Milpitas City Council
May 21, 2024

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 175 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. “Fire and Resource Assessment Program.” Accessed January 9, 2024. http://frap.fire.ca.gov/.

California Department of Housing and Community Development. “Regional Housing Needs Allocation and Housing Elements.” Accessed January 9, 2024. http://hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/housing-element/index.shtml.

California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. “Net Taxable Gasoline Gallons.” Accessed January 10, 2024.
https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/dataportal/dataset.htm?url=VehicleTaxableFuelDist.

California Department of Water Resources. “Division of Safety of Dams.” Accessed January 9, 2024. https://water.ca.gov/Programs/All-Programs/Division-of-Safety-ofDams#:~:text=Since%20August%2014%2C%201929%2C%20the,Safety%20of%20Dams% 20(DSOD).

California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Table 9.1 Water Use Rates. Version 2020.4.0.

California Energy Commission (CEC). “2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.” Accessed January 9, 2024. https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energyefficiency-standards/2019-building-energy-efficiency.

California Energy Commission. Energy Consumption Data Management System. “Electricity Consumption by County.” January 9, 2024. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx.

California Environmental Protection Agency. “Cortese List Data Resources.” Accessed January 9, 2024. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/.

CAL FIRE. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Accessed January 9, 2024. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/
California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2019 California Gas Report. January 9, 2024. https://www.socalgas.com/regulatory/documents/cgr/2019_CGR_Supplement_7-1-19.pdf.

California Geological Survey. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. January 9, 2024. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/App/.

California Office of Historic Preservation. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3) and California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6. January 9, 2024.https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/technical%20assistance%20bulletin%206%20 2011%20update.pdf.

California Office of Planning and Research. “Changes to CEQA for Transit Oriented Development – FAQ.” October 14, 2014. Accessed October 13, 2021. https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/sb-743/.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 176 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
California Regional Water Quality Control Board. San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit. November 2015.

California Register of Historic Places. “California Historical Resources”. Accessed January 9, 2024. https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/listedresources/
California State Water Resources Control Board. 2020-2022 California Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List and 305(b) Report). May 11, 2022. Accessed February 6, 2023.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_quality_assessment/2020_202 2_integrated_report.html.

California State Water Resources Control Board. “GeoTracker, 1841 Tarob Court.” January 9, 2024. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/case_summary?global_id=T10000008880.

California State Water Resources Control Board. “GeoTracker, 355 Sango Court.” Accessed January 9, 2024. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/case_summary?global_id=T10000008880.

City of Milpitas. Demolition Recycling Report Process. August 29, 2022. Accessed January 10, 2024. https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/232/Demolition-Recycling-ReportProcess-PDF?bidId=.

City of Milpitas. Milpitas General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. January 2020. SCH 2020070348.

City of Milpitas. General Plan 2040. March 9, 2021.

City of Milpitas. Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan. November 3, 2019.

City of Milpitas. “Housing Policy & Plans”. Accessed January 9, 2024. https://www.milpitas.gov/487/Housing-Policy-Plans.

City of Milpitas. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Screening Assessment Application Package.

May 2019.

City of Milpitas. Storm Drain Master Plan. July 2021.

City of Milpitas. Streetscape Master Plan. September 19, 2000.

City of Milpitas. Milpitas Transit Area Specific Plan. Adopted June 2008. Amended December 2011.

City of Milpitas. The City of Milpitas 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. July 1, 2021.

City of Milpitas. “Parks & Facilities.” Accessed January 10, 2024. https://camilpitas.civicplus.com/503/Parks-Facilities.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 177 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
City of Milpitas. “Parks.” Accessed January 10, 2024. https://ca-milpitas.civicplus.com/831/Parks.

County of Santa Clara. Interactive Map of Williamson Act Properties. Accessed January 9, 2024. https://sccplanning.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=1f39e32b4c0644b09 15354c3e59778ce
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map Santa Clara County, California. Map No. 06085C0067J. February 19, 2014.

Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Transportation Analysis for the Penitencia Creek Bridge Project Memorandum. October 1, 2021.

