover types and special-status species resulting from the proposed Project. If the proposed Project has the potential to result in significant impacts to these biological resources, measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate for those impacts are described.
This assessment provides general information on the presence, or potential presence, of sensitive species and habitats. Additional focused studies (such as protocol level species surveys) may be required to support regulatory permit applications or to implement mitigation measures included in this report. This assessment is based on information available at the time of the study and on-site conditions that were observed on the dates the site was visited. Conclusions are based on currently available information used in combination with the professional judgement of the biologists completing this study.
1.2 Project Description
The Parkwest Casino 580 is an entertainment and gambling facility, which includes 10 gaming tables, a bar, restaurant, and 108-space parking lot for customers. Parking demands by casino customers have now exceeded the 108 parking spaces available, and as a result, casino employees have begun parking along the east side of Doolan Road and north side of Collier Canyon Road, both of which are located within unincorporated Alameda County. Generally, the employee vehicles are parked on unpaved (but firmly surfaced) shoulders and do not interfere with the flow of traffic in the area, which aside from Casino-bound traffic is very light. The employee on-street parking is concentrated in about a 1,200-foot length of the east side of Doolan Road north of Collier Canyon Road and a length of about 800 feet on the north side of
EXHIBIT B
328
Collier Canyon Road west of Doolan Road. In parking observations conducted by TJKM, 60 to 100 vehicles are generally parked in this area.
The applicant (Parkwest Casino 580) is proposing to add a new surface parking lot with 252 parking spaces, which would be located east of the existing casino, and would serve the casino’s customers and employees. The proposed parking lot expansion totals approximately 5.23 acres within the existing 11.31 acres of the Study Area. The new parking lot would be located on the southern portion of the eastern parcel and would include 202 standard stalls, 22 electric vehicle charging stations, one accessible EV charging station, and four Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) stalls, as well as racks for up to 35 bicycles. The additional 252 parking spaces would increase the number of available parking spaces for the casino from 108 to 360. In addition, the applicant is proposing to add new games and six additional gaming tables to the interior of the casino, which would increase the number of available gaming tables from 10 to 16. The proposed parking lot would alleviate the existing parking deficit and accommodate the anticipated increase in parking demand resulting from the increase in gaming tables at the casino. The proposed hardscape associated with the parking lot expansion includes concrete totaling 3.29 acres.
A large landscape area planted with hydroseed grass would be located north of the proposed parking lot expansion and smaller landscape medians would be located throughout the parking lot. The proposed landscape area approximately totals 1.52 acres. Three bioretention planters would be located along the center and southwest corner of the parking lot with an approximate acreage of 0.16. Concrete pavement would be located along the western border of the large landscape area and three concrete medians would be located within the parking lot. In addition, poles and lighting would be installed within the parking lot medians. The proposed parking lot would connect to the existing casino parking lot to the west, which is currently accessed via driveways off of Doolan Road and North Canyons Parkway. The proposed parking lot would also connect to a new driveway off of North Canyons Parkway, at the northeast corner of the project site.
On-site improvements would include additional ADA stripping and symbols at four designated ADA parking spaces located in front of the casino entrance, a total of 0.06 acres. The proposed project would also include off-site improvements along North Canyons Parkway including the development of a new bike lane, restriping of traffic lanes, and installment of a new bus shelter, which would replace the existing bus stop. One tree would be removed as part of the proposed project located in the existing parking lot. Removal of the tree would be required to accommodate a pedestrian connection from the new surface parking lot to the existing sidewalk surrounding the building. No changes are to occur to the existing trees that are located along Airway Boulevard. No changes are to occur to half of the undeveloped parcel which contains a storm drain.
The parking lot expansion will require City approval of a Site Plan and Design Review. Exterior improvements to the existing Parkwest Casino 580 will not occur as part of the project. Interior improvements would consist of the additional six gaming tables. Approvals for the increase in gaming tables will be confirmed with the City but are expected to involve both State and City approvals.
1.3 Summary of Results
Approximately 5.23 acres of a total 11.31 acres of non-native grassland and landscaped land across the Study Area are proposed to be converted to parking spaces and associated landscape
EXHIBIT B
329
and bioswale infrastructure, therefore impacting 5.22 acres of non-native grassland and approximately 0.002 acres of existing landscape. Non-native grasslands and landscaped land are not considered sensitive under Alameda County or CDFW. No compensatory mitigation for loss of sensitive habitats is recommended. No aquatic resources are present within the Study Area and therefore no impacts due to Project activities are anticipated, so no additional permitting from the resource agencies will be required.
Three special-status plants: Livermore tarplant (Deinandra bacigalupii, SE, CRPR 1B.1), Cangdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii, CRPR 1B.1), and San Joaquin spearscale (Extriplex joaquinana, CRPR 1B.2), and one special-status invertebrate, Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii, State Candidate), as well as non-status birds with baseline legal protections, have the potential to occur in the Study Area. Mitigation measures and best management practices have been developed and provided herein to avoid impacts to these resources, such as rare plant surveys.
EXHIBIT B
330
1 CEQA Questions have been summarized here, see Section 6.2 for details. 2 As given in this report, see Section 5.0 subheadings.
Table 1. Summary of Biological Resources Evaluation
CEQA Assessment
Category1 IV –
Biological
Resources
Biological
Resources
Considered
Relevant Laws
& Regulations
Responsible
Regulatory Agency
Summary of
Findings & Report
Section2
Question A.
Special-status
Species
Special-status
Plants
Special-status
Wildlife
Designated Critical
Habitat
Federal Endangered
Species Act
CA Endangered
Species Act
CA Native Plant
Protection Act
Migratory Bird
Treaty Act
Bald & Golden Eagle
Protection Act
U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Ser
vice
National Marine
Fisheries Service
CA Department of
Fish & Wildlife
Potentially
significant impacts
were identified and
mitigation measures
are recommended.
See Section 7.1 for
more information.
Question B.
Sensitive natural
communities &
riparian habitat
Sensitive Natural
Communities
Streams, Lakes &
Riparian Habitat
CA Fish & Game
Code
Oak Woodland
Conservation Act
Porter-Cologne Act
Clean Water Act
CA Department of
Fish
& Wildlife
U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
State Water
Resources Control
Board
Regional Water
Quality Control
Board
Potentially
significant impacts
were not identified,
no mitigation is
required for less
than significant
impacts.
Question C.
State and federally
protected wetlands
Wetlands
Unvegetated surface
waters
Clean Water Act:
Sections 404/401
Rivers & Harbors
Act: Section 10
Porter-Cologne Act
U.S. Army Corps of
Engi
neers
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
State Water
Resources Control
Board
Regional Water
Quality Control
Board
Potentially
significant impacts
were not identified
and mitigation
measures are not
recommended.
EXHIBIT B
331
Table 1. Summary of Biological Resources Evaluation
CEQA Assessment
Category1 IV –
Biological
Resources
Biological
Resources
Considered
Relevant Laws
& Regulations
Responsible
Regulatory Agency
Summary of
Findings & Report
Section2
Question D.
Fish & Wildlife
corridors
Essential Fish
Habitat
Wildlife Corridors
CA Fish & Game
Code
Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation
& Management Act
CA Department of
Fis
h and Wildlife
National Marine
Fisheries Service
Potentially
significant impacts
were not identified
and mitigation
measures are not
recommended.
Question E.
Local policies
Protected Trees
Coastal zone
resources
Other biological
protections
Local Tree
Ordinance
General Plan (e.g.
Stream & Wetland
Setbacks)
Local ordinances
Local and regional
agen
cies
CA Coastal
Commission
San Francisco Bay
Conservation and
Development
Commission
Potentially
significant impacts
were identified and
mitigation measures
are included that
reduce those
impacts to a level
that is less than
significant.
See Section 7.5 for
more information
Question F.
Local, state,
federal
conservation plans
Habitat
Conservation Plans
Natural Community
Conservation Plans
Federal Endangered
Species Act
Natural Community
Conservation
Planning Act
U.S. Fish and
Wild
life Service
CA Department of
Fish and Wildlife
Potentially
significant impacts
were not identified
and mitigation
measures are not
recommended.
EXHIBIT B
332
2.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND
The following sections explain the regulatory context of this biological assessment, including applicable laws and regulations that were applied to the field investigations and analysis of potential project impacts. Table 1 shows the correlation between these regulations and each Biological Resources question in the Environmental Checklist Form (Appendix G) of the CEQA guidelines.
2.1 Federal and State Regulatory Setting
2.1.1 Vegetation and Aquatic Communities
CEQA provides protections for particular vegetation types defined as sensitive by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and aquatic features protected by laws and regulations administered by the U.S Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB). The laws and regulations that provide protection for these resources are summarized below.
Sensitive Natural Communities: Sensitive natural communities include habitats that fulfill special functions or have special values. Natural communities considered sensitive are those identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW. CDFW ranks sensitive communities as "threatened" or "very threatened" (CDFW 2024a) and keeps records of their occurrences in its California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFW 2021b). Natural communities are ranked 1 through 5 in the CNDDB based on NatureServe's (2020) methodology, with those communities ranked globally (G) or statewide (S) as 1 through 3 considered sensitive. Impacts to sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or those identified by the CDFW or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) must be considered and evaluated under CEQA (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 14, Div. 6, Chap. 3, Appendix G). In addition, this general class includes oak woodlands that are protected by local ordinances under the Oak Woodlands Protection Act and Section 21083.4 of California Public Resources Code (CPRC).
Waters of the United States, Including Wet
lands: The Corps regulates “Waters of the United
States” under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Waters of the United States are defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as including the territorial seas, and waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, such as tributaries, lakes and ponds, impoundments of waters of the U.S., and wetlands that are hydrologically connected with these navigable features (33 CFR 328.3).
Potential wetland areas, according to the three criteria used to delineate wetlands as defined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Corps Manual; Environmental Laboratory 1987), are identified by the presence of (1) hydrophytic vegetation, (2) hydric soils, and (3) wetland hydrology. Unvegetated waters including lakes, rivers, and streams may also be subject to Section 404 jurisdiction and are characterized by an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) identified based on field indicators such as the lack of vegetation, sorting of sediments, and other indicators of flowing or standing water. The placement of fill material into Waters of the United States generally requires a permit from the Corps under Section 404 of the CWA.
The
Corps also regulates construction in navigable waterways of the U.S. through Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) of 1899 (33 U.S. Code [USC] 403). Section 10 of the RHA
EXHIBIT B
333
requires Corps approval and a permit for excavation or fill, or alteration or modification of the course, location, condition, or capacity of, any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, canal, lake, harbor or refuge, or enclosure within the limits of any breakwater, or of the channel of any navigable water of the United States. Section 10 requirements apply only to navigable waters themselves, and are not applicable to tributaries, adjacent wetlands, and similar aquatic features not capable of supporting interstate commerce.
Waters of the State, Including Wetlands: The term “Waters of the State” is defined by the Porter- Cologne Act as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” The SWRCB and nine RWQCB protect waters within this broad regulatory scope through many different regulatory programs. Waters of the State in the context of a CEQA Biological Resources evaluation include wetlands and other surface waters protected by the State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (SWRCB 2019). The SWRCB and RWQCB issue permits for the discharge of fill material into surface waters through the State Water Quality Certification Program, which fulfills requirements of Section 401 of the CWA and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.
Projects that require a Clean Water Act permit are also required to obtain a Water Quality Certification. If a project does not require a federal permit but does involve discharge of dredge or fill material into surface waters of the State, the SWRCB and RWQCB may issue a permit in the form of Waste Discharge Requirements.
Sections 1600-161
6 of California Fish and Game Code: Streams and lakes, as habitat for fish and wildlife species, are regulated by CDFW under Sections 1600-1616 of California Fish and Game Code (CFGC). Alterations to or work within or adjacent to streambeds or lakes generally require a 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement. The term “stream,” which includes creeks and rivers, is defined in the CCR as “a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life [including] watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation” (14 CCR 1.72). The term “stream” can include ephemeral streams, dry washes, watercourses with subsurface flows, canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream-dependent terrestrial wildlife (CDFG 1994). Riparian vegetation has been defined as “vegetation which occurs in and/or adjacent to a stream and is dependent on, and occurs because of, the stream itself” (CDFG 1994). Removal of riparian vegetation also requires a Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW.
2.1.2 Special-st
atus Species
Endangered and Threatened Plants, Fish, and Wildlife. Spec ific species of plants, fish, and wildlife species may be designated as threatened or endangered by the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Specific protections and permitting mechanisms for these species differ under each of these acts, and a species’ designation under one law does not automatically provide protection under the other.
The
ESA (16 USC 1531 et seq.) is implemented by the USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The USFWS and NMFS maintain lists of endangered and threatened plant and animal species (referred to as "listed species"). "Proposed" or "candidate" species are those that are being considered for listing and are not protected until they are formally listed as threatened or endangered. Under the ESA, authorization must be obtained from the USFWS or NMFS prior to
EXHIBIT B
334
take of any listed species. “Take” under the ESA is defined as “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Take under the ESA includes direct injury or mortality to individuals, disruptions in normal behavioral patterns resulting from factors such as noise and visual disturbance and impacts to habitat for listed species. Actions that may result in take of an ESA-listed species may obtain a permit under ESA Section 10, or via the interagency consultation described in ESA Section 7. Federal- listed plant species are only protected when removal or destruction occurs on federal land; however, if a federal agency authorizes, funds, or carries out an action, that agency must insure through Section 7 consultation that the action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species.
The ESA also provides for designation of critical habitat, which are specific geographic areas containing physical or biological features “essential to the conservation of the species.” Protections afforded to designated critical habitat apply only to actions that are funded, permitted, or carried out by federal agencies. Critical habitat designations do not affect activities by private landowners if there is no other federal agency involvement.
The CESA (CFGC 2050 et seq.) prohibits the take of any plant and animal species that the CFGC determines to be an endangered or threatened species in California. CESA regulations include take protection for threatened and endangered plants on private lands, as well as extending this protection to candidate species that are proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under CESA. The definition of a "take" under CESA ("hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill") only applies to direct impact to individuals, and does not extend to habitat impacts or harassment. CDFW may issue an Incidental Take Permit under CESA to authorize take if it is incidental to otherwise lawful activity and if specific criteria are met.
Take of these species is also authorized if the geographic area is covered by a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), as long as the NCCP covers that activity. CDFW may also authorize take for voluntary restoration projects through the Restoration Management Permit (RMP).
Fully Protected Species and Designated Rare Plant Species. Thi s category includes specific plant
and wildlife species that are designated in the CFGC as protected even if not listed under CESA or ESA. Fully Protected Species includes specific lists of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and fish designated in CFGC. Fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time.
No licenses or permits may be issued for take of fully protected species, except for necessary scientific research and conservation purposes. The definition of "take" is the same under the California Fish and Game Code and the CESA. By law, CDFW may not issue an Incidental Take Permit for Fully Protected Species. Under the California Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA), CDFW has listed 64 “rare” or “endangered” plant species, and prevents “take,” with few exceptions, of these species. CDFW may authorize take of species protected by the NPPA through the Incidental Take Permit process, or under a NCCP. CDFW may also authorize take for voluntary restoration projects through the Restoration Management Permit (RMP).
Special Protections for Nesting Birds and Bats. The
federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
provides relatively broad protections to both of North America’s eagle species [bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)] that in some regards are similar to those provided by the ESA. In addition to regulations for special-status species, most native birds in the United States, including non-status species, have baseline legal protections under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and CFGC, i.e., sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513.
EXHIBIT B
335
Under these laws/codes, the intentional harm or collection of adult birds as well as the intentional collection or destruction of active nests, eggs, and young is illegal. For bat species, the Western Bat Working Group (WBWG) designates conservation status for species of bats, and those with a high or medium-high priority are typically given special consideration under CEQA.
Essential Fish Habitat. The
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act provides for conservation and management of fishery resources in the U.S., administered by NMFS. This Act establishes a national program intended to prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, ensure conservation, and facilitate long-term protection through the establishment of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). EFH consists of aquatic areas that contain habitat essential to the long-term survival and health of fisheries, which may include the water column, certain bottom types, vegetation (e.g., eelgrass (Zostera spp.)), or complex structures such as oyster beds. Any federal agency that authorizes, funds, or undertakes action that may adversely affect EFH is required to consult with NMFS.
Species of Special Concern, Movement Corridors, and Other Special-statu s Species under CEQA.
A Species of Special Concern (SSC) is a species formally designated by the CDFW which meets one or more criteria related to a Federal ESA status (if it is not listed under CESA), including extirpation from California, documented population declines, or small population size within California and risk of declines. In addition, CDFW has developed a special animals list as “a general term that refers to all of the taxa the CNDDB is interested in tracking, regardless of their legal or protection status.” This list includes lists developed by other organizations, including for example, the Audubon Watch List Species, the Bureau of Land Management Sensitive Species, and USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern. Plant species on the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Inventory (Inventory; CNPS 2024) with California Rare Plant Ranks (Rank) of 1 and 2, as well as some with a Rank of 3 or 4, are also considered special-status plant species and must be considered under CEQA. Some Rank 3 and Rank 4 species are typically only afforded protection under CEQA when such species are particularly unique to the locale (e.g., range limit, low abundance/low frequency, limited habitat) or are otherwise considered locally rare. Some species listed in the Rare, Unusual and Significant Plants of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties (web application) (Lake 2024) are considered sensitive (see Section 2.2).
Additionally, any species listed as sensitive within local plans, policies and ordinances are likewise considered sensitive. Movement and migratory corridors for native wildlife (including aquatic corridors) as well as wildlife nursery sites are given special consideration under CEQA.
2.2 Local Plans and Policies
Livermore General Plan. The Livermore General Plan contains policies pertaining to the following biological resources categories:
• Wetlands, streams, riparian, and aquatic areas (Policy OSC-1 .2-P3, OSC-1.2-P4, OSC-1.2- P7, etc.)
• Vegetation communities (Policy OSC-1.2-P2, OSC-1.2-P4, OSC-1.2-P5, etc.) • Plant Species (Policy OSC-1-P4, OSC-1.2-P6, OSC-1.2-P8, etc.) • Wildlife Species (Policy OSC-1-P4, OSC-1.2-P1, OSC-1.2-P6, OSC-1.2-P8, etc.) • Wildlife Corridors (Policy OSC-1-P1, OSC-1.2-P12, OSC-1.2-P13, etc.)
EXHIBIT B
336
Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan. The Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan contains policies pertaining to the following biological resources categories:
• Wetlands, streams, riparian, and aquatic areas (Policy ENV -18, ENV-20, ENV-26) • Vegetation communities (Policy ENV-19, EN-28)
• Plant Species (Policy ENV-21, ENV-22, ENV-23, ENV-24) • Wildlife Species (Policy ENV-21, ENV-23, ENV-24, ENV-25, ENV-27) • Wildlife Corridors (Policy ENV-23)
City of Livermore T ree Ordinance. The City of Livermore Tree Ordinance Chapter 12.20 Street Trees and Tree Preservation Article I, requires a permit for the trimming, root pruning or removal of any street tree category from any street right-of-way, parkway strip, sidewalk, park, landscaped area, playground or any other public area in the City. The Ordinance also defines a “protected tree” under Article II as a single-trunked, multi-trunked tree or stand of trees dependent upon each other for survival meeting the criteria below:
1. Any tree located on private property occupied by single-fa mily residential development that meets the following criteria:
a. Any tree with a circumference (CBH) of 60 inches or more; or b. Any California native tree having a circumference (CBH) of 24 inches or more;
2. Any tree located on private property occupied by commercial, industrial, institutional (i.e., religious, public agency, hospital, care facilities, etc.), mixed-use or multifamily residential (two or more units) development with a circumference (CBH) of 24 inches or more; or
3. Any tree located on an undeveloped or underdeveloped property, regardless of zoning district, use, or development status, for which new development is proposed, with a circumference (CBH) of 18 inches or more; or
4. Any tree located in an open space, riparian, or habitat area with a circumference (CBH) of 18 inches or more; or
5. Any tree approved as part of a site plan approval, or required as a condition of approval for a development project, zoning use permit, use permit or other site development review; or
6. Any tree designated by the City Council as determined to be an ancestral tree; and/or
7. Any tree listed on the City’s ancestral tree inventory; or
8. Any tree required to be planted as mitigation for unlawfully removed trees.
The City of Livermore requires a permit under Section 12.20.190 for any removal or encroachment within a protected zone of any protected tree within a parcel in the City. Permits associated with developments will require a report by a certified arborist. Pursuant to Section 12.20.220 the preservation of protected trees within a site which is undergoing development may request protection measures as a condition of approval. Pursuant to Section 12.20.230 other conditions of approval include mitigation for the removal of protected trees by planting replacement trees or payment to the urban forestry maintenance fund. Residential applicants are generally required to replace removed trees at a minimum ratio of two 15-gallon size trees or one 15-gallon California
EXHIBIT B
337
native tree for each protected tree removed. Multifamily, commercial, industrial, institutional, multiuse etc. applicants are generally required to replace removed trees at a ratio of three 15- gallon, or two 24-inch box or one 48-inch box replacement trees to each protected tree removed, the type of tree shall be a California native to the extent feasible.
City of Livermore S tream Policies. Policy ENV-18 requires stream setbacks from toe of the channel of 2.5:1 plus 20 feet. In addition, Policy ENV-26 states that construction within 300 feet of freshwater marsh or streambank habitat take place during the non-breeding season for tricolored blackbirds (September 1 through January 31) to the extent feasible.
Rare, Unusual, and Significant Plants of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Rar e, Unusual, and Significant Plants of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties (web application) (Lake 2024) is a database produced by the East Bay Chapter of the CNPS that lists plant taxa which are considered locally rare, unusual, or significant in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. Taxa are assigned rankings of A, B, or C to indicate their degree of rarity or endangerment in the two counties. See Table 2 for a description of each of the rankings. A-ranked taxa receive consideration under sections 15380 and 15125(a) of CEQA and are considered “locally rare” for the purposes of this report. Any locally rare taxa observed in the Study Area are discussed in this report.
Table 2. Description of East Bay CNPS Locally Rare Plant Rankings
RANK DESCRIPTION
A1 Locally Rare Species. Species occurring in two or fewer regions in Alameda and Contra Costa counties
A1x Locally Rare Species. Species presumed extirpated from Alameda and Contra Costa counties
A1? Locally Rare Species. Species possibly occurring in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. Identification or location is uncertain
A2 Locally Rare Species. Plants occurring in three to five regions or are otherwise threatened in Alameda and Contra Costa counties.
B High Priority Watch List. Plants occurring in six to nine regions in Alameda and Contra Costa counties.
C Second Priority Watch List. Plants occurring in ten to fifteen regions in Alameda and Contra Costa counties.
*Ranks preceded by an asterisk (e.g., “*A1”) also have a statewide rarity ranking
East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS)
The Study Area is within the boundaries of the EACCS due to the classification of the City of Livermore as a limited urban growth region, an HCP was deemed unnecessary. The EACCS was developed in partnership with the USFWS, CDFW, SFRWQCB, EBRPD and several local agencies within East Alameda County with the efforts of streamlining the permitting process for listed species and implementation of mitigation for development an infrastructure projects, as well as improve voluntary conservation and improve mitigation and conservation of listed and unlisted species. The EACCS includes specific avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures to implement for impacts on 19 focal species including endangered, threatened and special status species and non-listed species, however, no incidental take permits are to result as is the case in an HCP. Protections are also outlined for sensitive habitat types in which these species can or do exist. The goal of EACCS is to provide a baseline of biological resources and conservation priorities for project-level planning and environmental permitting.
EXHIBIT B
338
3.0 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
On June 18, 2024, WRA, Inc. (WRA) biologists visited the Study Area to map vegetation, aquatic features, and other land cover types; document plant and wildlife species present; and evaluate on-site habitat for the potential to support special-status species as defined by CEQA. Prior to the site visit, WRA biologists reviewed literature resources and performed database searches to assess the potential for sensitive land cover types and special-status species, including:
• Web Soil Survey (USDA 1966)
• Livermore, Dublin, Altamont, diablo, Tassajara, Bryon Hot Springs, Niles, La Costa Valley, and Mendenhall Springs 7.5-minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle (USGS 2024 • Contemporary aerial photographs (Google Earth 2024)
• National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 2024a)
• California Aquatic Resources Inventory (SFEI 2024)
• CNDDB (CDFW 2024b)
• CNPS Inventory (CNPS 2024)
• Consortium of California Herbaria (CCH1 2024, CCH2 2024) • USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (USFWS 2024b) • eBird Online Database (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2024) • California Bird Species of Special Concern in California (Shuford and Gardali 2008) • California Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern (Thomson et al. 2016) • A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians (Stebbins 2003) • A Manual of California Vegetation, Online Edition (CNPS 2024) • California Natural Community List (CDFW 2024a)
• Database searches (i.e., CNDDB, CNPS) for special-status species focused on the Livermore, Dublin, Altamont, diablo, Tassajara, Bryon Hot Springs, Niles, La Costa Valley, and Mendenhall Springs USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles.
Following the remote assessment, WRA biologists completed a field review to document: (1) land cover types (e.g., vegetation communities, aquatic resources), (2) existing conditions and to determine if such provide suitable habitat for any special-status plant or wildlife species, (3) if and what type of aquatic land cover types (e.g., wetlands) are present, and (4) if special-status species are present.
3.1 Vegetation Communities and Other Land Cover Types
During the site visit, WRA evaluated the species composition and area occupied by distinct vegetation communities, aquatic communities, and other land cover types. Mapping of these classifications utilized a combination of aerial imagery and ground surveys. In most instances, communities are characterized and mapped based on distinct shifts in plant assemblage (vegetation) and follow the California Natural Community List (CDFW 2021a) and A Manual of
EXHIBIT B
339
California Vegetation, Online Edition (CNPS 2024). These resources cannot anticipate every component of every potential vegetation assemblage in California, and so in some cases, it is necessary to identify other appropriate vegetative classifications based on best professional judgment of WRA biologists. When undescribed variants are used, it is noted in the description.
Vegetation alliances (natural communities) with a CDFW Rank of 1 through 3 (globally critically imperiled [S1/G1], imperiled [S2/G2], or vulnerable [S3/G3]) (CDFW 2021a), were evaluated as sensitive as part of this assessment.
On June 18, 2024, the site was reviewed for the presence of wetlands and other aquatic resources according to the methods described in the Corps Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West/Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Corps 2008/Corps 2010), and A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (Lichvar and McColley 2008). No areas meeting these indicators were mapped as no aquatic resources were found using the methods described above. Aquatic communities which are mapped in the NMFS EFH Mapper (NMFS 2020) were outside of the Study Area. There was no presence of riparian habitat which was evaluated based on the lack of woody plant species meeting the definition of riparian provided in A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements, Section 1600-1607, California Fish and Game Code (CDFG 1994) and based on best professional judgement of biologists completing the field surveys.
Special-status Species
3.1.1 General Assessment
Potential occurrence of special-status species in the Study Area was evaluated by first determining which special-status species occur in the vicinity of the Study Area through a literature and database review as described above. Presence of suitable habitat for special- status species was evaluated during the site visit based on physical and biological conditions of the site as well as the professional expertise of the investigating biologists. The potential for each special-status species to occur in the Study Area was then determined according to the following criteria (see Appendix C):
• No Potential. Habitat on and adjacent to the site is clearly unsuitable for the species requirements (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime).
• Unlikely. Few of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or the majority of habitat on and adjacent to the site is unsuitable or of very poor quality. The species is not likely to be found on the site. • Moderate Potential. Some of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or only some of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is unsuitable. The species has a moderate probability of being found on the site. • High Potential. All of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present and/or most of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is highly suitable. The species has a high probability of being found on the site. • Present. Species is observed on the site or has been recorded (i.e., CNDDB, other reports) on the site in the recent past.
EXHIBIT B
340
If a more thorough assessment was deemed necessary, a targeted or protocol-level assessment or survey is recommended as a future study. If a special-status species was observed during the site visit, its presence was recorded and discussed below in Section 5.2. If designated critical habitat is present for a species, the extent of critical habitat present and an evaluation of critical habitat elements is provided as part of the species discussions below.
3.2 Wildlife Corridors and Native Wildlife Nursery Sites To account for potential impacts to wildlife movement/migratory corridors, biologists reviewed maps from the California Essential Connectivity Project (CalTrans 2010), and habitat connectivity data available through the CDFW Biogeographic Information and Observation System (CDFW 2024). Additionally, aerial imagery (Google Earth 2024) for the local area was referenced to assess if local core habitat areas were present within, or connected to the Study Area. This assessment was refined based on observations of on-site physical and/or biological conditions, including topographic and vegetative factors that can facilitate wildlife movement, as well as on-site and off-site barriers to connectivity.
The potential presence of native wildlife nursery sites is evaluated as part of the site visit and discussion of individual wildlife species below. Examples of native wildlife nursery sites include nesting sites for native bird species (particularly colonial nesting sites), marine mammal pupping sites, and colonial roosting sites for other species (such as for monarch butterfly [Danaus plexippus]).
EXHIBIT B
341
4.0 ECOLOGICAL SETTING
The approximately 11.31-acres Study Area is located in Livermore, Alameda County immediately north of Interstate 580, south of North Canyons Blvd, west of Airway Blvd and east of Doolan Road. The site was historically agricultural land, however due to developments of the interstate and mixed-use development parcels, the Study Area has been significantly altered from its native state. Discing occurs twice a year and has been surrounded by development since 2007.
The Study Area has ornamental trees lining the northeastern boundary adjacent to Airway Blvd.
The Study Area includes all areas affected by the Project, as well as the sidewalks and the non- annual grassland hill and storm drain to the east of the proposed Project footprint. Additional details of the local setting are below.
4.1 Soils and Topography
The overall topography of the Study Area is relatively flat with slopes of less than 2 to 10 percent. The general slope is from northeast with elevations ranging from approximately 5 to 15 feet above sea level. According to SoilWeb (CSRL 2024) and Web Soil Survey (USDA 1966), the Study Area is underlain by one native soil mapping unit: Diablo clay, very deep 3 to 15 percent slopes. This mapping unit is considered hydric. The parent soil series of all the Study Area’s mapping unit is summarized below.