H.T. Harvey & Associates. Biological Resources Report. December 2023.

Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. S. Milpitas Boulevard Vehicular Bridge Air Quality Assessment.

November 10, 2021.

Macrostrat. Geologic Map. January 9, 2024. https://macrostrat.org/map/#/z=14.0/x=- 121.8809/y=37.4069/bedrock/lines/satellite/fossils/columns/ McCloskey Consultants. Site Plan-Soil Vapor Sampling Results for 355 Sango Court including 1831 Tarob Court. Attachment to Kimberlee West Personal Communication. August 18, 2020.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission. “Priority Development Areas (PDAs)” Accessed January 9, 2024. https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/land-use/priority-development-areas-pdas.

MTC GIS Data Catalog. Priority Development Areas (Plan Bay Area 2050). Accessed January 9, 2024. https://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/4df9cb38d77346a289252ced4ffa0ca0/explore.

Montgomery, Michael. Executive Officer, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Personal Communication. March 26, 2020.

Montgomery, Michael. Executive Officer, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Personal Communication. August 10, 2020.

National Register of Historic Places. “National Register Database and Research. Accessed January 9, 2024. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/database-research.htm North, Daniel. General Manager, Republic Services. Personal Communication. April 9, 2021.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company. “Exploring Clean Energy Solutions.” Accessed January 10, 2024. https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/environment/what-we-are-doing/clean-energysolutions/clean-energy-solutions.page?WT.mc_id=Vanity_cleanenergy.

PaleoWest, LLC. Archaeological Resources Assessment. July 28, 2021.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 178 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit, Provision C.12. November 19, 2015.

San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. No Further Remedial Action Required – former Dynamic Circuits Sites, 1831 Tarob Court, Milpitas, Santa Clara County. August 10, 2020.

Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Norman Y.

Mineta San JOSE International Airport. November 2016. Figure 8.

Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. San José International Airport 2022 Aircraft Noise Contours. Figure 5.

Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2021 Groundwater Management Plan for the Santa Clara and Llagas Subbasins. November 2021.

Silicon Valley Clean Energy. “Frequently Asked Questions.” January 9, 2024. https://www.svcleanenergy.org/faqs.

State of California, Department of Finance. “E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2021-2023, with 2020 Benchmark.” Accessed January 10, 2024. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimatesfor-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2023/.

United States Department of the Interior. Memorandum M-37050. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act Does Not Prohibit Incidental Take. January 9, 2024.
https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/m-37050.pdf.

United States Department of Energy. Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007. Accessed January 10, 2024. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/eisa.

United States Department of Transportation. “USDOT Announces New Vehicle Fuel Economy Standards for Model Year 2024-2026.” Accessed January 10, 2024. https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/usdot-announces-new-vehicle-fuel-economy-standardsmodel-year-2024-2026 United States Energy Information Administration. “State Profile and Energy Estimates, 2021.” Accessed January 9, 2024. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. “Petroleum & Other Liquids, California Field Production of Crude Oil.” January 10, 2024.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrfpca1&f=a United States Environmental Protection Agency. “The 2022 EPA Automotive Trends Report:

Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Technology since 1975.” December 2022.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 179 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Summary of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.” Accessed January 9, 2024. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summaryresource-conservation-and-recovery-act.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Superfund: CERCLA Overview.” Accessed January 9, 2024. https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-cercla-overview.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Learn about Lead”. Accessed January 9, 2024. https://www.epa.gov/lead/learn-about-lead
Valley Water. 2021 Groundwater Management Plan, Santa Clara and Llagas Subbasins. November 2021.

West, Kimberlee. Engineer, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Personal Communication. August 13, 2020.

West, Kimberlee. Engineer, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Personal Communication. August 18, 2020.

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 180 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
SECTION 6.0 LEAD AGENCY AND CONSULTANTS

LEAD AGENCY
City of Milpitas
Public Works Department
Michael Silveira – Public Works Division Manager- Engineering Lyhak Eam – Principal Civil Engineer,
Michale Runchey, Assistant Engineer
Planning Department
Jay Lee, Planning Director
Kristina Phung, Associate Planner
City Attorney’s Office
Michael Mutalipassi, City Attorney

CONSULTANTS
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.