Diablo Series: The
Diablo series consists of well drained, slow permeability soils with slow runoff when dry and medium to rapid when soils are moist. These soils formed in residuum weathered from shale, sandstone, and consolidated sediments with minor areas of tuffaceous material. A typical Diablo series soil has dark gray, neutral and mildly alkaline, silty clay upper A horizons, gray and olive gray, calcareous, silty clay lower A horizons, and light olive gray, silty clay AC and C horizons that rest on shale. Diablo soils are on complex, undulating, rolling to steep uplands with slopes of 5 to 50 percent. This soil is used for grazing and for production of dry farmed grain (CSRL 2024, USDA 1966).
4.2 Climate and Hydrology
The Study Area is located at the edge of the coastal fog belt of the Bay Area in the inland region of Livermore, Alameda. The average monthly maximum temperature in the area is 73.2 degrees Fahrenheit, while the average monthly minimum temperature is 47.7 degrees Fahrenheit.
Predominantly, precipitation falls as rainfall between October and March with an annual average precipitation of 15.20 inches.
The local watershed is Lower Arroyo Las Positas (HUC 12: 180500040302) and the regional watershed is San Francisco Bay (HUC 8: 18050004). The Study Area is located in the lower portion of the Lower Arroyo Las Positas watershed. There are no blue-line streams in the Study Area (USGS 2024). There are two freshwater emergent wetlands within one mile and vernal pool complexes at approximately 2 miles of the Study Area, however, no resources are located within the Study Area nor connect with the Study Area (USFWS 2024a) and California Aquatic Resources Inventory (CARI; SFEI 2024). Detailed descriptions of aquatic resources are provided in Section 5.1 below.
EXHIBIT B
342
4.3 Land Use
The majority of the Study Area is undeveloped and marginally landscaped with some disturbances to add a culvert and a storm drain under the interstate on-ramp. Undeveloped areas consist of non-native annual grassland. The landscaped portion includes street trees along Airway Blvd. Detailed land cover type descriptions are included in Section 5.1 below, and all observed plant species are included in Appendix B. Surrounding land uses include mixed-use developments such as gasoline stations, hotels, businesses and roads (Google Earth 2024).
Historically, the Study Area was agricultural land.
5.0 ASSESSMENT RESULTS
5.1 Vegetation Communities and Other Land Cover
WRA observed two land cover types within the Study Area: non-native annual grassland and landscaped/ruderal. The edge of the Study Area contains landscaping and hardscaping (i.e., sidewalks) that provide no ecological value. The grasslands are tilled/disked annually, and the site was tilled at the time of the site visit. Land cover types within the Study Area are illustrated in Appendix A – Figure 3. The non-sensitive land cover types in the Study Area include non- native grasslands and landscape/ruderal.
Table 3. Vegetation Communities and Other Land Cover Types
5.1.1 Terrestrial Land Cover
Non-native annual grassland (A vena barbata Semi-natural Herbaceous Stand). CDFW Rank: None. Nearly the entire Study Area is non-native annual grassland composed of mainly wild oat grassland with substantial cover of yellow sweetclover (Melilotus indicus), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), soft chess (B. hordeaceus), Italian ryegrass (Festuca perennis), and Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum). Non-native forbs include field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), field mustard (Hirschfeldia incana) and curly dock (Rumex crispus). This community is not considered sensitive by Alameda County, CDFW, or any other regulatory entity.
Landscaped/Ruderal (no alliance). CDFW Rank: None. The
northeastern corner of the Study Area consists of a row of street trees likely planted to create scenic value. These landscape trees are all within the public right- of-way along Airway Blvd and are the same species, Bradford pear (Pyrus calleryana). Although,
COMMUNITY / LAND
COVERS SENSITIVE STATUS RARITY RANKING ACRES WITHIN
STUDY AREA
TERRESTRIAL / COMMUNITY LAND COVER
Non-native annual
grassand none none 11.09
Landscaped/Ruderal None None 0.22
Photo 1. Terrestrial land cover in
the Study Area, dominated by non-
native grasses and weeds
EXHIBIT B
343
street trees are protected by the Livermore Municipal Ordinance, this community is not considered sensitive by Alameda County, CDFW, or any other regulatory entity,
5.1.2 Aquatic Resources
No sensitive aquatic resources were found within the Study Area. A broad swale runs through the center of the property, terminating at the three-foot culvert. At the time of the site visit, the entire site was disked and tilled with vegetation lying flat mostly everywhere except the deepest areas of the swale. Several areas were sampled following the methods for delineating wetlands outlined in Section 3.1.2. Vegetation was dominated by yellow sweetclover, hood canary grass, and brome, all upland plants. Soils were black (10YR 3/1) heavy clays that contained no redoximorphic features or depletions at two location and less than 5% redoximorphic features within 8 inches of the surface at the third sample site; therefore, the swale’s substrate does not meet the criteria for hydric soils. Likewise, there were no indicators of saturation or inundation to meet the wetland hydrology criteria. The presence of non-hydrophytic vegetation, non-hydric soils and no hydrology leads to the conclusion that there are no aquatic resources within the Study Area.
5.2 Special-status Species
5.2.1 Special-status Plants
Based upon a review of the resource databases listed in Section 3.0, 14 special-status plant species have been documented in the vicinity of the Study Area. Figure 3 below depicts special- status species observed within a 5-mile radius of the Study Area. The Study Area is unlikely or has no potential to support 10 of these species for the following reasons:
• Hydrologic conditions (e.g. tidal, riverine) necessary to support the special-status plant species are not present in the Study Area;
• Edaphic (soil) conditions (e.g. volcanic, serpentine) necessary to support the special- status plant species are not present in the Study Area; • Unique pH conditions (e.g. acidic conditions) necessary to support the special-status plant species are not present in the Study Area;
• Associated vegetation communities (e.g. forest, woodland, scrub, vernal pools) necessary to support the special-status plant species are not present in the Study Area;
• The Study Area is geographically isolated from the documented range of the special- status plant species; and/or
• The land use history (e.g., petro chemical and residential development) of the Study Area has resulted in habitat conversion and/or has a degree of disturbance to preclude the colonization and establishment of special-status species.
Three special-status plant species that could be present within the site with moderate to high potential were not observed during the June 18, 2024, site visit. All of these species germinate and bolt in late spring, and bloom in the summer into fall. Likewise, they are annuals that are tolerant of disturbance (e.g., tilling) and, because they bloom in summer,
EXHIBIT B
344
can tolerate competitive pressure from non-native annual herbs (e.g., wild oats (Avena barbata). These species are detailed below:
Table 4. Potential Special-status Plants
Livermore tarplant (Deinandra bacigalupii). State Endangered, CNPS Rank 1B.1. Moderate Potential. Livermore tarplant is annual forb in the sunflower family (Asteraceae) that blooms from June through October. It typically occurs in alkaline herbaceous communities and scalds within meadow and seep habitat at elevations ranging from 485 to 600 feet (CNPS 2018, CDFW 2018, Baldwin et al. 2012). Observed associated species include ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), soft chess (B. hordeaceus), Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum), salt grass (Distichlis spicata), iodine bush (Allenrolfea occidentalis), common spikeweed (Centromadia pungens), brittlescale (Atriplex depressa), sand spurry (Spergularia spp.), alkali heath (Frankenia salina), yellow tarweed (Holocarpha virgata), and three-ray tarweed (Deinandra lobbii) (CDFW 2018).
The Study Area contains moderately alkaline clay soil. The most recent occurrence of the species is 6 miles northeast of the Study Area near Springtown Village (CCH2 2024).
Livermore tarplant has relative tolerance to disturbance; however, it frequently occurs in strongly alkali conditions, with extended saturation. Therefore, the population near Springtown Village is likely in better soil conditions. However, there is moderate potential for the species to occur within the Study Area.
Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii). CNPS Rank 1B.1. Moderate Potential. Congdon’s tarplant is an annual forb in the sunflower family (Asteraceae) that blooms from June to November. It typically occurs in alkaline grassy areas on the edge of
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME CONSERVATION STATUS POTENTIAL HABITAT IN
THE STUDY AREA
FORMALLY LISTED PLANTS (FESA, CESA, CNPPA)
Deinandra
bacigalupii
Livermore tarplant SE, Rank 1B.1, G1S1, *A1 The Study Area contains grassland habitat with
moderately alkaline clay
soils. The species is also
tolerant to disturbance.
OTHER SPECIAL-STATUS PLANTS (CEQA, OTHER)
Centromadia parryi
ssp. congdonii
Cangdon’s tarp lant Rank 1B.1, G3S2, *A2 The Study Area contains moderate alkali
conditions, the presence
of associated species, and
a seed source within close
proximity within the
direction of the prevailing
winds.
Extriplex joaquinana San Joaquin spearscale Rank 1B.2, G2S2, *A2 The Study Area contains moderate alkali
conditions, the presence
of associated species, and
a seed source within close
proximity within the
direction of the prevailing
winds.
EXHIBIT B
345
brackish marsh in valley and foothill grassland habitat at elevations ranging from 1 to 750 feet (CDFW 2018, CNPS 2018). Observed associated species include common tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. pungens), alkali heath (Frankenia salina), salt grass (Distichlis spicata), Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis), Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum), foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum), stinkwort (Dittrichia graveolens), yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), and Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon) (CDFW 2018, personal observations 2008-2013).
The Study Area contains moderately alkaline clay soils with species associated with Congdon’s tarplant. Due to the species’ relative tolerance to disturbance and the presence of a seed source within 3 miles west and within the direction of prevailing winds there is moderate potential for the species to occur within the Study Area (CCH2 2024).
San Joaquin spearscale (Extriplex joaquinana). CNPS Rank 1B.2. Moderate Potential. San Joaquin spearscale is an annual herb in the goosefoot family (Chenopodiaceae) that blooms from April to October. It typically occurs in seasonal alkali sink scrub and wetlands in chenopod scrub, alkali meadow, and valley and foothill grassland habitat at elevations ranging from 0 to 2,740 feet (CDFW 2018, CNPS 2018). Observed associated species include salt grass (Distichlis spicata), alkali heath (Frankenia salina), Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum), Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis), bird’s-foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), docks (Rumex crispus, R. pulcher), tarplants (Centromadia parryi, C. pungens), pickleweed (Salicornia pacifica), and fat hen (Atriplex prostrata) (CDFW 2018, personal observations 2010-2012).
The Study Area contains grasslands with moderately alkaline clay soil. Due to the species’ relative tolerance to disturbance and the presence of a seed source within 3 miles west and within the direction of prevailing winds there is high potential for the species to occur within the Study Area (CCH2 2024). San Joaquin spearscale has a moderate potential to occur within the Study Area.
EXHIBIT B
346
5.2.2 Special-status Wildlife
Of the 48 special-status wildlife species documented in the vicinity of the Study Area, most are excluded from the Study Area based on a lack of habitat features. Features not found within the Study Area that are required to support special-status wildlife species include:
• Vernal pools
• Perennial aquatic habitat (e.g. streams, rivers or ponds) • Tidal marsh areas
• Broad-leafed woodland
• Cismontane woodland
• Serpentine soils to support host plants
• Sandy beaches or alkaline flats
• Presence of specific host plants
• Caves, mine shafts, or abandoned buildings
The absence of such habitat features eliminates components critical to the survival or movement of most special-status species found in the vicinity. For instance, California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii, CRLF), northwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmota; NWPT), foothill-yellow legged frog (Rana boylii, FYLF) and tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) are known to occur in the open spaces in the vicinity. However, suitable aquatic habitat such as streams, ponds, and emergent wetlands and associated movement corridors connecting the Study Area to source populations are absent due to development, precluding these species from inhabiting or dispersing through the Study Area. Furthermore, no hydrologic connectivity is present to suitable FYLF habitats nearby. Tricolored blackbirds may occasionally be seen flying over the Study Area, though no nesting habitat or significant foraging resources are supported, therefore these species have no potential or are unlikely to occur within the Study Area. Given the Study Area’s relative proximity to sensitive habitats on the San Francisco Bay, many species documented nearby are additionally obligates to tidal marsh habitats which are not present on or in the immediate vicinity of the Study Area. Federally listed species that are unlikely to occur within the site are further described below, for completeness.
One special-status species has potential to occur in the immediate vicinity of or in portions of the Study Area: crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii), see Table 5. This species is discussed in greater detail below. In addition, non-listed native birds protected by MBTA and CDFG can also be present within the site.
Table 5. Potential Special-status Wildlife
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON
NAME
CONSERVATION
STATUS
POTENTIAL HABITAT
IN THE STUDY AREA
SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE (CEQA, OTHER)
Bombus crotchii Crotch’s
bum
ble bee
State Candidate Moderate Potential. The St udy
Area contains suitable foraging
habitat including yellow-star
thistle (Centaurea solstitalis),
Italian thistle (Carduus
pycnocephalus) and mustards.
EXHIBIT B
347
Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii), State candidate. Crotch bumble bee occurs primarily in central and southern California, from coastal areas inland to the foothills (Williams et al. 2014).
This species is now largely absent from the Central Valley, although it was historically common in this region (Hatfield et al. 2015). Crotch bumble bee occurs in grassland and scrub habitats, and has also been documented in agricultural areas. Like other bumble bee species, Crotch bumble bee is a social species with an annual life cycle. Queens emerge from hibernation in the late winter/early spring to establish a new colony. The colony produces workers throughout the spring and summer, and reproductives (i.e. drones and queens) in the early fall. Nests are built in pre-existing cavities. They are commonly found underground, in abandoned rodent burrows, or aboveground in grass tufts, rock piles, abandoned bird nests, or tree cavities. Crotch bumble bee feeds on pollen and nectar during all life stages; preferred host species include (but are not limited to) milkweeds (Asclepias spp.), chaenactis (Chaenactis spp.), clarkias (Clarkia spp.), larkspurs (Delphinium spp.), buckwheats (Eriogonum spp.), lupines (Lupinus spp.), medicks (Medicago spp.), bladderpod (Peritoma arborea), phacelias (Phacelia spp.), poppies (Eschscholzia spp.), sages (Salvia spp.), and thistles (Centaurea spp.). Queens overwinter in hibernacula; little is known about habitat requirements for hibernacula; bare ground, leaf litter and/or duff, and pre-existing cavities may provide overwintering habitat.
Major threats to Crotch bumble bee include agricultural intensification and rapid urbanization (Hatfield et al. 2015). Additionally, Crotch bumble bee has a narrow climatic range compared to most bumble bee species, and may be threatened by increasing aridity and global climate change (NatureServe 2022). In general, bumble bees are threatened by a combination of factors including pesticide use, resource competition with non-native bees, and pathogen spillover from managed pollinators (Goulson 2010, Cameron et al. 2011).
The Study Area is within the known range of the species and contains suitable foraging habitat and overwintering habitat for Crotch’s bumble bee (Photo 1). Rodent burrows provide suitable ground nesting sites, however, tilling and disking frequency could preclude the species from nesting. Foraging plants available include Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitalis), black mustard (Brassica nigra), and field mustard (Hirschfeldia incana). Therefore, there is moderate potential for Crotch’s bumble bee presence at the Study Area.
General nesting birds. Nearly all habitats have the potential to seasonally support nesting birds that are protected by the MBTA and CFGC. Trees along the perimeter of the Study Area and the unmowed swale and fringe of the Study Area supporting annual grasses and forbs are examples of these habitats. Direct removal of a nest or disturbance in the vicinity of an active nest that could result in nest abandonment would be considered take under the MBTA and CFGC.
SPECIAL-STATUS SP ECIES – UNLIKELY POTENTIAL
Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia; BUOW). CDFW Species of Special Concern; USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern. Burrowing owl occurs as a year-round resident and winter visitor in much of California’s lowlands, inhabiting open areas with sparse or non-existent tree or shrub canopies. Typical habitat is annual or perennial grassland, although human-modified areas such as agricultural lands and airports are also used (Poulin et al. 1993). This species is dependent on burrowing mammals to provide the burrows that are characteristically used for shelter and nesting, and in northern California is typically found in close association with California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi). Manmade substrates such as pipes or debris piles may also
EXHIBIT B
348
be occupied in place of burrows. Prey consists of insects and small vertebrates. Breeding typically takes place from March to July.
The Study Area is disced twice annually for weed and fire control. On the June 18, 2024, visit, several ground squirrel burrows were observed along the perimeter of the Study Area. The squirrel burrows were inspected for sign of BUOW including white-wash, pellets, or feathers. No BUOW or indications of use were noted, which is consistent with the site visit conducted in20216 Furthermore, the Study Area is relatively small, therefore unlikely to support the abundance of prey required to sustain breeding BUOW. A CNDDB record of nesting burrowing owl was documented within 1-mile south of the Study Area in 2006. Adjacent contiguous natural and agricultural lands provide higher quality and quantity of habitat than is available within the Study Area. Therefore, the species is unlikely to forage or nest within the Study Area.
California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense; CTS), Federal Threatened Species, State Threatened Species. California tiger salamander is restricted to grasslands and low-elevation foothill regions in California (generally under 1500 feet) where it uses seasonal aquatic habitats for breeding. CTS breed in natural ephemeral pools, or ponds that mimic ephemeral pools (stock ponds that go dry) and occupy substantial areas surrounding the breeding pool as adults. CTS spend most of their time in the grasslands surrounding breeding pools. They survive hot, dry summers by living underground in burrows (such as those created by ground squirrels and other mammals and deep cracks or holes in the ground) where the soil atmosphere remains near the water saturation point. During wet periods, the salamanders may emerge from refugia and feed in the surrounding grasslands.
The Study Area does not contain any aquatic features that could support CTS breeding. Multiple occurrences of CTS have been documented in the vicinity including one occurrence where 2 adults were observed crossing roads adjacent to the Study Area in 1992. Since this occurrence, the location of that occurrence has been developed and significant development has occurred in the areas surrounding the Study Area on all sides from 2002 until 2007. While it is possible that the Study Area once supported CTS upland habitat, the site has been completely isolated for nearly 20-years from adjacent habitats and is disced twice per year for weed and fire control. A vestigial population of California ground squirrels occurs with burrows concentrated along the perimeter of the site, however the extent, frequency and duration of disturbance of the site coupled with its completely isolated nature precludes any potential for CTS to occur within the Study Area.
Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), Federal Eagle Protection Act, CDFW Fully Protected Species, USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern. Golden eagles are large raptors that occur in open and semi-open areas from sea level to high elevation. Typical occupied habitats include grasslands, shrublands, deserts, woodlands, and coniferous forests. Breeding activity occurs broadly from January through August, and in California is usually initiated from January to March. The large stick nests of this species are reused across years and may be maintained throughout the year.
Nests are most often placed on the ledges of steep cliffs, but nesting also occurs in trees and on tall manmade structures (e.g., utility towers) (Kochert et al. 2002). Golden eagles forage over wide areas, feeding primarily on medium-sized mammals (e.g., ground squirrels and rabbits), large birds, and carrion.
A golden eagle nest was recorded in the CNDDB in 1991-1992 approximately 4.4 miles to the northwest of the Study Area (CDFW 2018), however the nest was unsuccessful for unknown reasons. While golden eagles may occasionally fly over or opportunistically forage within the Study Area, no appropriate nesting habitat is available on or in the immediate vicinity of the
EXHIBIT B
349
site. Furthermore, the Study Area is bounded by highly developed areas and sees regular disturbance via discing for weed and fire control, making it unlikely to be visited by golden eagles. While it is possible that eagles may be occasionally observed in the immediate vicinity, much higher quality foraging habitat is present to the north of the Study Area, and they have no nesting habitat at the site. Therefore, they are unlikely to occur within the Study Area.
White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus). CDFW Fully Protected Species. White-tailed kite is resident in open to semi-open habitats throughout the lower elevations of California, including grasslands, savannahs, woodlands, agricultural areas and wetlands. Vegetative structure and prey availability seem to be more important habitat elements than associations with specific plants or vegetative communities (Dunk 1995). Nests are constructed mostly of twigs and placed in trees, often at habitat edges. Nest trees are highly variable in size, structure, and immediate surroundings, ranging from shrubs to trees greater than 150 feet tall (Dunk 1995). This species preys upon a variety of small mammals, as well as other vertebrates and invertebrates.
White-tailed kite fledglings were observed and recorded in the CNDDB in 2009 approximately
4.75 miles northwest of the Study Area. The wide-range and relative commonality of this species along urban-rural interfaces suggest white-tailed kite could opportunistically forage within the Study Area. However, the Study Area is surrounded by development and high amounts of disturbance due to vehicular traffic and collisions with the landscape trees at the perimeter or the Study Area. In addition, the twice-annual discing of the site means disturbance of the area is likely too high to encourage nearby nesting. White-tailed kites are unlikely to nest or occur within the Study Area.
5.3 Wildlife Corridors and Native Wildlife Nursery Sites Wildlife movement between suitable habitat areas can occur via open space areas lacking substantial barriers. The terms “landscape linkage” and “wildlife corridor” are often used when referring to these areas. The key to a functioning corridor or linkage is that it connects two larger habitat blocks, also referred to as core habitat areas (Beier and Loe 1992; Soulé and Terbough 1999). It is useful to think of a “landscape linkage” as being valuable in a regional planning context, a broad scale mapping of natural habitat that functions to join two larger habitat blocks. The term “wildlife corridor” is useful in the context of smaller, local area planning, where wildlife movement may be facilitated by specific local biological habitats or passages and/or may be rested by barriers to movement. Above all, wildlife corridors must link two areas of core habitat and should not direct wildlife to developed areas or areas that are otherwise void of core habitat (Hilty et al. 2019).
The Study Area is not within a designated wildlife corridor, an essential habitat connectivity unit, and contains low terrestrial permeability (CalTrans 2010; CDFW 2019). The site is located within a much larger tract of mixed-development land within ISNP of Livermore. While common wildlife species such as birds presumably utilize the site to some degree for movement at a local scale, the Study Area itself does not provide corridor functions beyond providing a similar agricultural and developed land parcel as surrounding areas. Within the ISNP it is categorized as general commercial land use surrounded by business park land use and has no functional connection to surrounding habitats (City of Livermore 2020).
The Study Area is at the south boundary of Conservation Zone 4 of the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS), according to Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy CZ 4 is outside of the critical habitat for CTS, CRLF and vernal pool fairy shrimp (Brachinecta lynchi). However, it is
EXHIBIT B
350
within the non-listed general species mitigation zone, therefore migratory birds and bats need to be considered under CEQA. Since the Project plans are not impacting trees and ground disturbing activity will adhere to the mitigation measures in Section 7.0 to reduce impacts to nesting birds and special-status plants, the impacts are negligible.
6.0 ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY AND SIGNIFICANCE
THRESHOLD CRITERIA
Pursuant to Appendix G, Section IV of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant impact on biological resources if it would:
1. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
2. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
3. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means
4. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;
5. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; and/or,
6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
These thresholds were utilized in completing the analysis of potential project impacts for CEQA purposes. For the purposes of this analysis, a “substantial adverse effect” is generally interpreted to mean that a potential impact could directly or indirectly affect the resiliency or presence of a local biological community or species population. Potential impacts to natural processes that support biological communities and special-status species populations that can produce similar effects are also considered potentially significant. Impacts to individuals of a species or small areas of existing biological communities may be considered less than significant if those impacts are speculative, beneficial, de minimis, and/or would not affect the resiliency of a local population.
EXHIBIT B
351
7.0 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION EVALUATION
Using the CEQA analysis methodology outlined in Section 6.2 above, the following section describes potential significant impacts to sensitive resources within the Project Area as well as suggested mitigation measures which are expected to reduce impacts to less than significant.
7.1 Special-status Species
This section analyzes the Project’s potential impacts and mitigation for special-status species in reference to the significance threshold outlined in CEQA Appendix G, Part IV (a):
Does the project have the potential to have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Potential impacts and mitigation for potentially significant impacts are discussed below
7.1.1 Special-status Plant Species
The Project involves permanent and temporary impacts to approximately 5.22 acres of non- native grassland that was determined to have moderate potential to support, Congdon’s tarplant, Livermore tarplant, and San Joaquin spearscale. The proposed Project’s construction activities due to construction of concrete medians, bioswales, and grading for base rock and asphalt and landscaping could result in the direct removal of special-status plant species and suitable habitat if they are present within the Study Area, which would be considered a significant impact.
Potential Impact BIO-1: The proposed Project could result in direct and permanent impacts of approximately 5.22 acres to special-status plant species, if present, from ground-disturbing activities associated with grubbing, grading, and concrete. There is also the indirect loss of occupied habitat, if present.
To reduce potential impacts to special-status plants to a less-than-significant level, the following measure shall be implemented:
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Special-status plants
Prior to any vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities, a focused survey shall be conducted to determine the presence of special-status plant species with potential to occur within the Project disturbance footprint. Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFG 2009). These guidelines require rare plant surveys to be conducted at the proper time of year when rare or endangered species are both “evident” and identifiable. Field surveys shall be scheduled to coincide with known blooming periods, and/or during periods of physiological development that are necessary to identify the plant species of concern. If no special-status plant species are found, then the project will not have any impacts to the species and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. If any of the species are found on-site and cannot be avoided, the following measures shall be required:
o If the survey determines that special-status plant species are present within or adjacent to the proposed Project site, direct and indirect impacts of the project on
EXHIBIT B
352
the species shall be avoided where feasible through the establishment of activity exclusion zones, where no ground-disturbing activities shall take place, including construction of new facilities, construction staging, or other temporary work areas. Activity exclusion zones for special-status plant species shall be established prior to construction activities around each occupied habitat site, the boundaries of which shall be clearly marked with standard orange plastic construction exclusion fencing or its equivalent. The establishment of activity exclusion zones shall not be required if no construction-related disturbances would occur within 250 feet of the occupied habitat site. o If exclusion zones and avoidance of impacts on special-status species within the Project disturbance footprint are not feasible, then the loss of individuals or occupied habitat of special-status plants shall be compensated using the habitat mitigation rations impacts on habitat for the species as written below as prescribed by the EACCS and obtain incidental take permit from CDFW for state listed species. Before the implementation of compensation measures, the Project Applicant shall provide detailed information to the CDFW and lead agency on the quality of preserved habitat, location of the preserved occurrences, provisions for protecting and managing the areas, the responsible parties involved, and other pertinent information that demonstrates the feasibility of the compensation. o Compensation recommendations from the EACCS are as follows:
Temporary effects to State and federally listed species, such as Livermore tarplant at 1.1:1
Congdon’s tarplant at 5:1 or above through coordination with relevant regulatory agencies
Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts to special-status plant species to a level that is less than significant by identifying the presence or absence of the species and if present avoiding the existing individuals
7.1.2 Special-status Wildlife Species
Crotch’s bumble bee
Project activities such as grubbing, vegetation removal, grading, and impermeable surface installation will directly remove 5.22 acres of potentially suitable foraging and nesting habitat.
Project landscaping will temporarily impact potential Crotch’s bumble bee foraging habitat. If the species is present, impacts to Crotch’s bumble bees or their occupied habitats would considered a potentially significant impact under CEQA, Potential Impact BIO-2: If Crotch bumble bee is present, the Project will result in permanent impacts to foraging and nesting habitat for the species, if as a result of conversion of grassland to hardscape and installation or ornamental landscaping.
To reduce potential impacts to Crotch bumble bee to a less-than-significant level, the following measures shall be implemented:
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Prior to start of construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey for Crotch bumble bee during the flight season May to August. If Crotch bumble bee is not present, no further mitigation measures are recommended. If the species is present the following measures can be implemented:
EXHIBIT B
353
• If CBB is observed, or if this project is going to construction before a pre- construction survey can be done, presence of CBB shall be assumed and the following shall be performed
o Mow or remove flowering resources in the early Spring to prevent foraging bees from being attracted to the site.
o A qualified biological monitor for CBB shall be present during construction activities. The monitor shall conduct a preconstruction nesting survey following the CDFW 2023 Survey Considerations and if any nests are encountered, a buffer of 10 feet will be established until the end of the nesting season.
o Prior to construction the biological monitor shall conduct a worker environmental awareness program training (WEAP).
o If any bumble bees are observed in the Project Area, all work shall stop until the bee can be identified as not CBB, or if CBB, moves off-site.
Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts to Crotch bumble bee to a level that is less than significant.
Nesting birds
Project plans have the potential to result in direct or indirect impacts including nest abandonment to nesting birds protected by the MBTA and CFGC, which would be considered a potentially significant impact under CEQA.
Potential Impact BIO-3: Project activities such as tree removal, grubbing, grading and increased noise, dust and physical encroachment could result in direct and indirect impacts to nesting birds.
To reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to a less-than-significant level, the following measures shall be implemented:
Mitigation Measure BIO-3:
Nesting bird Seas on: February 1 through August 31
If ground disturbance or removal of vegetation occurs between February 1 and August 31, pre-construction surveys shall be performed by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to commencement of such activities to determine the presence and location of nesting bird species. If active nests are present, establishment of temporary protective nesting season buffers will avoid direct mortality of these birds, nests, or young. The appropriate buffer distance is dependent on the species, surrounding vegetation, and topography and can be determined by following Nesting Bird Buffer guidelines (PGE 2015) as appropriate to prevent nest abandonment and direct mortality during construction.
EXHIBIT B
354
Non-nesting Season: September 1 through January 31
Ground disturbance and removal of vegetation within the Study Area does not require pre-construction surveys if performed between September 1 and January 31.
Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to a level that is less than significant.
7.2 Sensitive Natural Communities and Land Cover Types
This section addresses the question:
b) Does the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; No sensitive land cover types were found within the Study Area, no impacts are anticipated.
7.3 Aquatic Resources
This section analyzes the Project’s potential impacts and mitigation for wetlands and other areas presumed or determined to be within the jurisdiction of the Corps or BCDC in reference to the significance threshold outlined in CEQA Appendix G, Part IV (c):
c) Does the Project have the potential to have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; No sensitive aquatic resources were found within the Study Area, no impacts are anticipated.
7.4 Wildlife Corridors and Native Wildlife Nursery Sites This section analyzes the Project’s potential impacts and mitigation for habitat corridors and linkages in reference to the significance threshold outlined in CEQA Appendix G, Part IV (d):
d) Does the Project have the potential to interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;
No wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites were found within the Study Area, no impacts are anticipated.