Environmental Consultants and Planners
Shannon George, Principal
Demetri Loukas, Principal
Natalie Noyes, Senior Project Manager
Matthew Moore, Associate Project Manager
Adam Garcia, Assistant Project Manager
Ryan Osako, Draftsperson/Graphic Artist
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.

Acoustical and Air Quality Consultants
James Reyff, Principal
Michael Thill, Principal
Casey Divine, Consultant
Jay Witt, Consultant
H.T. Harvey & Associates
Ecological Consultants
Kelly Hardwicke, Ph.D. – Principal
Steve Rottenborn, Ph.D. – Vice President and Wildlife Ecologist Katie Gallagher, MS – Senior Ecologist
PaleoWest, LLC

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 181 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
Archaeological Resource Consultant
Garret Root, Principal and Senior Architectural Historian ENGEO Incorporated
Geology and Soils Consultants
Jeanine T. Ruffoni, PE – Engineer
Pedro J. Espinosa, GE – Engineer
Robert H. Boeche, CEG – Geologist
Schaaf & Wheeler
Hydrology and Water Quality Consultants
Caitlin Gilmore, PE, QSD – Senior Project Manager
Katie Hogan, PE, CFM – Senior Engineer
Emily Straley, PE – Senior Engineer
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Transportation Consultants
Brett Walinski, TE – Principal
Eric Tse, TE – Associate

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 182 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
SECTION 7.0 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BGS Below Ground Surface
BMP Best Management Practice
BUSD Berryessa Union School District
CalARP California Accidental Release Prevention
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Cal/OSHA California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP Clean Air Plan
CARB California Air Resources Board
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFC Chlorofluorocarbons
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System CMP Congestion Management Program
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
dBA A-weighted decibel
DPM Diesel Particulate Matter

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 183 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
DPR Department of Parks and Recreation
DSOD Division of Safety of Dams
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESUHSD East Side Union High School District
FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GSI Green Stormwater Infrastructure
GWMP Groundwater Management Plan
GWP Global Warming Potential
HFC Hydrofluorocarbons
HHRA Human Health Risk Assessment
HSWA Federal Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
HVAC Heating, Venting, and Air Conditioning
I- Interstate
LID Low Impact Development
Ldn Day-Night Level
LOS Level of Service
LRA Local Responsibility Area
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MFD Milpitas Fire Department
MMSP Milpitas Metro Specific Plan
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
MPD Milpitas Police Department
MUSD Milpitas Unified School District
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
MRP Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 184 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NRHP National Historic Preservation Act
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NOD Notice of Determination
NOI Notic of Intent
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
LID Low Impact Development
OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl
PDA Priority Development Area
PFC Perfluorocarbon
PM Particulate Matter
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RHNA Regional Housing Need Allocation
ROG Reactive Organic Gases
RMP Risk Management Plan
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SCCDEH Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area
SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
SMGP State Mining and Geology Board
SR State Route
SRA State Responsibility Area
SWMP Stormwater Management Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
SCVWD Santa Clara Valley Water District
TASP Transit Area Specific Plan
TAC Toxic Air Contaminant
TOD Transit Oriented Development

South Milpitas Boulevard Bridge 185 Initial Study
City of Milpitas February 2024
TCR Tribal Cultural Resource
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
TSD Transportation, Storage and Disposal
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VdB Vibration Velocity Decibels
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
VTA Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority

S. MILPITAS BOULEVARD

VEHICULAR BRIDGE AIR QUALITY

ASSESSMENT
Milpitas, California
November 10, 2021
Prepared for:

Natalie Noyes, AICP
Senior Project Manager
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.
1736 Franklin St., Suite 300
Oakland, California 94612
Prepared by:

Jay Witt &
James A. Reyff
429 E. Cotati Avenue
Cotati, CA 94931
(707) 794-0400
I&R Project: #21-084

1 Introduction
The purpose of this report is to address air quality and community health risk impacts associated with the proposed construction of a new vehicular bridge over Penitencia Creek at the end of the new S. Milpitas Blvd. Extension with new roadway connections to Tarob Court and Sango Court in the City of Milpitas, California. The air quality impacts from this project would be associated with the preparation of the site, construction of the new bridge and roadways, and traffic using the new local roadway connection. Air pollutants emissions associated with construction and operation of the project were predicted using appropriate computer models. In addition, the potential community risk impact to nearby sensitive receptors from construction-related and existing sources of toxic air contaminants (TACs) was evaluated. The analysis was conducted following guidance provided by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).1

Project Description
The project proposes to construct an approximately 40 feet long and 48 feet wide bridge across Penitencia East Channel which would connect S. Milpitas Boulevard on the north side of the channel with Tarob Court and Sango Court on the south side of the channel. This project is identified by the City’s Metro Specific Plan (formerly Transit Area Specific Plan) as necessary to improve vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian connectivity in the area, consistent with the TASP’s goals and policies. The proposed project would require demolition of the existing vacant office building and associated parking lot, approximately 112,000 square feet (sf) of material, located at 1831-1841 Tarob Court (APN 086-36-030) which is owned by the City of Milpitas.

Setting
The project is in Santa Clara County, which is in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Ambient air quality standards have been established at both the State and federal level. The Bay Area meets all ambient air quality standards except for ground-level ozone, respirable particulate matter (PM10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5).

Air Pollutants of Concern
High ozone levels are caused by the cumulative emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOX). These precursor pollutants react under certain meteorological conditions to form high ozone levels. Controlling the emissions of these precursor pollutants is the focus of the Bay Area’s attempts to reduce ozone levels. The highest ozone levels in the Bay Area occur in the eastern and southern inland valleys that are downwind of air pollutant sources. High ozone levels aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduced lung function, and increase coughing and chest discomfort.

Particulate matter is another problematic air pollutant of the Bay Area. Particulate matter is assessed and measured in terms of respirable particulate matter or particles that have a diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10) and fine particulate matter where particles have a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5). Elevated concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 are the result of both 1 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, May 2017.

2 region-wide (or cumulative) emissions and localized emissions. High particulate matter levels aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduce lung function, increase mortality (e.g., lung cancer), and result in reduced lung function growth in children.

Toxic Air Contaminants
TACs are a broad class of compounds known to cause morbidity or mortality (usually because they cause cancer). TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically found in low concentrations, even near their source (e.g., diesel particulate matter [DPM] near a freeway or roadways). Because chronic exposure can result in adverse health effects, TACs are regulated at the regional, State, and federal level.

Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about threequarters of the cancer risk from TACs (based on the Bay Area average). According to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors, and fine particles. This complexity makes the evaluation of health effects of diesel exhaust a complicated scientific issue. Some of the chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, have been previously identified as TACs by the CARB, and are listed as carcinogens either under the State's Proposition 65 or under the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants programs. The most recent Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) risk assessment guidelines were published in February of 2015.2 See Attachment 1 for a detailed
description of the community risk modeling methodology used in this assessment.

Sensitive Receptors
There are groups of people more affected by air pollution than others. CARB has identified the following persons who are most likely to be affected by air pollution: children under 16, the elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. These groups are classified as sensitive receptors. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups include residential areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, elementary schools, and parks. For cancer risk assessments, children are the most sensitive receptors, since they are more susceptible to cancer causing TACs. Residential locations are assumed to include infants and small children. The closest sensitive receptors to the site are children that may be living in the multi-family housing developments adjacent to the eastside of project site. Additionally, the Crossing Early Care and Learning Center is located approximately 788 feet northeast of the bridge site and the Stratford School is approximately 1,300 feet to the northwest.

2 OEHHA, 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

February.

3 Regulatory Agencies
Federal Regulations
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets nationwide emission standards for mobile sources, which include on-road (highway) motor vehicles such trucks, buses, and automobiles, and non-road (off-road) vehicles and equipment used in construction, agricultural, industrial, and mining activities (such as bulldozers and loaders). The EPA also sets nationwide fuel standards. California also has the ability to set motor vehicle emission standards and standards for fuel used in California, as long as they are the same or more stringent than the Federal standards.