7.5 Local Policies and Ordinances
This section analyzes the Project’s potential impacts and mitigation based on conflicts with local policies and ordinances in reference to the significance threshold outlined in CEQA Appendix G, Part IV (e):
EXHIBIT B
355
e) Does the Project have the potential to conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance;
Local plans and policies related to biological resources examined in this analysis are:
City of Livermore General Plan
• Vegetation communities (Policy OSC-1.2-P2, OSC-1.2-P4, OSC-1.2-P5, etc.) • Plant Species (Policy OSC-1-P4, OSC-1.2-P6, OSC-1.2-P8, etc.) • Wildlife Species (Policy OSC-1-P4, OSC-1.2-P1, OSC-1.2-P6, OSC-1.2-P8, etc.) • Wildlife Corridors (Policy OSC-1-P1, OSC-1.2-P12, OSC-1.2-P13, etc.) City of Livermore Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan
• Vegetation communities (Policy ENV-19, EN-28)
• Plant Species (Policy ENV-21, ENV-22, ENV-23, ENV-24) • Wildlife Species (Policy ENV-21, ENV-23, ENV-24, ENV-25, ENV-27) • Wildlife Corridors (Policy ENV-23)
The Project entirely avoids sensitive land cover types, sensitive biological communities, and wildlife corridors as they are not present within the Study Area. The Project is therefore consistent with the City of Livermore General Plan and Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan policies regarding protecting natural biological communities, aquatic resources and wildlife corridors and no impact will occur related to these local policies during project components.
The Project has potential to impact special status species with grading activities, installation of hardscape and landscaping features. However, the Project will remain complaint with the general Plan and INSP by following the Mitigation Measures BIO-1 to BIO-3 of Section 7.1 of this report and the general avoidance measures of the INSP, P-ENV-22, and the avoidance measures of EACCS, GEN-01 to GEN-15, listed below (City of Livermore 2009; City of Livermore 2020):
• Cleaning construction equipment and vehicles in a designated wash area prior to entering and exiting the construction site.
• Minimizing surface disturbance to the greatest extent feasible to complete the work. • Using native, non-invasive species or non-persistent hybrids in erosion control plantings to stabilize site conditions and prevent invasive plant species from colonizing. • Using weed free imported erosion control materials (or rice straw) in upland areas.) • Employees and contractors performing construction activities will receive environmental se nsitivity training. Training will include review of environmental laws and Avoidance and Mi nimization Measures (AMMs) that must be followed by all personnel to reduce or avoid effe cts on covered species during construction activities.
• Environmental tailboard trainings will take place on an asneeded basis in the field. The en vironmental tailboard trainings will include a brief review of the biology of the covered spe cies and guidelines that must be followed by all personnel to reduce or avoid negative effe cts to these species during construction activities. Directors, Managers, Superintendents, an
EXHIBIT B
356
d the crew foremen and forewomen will be responsible for ensuring that crewmembers co mply with the guidelines.
• Contracts with contractors, construction management firms, and subcontractors will obliga te all contractors to comply with these requirements, AMMs. • The following will not be allowed at or near work sites for covered activities: trash dumpin g, firearms, open fires (such as barbecues) not required by the activity, hunting, and pets (e xcept for safety in remote locations).
• Vehicles and equipment will be parked on pavement, existing roads, and previously disturb ed areas to the extent practicable. Off-road vehicle travel will be minimized. • Vehicles will not exceed a speed limit of 15 mph on unpaved roads within natural land- cover types, or during off-road travel.
• Vehicles shall be washed only at approved areas. No washing of vehicles shall occur at job sites.
• To discourage the introduction and establishment of invasive plant species, seed mixtures/ straw used within natural vegetation will be either rice straw or weed-free straw. • Pipes, culverts and similar materials greater than four inches in diameter, will be stored so as to prevent covered wildlife species from using these as temporary refuges, and these m aterials will be inspected each morning for the presence of animals prior to being moved. • Erosion con trol measures will be implemented to reduce sedimentation in wetland habitat occupied by covered animal and plant species when activities are the source of potential er osion problems. Plastic monofilament netting (erosion control matting) or similar material containing netting shall not be used at the project. Acceptable substitutes include coconut coir matting or tackified hydroseeding compounds.
• Stockpiling of material will occur such that direct effects to covered species are avoided. St ockpiling of material in riparian areas will occur outside of the top of bank, and preferably outside of the outer riparian dripline and will not exceed 30 days. • Grading will be restricted to the minimum area necessary. • Prior to ground disturbing activities in sensitive habitats, project construction boundaries a nd access areas will be flagged and temporarily fenced during construction to reduce the p otential for vehicles and equipment to stray into adjacent habitats.
One tree will be removed during the Project, located in the southwestern portion of the Project Area in the existing parking lot. This tree does not fall under any protected categories described in the City of Livermore Tree Ordinance. Therefore, no impact will occur to street trees and the Project will remain compliant with the City of Livermore Tree Ordinance Chapter 12.20 Street Trees and Tree Preservation Article I. There are 12 “protected trees” within the Study Area, under definition 3 of Article II of the Tree Ordinance, however no work is anticipated near the protected trees and therefore there is also no conflict with Article II. Habitat Conservation Plans.
This section analyzes the Project’s potential impacts and mitigation based on conflicts with any adopted local, regional, and state habitat conservation plans in reference to the significance threshold outlined in CEQA Appendix G, Part IV (f):
EXHIBIT B
357
f) Does the Project have the potential to conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
Due to local growth trends of the City of Livermore, there is no HCP for the region, rather there is the EACCS. The EACS serves as a guideline for mitigation and avoidance measures to reduce impacts to special status species and sensitive natural communities, but does not allow take as an HCP does. The Project will remain compliant with the EACCS goals and objectives by following Mitigation Measure BIO-1 to Mitigation Measure BIO-3 written in Section 7.1, in addition to the general avoidance measures of the INSP-ENV-22 and the EACCS avoidance measures GEN-01 to GEN-15 listed in Section 7.5.
8.0 REFERENCES
Beier, P., and S. Loe. 1992. A checklist for evaluating impacts to wildlife movement corridors.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 20(4):434–440.
Bumble Bee Watch. 2024. Bumble Bee Maps. Xerces Partners. Available at:
https:/ /www.bumblebeewatch.org/maps/?type=1-
2&project=&user=&status=2&month=&year=&sex=&species=12&county=&state=18&page=1. Most recently accessed: July 2024.California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1994. A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements, Sections 1600-1607. Environmental Services Division, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, California.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2019. Terrestrial Habitat Connectivity. Areas of Conservation Concern (ACE). Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS).
Biogeographic Data Branch. Sacramento, California. Online at: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS; most recently accessed: July 2024.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2024a. California Natural Community List.
Biogeographic Data Branch. Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program, Sacramento, California.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2024b. California Natural Diversity Database.
Biogeographic Data Branch, Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program, Sacramento, California. Available online at: https:/ /wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data; most recently accessed: June 2024.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2024c. Biogeographic Information and Observation System. Biogeographic Data Branch. Sacramento, California. Online at:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS; most recently accessed: July 2024.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and California Department of Transportation. 2020.
California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, CA.
California Department of Transportation (CalTrans). 2010. California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California. Prepared for California Department of Transportation, California Department of Fish and Game, and Federal Highways Administration. Available online at:
EXHIBIT B
358
https:/ /www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/Connectivity/CEHC. Most recently accessed:
October 2020.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2024. A Manual of California Vegetation, Online Edition.
Available online at: http:/ /vegetation.cnps.org. Most recently accessed: July 2024.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2024. Rare Plant Inventory (online edition, v9.5).
Sacramento, California. Online at: http:/ /rareplants.cnps.org/; most recently accessed: July 2024.
California Soil Resource Lab (CSRL). 2024. SoilWeb. Online at:
http:/ /casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/; most recently accessed: July 2024.
Cameron, S. A., Lozier, J. D., Strange, J. P., Koch, J. B., Cordes, N., Solter, L. F., & Griswold, T. L. 2011. Patterns of widespread decline in North American bumble bees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(2), 662-667.
City of Livermore. 2009. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS). Available online at: https:/ /www.eastalco-conservation.org/documents.html. Most recently accessed: July 2024.
City of Livermore. 2020. Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan. Available online at:
https:/ /www.livermoreca.gov/departments/community-development/planning/specific- plans/isabel-neighborhood-specific-plan. Most recently accessed: July 2024.
City of Livermore. 2003-2025. General Plan. Available online at:
https://www.livermoreca.gov/departments/community-development/planning/2003-2025- general-plan#!/. Most recently accessed: July 2024.
Consortium of California Herbaria 1 (CCH1). 2024. CCH1: Featuring California Vascular Plant Data from the Consortium of California Herbaria and Other Sources. Data provided by the Consortium of California Herbaria. Available online at: http:/ /ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/; most recently accessed: July 2024.
Consortium of California Herbaria 2 (CCH2). 2024. CCH2 Portal. Online at:
http:/ /cch2.org/portal/index.php; most recently accessed: July 2024.
Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2024. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance.
Ithaca, NY. Available online at: http:/ /www.ebird.org. Most recently accessed: June 2024.Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corp of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Technical Report Y-87-1, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Google Earth. 2024. Aerial Imagery 1993-2024. Most recently accessed: July 2024.
Goulson, D. 2010. Bumblebees: behaviour, ecology, and conservation. Oxford University Press on Demand.
Hatfield, R., Jepsen, S., Thorp, R., Richardson, L. & Colla, S. 2015. Bombus crotchii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T44937582A46440211.
https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-2.RLTS.T44937582A46440211.en. Accessed on 09 January 2023.
EXHIBIT B
359
Hilty, J. A., W. Z. Lidicker Jr, and A. M. Merenlender. 2019. Corridor Ecology: Linking Landscapes for Biodiversity Conservation. Second Edition. Island Press.
Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California.
State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.Lake, D [compiler]. 2024. Rare, Unusual, and Significant Plants of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties (web application). Berkeley, California: East Bay Chapter of the California Native Plant Society.
Online at: https:/ /rareplants.ebcnps.org/; most recently accessed: July 2024.
Lichvar, R. W., and S. McColley. 2008. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States. A Delineation Manual. ERDC/CRREL TR-08-12. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Page 84. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, ERDC/CRREL TR-08-12, Hanover, New Hampshire.
Livermore Municipal Code. 2024. Chapter 12.20 Street Trees and Tree Preservation. Available online at: https:/ /www.codepublishing.com/CA/Livermore/?Livermore12/Livermore1220.html&?f.
Most recently accessed: July 2024.Mersel, M. K., and R. Lichvar. 2014. A guide to ordinary high water mark (OHWM) delineation for non-perennial streams in the western mountains, valleys, and coast region of the United States. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (US).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2024. Essential Fish Habitat Mapper. Available online at: https:/ /www.habitat.noaa.gov/apps/efhmapper/. Most recently accessed: June 2024.
Nationwide Environmental Title Research (NETR). 2020. Historic Aerials. Available online at:
https:/ /historicaerials.com/viewer. Most recently accessed: October 2020.
NatureServe. 2024. NatureServe Conservation Status. Available online at:
http:/ /explorer.natureserve.org/ranking.htm. Most recently accessed: July 2024.
San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI). 2024. California Aquatic Resource Inventory (CARI) version
0.3. Available at: https:/ /www.ecoatlas.org/. Most recently accessed: July2023.
Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd Edition, Second edition. California Native Plant Society in collaboration with California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.
Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali, eds. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.
Soulé, M. E., and J. Terbough. 1999. Conserving nature at regional and continental scales - a scientific program for North America. BioScience 49(10):809–817.
Stebbins, R. C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians, Third edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA and New York, NY.
EXHIBIT B
360
Casino Parkwest 580 Parking Lot Expansion
Biological Resource Technical Report | November 2024
34 Thomson, R. C., A. N. Wright, and H. B. Shaffer. 2016. California amphibian and reptile species of special concern. Co-published by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and University of California Press, Oakland, California.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). Page 135. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, ERDC/EL TR-08-28, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Cost Region (Version 2.0). May.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2024. Web Soil Survey. Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available online at: https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/; most recently accessed: July 2024.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2024. National List of Hydric Soils. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available online at: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/publications/query-by- state.html; most recently accessed: July 2024.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2024a. National Wetlands Inventory. Available online at:
http://www.fws.gov/nwi. Most recently accessed: June 2024.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2024b. Information for Planning and Consultation.
Available online at: https:/ /ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Most recently accessed: June 2024.
Western Bat Working Group (WBWG). 2024. Western Species Accounts. Available online at:
http://wbwg.org/western-bat-species/. Most recently accessed: July 2024.
Western Regional Climate Center. 2010. Livermore, California (044997). Accessible online at:
https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca4997. Most recently accessed: July 2024.
Williams, P.H., R.W. Thorp, L.L. Richardson, and S.R. Colla. 2014. Bumble bees of North America:
an Identification Guide. Princeton University Press. 208 pp.
EXHIBIT B
361
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
EXHIBIT B
362
APPENDIX A. FIGURES
EXHIBIT B
363
Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\26000\26166-1\GIS\ArcMap\26166-1Base.aprx Layout Name:Location Sources: National Geographic, WRA | Prepared By: kobylarz, 7/8/2024 Study Area
View Extent
Parkwest Casino 580
Biological and Wetland Assessment
Liv
ermore, California
0 21
Miles
Figure 1. Study Area Regional Location Map
±
EXHIBIT B
364
Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\26000\26166-1\GIS\ArcMap\26166-1Base.aprx Layout Name: Land Cover Types Study Area (11.31 ac.)
Land Cov
er Types
Landscaped/Ruderal (0.22 ac.)
Non-native annual grassland (11.09 ac.)
Parkwest Casino 580
Biological and Wetland Assessment
Livermore, California
Sources: USDA NAIP 2022, WRA | Prep ared By: kobylarz, 7/8/2024 0 250125
Feet
Figure 2. Land Cover Types in the Study Area
±
EXHIBIT B
365
N Canyons Pkwy
Republic Dr
N Ca nyons Pk
wy
N Canyons
Pkwy
580
580
Airway B
lvd
Airway
Blv
d
Airway
Bl
vd
Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\26000\26166-1\GIS\ArcMap\26166-1Base.aprx Layout Name: Soils Sources: USDA NAIP I magery 2022, USDA NRCS SSURGO, WRA | Prepared By: kobylarz, 7/11/2024 Parkwest Casino 580
Biological and Wetland Assessment
Liv
ermore, California
0 250125
Fe
et
Figure 3. Soil Types within the Study Area
±
Study Area (11.31 ac.)
Soil Typ
es
Diablo clay, very deep, 3 to 15
per
cent slopes
EXHIBIT B
366
Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\26000\26166-1\GIS\ArcMap\26166-1Base.aprx Layout Name: Impacts Study Area (11.31 ac.)
Propo
sed Impact Areas
Proposed Bioswales (0.16 ac.)
Proposed Existing Sidewalk
Enhancement (0
.06 ac.)
Proposed Landscaping (1.52 ac.)
Proposed Parking Lot Expansion
(3.49 ac.)
L
and Cover Types
Landscaped/Developed (0.22
ac.)
Non-native Annual Grassland
(11.09 ac.)
Parkwest Casino 580
Biological and Wetland Assessment
Livermore, California
Sources: USDA NAIP 2022, WRA | Prep ared By: kobylarz, 8/6/2024 0 250125
Feet
Figure 4. Proposed Project Impacts
±
Proposed Impact Land Cover Type Acres
Proposed Existing Sidewalk Enhancement Landscaped/Developed 0.002 Proposed Parking Lot Expansion Non-native Annual Grassland 3.49 Proposed Bioswales Non-native Annual Grassland 0.16
Proposed Landscaping Non-native Annual Grassland 1.52
Proposed Existing Sidewalk Enhancement Non-native Annual Grassland 0.05 Proposed Project Impacts
EXHIBIT B
367
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
EXHIBIT B
368
APPENDIX B. SPECIES OBSERVED IN AND AROUND THE STUDY
AREA
EXHIBIT B
369
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
EXHIBIT B
370
Plant Species Observed within the Study Area During the Biological and Wetland Assessment on June 18, 2024 Scientific Name Common Name Origin Form Rarity
Status1 CAL-IPC Status2 Wetland Status3 Alameda Status4 Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle Non-native Annual - Moderate - - Centaurea solstitalis Yellow star thistle Non-native Annual - High - - Brassica nigra Black mustard Non-native Annual - Moderate - - Hirschfeldia incana Field mustard Non-native Perennial - Moderate - - Convolvulus arvensis Field bindweed Non-native Perennial - - - - Melilotus indicus indian sweetclover Non-native Annual - - FACU - Avena barbata Slender oat Non-native Annual - Moderate - - Hordeum murinum foxtail barley Non-native Annual - Moderate FACU - Phalaris paradoxa Hood canarygrass Non-native Annual - - FAC - Polygonum aviculare prostrate knotweed Non-native Annual/perennial - - FAC - Rumex crispus Curly dock Non-native Perennial - Limited FAC - Trifolium hirtum Rose clover Non-native Annual - Limited - - Anthemis sp. chamomile Non-ntive Annual - - - -
Pyrus calleryana Bradford pear Non-native Tree - - - -
Baccharis pilularis Coyote brush Native Shrub - - - -
Dittrichia graveolens stinkwort Non-native Annual - Moderate - - Bellardia trixago Mediterranean lineseed Non-native Annual - Limited - - Note: All species identified using the Jepson eFlora [Jepson Flora Project (eds.) 2024]; nomenclature follows Jepson eFlora [Jepson Flora Project (eds.) 2024] or Rare Plant Inventory (CNPS 2024). Sp.: “species”, intended to indicate that the observer was confident in the identity of the genus but uncertain which species. *Special-status only at native occurrences. The Study/Project Area does not contain a native occurrence of this species. 1 California Native Plant Society. 2024. Rare Plant Inventory (online edition, v9.5). Sacramento, California. Online at: http://rareplants.cnps.org/; most recently accessed: July 2024.
FE: Federal Endangered
FT: Federal Threatened
SE: State Endangered
ST: State Threatened
SR: State Rare
Rank 1A: Plants presumed extinct in California
Rank 1B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere Rank 2: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere
EXHIBIT B
371
Rank 3: Plants about which we need more information – a review list Rank 4: Plants of limited distribution – a watch list
2 California Invasive Plant Council. 2024. California Invasive Plant Inventory Database. California Invasive Plant Council, Berkeley, CA. Online at: http://www.cal- ipc.org/paf/; most recently accessed: July 2024.
High: Severe ecological impacts; high rates of dispersal and establishment; most are widely distributed ecologically.
Moderate: Substantial and apparent ecological impacts; moderate-high rates of dispersal, establishment dependent on disturbance; limited- moderate distribution ecologically
Limited: Minor or not well documented ecological impacts; low-moderate rate of invasiveness; limited distribution ecologically Assessed: Assessed by Cal-IPC and determined to not be an existing current threat 3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2022. National Wetland Plant List, version 3.6. Engineer Research and Development Center. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH. Online at: http://wetland-plants.sec.usace.army.mil/ OBL: Almost always found in wetlands
FACW: Usually found in wetlands
FAC: Equally found in wetlands and uplands
FACU: Usually not found in wetlands
UPL: Almost never found in wetlands
NL: Not listed, assumed almost never found in wetlands NI: No information; not factored during wetland delineation 4 Lake, D [compiler]. 2024. Rare, Unusual, and Significant Plants of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties (web application). Berkeley, California: East Bay Chapter of the California Native Plant Society. Online at: https://rareplants.ebcnps.org/; most recently accessed: July 2024.
A1: Locally Rare Species. Species occurring in two or fewer regions in Alameda and Contra Costa counties A1x: Locally Rare Species. Species presumed extirpated from Alameda and Contra Costa counties A1?: Locally Rare Species. Species possibly occurring in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. Identification or location is uncertain A2: Locally Rare Species. Plants occurring in three to five regions or are otherwise threatened in Alameda and Contra Costa counties.
B: High Priority Watch List. Plants occurring in six to nine regions in Alameda and Contra Costa counties.
C: Second Priority Watch List. Plants occurring in ten to fifteen regions in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. *: Ranks preceded by an asterisk (e.g. “*A1”) also have a statewide rarity ranking #: Ornamental plantings are not considered locally rare. The individuals in the Project Area are ornamental plantings
EXHIBIT B
372
Casino Parkwest 580 Parking Lot Expansion
Biological Resource Technical Report | August 2024
Appendix B
Wildlife Species Observed Within and Around the Study Area SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS1a
BIRDS
Ardea alba Great egret (fly over) none
Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow none
Columba livia Rock dove none
MAMMALS
Odocoileus hemionus hemionus Black tailed deer none
Otospermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel none Tree squirrel none
INVERTEBRATES
Bombus vosnesenskii Yellow-faced bumble bee none
1aCalifornia Department Fish and Wildlife. California National Diversity Database. 2024.
EXHIBIT B
373
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
EXHIBIT B
374
Casino Parkwest 580 Parking Lot Expansion
Biological Resource Technical Report | August 2024
Appendix C
APPENDIX C. SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES POTENTIAL TABLE
EXHIBIT B
375
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
EXHIBIT B
376
Appendix C. Potential for Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species to Occur within the Study Area. List Compiled from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Natural Diversity Database (CDFW 2024), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Information for Planning and Consultation Species Lists (USFWS 2024), and California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Inventory (CNPS 2024) search of the Livermore, Dublin, Altamont, diablo, Tassajara, Bryon Hot Springs, Niles, La Costa Valley, and Mendenhall Springs U.S. Geological Survey 7.5' quadrangles.
SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR
OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS
PLANTS
Santa Clara thorn-mint
Acanthomintha
lanceolata
Rank 4.2 Chaparral (often serpentine),
cismontane woodland, coastal
scrub. Elevation ranges from 260
to 3935 feet (80 to 1200 meters).
Blooms Mar-Jun.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area,
No further actions are
recommended.
large-flowered
fiddleneck
Amsinckia grandiflora
FE, SE, Rank
1B.1
Cismontane woodland, valley and
foothill grassland. Elevation ranges
from 885 to 1805 feet (270 to 550
meters). Blooms (Mar)Apr-May.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions are
recommended.
Slender silver moss
Anomobryum julaceum
Rank 4.2 Broadleafed upland forest, lower
montane coniferous forest, north
coast coniferous forest. Moss
which grows on damp rocks and
soil; acidic substrates. Usually
seen on roadcuts. 100-1000 m.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area, there is no moss
growing on damp rocks
for the species to
propagate.
No further actions are
recommended.
Mt. Diablo manzanita
Arctostaphylos auriculata
Rank 1B.3 Chaparral, cismontane Woodland
in canyons and on slopes of
sandstone. 180-565 m.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions are
recommended.
Contra Costa manzanita
Arctostaphylos
manzanita ssp. laevigata
Rank 1B.2 Chaparral and rocky slopes at
around 150-610 m.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions are
recommended.
EXHIBIT B
377
SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR
OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS
California androsace
Androsace elongata ssp.
acuta
Rank 4.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub, meadows and
seeps, pinyon and juniper
woodland, valley and foothill
grassland. Elevation ranges from
490 to 4280 feet (150 to 1305
meters). Blooms Mar-Jun.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
alkali milk-vetch
Astragalus tener var.
tener
Rank 1B.2 Playas, valley and foothill
grassland (adobe clay), vernal
pools. Elevation ranges from 5 to
195 feet (1 to 60 meters). Blooms
Mar-Jun.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
heartscale
Atriplex cordulata var.
cordulata
Rank 1B.2 Chenopod scrub, meadows and
seeps, valley and foothill grassland
(sandy). Elevation ranges from 0
to 1835 feet (0 to 560 meters).
Blooms Apr-Oct.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
crownscale
Atriplex coronata var.
coronata
Rank 4.2 Chenopod scrub, valley and foothill
grassland, vernal pools. Elevation
ranges from 5 to 1935 feet (1 to
590 meters). Blooms Mar-Oct.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
brittlescale
Atriplex depressa
Rank 1B.2 Chenopod scrub, meadows and
seeps, playas, valley and foothill
grassland, vernal pools. Elevation
ranges from 5 to 1050 feet (1 to
320 meters). Blooms Apr-Oct.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
lesser saltscale
Atriplex minuscula
Rank 1B.1 Chenopod scrub, playas, valley
and foothill grassland. Elevation
ranges from 50 to 655 feet (15 to
200 meters). Blooms May-Oct.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
EXHIBIT B
378
SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR
OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS
big-scale balsamroot
Balsamorhiza macrolepis
Rank 1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
valley and foothill grassland.
Elevation ranges from 150 to 5100
feet (45 to 1555 meters). Blooms
Mar-Jun.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
big tarplant
Blepharizonia plumosa
Rank 1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland.
Elevation ranges from 100 to 1655
feet (30 to 505 meters). Blooms
Jul-Oct.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
Mt. Diablo fairy-lantern
Calochortus pulchellus
Rank 1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
riparian woodland, valley and
foothill grassland. Elevation ranges
from 100 to 2755 feet (30 to 840
meters). Blooms Apr-Jun.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
Oakland star-tulip
Calochortus umbellatus
Rank 4.2 Broadleafed upland forest,
chaparral, cismontane woodland,
lower montane coniferous forest,
valley and foothill grassland.
Elevation ranges from 330 to 2295
feet (100 to 700 meters). Blooms
Mar-May.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
Congdon's tarplant
Centromadia parryi ssp.
congdonii
Rank 1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland
(alkaline). Elevation ranges from 0
to 755 feet (0 to 230 meters).
Blooms (Apr)May-Oct(Nov).
Moderate Potential. The
Study Area contains
moderate alkali
conditions, the presence
of associated species,
and a seed source
within close proximity
within the direction of
the prevailing winds.
See recommended
mitigation measures
in Section 7.1.
EXHIBIT B
379
SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR
OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS
hispid salty bird's-beak
Chloropyron molle ssp.
hispidum
Rank 1B.1 Meadows and seeps, playas,
valley and foothill grassland.
Elevation ranges from 5 to 510
feet (1 to 155 meters). Blooms
Jun-Sep.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
palmate-bracted bird's-
beak
Chloropyron palmatum
FE, SE, Rank
1B.1
Chenopod scrub, valley and foothill
grassland. Elevation ranges from
15 to 510 feet (5 to 155 meters).
Blooms May-Oct.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
Santa Clara red ribbons
Clarkia concinna ssp.
automixa
Rank 4.3 Chaparral, cismontane woodland.
Elevation ranges from 295 to 4920
feet (90 to 1500 meters). Blooms
(Apr)May-Jun(Jul).
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
small-flowered morning-
glory
Convolvulus simulans
Rank 4.2 Chaparral (openings), coastal
scrub, valley and foothill
grassland. Elevation ranges from
100 to 2430 feet (30 to 740
meters). Blooms Mar-Jul.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
Livermore tarplant
Deinandra bacigalupii
SE, Rank 1B.1 Meadows and seeps (alkaline).
Elevation ranges from 490 to 605
feet (150 to 185 meters). Blooms
Jun-Oct.
Moderate Potential. The
Study Area contains
grassland habitat with
moderately alkaline clay
soils. The species is also
tolerant to disturbance.
See recommended
mitigation measures
in Section 7.1.
Hospital Canyon larkspur
Delphinium californicum
ssp. interius
Rank 1B.2 Chaparral (openings), cismontane
woodland (mesic), coastal scrub.
Elevation ranges from 640 to 3595
feet (195 to 1095 meters). Blooms
Apr-Jun.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
EXHIBIT B
380
SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR
OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS
recurved larkspur
Delphinium recurvatum
Rank 1B.2 Chenopod scrub, cismontane
woodland, valley and foothill
grassland. Elevation ranges from
10 to 2590 feet (3 to 790 meters).
Blooms Mar-Jun.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
Mt. Diablo buckwheat
Eriogonum truncatum
Rank 1B.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley
and foothill grassland. Dry,
exposed clay or sandy substrates.
105-350 m.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
bay buckwheat
Eriogonum umbellatum
var. bahiiforme
Rank 4.2 Cismontane woodland, lower
montane coniferous forest.
Elevation ranges from 2295 to
7220 feet (700 to 2200 meters).
Blooms Jul-Sep.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
Jepson's woolly
sunflower
Eriophyllum jepsonii
Rank 4.3 Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub. Elevation ranges
from 655 to 3365 feet (200 to 1025
meters). Blooms Apr-Jun.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
Jepson's coyote-thistle
Eryngium jepsonii
Rank 1B.2 Valley and foothill grassland,
vernal pools. Elevation ranges
from 10 to 985 feet (3 to 300
meters). Blooms Apr-Aug.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
diamond-petaled
California poppy
Eschscholzia
rhombipetala
Rank 1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland
(alkaline, clay). Elevation ranges
from 0 to 3200 feet (0 to 975
meters). Blooms Mar-Apr.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
EXHIBIT B
381
SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR
OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS
San Joaquin spearscale
Extriplex joaquinana
Rank 1B.2 Chenopod scrub, meadows and
seeps, playas, valley and foothill
grassland. Elevation ranges from 5
to 2740 feet (1 to 835 meters).
Blooms Apr-Oct.
Moderate Potential. The
Study Area contains
moderate alkali
conditions, the presence
of associated species,
and a seed source
within close proximity
within the direction of
the prevailing winds.
See recommended
mitigation measures
in Section 7.1.
stinkbells
Fritillaria agrestis
Rank 4.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
pinyon and juniper woodland,
valley and foothill grassland.
Elevation ranges from 35 to 5100
feet (10 to 1555 meters). Blooms
Mar-Jun.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
fragrant fritillary
Fritillaria liliacea
Rank 1B.2 Cismontane woodland, coastal
prairie, coastal scrub, valley and
foothill grassland. Elevation ranges
from 10 to 1345 feet (3 to 410
meters). Blooms Feb-Apr.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
phlox-leaf serpentine
bedstraw
Galium andrewsii ssp.
gatense
Rank 4.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
lower montane coniferous forest.
Elevation ranges from 490 to 4755
feet (150 to 1450 meters). Blooms
Apr-Jul.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
Diablo helianthella
Helianthella castanea
Rank 1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest,
chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub, riparian woodland,
valley and foothill grassland.