In the past decade, the EPA has established several emission standards for on- and non-road heavyduty diesel engines used in trucks and other equipment. This was done in part because diesel engines are a significant source of nitrogen oxides, or NOX, and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) and because the EPA has identified diesel particulate matter as a probable carcinogen.

Implementation of the heavy-duty diesel on-road vehicle standards and the non-road diesel engine standards are estimated to reduce PM and NOX emissions from diesel engines up to 95 percent in 2030 when the heavy-duty vehicle fleet is completely replaced with newer heavy-duty vehicles that comply with these emission standards.3
In concert with the diesel engine emission standards, the EPA has also substantially reduced the amount of sulfur allowed in diesel fuels. The sulfur contained in diesel fuel is a significant contributor to the formation of particulate matter in diesel-fueled engine exhaust. The new standards reduced the amount of sulfur allowed by 97 percent for highway diesel fuel (from 500 parts per million by weight [ppmw] to 15 ppmw), and by 99 percent for off-highway diesel fuel (from about 3,000 ppmw to 15 ppmw). The low sulfur highway fuel (15 ppmw sulfur), also called ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) is currently required for use by all vehicles in the U.S.

All of the above Federal diesel engine and diesel fuel requirements have been adopted by California, in some cases with modifications making the requirements more stringent or the implementation dates sooner.

State Regulations
To address the issue of diesel emissions in the state, CARB developed the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles4 . In addition to
requiring more stringent emission standards for new on-road and off-road mobile sources and stationary diesel-fueled engines to reduce particulate matter emissions by 90 percent, a significant component of the plan involves application of emission control strategies to existing diesel vehicles and equipment. Many of the measures of the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan have been 3 USEPA, 2000. Regulatory Announcement, Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements. EPA420-F-00-057. December. 4 California Air Resources Board, 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from DieselFueled Engines and Vehicles. October.

4 approved and adopted, including the Federal on-road and non-road diesel engine emission standards for new engines, as well as adoption of regulations for low sulfur fuel in California.

CARB has adopted and implemented a number of regulations for stationary and mobile sources to reduce emissions of DPM. Several of these regulatory programs affect medium and heavy-duty diesel trucks that represent the bulk of DPM emissions from California highways. CARB regulations require on-road diesel trucks to be retrofitted with particulate matter controls or replaced to meet 2010 or later engine standards that have much lower DPM and PM2.5 emissions.

This regulation will substantially reduce these emissions between 2013 and 2023. While new trucks and buses will meet strict federal standards, this measure is intended to accelerate the rate at which the fleet either turns over so there are more cleaner vehicles on the road or i s retrofitted to meet similar standards. With this regulation, older, more polluting trucks would be removed from the roads sooner.

CARB has also adopted and implemented regulations to reduce DPM and NOX emissions from inuse (existing) and new off-road heavy-duty diesel vehicles (e.g., loaders, tractors, bulldozers, backhoes, off-highway trucks, etc.). The regulations apply to diesel-powered off-road vehicles with engines 25 horsepower (hp) or greater. The regulations are intended to reduce particulate matter and NOX exhaust emissions by requiring owners to turn over their fleet (replace older equipment with newer equipment) or retrofit existing equipment in order to achieve specified fleetaveraged emission rates. Implementation of this regulation, in conjunction with stringent Federal off-road equipment engine emission limits for new vehicles, will significantly reduce emissions of DPM and NOX.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
BAAQMD has jurisdiction over an approximately 5,600-square mile area, commonly referred to as the San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area). The district’s boundary encompasses the nine San Francisco Bay Area counties, including Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Marin County, San Francisco County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, Napa County, southwestern Solano County, and southern Sonoma County.

BAAQMD is the lead agency in developing plans to address attainment and maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and California Ambient Air Quality Standards. The district also has permit authority over most types of stationary equipment utilized for the proposed project. The BAAQMD is responsible for permitting and inspection of stationary sources; enforcement of regulations, including setting fees, levying fines, and enforcement actions; and ensuring that public nuisances are minimized.