Elevation ranges from 195 to 4265
feet (60 to 1300 meters). Blooms
Mar-Jun.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
EXHIBIT B
382
SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR
OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS
hogwallow starfish
Hesperevax caulescens
Rank 4.2 Valley and foothill grassland
(mesic clay), vernal pools
(shallow). Elevation ranges from 0
to 1655 feet (0 to 505 meters).
Blooms Mar-Jun.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
Brewer's western flax
Hesperolinon breweri
Rank 1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
valley and foothill grassland.
Elevation ranges from 100 to 3100
feet (30 to 945 meters). Blooms
May-Jul.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
Ferris' goldfields
Lasthenia ferrisiae
Rank 4.2 Vernal pools (alkaline, clay).
Elevation ranges from 65 to 2295
feet (20 to 700 meters). Blooms
Feb-May.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
legenere
Legenere limosa
Rank 1B.1 Vernal pools. Elevation ranges
from 5 to 2885 feet (1 to 880
meters). Blooms Apr-Jun.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
serpentine leptosiphon
Leptosiphon ambiguus
Rank 4.2 Cismontane woodland, coastal
scrub, valley and foothill
grassland. Elevation ranges from
395 to 3710 feet (120 to 1130
meters). Blooms Mar-Jun.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
bristly leptosiphon
Leptosiphon aureus
Rank 4.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal prairie, valley and foothill
grassland. Elevation ranges from
180 to 4920 feet (55 to 1500
meters). Blooms Apr-Jul.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
Mt. Hamilton coreopsis
Leptosyne hamiltonii
Rank 1B.2 Cismontane woodland (rocky).
Elevation ranges from 1805 to
4265 feet (550 to 1300 meters).
Blooms Mar-May.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
EXHIBIT B
383
SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR
OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Hall’s bushmallow
Malacothamnus hallii
Rank 1B.2 Chaparral and coastal scrub, with
some populations on serpentine.
Elevations from 10-735 m.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
woodland woollythreads
Monolopia gracilens
Rank 1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest
(openings), chaparral (openings),
cismontane woodland, north coast
coniferous forest (openings), valley
and foothill grassland. Elevation
ranges from 330 to 3935 feet (100
to 1200 meters). Blooms
(Feb)Mar-Jul.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
prostrate vernal pool
navarretia
Navarretia prostrata
Rank 1B.2 Coastal scrub, meadows and
seeps, valley and foothill grassland
(alkaline), vernal pools. Elevation
ranges from 10 to 3970 feet (3 to
1210 meters). Blooms Apr-Jul.
No Potential. Although
some suitable soils
present within the Study
Area, there is no aquatic
resources that would
create vernal pools,
therefore no suitable
habitat is present.
No further actions
are recommended.
Mt. Diablo phacelia
Phacelia phaceliodes
Rank 1B.2, A2* Chaparral and cismontane
woodland adjacent to trails, on
rock outcrops and talus slopes;
sometimes on serpentine.
Elevations from 605-1345 m.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
Michael's rein orchid
Piperia michaelii
Rank 4.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
closed-cone coniferous forest,
coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub,
lower montane coniferous forest.
Elevation ranges from 10 to 3000
feet (3 to 915 meters). Blooms
Apr-Aug.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
EXHIBIT B
384
SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR
OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS
hairless popcornflower
Plagiobothrys glaber
Rank 1A Marshes and swamps (coastal
salt), meadows and seeps
(alkaline). Elevation ranges from
50 to 590 feet (15 to 180 meters).
Blooms Mar-May.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
Oregon polemonium
Polemonium carneum
Rank 2B.2 Coastal prairie, coastal scrub,
lower montane coniferous forest.
Elevation ranges from 0 to 6005
feet (0 to 1830 meters). Blooms
Apr-Sep.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
California alkali grass
Puccinellia simplex
Rank 1B.2 Chenopod scrub, meadows and
seeps, valley and foothill
grassland, vernal pools. Elevation
ranges from 5 to 3050 feet (2 to
930 meters). Blooms Mar-May.
No Potential. Although
some suitable soils
present within the Study
Area, there is no aquatic
resources that would
create vernal pools,
therefore no suitable
habitat is present.
No further actions
are recommended.
chaparral harebell
Ravenella exigua
Rank 1B.2 Chaparral (rocky, usually
serpentine). Elevation ranges from
900 to 4100 feet (275 to 1250
meters). Blooms May-Jun.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
chaparral ragwort
Senecio aphanactis
Rank 2B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub. Elevation ranges
from 50 to 2625 feet (15 to 800
meters). Blooms Jan-Apr(May).
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
long-styled sand-spurrey
Spergularia macrotheca
var. longistyla
Rank 1B.2 Marshes and swamps, meadows
and seeps. Elevation ranges from 0
to 835 feet (0 to 255 meters).
Blooms Feb-May.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
EXHIBIT B
385
SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR
OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS
most beautiful
jewelflower
Streptanthus albidus ssp.
peramoenus
Rank 1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
valley and foothill grassland.
Elevation ranges from 310 to 3280
feet (95 to 1000 meters). Blooms
(Mar)Apr-Sep(Oct).
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
Mt. Diablo jewelflower
Streptanthus hispidus
Rank 1B.3 Valley and foothill grassland,
chaparral where talus or rocky
outcrops are present at elevations
from 245-975 m.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
northern slender
pondweed
Stuckenia filiformis ssp.
alpina
Rank 2B.2 Marshes and swamps (shallow
freshwater). Elevation ranges from
985 to 7055 feet (300 to 2150
meters). Blooms May-Jul.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
California seablite
Suaeda californica
FE, Rank 1B.1 Marshes and swamps (coastal
salt). Elevation ranges from 0 to
50 feet (0 to 15 meters). Blooms
Jul-Oct.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
saline clover
Trifolium hydrophilum
Rank 1B.2 Marshes and swamps, valley and
foothill grassland (mesic, alkaline),
vernal pools. Elevation ranges
from 0 to 985 feet (0 to 300
meters). Blooms Apr-Jun.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
caper-fruited
tropidocarpum
Tropidocarpum
capparideum
Rank 1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland
(alkaline hills). Elevation ranges
from 5 to 1495 feet (1 to 455
meters). Blooms Mar-Apr.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
oval-leaved viburnum
Viburnum ellipticum
Rank 2B.3 Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
lower montane coniferous forest.
Elevation ranges from 705 to 4595
feet (215 to 1400 meters). Blooms
May-Jun.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions
are recommended.
WILDLIFE
EXHIBIT B
386
SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR
OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS
MAMMALS
Townsend’s big-eared
bat
Corynorhinus townsendii
SSC, WBWG
High
Associated with a wide variety of
habitats from deserts to higher-
elevation mixed and coniferous
forests. Females form maternity
colonies in buildings, caves and
mines, and males roost singly or in
small groups. Foraging typically
occurs at edge habitats near
wooded areas, e.g. along streams.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions are
recommended.
Berkeley kangaroo rat
Dipodomys heermanni
berkeleyenis
SCC
Open grassy hilltops, ridgetops
and open spaces in chaparral and
blue oak/digger pine woodlands.
Needs fine, deep, well-drained soil
for burrowing.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions are
recommended.
hoary bat
Lasiurus cinereus WBWG Medium
Prefers open forested habitats or
habitat mosaics, with access to
trees for cover and open areas or
habitat edges for feeding. Roosts
in dense foliage of medium to
large trees. Feeds primarily on
moths.
No Potential. There is no
suitable roosting or
foraging habitat for the
species.
No further actions are
recommended.
Yuma myotis Myotis
yumanensis WBWG Medium
Known for its ability to survive in
urbanized environments. Also
found in heavily forested settings.
Day roosts in buildings, trees,
mines, caves, bridges and rock
crevices. Night roosts associated
with man-made structures.
No Potential. There is no
suitable roosting or
foraging habitat for the
species.
No further actions are
recommended.
EXHIBIT B
387
SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR
OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS
San Francisco dusky-
footed woodrat Neotoma
fuscipes annectens
SSC
Forest habitats of moderate
canopy and moderate to dense
understory. Also in chaparral
habitats. Constructs nests of
shredded grass, leaves, and other
material. May be limited by
availability of nest-building
materials.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions are
recommended.
American badger
Taxidea taxus SSC
Most abundant in drier open
stages of most shrub, forest, and
herbaceous habitats, with friable
soils. Requires friable soils and
open, uncultivated ground. Preys
on burrowing rodents.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions are
recommended.
San Joaquin kit fox
Vulpes macrotis mutica FE, ST, RP
Annual grasslands or grassy open
stages with scattered shrubby
vegetation. Need loose-textured
sandy soils for burrowing, and
suitable prey base.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions are
recommended.
BIRDS
Cooper's hawk Accipiter
cooperii
DFG:WL
not SSC or BCC
Occurs year-round throughout
much of California. Favors a
variety of forest and woodland
habitats, including in towns and
urban areas with suitable tree
cover. Nests in trees. Preys on
birds.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions are
recommended.
EXHIBIT B
388
SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR
OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS
sharp-shinned hawk
Accipiter striatus DFG:WL
Year-round resident and winter
visitor in California. Breeds in
forest habitats, usually containing
conifers; wintering birds may occur
in more open areas. Likely a
sparse breeder in southern
California. Preys on birds.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions are
recommended.
grasshopper sparrow
Ammodramus
savannarum
SSC
Summer resident. Breeds in open
grasslands in lowlands and
foothills, generally with low- to
moderate-height grasses and
scattered shrubs. Well-hidden
nests are placed on the ground.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions are
recommended.
golden eagle Aquila
chrysaetos SFP
Occurs year-round in rolling
foothills, mountain areas, sage-
juniper flats, and deserts. Cliff-
walled canyons provide nesting
habitat in most parts of range;
also nests in large trees, usually
within otherwise open areas.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions are
recommended.
great blue heron Ardea
herodias
none (breeding
sites protected
by CDFW); CDF
sensitive
Year-round resident. Nests
colonially or semi-colonially in tall
trees and on cliffs, also sequested
terrestrial substrates. Breeding
sites usually in close proximity to
foraging areas: marshes, lake
margins, tidal flats, and rivers.
Forages primarily on fishes and
other aquatic prey, also smaller
terrestrial vertebrates.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions are
recommended.
EXHIBIT B
389
SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR
OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS
burrowing owl Athene
cunicularia SSC
Year-round resident and winter
visitor. Occurs in open, dry
grasslands and scrub habitats with
low-growing vegetation, perches
and abundant mammal burrows.
Preys upon insects and small
vertebrates. Nests and roosts in
old mammal burrows, most
commonly those of ground
squirrels.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions are
recommended.
ferruginous hawk Buteo
regalis BCC
Winter visitor to open habitats,
including grasslands, sagebrush
flats, scrub, and low foothills
surrounding valleys. Preys on
mammals. Does not breed in
California.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions are
recommended.
Swainson's hawk Buteo
swainsoni ST, BCC
Summer resident in California’s
Central Valley and limited portions
of the southern California interior.
Nests in tree groves and isolated
trees in riparian and agricultural
areas, including near buildings.
Forages in grasslands and scrub
habitats as well as agricultural
fields, especially alfalfa. Preys on
arthropods year-round as well as
smaller vertebrates during the
breeding season.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions are
recommended.
EXHIBIT B
390
SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR
OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS
northern harrier Circus
hudsonius (cyaneus) SSC
Year-round resident and winter
visitor. Found in open habitats
including grasslands, prairies,
marshes and agricultural areas.
Nests on the ground in dense
vegetation, typically near water or
otherwise moist areas. Preys on
small vertebrates.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions are
recommended.
white-tailed kite Elanus
leucurus SFP
Year-round resident in coastal and
valley lowlands with scattered
trees and large shrubs, including
grasslands, marshes and
agricultural areas. Nests in trees,
of which the type and setting are
highly variable. Preys on small
mammals and other vertebrates.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions are
recommended.
California horned lark
Eremophila alpestris
actia
DFG:WL
not SSC or BCC
Coastal regions, chiefly from
Sonoma County to San Diego
County. Also main part of San
Joaquin Valley and east to
foothills. Short-grass prairie,
"bald" hills, mountain meadows,
open coastal plains, fallow grain
fields, alkali flats.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions are
recommended.
prairie falcon Falco
mexicanus BCC
Year-round resident and winter
visitor. Inhabits dry, open terrains,
including foothills and valleys.
Breeding sites located on steep
cliffs. Forages widely.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions are
recommended.
EXHIBIT B
391
SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR
OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS
American peregrine
falcon Falco peregrinus
anatum
SFP, BCC
Year-round resident and winter
visitor. Occurs in a wide variety of
habitats, though often associated
with coasts, bays, marshes and
other bodies of water. Nests on
protected cliffs and also on man-
made structures including
buildings and bridges. Preys on
birds, especially waterbirds.
Forages widely.
No Potential. No
suitable nesting habitat
is present within the
Study Area.
No further actions are
recommended.
bald eagle Haliaeetus
leucocephalus SE, SFP, BCC
Occurs year-round in California,
but primarily a winter visitor;
breeding population is growing.
Nests in large trees in the vicinity
of larger lakes, reservoirs and
rivers. Wintering habitat somewhat
more variable but usually features
large concentrations of waterfowl
or fish.
No Potential. No
suitable nesting habitat
is present within the
Study Area.
No further actions are
recommended.
loggerhead shrike Lanius
ludovicianus SSC, BCC
Year-round resident in open
woodland, grassland, savannah
and scrub. Prefers areas with
sparse shrubs, trees, posts, and
other suitable perches for foraging.
Preys upon large insects and small
vertebrates. Nests are well-
concealed in densely-foliaged
shrubs or trees.
No Potential. No
suitable foraging or
nesting habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions are
recommended.
EXHIBIT B
392
SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR
OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS
California black rail
Laterallus jamaicensis
coturniculus
ST, SFP
Year-round resident in marshes
(saline to freshwater) with dense
vegetation within four inches of
the ground. Prefers larger,
undisturbed marshes that have an
extensive upper zone and are close
to a major water source. Extremely
secretive and cryptic.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions are
recommended.
Alameda song sparrow
Melospiza melodia
pusillula
BCC, SSC
Year-round resident of salt
marshes bordering the south arm
of San Francisco Bay. Inhabits
primarily pickleweed marshes;
nests placed in marsh vegetation,
typically shrubs such as gumplant.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions are
recommended.
REPTILES & AMPHIBIANS
Blainville’s (Coast)
horned lizard
Phrynosoma blainvillii
(coronatum)
SSC
Frequents a wide variety of
habitats, most common in
lowlands along sandy washes with
scattered low bushes. Prefers
friable, rocky, or shallow sandy
soils for burial; open areas for
sunning; bushes for cover; and an
abundant supply of ants and other
insects.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions are
recommended.
EXHIBIT B
393
SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR
OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS
foothill yellow-legged
frog - central coast DPS
Rana boylii pop. 4
FT, SE
Found in or adjacent to rocky
streams in a variety of habitats.
Prefers partly-shaded, shallow
streams and riffles with a rocky
substrate; requires at least some
cobble-sized substrate for egg-
laying. Needs at least 15 weeks to
attain metamorphosis. Feeds on
both aquatic and terrestrial
invertebrates.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions are
recommended.
California red-legged
frog
Rana draytonii
FT, SSC, RP
Lowlands and foothills in or near
permanent sources of deep water
with dense, shrubby or emergent
riparian vegetation. Requires 11 to
20 weeks of permanent water for
larval development. Associated
with quiet perennial to intermittent
ponds, stream pools and wetlands.
Prefers shorelines with extensive
vegetation. Disperses through
upland habitats after rains.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions are
recommended.
western spadefoot
Spea (=Scaphiopus)
hammondii
SSC
Occurs primarily in grassland
habitats, but can be found in
valley-foothill hardwood
woodlands. Shallow temporary
pools formed by winter rains are
essential for breeding and egg-
laying.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions are
recommended.
EXHIBIT B
394
SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR
OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS
San Joaquin whipsnake
Masticophis flagellum
ruddocki
SSC
Found in valley grassland and
saltbush scrub in the San Joaquin
Valley in open, dry habitats with
little or no tree cover. Requires
mammal burrows for refuge and
breeding sites.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions are
recommended.
Alameda whipsnake
Masticophis lateralis
euryxanthus
FT, ST
Inhabits chaparral and foothill-
hardwood habitats in the eastern
Bay Area. Prefers south-facing
slopes and ravines with rock
outcroppings where shrubs form a
vegetative mosaic with oak trees
and grasses and small mammal
burrows provide basking and
refuge.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions are
recommended.
California tiger
salamander
Ambystoma californiense
FT, ST, RP
Populations in Santa Barbara and
Sonoma counties currently listed
as endangered; threatened in
remainder of range. Inhabits
grassland, oak woodland, and
open ruderal habitats. Adults are
fossorial and utilize mammal
burrows and other subterranean
refugia. Breeding occurs in vernal
pools and other seasonal water
features.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions are
recommended.
FISH
EXHIBIT B
395
SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR
OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS
steelhead - central CA
coast DPS
Oncorhynchus mykiss
irideus
FT
Occurs from the Russian River
south to Soquel Creek and Pajaro
River. Also in San Francisco and
San Pablo Bay Basins. Adults
migrate upstream to spawn in
cool, clear, well-oxygenated
streams. Juveniles remain in fresh
water for 1 or more years before
migrating downstream to the
ocean.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions are
recommended.
INVERTEBRATES
obscure bumblebee
Bombus caliginosus
none (Special
Animals List)
Obscure bumble inhabits coastal
meadows and open grassy
prairies. Nests may be located
underground or above ground in
old bird or rodent nests, rock piles,
tree cavities, and tufts of grass.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions are
recommended.
Crotch bumblebee
Bombus crotchii SC
Range largely restricted to
California, favoring grassland and
scrub habitats. Typical of bumble
bees, nests are usually constructed
underground.
Moderate Potential. The
Study Area contains
suitable foraging habitat
including yellow-star
thistle (Centaurea
solstitalis), Italian thistle
(Carduus
pycnocephalus) and
mustards.
See recommended
mitigation measures
in Section 7.1
EXHIBIT B
396
SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR
OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS
western bumble bee
Bombus occidentalis SC
Formerly common throughout
much of western North America;
populations from southern British
Columbia to central California
have nearly disappeared (Xerces
2015). Occurs in a wide variety of
habitat types. Nests are
constructed annually in pre-
existing cavities, usually on the
ground (e.g. mammal burrows).
Many plant species are visited and
pollinated.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions are
recommended.
longhorn fairy shrimp
Branchinecta
longiantenna
FE, RP
Endemic to the eastern margin of
the central coast mountains in
seasonally astatic grassland vernal
pools. Inhabit small, clear-water
depressions in sandstone and
clear-to-turbid clay/grass-
bottomed pools in shallow swales.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions are
recommended.
vernal pool fairy shrimp
Branchinecta lynchi FT, RP
Endemic to the grasslands of the
Central Valley, central coast
mountains, and south coast
mountains, in astatic rain-filled
pools. Inhabit small, clear-water
sandstone-depression pools and
grassed swale, earth slump, or
basalt-flow depression pools.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions are
recommended.
midvalley fairy shrimp
Branchinecta
mesovallensis
SSC
Known only from the Central
Valley, primarily its central
portions. Typically inhabits short-
lived, grass-bottomed vernal pools
and other seasonal water features.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area. Outside of known
species range.
No further actions are
recommended.
EXHIBIT B
397
SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR
OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Antioch efferian
robberfly
Efferia antiochi
SSC
Known only from Antioch, Fresno,
and Scout Island in the San
Joaquin River.
No Potential. No
suitable habitat is
present within the Study
Area.
No further actions are
recommended.
Rank 1A: Plants presumed extinct in California
Rank 1B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere Rank 2: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere Rank 3: Plants about which we need more information – a review list Rank 4: Plants of limited distribution – a watch list
BGEPA: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act Species
FC: Federal Candidate for Listing
FE: Federal Endangered
FT: Federal Threatened
SC: State Candidate for Listing
SE: State Endangered
SFP: State Fully Protected Animal
SR: State Rare
SSC: State Species of Concern
ST: State Threatened
RP: Recovery Plan
WBWG: Western Bat Working Group
Potential for Occurrence:
No Potential. Habitat on and adjacent to the site is clearly unsuitable for the species requirements (cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime).
Unlikely. Few of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or the majority of habitat on and adjacent to the site is unsuitable or of very poor quality. The species is not likely to be found on the site.
Moderate Potential. Some of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or only some of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is unsuitable. The species has a moderate probability of being found on the site.
High Potential. All of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present and/or most of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is highly suitable. The species has a high probability of being found on the site.
Present. Species was observed on the site or has been recorded (i.e. CNDDB, other reports) on the site recently.
EXHIBIT B
398
APPENDIX C
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT
EXHIBIT B
399
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
Parkwest Casino 580 Expansion
August 31, 2023
Revised: September 6, 2024
Revised: October 29, 2024
Revised: November 6, 2024
Livermore, California
EXHIBIT B
400
Parkwest Casino 580 TIA
Page | i
Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 1
1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 4
1.1 Project Description .................................................................................................................................................................. 4
1.2 Project Purpose ......................................................................................................................................................................... 4
1.3 Study Intersections .................................................................................................................................................................. 4
1.4 Analysis Scenarios .................................................................................................................................................................... 5
2.0 Study Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 8
2.1 Level of Service Analysis Methodology & Standards ................................................................................................ 8
2.2 CEQA Requirements ................................................................................................................................................................ 9
2.3 Vehicle Miles Traveled ........................................................................................................................................................... 9
3.0 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................................ 12
3.1 Existing Setting and Roadway System ...........................................................................................................................12
3.2 Existing Pedestrian Facilities ..............................................................................................................................................12
3.3 Existing Bicycle Facilities ......................................................................................................................................................12
3.4 Existing Transit Facilities ......................................................................................................................................................14
3.5 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes And Lane Configurations ............................................................................17
3.6 Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Existing Conditions .................................................................................17
4.0 Existing plus Project Conditions .......................................................................................................... 19
4.1 Project Trip Generation ........................................................................................................................................................19
4.2 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment ....................................................................................................................19
4.3 Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Existing plus Project Conditions ........................................................22
4.4 Queuing Analysis – Existing Plus Project Conditions ...............................................................................................24
4.5 Signal Warrant Analysis .......................................................................................................................................................25
5.0 Cumulative Conditions .......................................................................................................................... 26
5.1 Intersections Level of Service Analysis – Cumulative Conditions .......................................................................26
6.0 Cumulative plus Project Conditions .................................................................................................... 28
6.1 Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Cumulative Plus Project Conditions ................................................28
6.2 Queueing Analysis – Cumulative plus Project Conditions .....................................................................................31
EXHIBIT B
401
Parkwest Casino 580 TIA
Page | ii
7.0 Additional Analyses ............................................................................................................................... 32
7.1 Parking Analysis ......................................................................................................................................................................32
7.2 Site Access and On-Site Circulation................................................................................................................................34
7.3 Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit impacts .......................................................................................................................34
7.4 Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT) ..........................................................................................................................................34
8.0 Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................................... 36 Tables
Table 1: Existing Tri-Valley Wheels Transit Service .............................................................................................................. 14 Table 2: Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Existing Conditions ........................................................................... 17 Table 3: Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Existing plus Project Conditions .................................................. 22 Table 4: 95th Percentile Queues at Study Intersections ...................................................................................................... 24 Table 5: Peak Hour Warrant Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 25 Table 6: Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Cumulative Conditions .................................................................... 26 Table 7: Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Cumulative plus Project Conditions ........................................... 28 Table 8: 95th Percentile Queues at Study Intersections ...................................................................................................... 31 Table 9: Maximum Number of Parked Vehicles and Peak Times, March 2023......................................................... 33 Figures
Figure 1: Vicinity Map ......................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2: Site Plan ................................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 3: Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ............................................................................................................... 15 Figure 4: Existing Transit Facilities .............................................................................................................................................. 16 Figure 5: Existing Conditions Lane Geometry, Traffic Controls, and Peak Hour Volumes .................................... 18 Figure 6: Project Trip Distribution and Assignment ............................................................................................................. 21 Figure 7: Existing plus Project Volumes .................................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 8: Cumulative Lane Geometry, Traffic Controls and Volumes ........................................................................... 27 Figure 9: Cumulative Project Trip Distribution and Assignment .................................................................................... 29 Figure 10: Cumulative plus Project Volumes .......................................................................................................................... 30
EXHIBIT B
402
Parkwest Casino 580 TIA
Page | iii
Appendices
Appendix A – Level of Service Methodology
Appendix B – Existing Traffic Counts and Player/Employee Data Appendix C – Existing Conditions Intersection Level of Service and Queuing Analysis Work Sheets Appendix D – Existing plus Project Conditions Intersections Level of Service and Queuing Work Sheets Appendix E – Signal Warrant Analysis Work Sheets
Appendix F – Cumulative Conditions Level of Service and Queueing Work Sheets Appendix G – Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Level of Service and Queueing Work Sheets Appendix H – Parking Study
EXHIBIT B
403
Parkwest Casino 580 TIA
Page | 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report summarizes the results of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the proposed gambling and on- site parking expansion of the Parkwest Casino 580 located at 968 N. Canyons Parkway in Livermore California. The project proposes to expand its facilities by providing six additional gambling table, and increasing the space for the bar, restaurant, and stage area within the existing footprint of the building.
The project will also increase its parking facilities by developing the area east of the building and providing a total of 361 parking stalls, which includes existing and proposed facilities.
In addition to the foregoing, the project proposes expanded services at the proposed facilities, including: (i) increasing its hours of operations to 24 hours per day and 7 days per week; (ii) increasing the number of players per table to 10 seated layers and 10 standing or “backline betters”; (iii) increasing the maximum single bet to $1,000.00; and (iv) the playing of any game not prohibited by Section 330 of the Penal Code of the state, with the written consent of the Chief of Police.
This report provides the intersection level of service (LOS) and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) related to the project. Additionally, the report also includes evaluations and recommendations concerning project site access and on-site circulation for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians.
To evaluate the impacts on the transportation infrastructure due to the addition of traffic from the proposed project, three study intersections were evaluated during the weekday morning (a.m.) peak hour and evening (p.m.) peak hour under four study scenarios. The study intersections were evaluated under No Project and Plus Project scenarios for Existing and Cumulative conditions. For the purpose of this analysis, potential traffic operational effects from the proposed project are identified based on established operational thresholds described in the report.
Project Trip Generation
The proposed casino expansion is expected to generate approximately 26 weekday a.m. peak hour trips (14 in, 12 out), 25 w eekday p.m. peak hour t rips (4 in, 21 ou t), and 304 new da ily trips.
Existing Conditions
Under this scenario, all of the study intersections operate within applicable jurisdictional Level of Service (LOS) standards during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour.
Existing plus Project Conditions
Under this scenario, all of the study intersections continue to operate within applicable jurisdictional LOS standards during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour.
EXHIBIT B
404
Parkwest Casino 580 TIA
Page | 2
Existing plus Project Queueing Analysis
The project is not expected to increase the queues that exceed storage lengths at existing turn lanes. The existing storage length of the westbound left-turn lane at N. Canyons Parkway/Waxie Driveway is sufficient for the additional trips that will use the new parking lot.
Cumulative Conditions
Under this scenario, all of the study intersections continue to operate within applicable jurisdictional LOS standards during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
Under this scenario, all of the study intersections continue to operate within applicable jurisdictional LOS standards during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
Cumulative Plus Project Queueing Analysis
The project is not expected to increase the queues that exceed storage lengths at exclusive turn lanes. The storage length for the westbound left-turn lane at N. Canyons Parkway/Waxie Driveway is sufficient for the additional trips that will use the new parking lot in the cumulative scenario.
Site Access and On-Site Circulation
The proposed vehicular access to the project site is via the existing driveways on Doolan Road, N. Canyons Parkway and the new driveway at N. Canyons Parkway/Waxie Driveway. Pedestrians and bicyclists can use the existing multimodal network to access the project site. The parking aisles are wide enough to allow for two-way circulation. Based on a preliminary review of the project site plan, the site access and on-site circulation is considered adequate.
Pedestrian Impacts
The project does not conflict with existing and planned pedestrian facilities; therefore, the impact to pedestrian facilities is less than significant.
Bicycle Impacts
As part of the proposed project, the Class II bicycle facility along the southern frontage of N. Canyons Parkway will be updated to a Class IV separated bikeway. The project does not conflict with existing and planned bicycle facilities; therefore, the impact to bicycle facilities is less than significant.
Transit Impacts
The project site is within walking distance to two Tri-Valley Wheels bus stops that provide local and regional access. Impacts to transit service are expected to be less than significant.
Parking
The project will be supplying 361 parking spaces to satisfy the demand of 352 parking spaces during peak operating hours, which leaves a surplus of 9 stalls.
EXHIBIT B
405
Parkwest Casino 580 TIA
Page | 3
Vehicle Miles Traveled
TJKM analyzed the casino project as retail. Since the project will be generating 304 new daily trips, the equivalent retail square footage would be 8,053 square feet. Based on OPR’s recommendations, the VMT impact is expected to be less than significant since the retail square footage is below 50,000 square feet, which is considered as local serving retail.
EXHIBIT B
406
Parkwest Casino 580 TIA
Page | 4
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the results of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the proposed gambling and on- site parking expansion of the Parkwest Casino 580 located at 968 N. Canyons Parkway in Livermore California.
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project proposes to expand its facilities by providing six additional gambling tables, increasing the space for the bar, restaurant, and stage area within the existing footprint of the building. The project will also increase its parking facilities by developing the area east of the building and providing a total of 361 parking stalls, which includes existing and proposed facilities.
In addition to the foregoing, the project proposes expanded services at the proposed facilities, including: (i) increasing its hours of operations to 24 hours per day and 7 days per week; (ii) increasing the number of players per table to 10 seated layers and 10 standing or “backline betters”; (iii) increasing the maximum single bet to $1,000.00; and (iv) the playing of any game not prohibited by Section 330 of the Penal Code of the state, with the written consent of the Chief of Police.
The existing casino and parking facility is currently located at the southeast corner of Doolan Road/N.
Canyons Parkway. The proposed parking expansion will be located at the southwest corner of N. Canyons Parkway/Waxie Driveway, adjacent to the existing casino facility. The casino entrances will remain the same, except for the south leg of the N. Canyons Parkway/Waxie Driveway intersection, which will be constructed with the parking expansion and become the main entrance to the main parking area.
The following section discusses the TIA Purpose, study intersections, and analysis scenarios.
1.2 PROJECT PURPOSE
The purpose of the Traffic Impact Analysis is to evaluate the impacts on the transportation infrastructure due to the addition of the traffic from the proposed project. The report also includes evaluations and recommendations concerning project site access and on-site circulation for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians, queuing analysis at the study intersections, and parking supply.
1.3 STUDY INTERSECTIONS
TJKM evaluated traffic conditions at three study intersections during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours for a typical weekday. The study intersections were selected in consultation with City of Livermore staff. The peak periods were between 7:00 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. The study intersections and associated traffic controls are as follows:
1. N. Canyons Parkway/Doolan Road
2. N. Canyons Parkway/Waxie Driveway
3. N. Canyons Parkway/Airway Boulevard
Note: All intersections are owned and operated by the City of Livermore.
EXHIBIT B
407
Parkwest Casino 580 TIA
Page | 5
Figure 1 illustrates the study intersections and the vicinity map of the proposed project. Figure 2 shows the proposed project site plan.
1.4 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
This study addresses the following four traffic scenarios:
Existing Conditions – This scenario evaluates the study intersections based on existing traffic volumes, lane geometry, and traffic controls.
Existing plus Project Conditions – This scenario is identical to Existing Conditions, but with the addition of traffic from the proposed project.
Cumulative Conditions – This analysis scenario evaluates future transportation conditions based on forecasted travel volumes without the project.
Cumulative plus Project Conditions – This scenario is identical to Cumulative Conditions but with the addition of traffic from the proposed project.
EXHIBIT B
408
Dublin Boulevard - N Canyons Pkwy Extension
Parkwest Casino 580 TIA
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Project Site
X Study Intersection
Driveway
LEGEND
N
See Enlargement Below
Enlargement
Fallon Rd
El Charro Rd
Dublin Blvd
Central Pkwy
Lockhart St
Croak Rd
Doolan Rd
N Canyons Pkwy
Airway Blvd
Keegan St
Livermore Outlets Dr.
W Jack London Blvd
580 580
San Francisco
Premium Outlets Las Positas Golf Course
Fallon Sports
Park
Fallon
Gateway
N Canyons Pkwy
Airway Blvd
Doolan Rd
N Canyons Pkwy Extension
Dublin Blvd-
Constitution Dr
1 3
580
Collier Canyon Rd
Waxie Dwy
2 EXHIBIT B
409
Figure 2: Site Plan
N
Parkwest Casino 580 TIA
EXHIBIT B
410
Parkwest Casino 580 TIA
Page | 8
2.0 STUDY METHODOLOGY
Traffic impacts related to the proposed project were evaluated for both compliance with applicable regulatory documents and environmental significance as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In Accordance with the Technical Advisory published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), a qualitative and quantitative VMT analysis forms the basis of the CEQA analysis for the proposed project. As of July1, 2020, intersection level of service (LOS) can no longer be used to determine significant impacts for CEQA purposes. However, an LOS analysis was conducted to determine consistency with City of Livermore plans and standards.
2.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY & STANDARDS
Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure that describes operational conditions as they relate to the traffic stream and perceptions by motorists and passengers. The LOS generally describes these conditions in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, delays, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience, and safety. The operational LOS are given letter designations from A to F, with A representing the best operating conditions (free-flow) and F the worst (severely-congested flow with high delays). Intersections generally are the capacity-controlling locations with respect to traffic operations on arterial and collector streets. The operating conditions at all of the study intersections were analyzed using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Operations Methodology contained in Synchro Software. The methodology is described in detail in Appendix A.
Signalized Intersections
Although level of service is no longer used for identifying impacts under CEQA, level of service analysis is still used for determining consistency with adopted agency plans and standards. Where standards refer to significant environmental impacts, this analysis instead identifies these as significant inconsistencies with adopted plans.
In brief, the LOS standard for signalized intersections in the City of Livermore is mid-level LOS D or better (average control delay equal to or less than 45.0 seconds per vehicle) with and without the project. For signalized intersections located near freeway interchanges (N. Canyons Parkway/Airway Boulevard), the LOS standard is LOS E or better. The signalized intersection experiences a significant inconsistency if:
The project traffic added to existing conditions would result in the level of service deteriorating below the level of service threshold for signalized intersections i.e., delay greater than 45.0 seconds per vehicle or deteriorates to LOS F.
For intersections already operating at an unacceptable LOS without the project, it is considered a significant impact if the project related traffic increases the average intersection delay by more than 5.0 seconds.
Unsignalized Intersections
The level of service standard for unsignalized intersections is delay less than or equal to 90.0 seconds.
Unsignalized intersections experiences a significant inconsistency if:
EXHIBIT B
411
Parkwest Casino 580 TIA
Page | 9
The project traffic added to existing conditions would result in the delay being greater than 90.0 seconds.
2.2 CEQA REQUIREMENTS
CEQA Requirements for VMT Evaluations
Section 15064.3 describes the requirements and significance thresholds for assessing transportation impacts based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) that apply statewide. As described in Section 15064.3:
Land use projects: Vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or stop along an existing high quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact.
Transportation projects: Transportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. For roadway capacity projects, agencies have discretion to determine the appropriate measure of transportation impact consistent with CEQA and other applicable requirements. To the extent that such impacts have already been adequately addressed at a programmatic level, such as in a regional transportation plan EIR, a lead agency may tier from that analysis as provided in Section 15152.
The following criteria are not subject to CEQA significance criteria but should be addressed as appropriate in the findings of the traffic study:
The project would conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit.
The project conflicts with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. If the project substantially increases hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). The project results in inadequate emergency access
If the project site design does not have adequate parking or circulation capacity to accommodate the anticipated demand
If the project would result in inadequate internal circulation to accommodate project traffic.
2.3 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED
SB 743, which was signed into law by Governor Brown in 2013 and codified in Public Resources Code 21099, tasked OPR with establishing new criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts under CEQA. SB 743 requires the new criteria to “promote the reduction of greenhouse gas
EXHIBIT B
412
Parkwest Casino 580 TIA
Page | 10
emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.” SB 743 changes the way that public agencies evaluate the transportation impacts of projects under CEQA, recognizing that roadway congestion, while an inconvenience to drivers, is not itself an environmental impact (see Pub. Resource Code, § 21099, subd. (b)(2)). In December 2018, OPR circulated its most recent Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (OPR) that provides recommendations and describes various options for assessing VMT for transportation analysis purposes. “Vehicle miles traveled” refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel “attributable to a project”. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit or non-motorized travel. The VMT analysis options described by OPR are primarily tailored towards single-use development residential, office or office projects, not mixed use projects and not athletic facility projects. OPR recommends the following methodology and criteria for specific land uses:
For residential projects, OPR recommends that VMT impacts be considered potentially significant if a residential project is expected to generate VMT per Capita (i.e., VMT per resident) at a rate that exceeds 85 percent of a regional average.
For office projects, OPR recommends that VMT impacts be considered potentially significant if an office project is expected to generate VMT per Employee at a rate that exceeds 85 percent of a regional average.
For retail projects, OPR recommends that VMT impacts be considered potentially significant if a project results in a net increase in total VMT. This approach takes into account the likelihood that retail developments may lead to increases or decreases in VMT, depending on previously existing retail travel patterns. This approach may also be used for other types of projects with customer components.
OPR also indicates that local serving retail (projects smaller than 50,000 square feet) may be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact.
OPR does not provide specific guidance on evaluating other land use types, such as casinos, except to say that other land uses could choose to use the method applicable to the land use with the most similarity to the proposed project. With consultation with the City of Livermore, TJKM utilized retail.
For mixed-use projects, OPR describes several options that include (1) evaluating each land use separately; or (2) evaluating mixed-use projects based on the method applicable to the dominant land use. Evaluating each land use separately would potentially fail to measure the positive effects of mixed-use projects in reducing VMT.
OPR also recommends exempting some project types from VMT analysis based on the likelihood that such projects will generate low rates of VMT:
OPR recommends that projects generating less than 110 trips per day generally may be assumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. OPR notes that residential and office projects that located in areas with low VMT, and that incorporate similar features, will tend to exhibit similar low VMT, and can be screened out.
EXHIBIT B
413
Parkwest Casino 580 TIA
Page | 11
OPR states that residential, retail, office and mixed-use projects near transit stations or major transit stops should be screened out based on the likelihood that such projects will have a less than significant impact on VMT.
If existing models or methods are not available to estimate the vehicle miles traveled for the particular project being considered: a lead agency may evaluate the project’s vehicle miles travelled qualitatively.
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. In consultation with the City of Livermore, the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) VMT Tool was used. Detailed analysis is provided in Chapter 7 of this report.
EXHIBIT B
414
Parkwest Casino 580 TIA
Page | 12
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section describes existing conditions in the immediate project site vicinity, including roadway facilities, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and available transit service. In addition, existing traffic volumes and operations are presented for the study intersections, including the results of LOS calculations.
3.1 EXISTING SETTING AND ROADWAY SYSTEM
Access to the proposed project is provided via N. Canyons Parkway and Doolan Road.
N. Canyons Parkway is primarily a four-lane, divided east-west major street in the City of Livermore, extending from Doolan Road to Collier Canyon Road. N. Canyons Parkway provides access to primarily commercial and retail land uses. The speed limit along N. Canyons Parkway is 40 miles per hour (mph).
Doolan Road is a two-lane, undivided rural road in Livermore and unincorporated Alameda County, extending from Collier Canyon Road to its northern terminus in unincorporated Alameda County. The speed limit along Doolan Road is 35 mph.
3.2 EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Walkability is defined as the ability to travel easily and safely between various origins and destinations without having to rely on automobiles or other motorized travel. The ideal “walkable” community includes wide sidewalks, a mix of land uses such as residential, employment, and shopping opportunities, a limited number of conflict points with vehicle traffic, easy access to transit facilities and services and a network of pedestrian facilities. Pedestrian facilities are comprised of crosswalks, sidewalks, pedestrian signals, and off-street paths, which provide safe and convenient routes for pedestrians to access the destinations such as institutions, businesses, public transportation, and recreation facilities. Along N. Canyons Parkway, the width of the sidewalk is approximately 10 feet. All of the study intersections have marked crosswalks and signalized intersections are equipped with pedestrian push buttons and pedestrian signal heads.
At the intersection of N. Canyons Parkway/Airway Boulevard, there are ADA compliant curb-ramps. On the southern portion of N. Canyons Parkway between Airway Boulevard and Doolan Road, there are currently no sidewalks.
The existing pedestrian facilities in the study area are shown in Figure 3.
3.3 EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES
The 2018 City of Livermore Bicycle, Pedestrian, & Trails Active Transportation Plan outlines goals and objectives to improve the current active transportation system that includes walking and biking. The various bicycle facilities throughout the city are described below. Existing bicycle facilities in the project vicinity are illustrated in Figure 3. In addition to the four classes of bicycle facilities, Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC), has adopted a set of sub-classifications for each classification. Class I Shared-Use Path: Class I bikeways are a completely separate right-of-way designed for the exclusive use of cyclists and pedestrians, with minimal crossings for motorists. These paths are
EXHIBIT B
415
Parkwest Casino 580 TIA
Page | 13
often located along creeks, canals, and rail lines. There are no existing Class I facilities in the project area. Class I facilities can also be sub-classified into the following:
o Class IA for paved paths,
o Class IB for unpaved paths.
Class II Bike Lanes: Class II bike lanes use special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage.
Bike lanes provide designated street space for bicyclists, typically adjacent to outer vehicle travel lanes. Buffered bike lanes increase separation through painted buffers between vehicle lanes and/or parking, and green paint at conflict zones (e.g., driveways or intersections). Class II Bike Lanes are available on both sides of N. Canyons Parkway. Class II facilities can be sub-classified into the following:
o Class IIA – conventional bicycle lanes, consisting of a single strip to delineate the lane,
o Class IIB – with a striped buffer or with green conflict markings in the bicycle lane, o Class IIC – climbing bicycle lanes, which have a dedicated bicycle lane in the uphill direction and a Class III facility in the downhill direction, o Class IID – contraflow bicycle lanes.
Class III Bike Routes: Bike routes provide enhanced mixed-traffic conditions for bicyclists through signage, sharrow striping, and or traffic calming treatments, and provide continuity to a bikeway network. Bike routes are typically designated along gaps between bike trails or bike lanes, or along low-volume, low-speed streets. Bicycle Boulevards further enhance bike routes by encouraging slower speeds and discouraging non-local vehicle traffic using traffic diverters, chicanes, traffic circles, and speed tables. There are no existing Class III facilities in the project area. Class III facilities can also be sub-classified into the following:
o Class IIIA – for signage only routes,
o Class IIIB – for wide curb or shoulder lanes, that may or may not include signage, o Class IIIC – for routes with shared lane markings i.e., sharrows, or other pavement markings, and may also include signage,
o Class IIID – for routes with green-backed sharrows,
o Class IIIE – for bicycle boulevards, which are signed and typical located on roadways with low volumes.
Class IV Bikeway: Bikeways are also known as cycle tracks or separated bikeways, are set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles and physically separated from vehicle traffic. Separated bikeways were adopted by Caltrans in 2015. Separation may include grade separation, flexible posts, physical barriers, or on-street parking. There are no existing Class IV facilities in the project area.
Class IV facilities can be sub-classified into the following:
o Class IVA – for one-way separated bikeways,
o Class IVB – for two-way separated bikeways,
EXHIBIT B
416
Parkwest Casino 580 TIA
Page | 14
3.4 EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES
Tri-Valley Wheels provides transit service throughout Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, and unincorporated Alameda County. The main transit center in Livermore is the Livermore Transit Center, located in Downtown Livermore. From the Transit Center, riders can connect to Dublin/Pleasanton BART, Lawrence Livermore Lab, Las Positas College as well as local destinations. Table 1 summarizes the existing Wheels service in the project vicinity. Figure 4 illustrates the existing transit facilities.
Table 1: Existing Tri-Valley Wheels Transit Service
Route From To
Weekdays Weekends
Operating
Hours
Headway
(minutes)
Operating
Hours
Headway
(minutes)
30R West Dublin BART East/Vasco &
LLNL
5:06 a.m. –
10:45 p.m.
30-60 5:09 a.m. –
10:42 p.m.
60 Source: Tri-Valley Wheels Website
EXHIBIT B
417
Parkwest Casino 580 TIA
Figure 3: Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Project Site
X Study Intersection
Project Access
LEGEND
N
Airway Blvd
Doolan Rd
N Canyons Pkwy Extension
Dublin Blvd-
580
Constitution Dr
Collier Canyon Rd
1 3
N Canyons Pkwy
No Sidewalk Class II Bike Lane
Marked Crosswalk
Marked School Crosswalk
N Canyons Pkwy Extension
Waxie Dwy
2 EXHIBIT B
418
Parkwest Casino 580 TIA
Figure 4: Existing Transit Facilities
Project Site
X Study Intersection
Project Access
LEGEND
N
Route 30R
Bus Stop
N Canyons Pkwy Extension
Airway Blvd
Doolan Rd
N Canyons Pkwy Extension
Dublin Blvd-
580
Constitution Dr
Collier Canyon Rd
3 N Canyons Pkwy
Waxie Dwy
2 1
EXHIBIT B
419
Parkwest Casino 580 TIA
Page | 17
3.5 EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS The existing operations of the study intersections were evaluated for the highest one-hour volumes during weekday morning and evening peak periods. Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic and shelter-in-place orders, the ability to collect accurate new traffic counts is limited. Where available, turning movement counts conducted during the Draft EIR of the Dublin Boulevard/N. Canyons Parkway extension were used.
New counts were conducted at one study intersections (N. Canyons Parkway/Waxie Driveway) where recent counts were unavailable, plus one proxy intersection that had been previously counted to use as a baseline count reference. Turning movement volumes at the new intersection were then adjusted based on the change in traffic between pre-Covid and during Covid at the proxy intersection of N. Canyons Parkway/Airway Boulevard (intersection #3). New turning movement counts for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians were conducted during the weekday a.m. peak period (7:00-9:00 a.m.) and p.m. peak period (4:00-6:00 p.m.) at these study intersections in February 2021. Appendix B includes all data sheets for the collected vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian counts. Figure 5 illustrates the existing lane geometry, traffic controls, and peak hour volumes for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours at the study intersections.
3.6 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS – EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing intersection lane configurations, signal timings, and turning movement volumes are used to calculate the level of service for the study intersections during each peak hour. Table 2 below summarizes peak hour LOS at the study intersections under Existing Conditions. Under this scenario, all of the study intersections operate at the applicable jurisdictional service levels of service for both the a.m. and p.m. peak hour. LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix C.
Table 2: Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Existing Conditions # Intersection Control Peak
Hour1
Existing Conditions
Delay2 LOS3
1 N. Canyons Pkwy/Doolan
Road One-Way Stop
AM 9.0 A
PM 9.2 A
2 N. Canyons Pkwy/Waxie
Dwy-Future Casino
Parking
Signal
AM 6.9 A
PM 11.3 B
3 N. Canyons Pkwy/Airway
Blvd Signal
AM 31.1 C
PM 24.0 C
Notes:
1. AM – morning peak hour, PM – evening peak hour
2. Delay – Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized and all-way stop controlled intersections. Total control delay for the worst movement is presented for side-street stop – controlled intersections.
3. LOS – Level of Service. Bold indicates unacceptable LOS and Delay.
EXHIBIT B
420
Figure 5: Existing Conditions Lane Geometry, Traffic Controls, and Peak Hour Volumes Project Site
X Study Intersection
Project Access
LEGEND
N
Parkwest Casino 580 TIA
N Canyons Pkwy/
Doolan Rd1 N Canyons Pkwy/
Waxie Dwy
2 N Canyons Pkwy/
Airway Blvd
3 Stop Sign
Traffic Signal
AM Peak Hour VolumesXX
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volumes
Doolan Rd
Waxie Dwy
N Canyons Pkwy N Canyons PkwyN Canyons Pkwy
Airway Blvd
2 (0)
35 (42)
0 (0)
11 (7)
30 (99)
11 (22)
21 (45)
21 (24)
37 (64)
0 (0)
4 (4)
0 (1)
15 (11)
497 (885)
0 (2) 19 (27)
47 (81)
0 (0)
929 (671)
2 (0) 11 (56) 0 (0) 16 (15) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0)
N Canyons Pkwy Extension
N Canyons Pkwy
Airway Blvd
Doolan Rd
N Canyons Pkwy Extension
Dublin Blvd-
Constitution Dr
1 3
580
Collier Canyon Rd
Waxie Dwy
2 72 (70)
EXHIBIT B
421
Parkwest Casino 580 TIA
Page | 19
4.0 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
The impacts of the proposed project on the transportation system are discussed in this chapter. First, the method used to estimate the amount of traffic generated by the project is described. Then, the results of the level of service calculations for Existing plus Project Conditions are presented. (Existing plus Project Conditions are defined as Existing Conditions plus traffic generated by the proposed project). A comparison of intersections under Existing plus Project Conditions and Existing Conditions is presented and the impacts of the project on the study intersections are discussed.
The amount of traffic added to the roadway system by the proposed development is estimated using a three-step process.
Trip Generation – Estimates the amount of traffic added to the roadway network, Trip Distribution – Estimates the direction of travel to and from the project site, Trip Assignment – The new trips are assigned to specific street segments and intersection turning movements.
4.1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
TJKM developed estimated project trip generation for the proposed casino expansion based on employee and player entry/exit data that the Casino collected over three months (data is attached in Appendix B).
The data collected includes players, those at the casino tables, and backline bettors. The data was collected based on entry and exit tracking, ensuring no one using the casino tables or simply moving around was overlooked. This approach accounted for everyone entering and exiting, including employee shift changes. Although the Casino attracts large amounts of patrons over a 24-hour period, most of the peak hour traffic is generated by employees at shift breaks. Based on the data and increases in parking and gambling tables, the project is expected to generate 26 new trips (14 in, 12 out) in the a.m. peak hour, 25 new trips (4 in, 21 out) in the p.m. peak hour, and 304 new daily trips.
4.2 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
Trip distribution is a process that determines in wh at proportion vehicles woul d be expected to travel between the project site and various destinations outside the project st udy area and also determines the various routes that vehicles would take from the project site to each destination using the calculated trip distribution.
Trip distribution assumptions for the proposed casino expansion and parking lot project were developed based on the existing travel patterns and TJKM’s knowledge of the study area.
The distribution assumptions are as follows:
20 percent to/from N. Canyons Parkway east of Airway Boulevard 80 percent to/from Airway Boulevard south of N. Canyons Parkway
EXHIBIT B
422
Parkwest Casino 580 TIA
Page | 20
Figure 6 illustrates the trip distribution percentages and trip assignment project volumes developed for the proposed project. The assigned project trips were then added to traffic volumes under Existing Conditions to generate Existing plus Project Conditions traffic volumes.
EXHIBIT B
423
Figure 6: Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
Project Site
X Study Intersection
Project Access
LEGEND
N
Parkwest Casino 580 TIA
N Canyons Pkwy/
Doolan Rd1 N Canyons Pkwy/
Waxie Dwy
2 N Canyons Pkwy/
Airway Blvd
3 Stop Sign
Traffic Signal
AM Trip AssignmentXX
(XX) PM Trip Assignment
Existing Plus Project Trip Distribution
Doolan Rd
Waxie Dwy
N Canyons Pkwy N Canyons PkwyN Canyons Pkwy
Airway Blvd
Project Dwy
4 (0) 4 (0)
10 (4) 3 (1)
3 (6)
11 (3)9 (15)
2 (4)
10 (17)
3 (6)
N Canyons Pkwy
Airway Blvd
Doolan Rd
N Canyons Pkwy Extension
Dublin Blvd-
Constitution Dr
1 3
20%
XX%
80%
580
Collier Canyon Rd
Waxie Dwy
2 EXHIBIT B
424
Parkwest Casino 580 TIA
Page | 22
4.3 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS – EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS The intersection LOS analysis results for Existing plus Project Conditions are summarized in Table 3.
Detailed calculation sheets for Existing plus Project Conditions are contained in Appendix D. All study intersections are expected to continue operating within the applicable jurisdictional standards in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hour. The results for Existing Conditions are included for comparison purposes.
Figure 7 displays projected peak hour turning movement volumes at all of the study intersections for Existing plus Project Conditions.
Table 3: Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Existing plus Project Conditions # Study Intersections Control Peak
Hour1
Existing
Conditions
Existing Plus Project
Conditions
Delay2 LOS3 Delay2 LOS3
1 N. Canyons Pkwy/Doolan Road One-Way
Stop
AM 9.0 A 8.9 A
PM 9.2 A 8.9 A
2 N. Canyons Pkwy/Waxie Dwy-
Future Casino Parking Signal
AM 6.9 A 7.2 A
PM 11.3 B 8.9 A
3 N. Canyons Pkwy/Airway Blvd Signal
AM 31.1 C 30.7 C
PM 24.0 C 24.1 C
Notes:
1. AM – morning peak hour, PM – evening peak hour
2. Delay – Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized and all-way stop controlled intersections. Total control delay for the worst movement is presented for side-street stop – controlled intersections.
3. LOS – Level of Service. Bold indicates unacceptable Level of Service.
It should be noted that some of the intersections are estimated to show a decrease in intersection delay due to the addition of project trips to non-critical turn movements. That is, more vehicles would be using the intersection during the peak hour but on non-critical lanes and movements, so the average delay per vehicle decreases.
EXHIBIT B
425
Figure 7: Existing Plus Project Volumes
Project Site
X Study Intersection
Project Access
LEGEND
N
Parkwest Casino 580 TIA
N Canyons Pkwy/
Doolan Rd1 N Canyons Pkwy/
Waxie Dwy
2 N Canyons Pkwy/
Airway Blvd
3 Stop Sign
Traffic Signal
AM Peak Hour VolumesXX
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volumes
Doolan Rd
Waxie Dwy
N Canyons Pkwy N Canyons PkwyN Canyons Pkwy
Airway Blvd
Project Dwy
11 (22)
11 (15)
21 (24)
27 (34)
24 (34)
4 (4)
0 (1)
18 (12)
497 (885)
2 (0)
25 (30)
0 (0)
58 (84)
0 (0)
929 (671)
0 (0) 0 (0)22(33)
13 (11)
40 (116)
0 (2) 9 (15)
0 (0) 16 (15) 2 (0) 0 (0) 11 (56) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0)
N Canyons Pkwy Extension
N Canyons Pkwy
Airway Blvd
Doolan Rd
N Canyons Pkwy Extension
Dublin Blvd-
Constitution Dr
1 3
580
Collier Canyon Rd
Waxie Dwy
2 72 (70)
EXHIBIT B
426
Parkwest Casino 580 TIA
Page | 24
4.4 QUEUING ANALYSIS – EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS TJKM conducted a vehicle queueing and storage analysis for exclusive left and right turn pockets at the study intersections for Existing and Existing plus Project Conditions. The 95th percentile queues were analyzed using Synchro 10.0 software. Detailed calculations are included in the LOS appendices corresponding to each analysis scenario. Table 4 summarizes the 95th percentile queue lengths at selected study intersections under Existing and Existing plus Project scenarios.
Table 4: 95th Percentile Queues at Study Intersections
# Intersection Lane
Group
Storage
Length
Existing Existing plus Project
Conditions Change
AM PM AM PM AM PM
2 N. Canyons Pkwy/Waxie
Dwy
EBL 215 0 0 0 0 0 0
WBL 145 10 10 20 30 10 20
WBR 90 0 0 0 0 0 0
NBR 50 N/A N/A 0 0 0 0
SBL - 10 30 10 30 0 0
SBR - 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 N. Canyons Pkwy/Airway
Blvd
EBR 230 0 40 0 50 0 10
WBL 300 220 450 220 460 0 10
WBR 195 0 0 0 0 0 0
NBLT 550 130 170 140 170 10 0
NBR - 20 30 20 30 0 0
Notes: Storage length and 95th percentile queue is expressed in feet per lane AM – morning peak hour, PM – evening peak hour
1 vehicle = 25 feet
Bold indicates queue lengths exceeding capacity
It should be noted that
there are two westbound left-turn lanes at N. Canyons Parkway/Airway Boulevard.
One of the lanes is a trap lane that extends upstream to N. Canyons Parkway/Constitution Drive, and there is an additional lane near the intersection. Project traffic is expected to use the northbound left-turn at N.
Canyons Parkway/Airway Boulevard, but impacts are minimal.
The existing storage length of the westbound left-turn lane at N. Canyons Parkway/Waxie Driveway is sufficient for the additional trips that will use the new parking lot. This is because there is very light commute peak traffic generated by the Casino.
EXHIBIT B
427
Parkwest Casino 580 TIA
Page | 25
4.5 SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS
Traffic signal warrants are a series of standards that provide guidelines for determining if a traffic signal is appropriate. Signal warrant analyses are typically conducted at intersections of uncontrolled major streets and stop sign-controlled minor streets. If one or more signal warrants are met, signalization of the intersection may be appropriate. However, a signal should not be installed if none of the warrants are met, since the installation of signals would increase delays on the previously uncontrolled major street, and may increase the occurrence of particular types of accidents.
As stated in the 2014 edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), “An engineering study of traffic conditions, pedestrian characteristics, and physical characteristics of the location shall be performed to determine whether installation of a traffic control signal is justified at a particular location.
The investigation of the need for a traffic control signal shall include an analysis of the applicable factors contained in the following traffic signal warrants and other factors related to existing operation and safety at the study location.”
This analysis focused on the peak hour warrant. The MUTCD states that, “This (peak hour) signal warrant shall be applied only in unusual cases, such as office complexes, manufacturing plants, industrial complexes, or high-occupancy vehicle facilities that attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over a short time.” So the peak hour warrant is being used in this impact analysis study as an “indicator” of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed the peak hour warrant are considered (for the purposes of this impact analysis) to be likely to meet one or more of the other signal warrants (such as the four-hour or eight-hour warrants). This peak hour analysis is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction.
A peak hour signal warrant analysis was conducted for the intersection of N. Canyons Parkway/Doolan Road for Existing and Existing plus Project Conditions. The results of the peak hour warrant analysis are summarized in Table 5. The results show that the study intersection does not meet the MUTCD peak hour warrant during the a.m. and p.m. peak period in Existing or Existing plus Project conditions. Peak hour signal warrant analysis work sheets are provided in Appendix E.
Table 5: Peak Hour Warrant Analysis
Intersection Control
Existing Conditions
Existing Plus Project
Conditions
Meets AM
Peak Hour?
Meets PM
Peak Hour?
Meets AM
Peak Hour?
Meets PM
Peak Hour?
N. Canyons
Parkway/Doolan Road
One-Way
Stop No No No No
EXHIBIT B
428
Parkwest Casino 580 TIA
Page | 26
5.0 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS
This chapter presents the results of the level of service calculations under Cumulative Conditions without the project. Level of service analysis at the study intersections were conducted for Cumulative Conditions to establish a base to evaluate the impacts due to the addition of traffic from the proposed project.
Cumulative volumes for the study intersections were referenced from the Dublin Boulevard – North Canyons Parkway Extension Project Draft EIR (2019) and include the additional traffic that will travel through N. Canyons Parkway/Dublin Boulevard. The following assumptions were made for Cumulative Conditions analysis:
Completion of the Dublin Boulevard/N. Canyons Parkway connection, Signalization of Dublin Boulevard-N. Canyons Parkway/Doolan Road Intersection improvements to N. Canyons Parkway/Airway Boulevard o Shifting the median of the northbound approach of Airway Boulevard one lane to the west reducing the southbound lanes from three to two and increasing the number of northbound lanes.
o Converting the northbound approach to have one left-turn lane, one shared left/through lane, and two right-turn lanes.
o Converting the westbound approach to have two left-turn lanes, one through lane, one shared through/right-turn lane.
Figure 8 illustrates the Cumulative Conditions lane geometry, traffic controls, and volumes.
5.1 INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS – CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS The intersection LOS analysis results for Cumulative Conditions without the proposed project are summarized in Table 6. Detailed calculation sheets for Cumulative Baseline Conditions are contained in Appendix F.
All of the study intersections are projected to operate within the applicable jurisdictional standards during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
Table 6: Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Cumulative Conditions # Study Intersections Control Peak
Hour1
Cumulative
Conditions
Delay2 LOS3
1 N. Canyons Pkwy/Doolan Road Signal AM 3.1 A
PM 6.4 A
2 N. Canyons Pkwy/Waxie Dwy-
Future Casino Parking Signal AM 7.4 A
PM 5.1 A
3 N. Canyons Pkwy/Airway Blvd Signal AM 23.2 C
PM 62.2 E
Notes:
1. AM – morning peak hour, PM – evening peak hour
2. Delay – Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized and all-way stop controlled intersections. Total control delay for the worst movement is presented for side-street stop – controlled intersections.
3. LOS – Le
vel of
Service. Bold indicates unacceptable LOS and Delay.
EXHIBIT B
429
Figure 8: Cumulative Lane Geometry, Traffic Controls and Volumes Project Site
X Study Intersection
Project Access
LEGEND
N
Parkwest Casino 580 TIA
N Canyons Pkwy/
Doolan Rd1 N Canyons Pkwy/
Waxie Dwy
2 N Canyons Pkwy/
Airway Blvd
3 Stop Sign
Traffic Signal
AM Peak Hour VolumesXX
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volumes
Doolan Rd
Waxie Dwy
N Canyons Pkwy N Canyons PkwyN Canyons Pkwy
Dublin Blvd Extension
21 (24)
1416 (230)
0 (0)
4 (4)
11 (22)
1485 (183)
21 (45)
0 (1)
905 (71)
283 (1158)
25 (0)
218 (1284)2 (0)
206 (1242)
0 (0)
536 (187)
0 (0)
1022 (531)
0 (2) 0 (2)19 (27)
144 (846)
89 (471)
101 (20) 11 (29) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 16 (15)
N Canyons Pkwy Extension
N Canyons Pkwy
Airway Blvd
Doolan Rd
N Canyons Pkwy Extension
Dublin Blvd-
Constitution Dr
1 3
580
Collier Canyon Rd
Waxie Dwy
2 72 (70)
EXHIBIT B
430
Parkwest Casino 580 TIA
Page | 28
6.0 CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
This scenario is identical to Cumulative Conditions, with the addition or projected traffic from the proposed development. Trip generation is identical to Existing plus Project Conditions. Trip distribution and assignment are slightly modified since the Dublin Boulevard/N. Canyons Parkway connection was assumed to be completed in the cumulative scenario. The modified trip distribution is summarized below:
20 percent to/from N. Canyons Parkway east of Airway Boulevard 65 percent to/from Airway Boulevard south of N. Canyons Parkway 15 percent to/from Dublin Boulevard west of Doolan Road Figure 9 shows the project trip distribution and assignment for the cumulative scenario. Figure 10 shows the Cumulative plus Project volumes.
6.1 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS – CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS The intersection LOS analysis results for Cumulative plus Project Conditions are summarized in Table 7.
Detailed calculation sheets for Cumulative plus Project Conditions are contained in Appendix G. With the addition of project trips to Cumulative Conditions, all of the study intersections are projected to operate within the applicable jurisdictional standards during the a.m. and p.m. peak.
Table 7: Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Cumulative plus Project Conditions # Study Intersections Control Peak
Hour1
Cumulative
Conditions
Cumulative Plus
Project Conditions
Delay2 LOS3 Delay2 LOS3
1 N. Canyons Pkwy/Doolan Road Signal
AM 3.1 A 2.7 A
PM 6.4 A 4.7 A
2 N. Canyons Pkwy/Waxie Dwy-
Future Casino Parking Signal
AM 7.4 A 7.8 A
PM 5.1 A 6.9 A
3 N. Canyons Pkwy/Airway Blvd Signal
AM 23.2 C 23.4 C
PM 62.2 E 63.6 E
Notes:
1. AM – morning peak hour, PM – evening peak hour
2. Delay – Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized and all-way stop controlled intersections. Total control delay for the worst movement is presented for side-street stop – controlled intersections.
3. LOS – Level of Service. Bold indicates unacceptable Level of Service.
It should be noted that some of the intersections are estimated to show a decrease in intersection delay due to the addition of project trips to non-critical turn movements. That is, more vehicles would be using the intersection during the peak hour but on non-critical lanes and movements, so the average delay per vehicle decreases.
EXHIBIT B
431
Figure 9: Cumulative Project Trip Distribution and Assignment Project Site
X Study Intersection
Project Access
LEGEND
N
Parkwest Casino 580 TIA
N Canyons Pkwy/
Doolan Rd1 N Canyons Pkwy/
Waxie Dwy
2 N Canyons Pkwy/
Airway Blvd
3 Stop Sign
Traffic Signal
AM Trip AssignmentXX
(XX) PM Trip Assignment
Trip Distribution
Doolan Rd
Waxie Dwy
N Canyons Pkwy N Canyons PkwyN Canyons Pkwy
Dublin Blvd Extension
Project Dwy
2 (0)
10 (3)2 (0) 3 (1)
2 (4)2 (1)
9 (2)2 (3)2 (4) 8 (14)
2 (4)
8 (14)
N Canyons Pkwy Extension
N Canyons Pkwy
Airway Blvd
Doolan Rd
N Canyons Pkwy Extension
Dublin Blvd-
Constitution Dr
1 3
XX%
20%
15%
65%
580
Collier Canyon Rd
Waxie Dwy
2 EXHIBIT B
432
Figure 10: Cumulative Plus Project Volumes
Project Site
X Study Intersection
Project Access
LEGEND
N
Parkwest Casino 580 TIA
N Canyons Pkwy/
Doolan Rd1 N Canyons Pkwy/
Waxie Dwy
2 N Canyons Pkwy/
Airway Blvd
3 Stop Sign
Traffic Signal
AM Peak Hour VolumesXX
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volumes
Doolan Rd
Waxie Dwy
N Canyons Pkwy N Canyons PkwyN Canyons Pkwy
Dublin Blvd Extension
Project Dwy
21 (24)
1404 (200)
24 (33)
4 (4)
11 (22)
1485 (183)
9 (15)
0 (1)
908 (72)
283 (1158)
25 (0)
207 (1270)
0 (0)
0 (0)
206 (1242)
2 (1)
545 (189)
0 (0)
1022 (531)
2 (5) 0 (2)8 (13)
0 (0) 0 (0)21 (32)
146 (850)
97 (485)
101 (20)0 (0) 11 (29) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 16 (15) N Canyons Pkwy
Airway Blvd
Doolan Rd
N Canyons Pkwy Extension
Dublin Blvd-
Constitution Dr
1 3
580
Collier Canyon Rd
Waxie Dwy
2 72 (70)
EXHIBIT B
433
Parkwest Casino 580 TIA
Page | 31
6.2 QUEUEING ANALYSIS – CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS TJKM conducted a vehicle queueing and storage analysis for exclusive left and right turn pockets at the study intersections for Cumulative and Cumulative plus Project Conditions. The 95th percentile queues were analyzed using Synchro 10.0 software. Detailed calculations are included in the LOS appendices corresponding to each analysis scenario. Table 8 summarizes the 95th percentile queue lengths at the study intersections under Cumulative and Cumulative plus Project scenarios.
Table 8: 95th Percentile Queues at Study Intersections
# Intersection Lane
Group
Storage
Length
Cumulative Cumulative plus
Project Conditions Change
AM PM AM PM AM PM
1 N. Canyons Pkwy/Doolan
Rd
EBL 150 0 0 0 0 0 0
WBL 135 20 40 10 20 -10 -20
NBLTR - 0 20 0 20 0 0
SBLTR - 20 20 20 20 0 0
2 N. Canyons Pkwy/Waxie
Dwy
EBL 215 30 0 30 0 0 0
WBL 145 10 10 30 30 20 20
WBR 90 0 0 0 0 0 0
NBR 50 N/A N/A 0 0 0 0
SBL - 20 30 20 30 0 0
SBR - 40 0 0 0 -40 0
3 N. Canyons Pkwy/Airway
Blvd
EBR 230 40 330 40 340 0 10
WBL 300 160 750 160 750 0 0
NBL 550 290 210 290 210 0 0
NBR - 30 30 30 30 0 0
Notes: Storage length and 95th percentile queue is expressed in feet per lane AM – morning peak hour, PM – evening peak hour
1 vehicle = 25 feet
Bold indicates queue lengths exceeding capacity
It should be noted that
there are two westbound left-turn lanes at N. Canyons Parkway/Airway Boulevard.
One of the lanes is a trap lane that extends upstream to N. Canyons Parkway/Constitution Drive, and there is an additional lane near the intersection. Although the queues exceed the storage lane, project traffic is not expected to use this movement. Project traffic is expected to use the northbound left-turn at N.
Canyons Parkway/Airway Boulevard, but impacts are minimal. The queue for the eastbound right-turn at N. Canyons Parkway/Airway Boulevard is projected to increase by 10 feet with the project, which is less than one car length (20-25 feet).
The existing storage length of the westbound left-turn lane at N. Canyons Parkway/Waxie Driveway is sufficient for the additional trips that will use the new parking lot. This is because there is very light commute peak traffic generated by the Casino.
EXHIBIT B
434
Parkwest Casino 580 TIA
Page | 32
7.0 ADDITIONAL ANALYSES
The following sections provide additional analyses of other transportation issues associated with the project site, including:
Parking Analysis
Site access and onsite circulation;
Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Impacts
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis
Unlike the LOS impact methodology, the analyses in these sections is based on professional judgment in accordance with the standards and methods employed by traffic engineers. Although operational issues are not considered CEQA impacts, they do describe traffic conditions that are relevant to the project environment.
7.1 PARKING ANALYSIS
On many occasions, the number of customers of Casino 580 exceeds the capacity of the existing parking lot. Employees are often instructed to park on the west side of Doolan Ride or the north side of Collier Canyon Road. To mitigate this, the project will be developing a portion of the area east of the existing facility to accommodate the overflow and the planned expansion of the gambling facilities.
As noted elsewhere, TJKM conducted a 2020 Parking Study Update1 for Parkwest Casino 580 to evaluate future parking requirements. The parking study is located in Appendix H. Because the 2020 parking study could be considered out of date, a new parking analysis was conducted in March 2023. During this survey, the on- and off-street parking was tabulated once an hour between 10 a.m. and midnight from March 1, 2023, to March 23, 2023. The 2023 counts are summarized in Table 9. Overall, it was found that the March 2023 counts were approximately 15 percent lower than the counts reported in the 2020 parking study. For example, during the latest survey, there was only one hour when the demand exceeded 200 vehicles; in the earlier study there were observations of demand exceeding 220 vehicles. The earlier counts were conducted between October 2018 and November 2019. With this information, TJKM utilized the earlier counts as the basis for establishing parking demand for the expanded facility. The proposed expansion of the Parkwest Casino 580 facility provides for additional gambling tables and also provides an increase in space for the bar and restaurant and for the stage area that provides an internal venue for periodic entertainment of the gamblers. These facilities are all intended for use by gambling patrons and are not for the use of outsiders. Therefore, the increase in attendance at the facility is expected to be directly proportional to the increase in gambling tables. The facility is currently allowed to occupy 10 gambling tables at a time. The facility intends to increase the legally usable gambling tables from 10 to 16.
1 The 2020 Parking Study assumed that the future parking supply would consist of 352 parking spaces. Post 2020, the proposed parking supply was revised to 361 spaces.
EXHIBIT B
435
Parkwest Casino 580 TIA
Page | 33
Given the current peak parking demand of 220 vehicles, this amounts to 22 parked vehicles per active gambling table, which includes gamblers and the Parkwest Casino 580 support staff. The 22 stall parking demand represents roughly double the number of actual people at each table. It should be noted that the earlier counts described in Appendix H assumed three of the six new card tables would be designated for VIP only use, accommodating fewer players than the non-VIP tables. For this updated study, all six tables were considered to operate as non-VIP tables. This approach provides a more conservative analysis to the number of players per table and the parking demand. To project future demand for the six added gambling tables, TJKM considers six tables each generating demand for 22 parking stalls. The total added demand is 6 x 22 = 132 parking spaces. When added to the peak demand of 220 stalls, this yields a combined demand of 352 parking stalls. It should be emphasized that this is a very conservative number which should be exceeded less than one-half percent of the hours of operation. Based on the site plan, the circulation aisles, parking stall widths and depths satisfy City of Livermore requirements. In addition, 36 bicycle spaces are provided.
Table 9: Maximum Number of Parked Vehicles and Peak Times, March 2023 M T W Th F Sa Su
12345
178 vehicles 186 vehicles 190 vehicles 191 vehicles 168 vehicles 9pm to 10pm 9pm to 10pm 9pm to 10pm 9pm to 10pm 3pm to 4pm 6789 1 0 1 1 1 2
153 vehicles 168 vehicles 178 vehicles 175 vehicles 205 vehicles 180 vehicles 157 vehicles 8pm to 9pm 1pm to 2pm
2pm to 3pm
3pm to 4pm 2pm to 3pm
4pm to 5pm
9pm to 10pm 3pm to 4pm
9pm to 10pm
3pm to 4pm
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
144 vehicles 168 vehicles 184 vehicles 165 vehicles 169 vehicles 182 vehicles 182 vehicles 3pm to 4pm 7pm to 8pm 9pm to 10pm 9pm to 10pm 10pm to 11pm 9pm to 10pm 2pm to 3pm 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
143 vehicles 154 vehicles 165 vehicles
3pm to 4pm 3pm to 4pm 9pm to 10pm
27 28 29 30 31
-----
----
EXHIBIT B
436
Parkwest Casino 580 TIA
Page | 34
7.2 SITE ACCESS AND ON-SITE CIRCULATION
Site Access
The proposed vehicular access to the project site will be the existing driveways on Doolan Road and N.
Canyons Parkway. Also, once the parking lot is constructed, customers will be able to use the signalized intersection N. Canyons Parkway/Waxie Driveway as an entry or exit. Sight distance for vehicles exiting the driveways appears to be adequate. Pedestrians and bicyclists can use the existing multimodal network to access the project site.
On-Site Circulation
In terms of external access, the project conceptual plan (dated October 29, 2020) shows the driveways that the proposed project would use. The driveways do not have any turning restrictions, with the exception of the driveway on N. Canyons Parkway between Doolan Road and Waxie Driveway, which will be right-in/right-out only. All driveways appear to accommodate two-way travel. The circulation aisles will provide enough space for two-way circulation.
7.3 PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE, AND TRANSIT IMPACTS
Pedestrian Access
There are no existing sidewalks along the project frontage on N. Canyons Parkway. There is existing street lighting along N. Canyons Parkway and within the project site that appear to be adequate. The proposed project does not conflict with existing and planned pedestrian facilities; therefore, the impact to pedestrian facilities is less than significant.
Bicycle Access
In terms of bicycle access to the project site, there are currently Class II bicycle facilities along N. Canyons Parkway and Airway Boulevard. As part of the proposed project (as illustrated in Figure 2), the Class II bicycle facility along the southern frontage of N. Canyons Parkway will be updated to a Class IV separated bikeway. The project does not conflict with existing and planned bicycle facilities; therefore, the impact to bicycle facilities is less than significant
Transit Access
The project site is located within walking distance to two Tri-Valley Wheels bus stops that are located along N. Canyons Parkway. Tri-Valley Wheels provides local and regional access. The existing pedestrian facilities in the project vicinity provide adequate connectivity for pedestrians to the transit stops. Impacts to transit service are expected to be less than significant.
7.4 VEHICLES MILES TRAVELED (VMT)
As previously mentioned, TJKM analyzed the casino project as retail. Based on OPR recommendations, VMT impacts attributable to the project may be considered potentially significant if:
the project results in an net increase in total VMT; or The project is considered a regionally serving retail project larger than 50,000 square feet.
Since the casino expansion will be generating 304 new daily trips, the equivalent retail square footage would be 8,053 square feet (ITE Land Use Code 820, where the rate is 37.75 trips/1000 square feet). Since
EXHIBIT B
437
Parkwest Casino 580 TIA
Page | 35
the retail square footage is below OPR’s threshold of 50,000 square feet, the project can be considered as local serving retail. Therefore, the VMT impact is expected to be less than significant.
The proposed on-site bicycle parking spaces and separated bike lane along the south side of N. Canyons Parkway that will be implemented with the expansion can further mitigate potential VMT impacts.
EXHIBIT B
438
Parkwest Casino 580 TIA
Page | 36
8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Project Trip Generation
The proposed casino expansion is expected to generate approximately 26 weekday a.m. peak hour trips (14 in, 12 out), 25 weekday p.m. peak hour trips (4 in, 21 out), and 304 new daily trips.
Existing Conditions
Under this scenario, all of the study intersections operate within applicable jurisdictional Level of Service (LOS) standards during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour.
Existing plus Project Conditions
Under this scenario, all of the study intersections continue to operate within applicable jurisdictional LOS standards during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour.
Existing plus Project Queueing Analysis
The project is not expected to increase the queues that exceed storage lengths at existing turn lanes. The existing storage length of the westbound left-turn lane at N. Canyons Parkway/Waxie Driveway is sufficient for the additional trips that will use the new parking lot.
Cumulative Conditions
Under this scenario, all of the study intersections continue to operate within applicable jurisdictional LOS standards during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
Under this scenario, all of the study intersections continue to operate within applicable jurisdictional LOS standards during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
Cumulative Plus Project Queueing Analysis
The project is not expected to increase the queues that exceed storage lengths at exclusive turn lanes. The storage length for the westbound left-turn lane at N. Canyons Parkway/Waxie Driveway is sufficient for the additional trips that will use the new parking lot in the cumulative scenario.
Site Access and On-Site Circulation
The proposed vehicular access to the project site is via the existing driveways on Doolan Road, N. Canyons Parkway and the new driveway at N. Canyons Parkway/Waxie Driveway. Pedestrians and bicyclists can use the existing multimodal network to access the project site. The parking aisles are wide enough to allow for two-way circulation. Based on a preliminary review of the project site plan, the site access and on-site circulation is considered adequate.
Pedestrian Impacts
The project does not conflict with existing and planned pedestrian facilities; therefore, the impact to pedestrian facilities is less than significant.
EXHIBIT B
439
Parkwest Casino 580 TIA
Page | 37
Bicycle Impacts
As part of the proposed project, the Class II bicycle facility along the southern frontage of N. Canyons Parkway will be updated to a Class IV separated bikeway. The project does not conflict with existing and planned bicycle facilities; therefore, the impact to bicycle facilities is less than significant.
Transit Impacts
The project site is within walking distance to two Tri-Valley Wheels bus stops that provide local and regional access. Impacts to transit service are expected to be less than significant.
Parking
The project will be supplying 361 parking spaces to satisfy the demand of 352 parking spaces during peak operating hours, which leaves a surplus of 9 stalls.
Vehicle Miles Traveled
TJKM analyzed the casino project as retail. Since the project will be generating 304 new daily trips, the equivalent retail square footage would be 8,053 square feet. Based on OPR’s recommendations, the VMT impact is expected to be less than significant since the retail square footage is below 50,000 square feet, which is considered as local serving retail.
EXHIBIT B
440
Appendix A – Level of Service Methodology
EXHIBIT B
441
APPENDIX A
LEVEL OF SERVICE
The description and procedures for calculating capacity and level of service are found in Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual 2000. Highway Capacity Manual 2000 represents the latest research on capacity and quality of service for transportation facilities.
Quality of service requires quantitative measures to characterize operational conditions within a traffic stream. Level of service is a quality measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such service measures as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience.
Six levels of service are defined for each type of facility that has analysis procedures available. Letters designate each level, from A to F, with level-of-service A representing the best operating conditions and level-of-service F the worst. Each level of service represents a range of operating conditions and the driver’s perception of these conditions. Safety is not included in the measures that establish service levels.
A general description of service levels for various types of facilities is shown in Table A-I.
Table A-I
Level of Service Description
Uninterrupted Flow Interrupted Flow
Facility Type Freeways
Multi-lane Highways
Two-lane Highways
Urban Streets
Signalized Intersections
Unsignalized Intersections
Two-way Stop Control
All-way Stop Control
LOS
A Free-flow Very low delay.
B Stable flow. Presence of other
users noticeable.
Low delay.
C Stable flow. Comfort and
convenience starts to decline.
Acceptable delay.
D High density stable flow. Tolerable delay.
E Unstable flow. Limit of acceptable delay.
F Forced or breakdown flow. Unacceptable delay
Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000
Level of Service Page A-1
TJKM Transportation Consultants Appendix A
EXHIBIT B
442
Urban Streets
The term “urban streets” refers to urban arterials and collectors, including those in downtown areas.
Arterial streets are roads that primarily serve longer through trips. However, providing access to abutting commercial and residential land uses is also an important function of arterials.
Collector streets provide both land access and traffic circulation within residential, commercial and industrial areas. Their access function is more important than that of arterials, and unlike arterials their operation is not always dominated by traffic signals.
Downtown streets are signalized facilities that often resemble arterials. They not only move through traffic but also provide access to local businesses for passenger cars, transit buses, and trucks. Pedestrian conflicts and lane obstructions created by stopping or standing buses, trucks and parking vehicles that cause turbulence in the traffic flow are typical of downtown streets.
The speed of vehicles on urban streets is influenced by three main factors, street environment, interaction among vehicles and traffic control. As a result, these factors also affect quality of service.
The street environment includes the geometric characteristics of the facility, the character of roadside activity and adjacent land uses. Thus, the environment reflects the number and width of lanes, type of median, driveway density, spacing between signalized intersections, existence of parking, level of pedestrian activity and speed limit.
The interaction among vehicles is determined by traffic density, the proportion of trucks and buses, and turning movements. This interaction affects the operation of vehicles at intersections and, to a lesser extent, between signals.
Traffic control (including signals and signs) forces a portion of all vehicles to slow or stop. The delays and speed changes caused by traffic control devices reduce vehicle speeds, however, such controls are needed to establish right-of-way.
The average travel speed for through vehicles along an urban street is the determinant of the operating level of service. The travel speed along a segment, section or entire length of an urban street is dependent on the running speed between signalized intersections and the amount of control delay incurred at signalized intersections.
Level-of-service A describes primarily free-flow operations. Vehicles are completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. Control delay at signalized intersections is minimal.
Level-of-service B describes reasonably unimpeded operations. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted, and control delays at signalized intersections are not significant.
Level-of-service C describes stable operations, however, ability to maneuver and change lanes in midblock location may be more restricted than at level-of-service B. Longer queues, adverse signal coordination, or both may contribute to lower travel speeds.
Level-of-service D borders on a range in which in which small increases in flow may cause substantial increases in delay and decreases in travel speed. Level-of-service D may be due to adverse signal progression, inappropriate signal timing, high volumes, or a combination of these factors.
Page A-2 Level of Service
Appendix A TJKM Transportation Consultants
EXHIBIT B
443
Level-of-service E is characterized by significant delays and lower travel speeds. Such operations are caused by a combination of adverse progression, high signal density, high volumes, extensive delays at critical intersections, and inappropriate signal timing.
Level-of-service F is characterized by urban street flow at extremely low speeds. Intersection congestion is likely at critical signalized locations, with high delays, high volumes, and extensive queuing.
The methodology to determine level of service stratifies urban streets into four classifications. The classifications are complex, and are related to functional and design categories. Table A-II describes the functional and design categories, while Table A-III relates these to the urban street classification.
Once classified, the urban street is divided into segments for analysis. An urban street segment is a one- way section of street encompassing a series of blocks or links terminating at a signalized intersection.
Adjacent segments of urban streets may be combined to form larger street sections, provided that the segments have similar demand flows and characteristics.
Levels of service are related to the average travel speed of vehicles along the urban street segment or section.
Travel times for existing conditions are obtained by field measurements. The maximum-car technique is used. The vehicle is driven at the posted speed limit unless impeded by actual traffic conditions. In the maximum-car technique, a safe level of vehicular operation is maintained by observing proper following distances and by changing speeds at reasonable rates of acceleration and deceleration. The maximum-car technique provides the best base for measuring traffic performance.
An observer records the travel time and locations and duration of delay. The beginning and ending points are the centers of intersections. Delays include times waiting in queues at signalized intersections. The travel speed is determined by dividing the length of the segment by the travel time. Once the travel speed on the arterial is determined, the level of service is found by comparing the speed to the criteria in Table A-IV. Level-of-service criteria vary for the different classifications of urban street, reflecting differences in driver expectations.
Level of Service Page A-3
TJKM Transportation Consultants Appendix A
EXHIBIT B
444
description of levels of service for signalized intersections can be found in Table A-V.
Table A-V
Description of Level of Service for Signalized Intersections Level of Service Description
A Very low control delay, up to 10 seconds per vehicle. Progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase.
Many vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may tend to contribute to low delay values.
B Control delay greater than 10 and up to 20 seconds per vehicle. There is good progression or short cycle lengths or both. More vehicles stop causing higher levels of delay.
C Control delay greater than 20 and up to 35 seconds per vehicle. Higher delays are caused by fair progression or longer cycle lengths or both.
Individual cycle failures may begin to appear. Cycle failure occurs when a given green phase doe not serve queued vehicles, and overflow occurs. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping.
D Control delay greater than 35 and up to 55 seconds per vehicle. The influence of congestions becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high volumes. Many vehicles stop, the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable.
E Control delay greater than 55 and up to 80 seconds per vehicle. The limit of acceptable delay. High delays usually indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high volumes. Individual cycle failures are frequent.
F Control delay in excess of 80 seconds per vehicle. Unacceptable to most drivers. Oversaturation, arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be contributing factors to higher delay.
Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000
The use of control delay, which may also be referred to as signal delay, was introduced in the 1997 update to the Highway Capacity Manual, and represents a departure from previous updates. In the third edition, published in 1985 and the 1994 update to the third edition, delay only included stopped delay. Thus, the level of service criteria listed in Table A-V differs from earlier criteria.
Unsignalized Intersections
The current procedures on unsignalized intersections were first introduced in the 1997 update to the Highway Capacity Manual and represent a revision of the methodology published in the 1994 update to the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. The revised procedures use control delay as a measure of effectiveness to determine level of service. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and increased travel time. The delay experienced by a motorist is made up of a number of factors that relate to control, traffic and incidents. Total delay is the difference between the travel time actually experienced and the reference travel time that would result during base conditions, i. e., in the absence of traffic control, geometric delay, any incidents, and any other vehicles. Control delay is the increased time of travel for a vehicle approaching and passing through an unsignalized intersection, compared with a free-flow vehicle if it were not required to slow or stop at the intersection.
Page A-6 Level of Service
Appendix A TJKM Transportation Consultants
EXHIBIT B
445
Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersections
Two-way stop controlled intersections in which stop signs are used to assign the right-of-way, are the most prevalent type of intersection in the United States. At two-way stop-controlled intersections the stop-controlled approaches are referred as the minor street approaches and can be either public streets or private driveways. The approaches that are not controlled by stop signs are referred to as the major street approaches.
The capacity of movements subject to delay are determined using the "critical gap" method of capacity analysis. Expected average control delay based on movement volume and movement capacity is calculated. A level of service designation is given to the expected control delay for each minor movement. Level of service is not defined for the intersection as a whole. Control delay is the increased time of travel for a vehicle approaching and passing through a stop-controlled intersection, compared with a free-flow vehicle if it were not required to slow or stop at the intersection. A description of levels of service for two-way stop-controlled intersections is found in Table A-VI.
Table A-VI
Description of Level of Service for Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersections Level of Service Description
A Very low control delay less than 10 seconds per
vehicle for each movement subject to delay.
B Low control delay greater than 10 and up to 15
seconds per vehicle for each movement subject to
delay.
C Acceptable control delay greater than 15 and up to 25 seconds per vehicle for each movement subject to
delay.
D Tolerable control delay greater than 25 and up to 35
seconds per vehicle for each movement subject to
delay.
E Limit of tolerable control delay greater than 35 and
up to 50 seconds per vehicle for each movement
subject to delay.
F Unacceptable control delay in excess of 50 seconds
per vehicle for each movement subject to delay.
Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000
Level of Service Page A-7
TJKM Transportation Consultants Appendix A
EXHIBIT B
446
Appendix B – Existing Traffic Counts and Player/Employee Data
EXHIBIT B
447
Location: Airway Blvd & N Canyons Pkwy
City: Livermore Project ID:
Control: Signalized Date:
NS/EW Streets:
0.5 0.5 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 14 4 31 12 0 0 0 0 0 1 18 0 46 2 0 0 128
7:15 AM 16 1 46 14 0 0 0 0 0 4 13 0 60 6 1 1 162
7:30 AM 21 2 56 22 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 49 2 0 0 157
7:45 AM 16 1 94 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 73 4 1 0 221
8:00 AM 20 1 73 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 47 0 1 0 156
8:15 AM 11 2 87 10 0 1 0 0 0 3 9 0 57 1 1 0 182
8:30 AM 14 3 108 13 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 0 51 1 0 0 199
8:45 AM 10 0 85 12 1 0 0 0 0 6 9 0 52 6 0 1 182
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 122 14 580 113 1 1 0 0 0 19 74 0 435 22 4 2 1387 APPROACH %'s : 14.72% 1.69% 69.96% 13.63% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 20.43% 79.57% 0.00% 93.95% 4.75% 0.86% 0.43% PEAK HR : 07:45 AM 40 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 61 7 362 53 0 1 0 0 0 7 30 0 228 6 3 0 758 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.763 0.583 0.838 0.602 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.583 0.750 0.000 0.781 0.375 0.750 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU
0.5 0.5 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 10 0 120 16 0 1 0 0 0 4 21 0 130 1 0 1 304
4:15 PM 10 0 122 6 0 7 0 0 0 5 22 0 131 4 1 2 310
4:30 PM 8 1 113 15 0 1 0 0 0 4 14 0 142 2 0 1 301
4:45 PM 10 0 131 27 2 5 0 0 0 4 12 0 144 3 1 0 339
5:00 PM 10 0 123 11 1 2 0 0 0 6 14 0 143 4 0 0 314
5:15 PM 14 0 147 14 0 6 0 0 0 2 16 0 151 2 0 0 352
5:30 PM 12 0 147 14 0 4 0 0 0 5 17 0 146 6 0 0 351
5:45 PM 17 0 189 14 0 2 0 0 0 6 19 0 134 1 0 2 384
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 91 1 1092 117 3 28 0 0 0 36 135 0 1121 23 2 6 2655 APPROACH %'s : 6.99% 0.08% 83.94% 8.99% 9.68% 90.32% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 21.05% 78.95% 0.00% 97.31% 2.00% 0.17% 0.52% PEAK HR : 05:00 PM 12:00 AM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 53 0 606 53 1 14 0 0 0 19 66 0 574 13 0 2 1401 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.779 0.000 0.802 0.946 0.250 0.583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.792 0.868 0.000 0.950 0.542 0.000 0.250 21-080012-001
2/4/2021
Data - Total
Airway Blvd Airway Blvd N Canyons Pkwy N Canyons Pkwy
AM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
07:45 AM - 08:45 AM
0.8570.875 0.250 0.771 0.760
PM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
05:00 PM - 06:00 PM
0.9120.809 0.625 0.850 0.962
EXHIBIT B
448
ID: 21-080012-001 Day:
City: Livermore Date:
AM 0 1 0 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 0 14 1 0 PM
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3
1 13 0 6
0 0 0 0 2 574 0 228
0 0 0 0 TEV 758 0 1401 0 2 0 0
7 0 19 2 PHF 0.86 0.91
30 0 66 1 0 0.5 0.5 2
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 53 53 0 606 PM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 53 61 7 362 AM
0 NONE
05:00 PM - 06:00 PM 0
Airway Blvd & N Canyons Pkwy
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Airway Blvd Thursday
SOUTHBOUND 2/4/2021
4:00 PM - 06:00 PM
PEAK HOURS
07:45 AM - 08:45 AM 10 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM
COUNT PERIODS
NONE
628 0 369
Cars (AM) 707 HT (AM)
N Canyons Pkwy
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
N Canyons Pkwy
67 0 66
CONTROL
Signalized
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Cars (PM) HT (PM)
0 312
NORTHBOUND
Airway Blvd
Cars (NOON) HT (NOON)
NOONAM PM
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
NOON
PM
AM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
PM
AM
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 1
0 0
0 3
0 0
2 0
0 0
0 30
0 0
0 0
0 6
0 1
0 0
00 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 105
1 0
0 0
0 10
1 1
0 13
57166
19 0
0 14
1 600
0 52
0 0
00 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 3
5 21825
6 0
0 1
0 352
6 60
EXHIBIT B
449
Location: Waxie Sanitary Supply Dwy & N Canyons Pkwy
City: Livermore Project ID:
Control: Signalized Date:
NS/EW Streets:
0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 1 2 1 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 12 4 0 36
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 15 4 2 35
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 17 7 0 30
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 8 0 0 0 7 13 0 31
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 12 8 0 27
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 8 4 0 23
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 7 8 0 25
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 9 5 2 28
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 13 0 1 0 1 76 0 0 0 87 53 4 235 APPROACH %'s : 92.86% 0.00% 7.14% 0.00% 1.30% 98.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 60.42% 36.81% 2.78% PEAK HR : 07:00 AM 37 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 1 44 0 0 0 51 28 2 132
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.625 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.250 0.579 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.750 0.538 0.250 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 1 2 1 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 9 3 0 37
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 11 2 1 40
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 9 1 0 28
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 11 2 0 29
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 13 1 0 33
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 9 5 2 34
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 14 3 1 37
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 13 5 0 45
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 41 0 0 0 0 127 0 0 0 89 22 4 283 APPROACH %'s : 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 77.39% 19.13% 3.48% PEAK HR : 05:00 PM 12:00 AM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 49 14 3 149
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.523 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.875 0.700 0.375 05:00 PM - 06:00 PM
0.8280.523 0.750 0.917
PM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
07:00 AM - 08:00 AM
0.9170.750 0.592 0.844
AM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
21-080012-002
2/4/2021
Data - Total
Waxie Sanitary Supply Dwy Waxie Sanitary Supply Dwy N Canyons Pkwy N Canyons Pkwy
EXHIBIT B
450
ID: 21-080012-002 Day:
City: Livermore Date:
AM 1 0 5 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 0 0 23 0 PM
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
1 0 1 0 1 14 0 28
2 49 0 51
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
1 0 0 1 TEV 132 0 149 0 3 0 2
44 0 60 3 PHF 0.92 0.83
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 0 0 0 PM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 0 0 0 0 AM
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Cars (PM) HT (PM)
0 0
NORTHBOUND
Waxie Sanitary Supply Dwy
Cars (NOON) HT (NOON)
NONE
86 0 51
Cars (AM) 0 HT (AM)
N Canyons Pkwy
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
N Canyons Pkwy
52 0 49
CONTROL
Signalized
0 NONE
05:00 PM - 06:00 PM 14
Waxie Sanitary Supply Dwy & N Canyons Pkwy
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Waxie Sanitary Supply Dwy Thursday
SOUTHBOUND 2/4/2021
4:00 PM - 06:00 PM
PEAK HOURS
07:00 AM - 08:00 AM 29 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM
COUNT PERIODS
NOONAM PM
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
NOON
PM
AM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
PM
AM
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 4
0 0
5 0
0 1
0 00
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
00 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
2 00
4 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
13 49
00 60
0 0
0 23
0 0
0 0
0 00
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
28 49
00 40
1 1
0 4
0 0
0 EXHIBIT B
451
Employee and Player Data
Player arrival and departures
AM Period 1.1 persons/vehicle Ex. Conditions 10 gambling tables 44% increase players Future condition 6 additional tables
Weekday Avg Arrivals Avg Departures Avg Arrivals Avg Departures Avg Arrivals Avg Departures Avg ArrivalsAvg Departures Players in Players Out Vehicles in Vehicles Out Total Vehicles AM In AM Out AM Additional Trips 0700‐0715 0 00100 0 0 Peak: 0745‐0845 41 4 1 5 2 0 2
0715‐0730 0 10101 0 1 split 80% 20%
0730‐0745 0 00000 0 0
0745‐0800 0 11110 1 1 employees
0800‐0815 0 11010 1 0 Employees in Employees Out Vehicles in Vehicles Out Total Vehicles AM In AM Out AM Additional Trips 0815‐0830 1 11000 1 0 Peak: 0730‐0830 29 30 26 27 54 12 12 24 0830‐0845 1 11010 1 0 split 49% 51%
0845‐0900 1 01110 1 0 AM In AM Out AM Total Trips
14 12 26
PM Period
Weekday Avg Arrivals Avg Departures Avg Arrivals Avg Departures Avg Arrivals Avg Departures Avg ArrivalsAvg Departures Players in Players Out Vehicles in Vehicles Out Total Vehicles PM In PM Out PM Additional Trips 1600‐1615 3 93635 3 7 Peak: 1630‐1730 11 24 10 22 32 4 10 14 1615‐1630 3 33634 3 4 split 31% 69%
1630‐1645 3 32625 3 5
1645‐1700 3 42825 2 6 employees
1700‐1715 3 4252 1 0 3 6 Employees in Employees Out Vehicles in Vehicles Out Total Vehicles AM In AM Out AM Additional Trips 1715‐1730 36 3 1 0 2 5 3 7 Peak: 1600‐1700 0 28 0 25 25 0 11 11 1730‐1745 3 53434 3 4 split 0% 100%
1745‐1800 3 33222 3 2 PM In PM Out PM Total Tri ps
42 1 2 5
Feb 2019 Dec 2019 Jan 2020
Feb 2019 Dec 2019 Jan 2020
Total Additional
Trips
Additional Players
Additional Players
Additional
Employees
Additional
Employees
Total Additional
Trips
EXHIBIT B
452
Appendix C – Existing Conditions Intersection Level of Service and Queuing Analysis Work Sheets
EXHIBIT B
453
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions 1: Doolan Rd & N. Canyons Pkwy Timing Plan: AM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 21 11 0 19 16 0
Future Volume (Veh/h) 21 11 0 19 16 0
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
Hourly flow rate (vph) 25 13 0 23 19 0
Pedestrians 3 3 1
Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0
Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 3.5 3.5
Percent Blockage 0 0 0
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 56 16 26
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 56 16 26
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 97 99 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 935 1060 1584
Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 25 13 23 19
Volume Left 25 0 0 19
Volume Right 0 13 23 0
cSH 935 1060 1700 1584
Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01
Queue Length 95th (ft) 2101
Control Delay (s) 9.0 8.4 0.0 7.3
Lane LOS A A A
Approach Delay (s) 8.8 0.0 7.3
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 5.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 17.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
EXHIBIT B
454
Queues Existing Conditions
2: N. Canyons Pkwy & Waxie Dwy Timing Plan: AM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 38 4 40 23 12 2
v/c Ratio 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.00
Control Delay 8.5 5.4 8.2 5.3 1.3 7.9 0.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 8.5 5.4 8.2 5.3 1.3 7.9 0.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 0000010
Queue Length 95th (ft) 3757480
Internal Link Dist (ft) 662 503
Turn Bay Length (ft) 215 145 90
Base Capacity (vph) 1644 3539 1644 3539 1583 1730 1475
Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00
Intersection Summary
EXHIBIT B
455
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions 2: N. Canyons Pkwy & Waxie Dwy Timing Plan: AM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 2 35 0 4 0 37 21 0 0 0 11 0
Future Volume (vph) 2 35 0 4 0 37 21 0 0 0 11 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1770 3539 1583 1770
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1770 3539 1583 1863
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 2 38 0 4 0 40 23 0 0 0 12 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 000000 2 100000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 38 0 0 4 40 2000 1 20
Turn Type Prot NA Prot Prot NA Perm Perm
Protected Phases 1 6 5 5 2 8
Permitted Phases 2 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.6 1.0 0.6 1.0 1.0 0.7
Effective Green, g (s) 0.6 1.0 0.6 1.0 1.0 0.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.05
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 69 231 69 231 103 85
v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.01 c0.00 c0.01
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.01
v/c Ratio 0.03 0.16 0.06 0.17 0.01 0.14
Uniform Delay, d1 7.1 6.8 7.1 6.8 6.7 7.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3
Delay (s) 7.1 6.9 7.2 6.9 6.7 7.3
Level of Service A A A A A A
Approach Delay (s) 6.9 6.8 0.0 7.2
Approach LOS A A A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 6.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.13
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 15.3 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 17.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
EXHIBIT B
456
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions 2: N. Canyons Pkwy & Waxie Dwy Timing Plan: AM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 2
Future Volume (vph) 2
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00
Frt 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1583
Flt Permitted 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 2
RTOR Reduction (vph) 2
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0
Turn Type Perm
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.7
Effective Green, g (s) 0.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05
Clearance Time (s) 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 72
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.00
Uniform Delay, d1 7.0
Progression Factor 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.0
Delay (s) 7.0
Level of Service A
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
EXHIBIT B
457
Queues Existing Conditions
3: Airway Blvd & N. Canyons Pkwy Timing Plan: AM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBT NBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 13 36 592 18 134 1106
v/c Ratio 0.01 0.04 0.77 0.01 0.54 0.62
Control Delay 18.9 0.1 44.9 4.1 48.7 2.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 18.9 0.1 44.9 4.1 48.7 2.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 2 0 192 2 84 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 8 0 216 9 126 16
Internal Link Dist (ft) 503 527 378
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 90
Base Capacity (vph) 1697 819 833 1418 353 1810
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.01 0.04 0.71 0.01 0.38 0.61
Intersection Summary
EXHIBIT B
458
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions 3: Airway Blvd & N. Canyons Pkwy Timing Plan: AM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 11 30 497 15 0 72 47 0 929 0 0
Future Volume (vph) 0 11 30 497 15 0 72 47 0 929 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.2 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.88
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1583 3433 1863 1770 2787
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1583 3433 1863 1770 2787
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.92 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 13 36 592 18 0 78 56 0 1106 0 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 19 000000 7 0 200
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 13 17 592 18 0 0 0 134 404 0 0
Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA pt+ov
Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 8 1 8 4 4
Permitted Phases 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 50.4 50.4 23.6 80.0 14.8 42.6
Effective Green, g (s) 50.4 50.4 23.6 80.0 14.8 38.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.48 0.48 0.22 0.76 0.14 0.37
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1698 759 771 1419 249 1019
v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.17 0.01 c0.08 0.15
v/s Ratio Perm c0.01
v/c Ratio 0.01 0.02 0.77 0.01 0.54 0.40
Uniform Delay, d1 14.2 14.4 38.1 3.0 41.9 24.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.1 4.2 0.0 1.1 0.1
Delay (s) 14.3 14.4 42.3 3.0 43.0 24.8
Level of Service B B D A D C
Approach Delay (s) 14.4 41.1 26.8 0.0
Approach LOS B D C A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 31.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.32
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 105.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
EXHIBIT B
459
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions 3: Airway Blvd & N. Canyons Pkwy Timing Plan: AM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0
Future Volume (vph) 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.84
Adj. Flow (vph) 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
Effective Green, g (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Vehicle Extension (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Incremental Delay, d2
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
EXHIBIT B
460
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions 1: Doolan Rd & N. Canyons Pkwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 45 22 2 27 15 0
Future Volume (Veh/h) 45 22 2 27 15 0
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76
Hourly flow rate (vph) 59 29 3 36 20 0
Pedestrians 3 1
Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0
Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 3.5
Percent Blockage 0 0
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 65 24 42
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 65 24 42
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 94 97 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 925 1049 1563
Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 59 29 39 20
Volume Left 59 0 0 20
Volume Right 0 29 36 0
cSH 925 1049 1700 1563
Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.01
Queue Length 95th (ft) 5201
Control Delay (s) 9.2 8.5 0.0 7.3
Lane LOS A A A
Approach Delay (s) 8.9 0.0 7.3
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 6.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 17.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
EXHIBIT B
461
Queues Existing Conditions
2: N. Canyons Pkwy & Waxie Dwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Lane Group EBT WBL WBT WBR SBL
Lane Group Flow (vph) 51 5 77 29 67
v/c Ratio 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.12
Control Delay 5.0 11.5 2.8 0.8 9.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 5.0 11.5 2.8 0.8 9.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 10001
Queue Length 95th (ft) 10 7 7 3 34
Internal Link Dist (ft) 660 503
Turn Bay Length (ft) 145 90
Base Capacity (vph) 3502 1584 3502 1511 1667
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.04
Intersection Summary
EXHIBIT B
462
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions 2: N. Canyons Pkwy & Waxie Dwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 42 0 4 0 64 24 0 0 0 56 0
Future Volume (vph) 0 42 0 4 0 64 24 0 0 0 56 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95
Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1770 3539 1547 1770
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1770 3539 1547 1863
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 51 0 5 0 77 29 0 0 0 67 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 000000 1 800000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 51 0 0 5 77 11 0 0 0 67 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 9
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Prot NA Prot Prot NA Perm Perm
Protected Phases 1 6 5 5 2 8
Permitted Phases 2 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 1.6 0.5 6.1 6.1 0.8
Effective Green, g (s) 1.6 0.5 6.1 6.1 0.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.03 0.38 0.38 0.05
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 356 55 1357 593 93
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.00 c0.02
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 c0.04
v/c Ratio 0.14 0.09 0.06 0.02 0.72
Uniform Delay, d1 6.5 7.5 3.1 3.0 7.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 20.6
Delay (s) 6.6 7.7 3.1 3.0 28.0
Level of Service A A A A C
Approach Delay (s) 6.6 3.3 0.0 28.0
Approach LOS A A A C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 11.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.32
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 15.9 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
EXHIBIT B
463
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions 2: N. Canyons Pkwy & Waxie Dwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0
Future Volume (vph) 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frpb, ped/bikes
Flpb, ped/bikes
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.83
Adj. Flow (vph) 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Turn Type Perm
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s)
Effective Green, g (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Vehicle Extension (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Incremental Delay, d2
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
EXHIBIT B
464
Queues Existing Conditions
3: Airway Blvd & N. Canyons Pkwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 8 109 973 12 1 165 737 1
v/c Ratio 0.01 0.21 0.71 0.01 0.00 0.65 0.38 0.01
Control Delay 27.7 6.1 31.8 5.8 0.0 53.6 1.4 48.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 27.7 6.1 31.8 5.8 0.0 53.6 1.4 48.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 2 0 285 2 0 106 0 1
Queue Length 95th (ft) 8 38 #454 10 0 165 28 7
Internal Link Dist (ft) 503 527 378 115
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 90 195
Base Capacity (vph) 1013 530 1367 1382 1188 312 1914 283 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.01 0.21 0.71 0.01 0.00 0.53 0.39 0.00 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EXHIBIT B
465
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions 3: Airway Blvd & N. Canyons Pkwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 7 99 885 11 1 70 81 0 671 0 1
Future Volume (vph) 0 7 99 885 11 1 70 81 0 671 0 1
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.2 6.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1563 3433 1863 1583 1770 2787 1863 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1563 3433 1863 1583 1770 2787 1863 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 8 109 973 12 1 76 89 0 737 0 1
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 81 000000 3 3 800
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 8 28 973 12 1 0 0 165 399 0 1
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1
Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA pt+ov NA
Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 8 1 8 4 4
Permitted Phases 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 26.9 26.9 41.8 74.7 74.7 15.1 61.1 1.0 Effective Green, g (s) 26.9 26.9 41.8 74.7 74.7 15.1 56.9 1.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.26 0.40 0.71 0.71 0.14 0.54 0.01 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.2 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 906 400 1366 1325 1126 254 1510 17
v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.28 0.01 c0.09 0.14 c0.00
v/s Ratio Perm c0.02 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.01 0.07 0.71 0.01 0.00 0.65 0.26 0.06
Uniform Delay, d1 29.1 29.6 26.5 4.4 4.4 42.5 12.9 51.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.3 1.5 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.5
Delay (s) 29.1 29.9 28.0 4.4 4.4 46.7 12.9 52.1
Level of Service C C C A A D B D
Approach Delay (s) 29.9 27.7 19.1 52.1
Approach LOS C C B D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 24.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 105.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
EXHIBIT B
466
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions 3: Airway Blvd & N. Canyons Pkwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0
Future Volume (vph) 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frpb, ped/bikes
Flpb, ped/bikes
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91
Adj. Flow (vph) 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
Effective Green, g (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Vehicle Extension (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Incremental Delay, d2
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
EXHIBIT B
467
Appendix D – Existing plus Project Conditions Intersections Level of Service and Queuing Work Sheets
EXHIBIT B
468
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project Conditions 1: Doolan Rd & N. Canyons Pkwy Timing Plan: AM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 11 11 0 9 16 0
Future Volume (Veh/h) 11 11 0 9 16 0
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
Hourly flow rate (vph) 13 13 0 11 19 0
Pedestrians 3 3 1
Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0
Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 3.5 3.5
Percent Blockage 0 0 0
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 50 10 14
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 50 10 14
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 99 99 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 943 1068 1600
Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 13 13 11 19
Volume Left 13 0 0 19
Volume Right 0 13 11 0
cSH 943 1068 1700 1600
Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Queue Length 95th (ft) 1101
Control Delay (s) 8.9 8.4 0.0 7.3
Lane LOS A A A
Approach Delay (s) 8.6 0.0 7.3
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 6.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 17.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
EXHIBIT B
469
Queues Existing plus Project Conditions
2: N. Canyons Pkwy & Waxie Dwy Timing Plan: AM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 27 30 29 23 24 12 2
v/c Ratio 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.00
Control Delay 8.5 5.6 7.7 5.1 1.3 0.0 7.9 0.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 8.5 5.6 7.7 5.1 1.3 0.0 7.9 0.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 01210010
Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 6 16 64090
Internal Link Dist (ft) 662 503 387
Turn Bay Length (ft) 215 145 90 50
Base Capacity (vph) 1636 3539 1636 3539 1583 1541 1722 1541 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 Intersection Summary
EXHIBIT B
470
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project Conditions 2: N. Canyons Pkwy & Waxie Dwy Timing Plan: AM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 2 25 0 4 24 27 21 0 0 22 11 0
Future Volume (vph) 2 25 0 4 24 27 21 0 0 22 11 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1770 3539 1583 1583 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1770 3539 1583 1583 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 2 27 0 4 26 29 23 0 0 24 12 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 000000 2 100 2 302
Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 27 0 0 30 29 2001 1 20
Turn Type Prot NA Prot Prot NA Perm Perm Perm NA
Protected Phases 1 6 5 5 2 8 4
Permitted Phases 2 8 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.6 1.0 0.7 1.1 1.1 0.7 0.7 0.7
Effective Green, g (s) 0.6 1.0 0.7 1.1 1.1 0.7 0.7 0.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.05 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 68 229 80 252 113 71 84 71
v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.01 c0.02 c0.01 0.00
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.00 c0.01
v/c Ratio 0.03 0.12 0.38 0.12 0.01 0.02 0.14 0.00
Uniform Delay, d1 7.1 6.8 7.1 6.7 6.6 7.0 7.1 7.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.1 1.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0
Delay (s) 7.2 6.9 8.2 6.8 6.7 7.1 7.3 7.0
Level of Service A A A A A A A A
Approach Delay (s) 6.9 7.3 7.1 7.3
Approach LOS A A A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 7.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.20
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 15.4 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
EXHIBIT B
471
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project Conditions 2: N. Canyons Pkwy & Waxie Dwy Timing Plan: AM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 2
Future Volume (vph) 2
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 2
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
Effective Green, g (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Vehicle Extension (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Incremental Delay, d2
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
EXHIBIT B
472
Queues Existing plus Project Conditions
3: Airway Blvd & N. Canyons Pkwy Timing Plan: AM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBT NBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 15 48 592 21 147 1106
v/c Ratio 0.01 0.06 0.77 0.01 0.56 0.61
Control Delay 19.3 0.1 44.9 4.3 48.8 2.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 19.3 0.1 44.9 4.3 48.8 2.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 2 0 192 3 93 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 10 0 216 11 135 15
Internal Link Dist (ft) 503 527 378
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 90
Base Capacity (vph) 1673 809 833 1405 356 1817
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.01 0.06 0.71 0.01 0.41 0.61
Intersection Summary
EXHIBIT B
473
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project Conditions 3: Airway Blvd & N. Canyons Pkwy Timing Plan: AM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 13 40 497 18 0 72 58 0 929 0 0
Future Volume (vph) 0 13 40 497 18 0 72 58 0 929 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.2 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.88
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1583 3433 1863 1770 2787
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1583 3433 1863 1770 2787
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.92 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 15 48 592 21 0 78 69 0 1106 0 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 25 000000 6 9 300
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 15 23 592 21 0 0 0 147 413 0 0
Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA pt+ov
Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 8 1 8 4 4
Permitted Phases 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 49.6 49.6 23.6 79.2 15.6 43.4
Effective Green, g (s) 49.6 49.6 23.6 79.2 15.6 39.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.47 0.47 0.22 0.75 0.15 0.37
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1671 747 771 1405 262 1040
v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.17 0.01 c0.08 0.15
v/s Ratio Perm c0.01
v/c Ratio 0.01 0.03 0.77 0.01 0.56 0.40
Uniform Delay, d1 14.7 14.8 38.1 3.2 41.5 24.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.1 4.2 0.0 1.6 0.1
Delay (s) 14.7 14.9 42.3 3.2 43.2 24.3
Level of Service B B D A D C
Approach Delay (s) 14.9 41.0 26.5 0.0
Approach LOS B D C A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 30.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.33
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 105.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
EXHIBIT B
474
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project Conditions 3: Airway Blvd & N. Canyons Pkwy Timing Plan: AM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0
Future Volume (vph) 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.84
Adj. Flow (vph) 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
Effective Green, g (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Vehicle Extension (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Incremental Delay, d2
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
EXHIBIT B
475
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project Conditions 1: Doolan Rd & N. Canyons Pkwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 15 22 2 15 15 0
Future Volume (Veh/h) 15 22 2 15 15 0
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76
Hourly flow rate (vph) 20 29 3 20 20 0
Pedestrians 3 1
Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0
Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 3.5
Percent Blockage 0 0
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 57 16 26
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 57 16 26
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 98 97 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 935 1060 1584
Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 20 29 23 20
Volume Left 20 0 0 20
Volume Right 0 29 20 0
cSH 935 1060 1700 1584
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01
Queue Length 95th (ft) 2201
Control Delay (s) 8.9 8.5 0.0 7.3
Lane LOS A A A
Approach Delay (s) 8.7 0.0 7.3
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 6.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 17.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
EXHIBIT B
476
Queues Existing plus Project Conditions
2: N. Canyons Pkwy & Waxie Dwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Lane Group EBT WBL WBT WBR NBR SBL
Lane Group Flow (vph) 36 46 41 29 40 67
v/c Ratio 0.02 0.10 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.12
Control Delay 6.6 10.7 3.6 0.8 0.1 9.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 6.6 10.7 3.6 0.8 0.1 9.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 000000
Queue Length 95th (ft) 8 27 4 3 0 34
Internal Link Dist (ft) 660 503
Turn Bay Length (ft) 145 90 50
Base Capacity (vph) 3502 1528 3502 1511 1504 1609
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Intersection Summary
EXHIBIT B
477
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project Conditions 2: N. Canyons Pkwy & Waxie Dwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 30 0 4 34 34 24 0 0 33 56 0
Future Volume (vph) 0 30 0 4 34 34 24 0 0 33 56 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 1.00
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95
Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1770 3539 1547 1583 1770
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1770 3539 1547 1583 1863
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 36 0 5 41 41 29 0 0 40 67 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 000000 1 900 3 500
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 36 0 0 46 41 10 0 0 5 67 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 9
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Prot NA Prot Prot NA Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 1 6 5 5 2 8 4
Permitted Phases 2 8 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 1.5 0.7 6.2 6.2 2.2 2.2
Effective Green, g (s) 1.5 0.7 6.2 6.2 2.2 2.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.04 0.36 0.36 0.13 0.13
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 305 71 1261 551 200 235
v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.03 0.01
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00 c0.04
v/c Ratio 0.12 0.65 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.29
Uniform Delay, d1 7.3 8.2 3.6 3.6 6.7 6.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 14.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
Delay (s) 7.4 22.4 3.7 3.6 6.7 7.1
Level of Service A C A A A A
Approach Delay (s) 7.4 11.1 6.7 7.1
Approach LOS A B A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.29
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 17.4 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
EXHIBIT B
478
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project Conditions 2: N. Canyons Pkwy & Waxie Dwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0
Future Volume (vph) 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frpb, ped/bikes
Flpb, ped/bikes
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.83
Adj. Flow (vph) 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
Effective Green, g (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Vehicle Extension (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Incremental Delay, d2
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
EXHIBIT B
479
Queues Existing plus Project Conditions
3: Airway Blvd & N. Canyons Pkwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 12 127 973 13 1 168 737 1
v/c Ratio 0.01 0.24 0.71 0.01 0.00 0.65 0.38 0.01
Control Delay 27.6 6.7 31.9 5.8 0.0 53.6 1.4 48.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 27.6 6.7 31.9 5.8 0.0 53.6 1.4 48.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 3 0 284 2 0 108 0 1
Queue Length 95th (ft) 11 45 #457 11 0 167 28 7
Internal Link Dist (ft) 503 527 378 115
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 90 195
Base Capacity (vph) 1008 536 1366 1379 1185 314 1916 283 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.01 0.24 0.71 0.01 0.00 0.54 0.38 0.00 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EXHIBIT B
480
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project Conditions 3: Airway Blvd & N. Canyons Pkwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 11 116 885 12 1 70 84 0 671 0 1
Future Volume (vph) 0 11 116 885 12 1 70 84 0 671 0 1
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.2 6.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1563 3433 1863 1583 1770 2787 1863 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1563 3433 1863 1583 1770 2787 1863 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 12 127 973 13 1 76 92 0 737 0 1
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 95 000000 3 3 600
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 12 32 973 13 1 0 0 168 401 0 1
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1
Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA pt+ov NA
Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 8 1 8 4 4
Permitted Phases 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 26.7 26.7 41.8 74.5 74.5 15.3 61.3 1.0 Effective Green, g (s) 26.7 26.7 41.8 74.5 74.5 15.3 57.1 1.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.25 0.40 0.71 0.71 0.15 0.54 0.01 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.2 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 899 397 1366 1321 1123 257 1515 17
v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.28 0.01 c0.09 0.14 c0.00
v/s Ratio Perm c0.02 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.01 0.08 0.71 0.01 0.00 0.65 0.26 0.06
Uniform Delay, d1 29.3 29.8 26.5 4.5 4.4 42.3 12.8 51.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.4 1.5 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.5
Delay (s) 29.3 30.2 28.0 4.5 4.4 46.8 12.8 52.1
Level of Service C C C A A D B D
Approach Delay (s) 30.1 27.7 19.1 52.1
Approach LOS C C B D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 24.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 105.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
EXHIBIT B
481
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project Conditions 3: Airway Blvd & N. Canyons Pkwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0
Future Volume (vph) 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frpb, ped/bikes
Flpb, ped/bikes
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91
Adj. Flow (vph) 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
Effective Green, g (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Vehicle Extension (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Incremental Delay, d2
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
EXHIBIT B
482
Appendix E – Signal Warrant Analysis Work Sheets
EXHIBIT B
483
Source: CA MUTCD 2014, Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies, Part 4 - Highway Traffic Signals, Figure 4C-4
Peak Hour Warrant (Rural Areas)
(Community less than 10,000 population or above 70 km/h (40 mph) on Major Street) Intersection: N. Canyons Parkway and Doolan Rd, Livermore, CA Scenario: Existing Conditions A.M. & P.M. Peak Hour
Minor Street Volume = 19 (29) VPH
Major Street Volume = 32 (67) VPH
A signal is not warranted for
the A.M. or P.M. Peak Hour
Legend:
XX – AM Peak Volume
(XX) – PM Peak Volume
– A.M.
– P.M.
EXHIBIT B
484
Source: CA MUTCD 2014, Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies, Part 4 - Highway Traffic Signals, Figure 4C-4
Peak Hour Warrant (Rural Areas)
(Community less than 10,000 population or above 70 km/h (40 mph) on Major Street) Intersection: N. Canyons Parkway and Doolan Rd, Livermore, CA Scenario: Existing plus Project Conditions A.M. & P.M. Peak Hour
Minor Street Volume = 16 (17) VPH
Major Street Volume = 22 (37) VPH
A signal is not warranted for
the A.M. or P.M. Peak Hour
Legend:
XX – AM Peak Volume
(XX) – PM Peak Volume
– A.M.
– P.M.
EXHIBIT B
485
Appendix F – Cumulative Conditions Level of Service and Queueing Work Sheets
EXHIBIT B
486
Queues Cumulative Conditions
1: Doolan Rd & Dublin Blvd Extension/N. Canyons Pkwy Timing Plan: AM Peak Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 224 23 1626 21 17
v/c Ratio 0.07 0.10 0.49 0.03 0.07
Control Delay 2.9 21.0 2.0 0.1 20.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 2.9 21.0 2.0 0.1 20.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 06004
Queue Length 95th (ft) 34 24 164 0 19
Internal Link Dist (ft) 601 661 375 404
Turn Bay Length (ft) 135
Base Capacity (vph) 3282 394 3278 1043 712
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.07 0.06 0.50 0.02 0.02
Intersection Summary
EXHIBIT B
487
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative Conditions 1: Doolan Rd & Dublin Blvd Extension/N. Canyons Pkwy Timing Plan: AM Peak Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 206 0 21 1485 11 0 0 19 16 0 0
Future Volume (vph) 0 206 0 21 1485 11 0 0 19 16 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.00
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95
Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1770 3535 1588 1765
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1770 3535 1588 1858
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 224 0 23 1614 12 0 0 21 17 0 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0000000 2 10000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 224 0 23 1626 00000 1 70
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 1 3 3
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 8
Permitted Phases 4 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 38.9 1.3 44.7 1.3 1.3
Effective Green, g (s) 38.9 1.3 44.7 1.3 1.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.71 0.02 0.81 0.02 0.02
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2503 41 2872 37 43
v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 0.01 c0.46 0.00
v/s Ratio Perm c0.01
v/c Ratio 0.09 0.56 0.57 0.01 0.40
Uniform Delay, d1 2.5 26.6 1.8 26.2 26.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 16.4 0.3 0.1 5.9
Delay (s) 2.5 42.9 2.0 26.4 32.4
Level of Service A D A C C
Approach Delay (s) 2.5 2.6 26.4 32.4
Approach LOS A A C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 3.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 55.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
EXHIBIT B
488
Queues Cumulative Conditions
2: N. Canyons Pkwy & Waxie Dwy Timing Plan: AM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 237 4 1539 23 12 110
v/c Ratio 0.15 0.11 0.03 0.60 0.02 0.07 0.43
Control Delay 28.2 4.0 28.0 7.4 0.6 26.6 12.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 28.2 4.0 28.0 7.4 0.6 26.6 12.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 7 7 1 78 0 3 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 32 31 10 297 3 19 40
Internal Link Dist (ft) 661 503
Turn Bay Length (ft) 215 145 90
Base Capacity (vph) 360 2515 605 2664 1205 1158 1118
Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.07 0.09 0.01 0.58 0.02 0.01 0.10
Intersection Summary
EXHIBIT B
489
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative Conditions 2: N. Canyons Pkwy & Waxie Dwy Timing Plan: AM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 25 218 0 4 0 1416 21 0 0 0 11 0
Future Volume (vph) 25 218 0 4 0 1416 21 0 0 0 11 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1770 3539 1583 1770
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1770 3539 1583 1693
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 27 237 0 4 0 1539 23 0 0 0 12 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 000000800000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 237 0 0 4 1539 15 0 0 0 12 0
Turn Type Prot NA Prot Prot NA Perm Perm
Protected Phases 1 6 5 5 2 8
Permitted Phases 2 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 2.2 40.6 0.9 39.3 39.3 4.4
Effective Green, g (s) 2.2 40.6 0.9 39.3 39.3 4.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.69 0.02 0.67 0.67 0.07
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 66 2439 27 2361 1056 126
v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.07 0.00 c0.43
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 c0.01
v/c Ratio 0.41 0.10 0.15 0.65 0.01 0.10
Uniform Delay, d1 27.7 3.0 28.6 5.8 3.3 25.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.5 0.0 0.9 0.5 0.0 0.1
Delay (s) 29.2 3.1 29.5 6.3 3.3 25.5
Level of Service C A C A A C
Approach Delay (s) 5.7 6.3 0.0 25.4
Approach LOS A A A C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 7.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 58.9 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
EXHIBIT B
490
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative Conditions 2: N. Canyons Pkwy & Waxie Dwy Timing Plan: AM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 101
Future Volume (vph) 101
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00
Frt 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1583
Flt Permitted 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 110
RTOR Reduction (vph) 102
Lane Group Flow (vph) 8
Turn Type Perm
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 4.4
Effective Green, g (s) 4.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07
Clearance Time (s) 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 118
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.07
Uniform Delay, d1 25.3
Progression Factor 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1
Delay (s) 25.4
Level of Service C
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
EXHIBIT B
491
Queues Cumulative Conditions
3: Airway Blvd & N. Canyons Pkwy Timing Plan: AM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 157 97 308 984 329 332 1111
v/c Ratio 0.15 0.18 0.60 0.55 0.48 0.48 0.53
Control Delay 30.8 6.2 52.3 21.6 29.7 29.8 1.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 30.8 6.2 52.3 21.6 29.7 29.8 1.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 44 0 114 247 204 207 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 75 37 159 322 289 291 27
Internal Link Dist (ft) 503 527 372
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 90
Base Capacity (vph) 1076 552 513 1782 691 691 2109
Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.15 0.18 0.60 0.55 0.48 0.48 0.53
Intersection Summary
EXHIBIT B
492
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative Conditions 3: Airway Blvd & N. Canyons Pkwy Timing Plan: AM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 144 89 283 905 0 72 536 0 1022 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 144 89 283 905 0 72 536 0 1022 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.2 4.2 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.88
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1583 3433 3539 1681 1681 2787
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1583 3433 3539 1681 1681 2787
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 157 97 308 984 0 78 583 0 1111 0 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 67 000000 4 8 800
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 157 30 308 984 0 0 329 332 623 0 0 Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA pt+ov
Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 8 1 8 4 4
Permitted Phases 2 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 36.5 36.5 17.9 60.4 49.4 49.4 71.5 Effective Green, g (s) 36.5 36.5 17.9 60.4 49.4 49.4 67.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.15 0.50 0.41 0.41 0.56
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.2 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1076 481 512 1781 692 692 1563
v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 0.09 c0.28 c0.20 0.22
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.20
v/c Ratio 0.15 0.06 0.60 0.55 0.48 0.48 0.40
Uniform Delay, d1 30.4 29.6 47.7 20.5 25.8 25.9 14.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.2 1.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1
Delay (s) 30.7 29.8 49.1 20.7 26.0 26.1 15.0
Level of Service CCDC CCB
Approach Delay (s) 30.4 27.5 19.1 0.0
Approach LOS C C B A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
EXHIBIT B
493
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative Conditions 3: Airway Blvd & N. Canyons Pkwy Timing Plan: AM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0
Future Volume (vph) 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
Effective Green, g (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Vehicle Extension (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Incremental Delay, d2
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
EXHIBIT B
494
Queues Cumulative Conditions
1: Doolan Rd & Dublin Blvd Extension/N. Canyons Pkwy Timing Plan: PM Peak Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1350 49 223 33 16
v/c Ratio 0.48 0.18 0.07 0.14 0.06
Control Delay 7.2 22.4 1.5 12.7 22.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 7.2 22.4 1.5 12.7 22.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 0 12 0 1 4
Queue Length 95th (ft) 270 41 15 22 20
Internal Link Dist (ft) 481 660 324 404
Turn Bay Length (ft) 135
Base Capacity (vph) 2825 415 3094 652 746
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.48 0.12 0.07 0.05 0.02
Intersection Summary
EXHIBIT B
495
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative Conditions 1: Doolan Rd & Dublin Blvd Extension/N. Canyons Pkwy Timing Plan: PM Peak Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 1242 0 45 183 22 2 2 27 15 0 0
Future Volume (vph) 0 1242 0 45 183 22 2 2 27 15 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.88 1.00
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95
Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1770 3482 1616 1765
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1770 3482 1582 1858
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1350 0 49 199 24 2 2 29 16 0 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0000500 2 80000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1350 0 49 218 00500 1 60
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 3 3
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 8
Permitted Phases 4 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 34.1 2.7 41.3 2.3 2.3
Effective Green, g (s) 34.1 2.7 41.3 2.3 2.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.65 0.05 0.79 0.04 0.04
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2294 90 2733 69 81
v/s Ratio Prot c0.38 c0.03 0.06
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.01
v/c Ratio 0.59 0.54 0.08 0.08 0.20
Uniform Delay, d1 5.3 24.3 1.3 24.1 24.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 6.6 0.0 0.5 1.2
Delay (s) 5.6 30.9 1.3 24.6 25.5
Level of Service A C A C C
Approach Delay (s) 5.6 6.6 24.6 25.5
Approach LOS A A C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 6.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 52.6 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
EXHIBIT B
496
Queues Cumulative Conditions
2: N. Canyons Pkwy & Waxie Dwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Lane Group EBT WBL WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1396 4 250 26 32 22
v/c Ratio 0.47 0.02 0.12 0.03 0.12 0.07
Control Delay 4.9 19.0 3.6 0.5 17.9 0.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 4.9 19.0 3.6 0.5 17.9 0.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 010050
Queue Length 95th (ft) 234 8 17 2 28 0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 660 503
Turn Bay Length (ft) 145 90
Base Capacity (vph) 2940 908 3192 1381 1718 1469
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.47 0.00 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.01
Intersection Summary
EXHIBIT B
497
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative Conditions 2: N. Canyons Pkwy & Waxie Dwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 1284 0 4 0 230 24 0 0 0 29 0
Future Volume (vph) 0 1284 0 4 0 230 24 0 0 0 29 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95
Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1770 3539 1540 1770
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1770 3539 1540 1863
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1396 0 4 0 250 26 0 0 0 32 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 000000700000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1396 0 0 4 250 19 0 0 0 32 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 9
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Prot NA Prot Prot NA Perm Perm
Protected Phases 1 6 5 5 2 8
Permitted Phases 2 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 27.6 0.7 32.3 32.3 2.1
Effective Green, g (s) 27.6 0.7 32.3 32.3 2.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.64 0.02 0.74 0.74 0.05
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2250 28 2633 1146 90
v/s Ratio Prot c0.39 0.00 c0.07
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 c0.02
v/c Ratio 0.62 0.14 0.09 0.02 0.36
Uniform Delay, d1 4.8 21.1 1.5 1.4 20.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.9
Delay (s) 5.1 21.9 1.5 1.4 20.9
Level of Service A C A A C
Approach Delay (s) 5.1 1.8 0.0 20.4
Approach LOS A A A C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 5.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 43.4 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
EXHIBIT B
498
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative Conditions 2: N. Canyons Pkwy & Waxie Dwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 20
Future Volume (vph) 20
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00
Frt 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1583
Flt Permitted 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 22
RTOR Reduction (vph) 21
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Turn Type Perm
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 2.1
Effective Green, g (s) 2.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05
Clearance Time (s) 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 76
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 19.7
Progression Factor 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.0
Delay (s) 19.7
Level of Service B
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
EXHIBIT B
499
Queues Cumulative Conditions
3: Airway Blvd & N. Canyons Pkwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 920 512 1259 78 139 140 577 1
v/c Ratio 1.04 0.79 0.76 0.03 0.71 0.57 0.28 0.02
Control Delay 95.5 26.9 36.6 5.1 79.1 67.5 1.2 71.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 95.5 26.9 36.6 5.1 79.1 67.5 1.2 71.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) ~500 164 507 7 137 135 0 1
Queue Length 95th (ft) #658 328 #748 21 210 203 25 8
Internal Link Dist (ft) 503 527 378 115
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 90
Base Capacity (vph) 883 646 1658 2729 205 258 2027 409
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.04 0.79 0.76 0.03 0.68 0.54 0.28 0.00 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EXHIBIT B
500
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative Conditions 3: Airway Blvd & N. Canyons Pkwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 846 471 1158 71 1 70 187 0 531 0 1 Future Volume (vph) 0 846 471 1158 71 1 70 187 0 531 0 1 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.2 4.2 6.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.88 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1562 3433 3532 1681 1681 2787 1863 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.76 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1562 3433 3532 1340 1681 2787 1863 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 920 512 1259 77 1 76 203 0 577 0 1
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 264 000000 2 1 300
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 920 248 1259 78 0 0 139 140 364 0 1 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1
Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA pt+ov NA
Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 8 1 8 4 4
Permitted Phases 2 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 34.2 34.2 72.5 112.7 22.1 22.1 98.8 1.0 Effective Green, g (s) 34.2 34.2 72.5 112.7 22.1 22.1 94.6 1.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.48 0.75 0.15 0.15 0.63 0.01 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.2 4.2 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 806 356 1659 2653 197 247 1757 12
v/s Ratio Prot c0.26 c0.37 0.02 0.08 0.13 c0.00
v/s Ratio Perm 0.16 c0.10
v/c Ratio 1.14 0.70 0.76 0.03 0.71 0.57 0.21 0.08
Uniform Delay, d1 57.9 53.1 31.6 4.7 60.9 59.5 11.8 74.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 78.3 10.8 1.8 0.0 9.0 1.8 0.0 1.1 Delay (s) 136.2 63.9 33.4 4.7 69.9 61.3 11.8 75.1
Level of Service F E C A E E B E
Approach Delay (s) 110.3 31.8 29.3 75.1
Approach LOS F C C E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 62.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.6% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
EXHIBIT B
501
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative Conditions 3: Airway Blvd & N. Canyons Pkwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0
Future Volume (vph) 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frpb, ped/bikes
Flpb, ped/bikes
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
Effective Green, g (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Vehicle Extension (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Incremental Delay, d2
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
EXHIBIT B
502
Appendix G – Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Level of Service and Queueing Work Sheets
EXHIBIT B
503
Queues Cumulative plus Project Conditions
1: Doolan Rd & Dublin Blvd Extension/N. Canyons Pkwy Timing Plan: AM Peak Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 226 10 1626 11 17
v/c Ratio 0.07 0.05 0.49 0.04 0.07
Control Delay 2.7 21.1 2.0 0.3 20.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 2.7 21.1 2.0 0.3 20.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 03004
Queue Length 95th (ft) 33 14 165 0 20
Internal Link Dist (ft) 601 661 375 404
Turn Bay Length (ft) 135
Base Capacity (vph) 3274 393 3281 677 711
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.07 0.03 0.50 0.02 0.02
Intersection Summary
EXHIBIT B
504
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative plus Project Conditions 1: Doolan Rd & Dublin Blvd Extension/N. Canyons Pkwy Timing Plan: AM Peak Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 206 2 9 1485 11 2 0 8 16 0 0
Future Volume (vph) 0 206 2 9 1485 11 2 0 8 16 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.95
Satd. Flow (prot) 3535 1770 3535 1622 1765
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3535 1770 3535 1637 1858
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 224 2 10 1614 12 2 0 9 17 0 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0000000 1 10000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 226 0 10 1626 00000 1 70
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 1 3 3
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 8
Permitted Phases 4 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 39.2 1.1 44.8 1.3 1.3
Effective Green, g (s) 39.2 1.1 44.8 1.3 1.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.71 0.02 0.81 0.02 0.02
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2514 35 2874 38 43
v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 0.01 c0.46
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.01
v/c Ratio 0.09 0.29 0.57 0.01 0.40
Uniform Delay, d1 2.5 26.6 1.8 26.3 26.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 4.5 0.3 0.1 5.9
Delay (s) 2.5 31.1 2.0 26.3 32.4
Level of Service A C A C C
Approach Delay (s) 2.5 2.2 26.3 32.4
Approach LOS A A C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 2.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 55.1 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
EXHIBIT B
505
Queues Cumulative plus Project Conditions
2: N. Canyons Pkwy & Waxie Dwy Timing Plan: AM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 225 30 1526 23 23 12 110
v/c Ratio 0.15 0.11 0.17 0.59 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.28
Control Delay 27.5 4.9 27.5 7.0 0.6 0.1 27.0 1.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 27.5 4.9 27.5 7.0 0.6 0.1 27.0 1.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 7 6 8 77 0030
Queue Length 95th (ft) 31 30 33 269 3 0 19 0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 661 503 387
Turn Bay Length (ft) 215 145 90 50
Base Capacity (vph) 364 2393 613 2698 1219 1291 1260 1177 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.07 0.09 0.05 0.57 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.09 Intersection Summary
EXHIBIT B
506
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative plus Project Conditions 2: N. Canyons Pkwy & Waxie Dwy Timing Plan: AM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 25 207 0 4 24 1404 21 0 0 21 11 0
Future Volume (vph) 25 207 0 4 24 1404 21 0 0 21 11 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1770 3539 1583 1583 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1770 3539 1583 1583 1817 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 27 225 0 4 26 1526 23 0 0 23 12 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 000000800 2 10 1 0 2
Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 225 0 0 30 1526 15 0 0 2 12 8
Turn Type Prot NA Prot Prot NA Perm Perm Perm NA
Protected Phases 1 6 5 5 2 8 4
Permitted Phases 2 8 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 2.2 38.9 2.2 38.9 38.9 4.1 4.1 4.1 Effective Green, g (s) 2.2 38.9 2.2 38.9 38.9 4.1 4.1 4.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.67 0.04 0.67 0.67 0.07 0.07 0.07 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 66 2365 66 2365 1058 111 128 111
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.06 c0.02 c0.43 0.00
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00 c0.01
v/c Ratio 0.41 0.10 0.45 0.65 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.07
Uniform Delay, d1 27.4 3.4 27.4 5.6 3.2 25.2 25.3 25.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.5 0.0 1.8 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
Delay (s) 28.9 3.4 29.2 6.1 3.2 25.2 25.4 25.4
Level of Service C A C A A C C C
Approach Delay (s) 6.1 6.5 25.2 25.4
Approach LOS A A C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 7.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 58.2 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
EXHIBIT B
507
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative plus Project Conditions 2: N. Canyons Pkwy & Waxie Dwy Timing Plan: AM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 101
Future Volume (vph) 101
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 110
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
Effective Green, g (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Vehicle Extension (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Incremental Delay, d2
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
EXHIBIT B
508
Queues Cumulative plus Project Conditions
3: Airway Blvd & N. Canyons Pkwy Timing Plan: AM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 159 105 308 987 333 337 1111
v/c Ratio 0.15 0.19 0.62 0.56 0.47 0.48 0.53
Control Delay 31.0 6.7 53.3 22.2 29.1 29.3 1.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 31.0 6.7 53.3 22.2 29.1 29.3 1.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 45 0 114 251 206 209 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 76 41 160 327 290 294 27
Internal Link Dist (ft) 503 527 372
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 90
Base Capacity (vph) 1069 551 498 1760 702 702 2112
Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.15 0.19 0.62 0.56 0.47 0.48 0.53
Intersection Summary
EXHIBIT B
509
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative plus Project Conditions 3: Airway Blvd & N. Canyons Pkwy Timing Plan: AM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 146 97 283 908 0 72 545 0 1022 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 146 97 283 908 0 72 545 0 1022 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.2 4.2 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.88
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1583 3433 3539 1681 1681 2787
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1583 3433 3539 1681 1681 2787
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 159 105 308 987 0 78 592 0 1111 0 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 73 000000 4 8 600
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 159 32 308 987 0 0 333 337 625 0 0 Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA pt+ov
Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 8 1 8 4 4
Permitted Phases 2 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 36.3 36.3 17.4 59.7 50.1 50.1 71.7 Effective Green, g (s) 36.3 36.3 17.4 59.7 50.1 50.1 67.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.14 0.50 0.42 0.42 0.56
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.2 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1070 478 497 1760 701 701 1567
v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 0.09 c0.28 c0.20 0.22
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.20
v/c Ratio 0.15 0.07 0.62 0.56 0.48 0.48 0.40
Uniform Delay, d1 30.6 29.8 48.2 21.0 25.4 25.5 14.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.3 1.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1
Delay (s) 30.9 30.1 49.8 21.3 25.6 25.7 14.9
Level of Service CCDC CCB
Approach Delay (s) 30.5 28.1 18.9 0.0
Approach LOS C C B A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
EXHIBIT B
510
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative plus Project Conditions 3: Airway Blvd & N. Canyons Pkwy Timing Plan: AM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0
Future Volume (vph) 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
Effective Green, g (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Vehicle Extension (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Incremental Delay, d2
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
EXHIBIT B
511
Queues Cumulative plus Project Conditions
1: Doolan Rd & Dublin Blvd Extension/N. Canyons Pkwy Timing Plan: PM Peak Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1351 16 223 21 16
v/c Ratio 0.42 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.06
Control Delay 3.9 19.3 0.9 13.7 18.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 3.9 19.3 0.9 13.7 18.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 03013
Queue Length 95th (ft) 250 19 15 18 19
Internal Link Dist (ft) 481 660 324 404
Turn Bay Length (ft) 135
Base Capacity (vph) 3188 454 3281 747 817
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.42 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.02
Intersection Summary
EXHIBIT B
512
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative plus Project Conditions 1: Doolan Rd & Dublin Blvd Extension/N. Canyons Pkwy Timing Plan: PM Peak Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 1242 1 15 183 22 5 2 13 15 0 0
Future Volume (vph) 0 1242 1 15 183 22 5 2 13 15 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.91 1.00
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.95
Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1770 3482 1659 1765
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1770 3482 1679 1858
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1350 1 16 199 24 5 2 14 16 0 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0000400 1 40000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1351 0 16 219 00700 1 60
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 3 3
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 8
Permitted Phases 4 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 33.9 1.1 39.5 1.1 1.1
Effective Green, g (s) 33.9 1.1 39.5 1.1 1.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.68 0.02 0.80 0.02 0.02
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2418 39 2772 37 41
v/s Ratio Prot c0.38 c0.01 0.06
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.01
v/c Ratio 0.56 0.41 0.08 0.20 0.39
Uniform Delay, d1 4.0 23.9 1.1 23.8 23.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 6.9 0.0 2.6 6.0
Delay (s) 4.3 30.8 1.1 26.4 30.0
Level of Service A C A C C
Approach Delay (s) 4.3 3.1 26.4 30.0
Approach LOS A A C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 4.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 49.6 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
EXHIBIT B
513
Queues Cumulative plus Project Conditions
2: N. Canyons Pkwy & Waxie Dwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Lane Group EBT WBL WBT WBR NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1380 40 217 26 35 32 22
v/c Ratio 0.53 0.17 0.12 0.03 0.06 0.13 0.03
Control Delay 7.9 21.4 3.9 0.4 0.2 20.8 0.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 7.9 21.4 3.9 0.4 0.2 20.8 0.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 71 870070
Queue Length 95th (ft) 254 34 15 2 0 29 0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 660 503 387
Turn Bay Length (ft) 145 90 50
Base Capacity (vph) 2580 822 2993 1299 1413 1601 1449
Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.53 0.05 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Intersection Summary
EXHIBIT B
514
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative plus Project Conditions 2: N. Canyons Pkwy & Waxie Dwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 1270 0 4 33 200 24 0 0 32 29 0
Future Volume (vph) 0 1270 0 4 33 200 24 0 0 32 29 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1770 3539 1539 1583 1770 1583
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1770 3539 1539 1583 1863 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1380 0 4 36 217 26 0 0 35 32 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 000000700 3 30 2 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1380 0 0 40 217 19 0 0 2 32 2
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 9
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Prot NA Prot Prot NA Perm Perm Perm NA
Protected Phases 1 6 5 5 2 8 4
Permitted Phases 2 8 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 28.0 2.1 34.1 34.1 3.3 3.3 3.3
Effective Green, g (s) 28.0 2.1 34.1 34.1 3.3 3.3 3.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.60 0.05 0.73 0.73 0.07 0.07 0.07
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2135 80 2600 1131 112 132 112
v/s Ratio Prot c0.39 c0.02 0.06 0.00
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00 c0.02
v/c Ratio 0.65 0.50 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.24 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 6.0 21.6 1.7 1.7 20.0 20.4 20.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0
Delay (s) 6.5 23.4 1.7 1.7 20.1 20.7 20.1
Level of Service A C A A C C C
Approach Delay (s) 6.5 4.8 20.1 20.4
Approach LOS A A C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 6.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 46.4 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
EXHIBIT B
515
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative plus Project Conditions 2: N. Canyons Pkwy & Waxie Dwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 20
Future Volume (vph) 20
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frpb, ped/bikes
Flpb, ped/bikes
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 22
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
Effective Green, g (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Vehicle Extension (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Incremental Delay, d2
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
EXHIBIT B
516
Queues Cumulative plus Project Conditions
3: Airway Blvd & N. Canyons Pkwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 924 527 1259 79 140 141 577 1
v/c Ratio 1.05 0.81 0.76 0.03 0.71 0.57 0.28 0.02
Control Delay 98.0 27.9 36.6 5.2 79.0 67.4 1.2 71.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 98.0 27.9 36.6 5.2 79.0 67.4 1.2 71.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) ~508 174 505 7 138 136 0 1
Queue Length 95th (ft) #663 343 #749 22 210 204 25 8
Internal Link Dist (ft) 503 527 378 115
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 90
Base Capacity (vph) 879 651 1658 2725 206 259 2029 409
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.05 0.81 0.76 0.03 0.68 0.54 0.28 0.00 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EXHIBIT B
517
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative plus Project Conditions 3: Airway Blvd & N. Canyons Pkwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 850 485 1158 72 1 70 189 0 531 0 1 Future Volume (vph) 0 850 485 1158 72 1 70 189 0 531 0 1 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.2 4.2 6.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.88 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1562 3433 3532 1681 1681 2787 1863 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.76 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1562 3433 3532 1340 1681 2787 1863 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 924 527 1259 78 1 76 205 0 577 0 1
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 271 000000 2 1 200
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 924 256 1259 79 0 0 140 141 365 0 1 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1
Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA pt+ov NA
Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 8 1 8 4 4
Permitted Phases 2 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 34.0 34.0 72.5 112.5 22.3 22.3 99.0 1.0 Effective Green, g (s) 34.0 34.0 72.5 112.5 22.3 22.3 94.8 1.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.48 0.75 0.15 0.15 0.63 0.01 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.2 4.2 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 802 354 1659 2649 199 249 1761 12
v/s Ratio Prot c0.26 c0.37 0.02 0.08 0.13 c0.00
v/s Ratio Perm 0.16 c0.10
v/c Ratio 1.15 0.72 0.76 0.03 0.70 0.57 0.21 0.08
Uniform Delay, d1 58.0 53.6 31.6 4.8 60.7 59.4 11.7 74.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 82.5 12.0 1.8 0.0 8.9 1.8 0.0 1.1 Delay (s) 140.5 65.7 33.4 4.8 69.6 61.1 11.7 75.1
Level of Service F E C A E E B E
Approach Delay (s) 113.4 31.7 29.3 75.1
Approach LOS F C C E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 63.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.5% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
EXHIBIT B
518
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative plus Project Conditions 3: Airway Blvd & N. Canyons Pkwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Parkwest Casino 580 Synchro 10 Report
TJKM 12/22/2021
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0
Future Volume (vph) 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frpb, ped/bikes
Flpb, ped/bikes
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
Effective Green, g (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Vehicle Extension (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Incremental Delay, d2
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
EXHIBIT B
519
Appendix H – Parking Study
EXHIBIT B
520
PLEASANTONiSANJOSEiSANTAROSAiOAKLANDiSACRAMENTOiFRESNO CorporateOffice:4305HaciendaDrive,Suite550,Pleasanton,CA94588iPhone:925.463.0611iwww.TJKM.com DBE#40772iSBE#38780
June 26, 2020
John Park
Owner
Parkwest Casino 580
968 North Canyons Parkway
Livermore, CA 9451
Subject: 2020 Parking Study Update for Parkwest Casino 580 in Livermore Dear Mr. Van Wagner:
TJKM Transportation Consultants has prepared this parking analysis of Parkwest Casino 580 in the City of Livermore. This study is being completed to assist you and the City of Livermore to understand the existing parking situation at the site in preparation for a planned expansion.
TJKM was retained to determine existing parking levels at the facility and to forecast future parking demand. In recent history, Parkwest Casino 580 has had significant overflow parking issues. Now, an expansion of not only the gambling facilities but also a major expansion of on- site parking are planned.
Existing Conditions
Parkwest Casino 580 currently occupies the main portion of a 42,000 square foot building located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of North Canyons Parkway and Doolan Road. The building was previously occupied by other businesses in addition to Parkwest Casino 580, but now only about one-quarter of the building is occupied by a single user. The remaining portion of the building is occupied by Parkwest Casino 580 or is vacant. The parking lot contains about 129 parking stalls of which about 14 are reserved for the use of the other building occupant during normal business hours and are available for Casino 580 customers after hours and weekends.
Because the number of customers of Casino 580 exceeds the capacity of the parking lot on many occasions, the management instructs its employees to park on the west side of Doolan Road or the north side of Collier Canyon Road (the frontage road on the north side of I-580).
These two areas are located in unincorporated portions of Alameda County and the roadway has no parking restrictions. Generally, the employee vehicles are parked on unpaved (but firmly surfaced) shoulders and do not interfere with the flow of traffic in the area, which aside from Casino-bound traffic is very light.
The employee on-street parking is concentrated in about a 1,200 foot length of the east side of Doolan Road north of Collier Canyon Road and a length of about 800 feet on the north side of Collier Canyon Road west of Doolan Road. In parking observations conducted for this study, from 60 to 100 vehicles are generally parked in this area. Although there are no street lights in the unincorporated areas, there are four street lights on the east side of Doolan Road in this area, which provide some lighting for the area used for parking. The four light fixtures
EXHIBIT B
521
John Park
June 26, 2020