BAAQMD’s Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) program was initiated in 2004 to evaluate and reduce health risks associated with exposures to outdoor TACs in the Bay Area.5 The program
examines TAC emissions from point sources, area sources, and on-road and off-road mobile sources with an emphasis on diesel exhaust, which is a major contributor to airborne health risk in California. The CARE program is an on-going program that encourages community involvement 5 See BAAQMD: https://www.baaqmd.gov/community-health/community-health-protection-program/communityair-risk-evaluation-care-program , accessed 2/18/2021.

5 and input. The technical analysis portion of the CARE program is being implemented in three phases that includes an assessment of the sources of TAC emissions, modeling and measurement programs to estimate concentrations of TAC, and an assessment of exposures and health risks.

Throughout the program, information derived from the technical analyses will be used to focus emission reduction measures in areas with high TAC exposures and high density of sensitive populations. Risk reduction activities associated with the CARE program are focused on the most at-risk communities in the Bay Area. Overburdened communities are areas located (i) within a census tract identified by the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen), Version 4.0 implemented by OEHHA, as having an overall CalEnviroScreen score at or above the 70th percentile, or (ii) within 1,000 feet of any such census tract.6 The BAAQMD has identified six communities as impacted: Concord, Richmond/San Pablo, Western Alameda County, San José, Redwood City/East Palo Alto, and Eastern San Francisco. The project site is not within a CARE area or a BAAQMD overburdened area as identified by CalEnviroScreen.

The BAAQMD California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Guidelines7 were
prepared to assist in the evaluation of air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed within the Bay Area. The guidelines provide recommended procedures for evaluating potential air impacts during the environmental review process consistent with CEQA requirements including thresholds of significance, mitigation measures, and background air quality information. They also include assessment methodologies for air toxics, odors, and greenhouse gas emissions. Attachment 1 includes detailed community risk modeling methodology.

City of Milpitas General Plan 2040
The City of Milpitas General Plan 2040 outlines a vision for the long-range physical and economic development of the community through 2040. It includes goals, policies, and actions to reduce exposure of the City’s sensitive population to exposure of air pollution, toxic air contaminants, and GHG emissions. The following goals and policies are applicable to the proposed project:

Goals
CIR-1: Provide a transportation system that efficiently, equitably, and effectively supports the City’s land use vision, minimizes vehicle miles traveled (VMT), enhances connectivity of the existing network, and supports the use of all modes of transportation.

CIR-6: Support and expand the City’s efforts to promote economic, environmental, and social sustainability through initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollutants, reduce runoff, promote public health, equity and engage the community in an inclusive planning process.

CON-7: Implement a proactive approach to maintain and improve air quality within Milpitas and the region.
6 See BAAQMD: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/dotgov/files/rules/reg-2-permits/2021- amendments/documents/20210722_01_appendixd_mapsofoverburdenedcommunities-pdf.pdf?la=en , accessed 10/1/2021.
7 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2011. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. May. (Updated May 2017)

6 Policies
CIR 1-3: Promote interconnectivity of the transportation network in existing and new developments and actively measure the quality of conditions in neighborhoods to better understand what barriers exist in order to support use of and access to the network.

CIR 1-4: Coordinate development of safe, inclusive, and health-promoting transportation infrastructure with local, county, regional, and state agencies to optimize efficiency of the transportation network for all users and increase opportunities for physical activity for all types of users.

CIR 6-2: Support development of healthier communities through the use of lower- or non-polluting modes of transportation to reduce GHG vehicle emissions and local air pollution levels.

CON 7-1: Ensure that land use and transportation plans support air quality goals through a logical development pattern that focuses growth in and around existing urbanized areas, locates new housing near places of employment, encourages alternative modes of transportation, supports efficient parking strategies, reduces vehicle miles traveled, and requires projects to mitigate significant air quality impacts.

CON 7-2: Minimize exposure of the public to toxic or harmful air emissions and odors through requiring an adequate buffer or setback distance between residential and other sensitive land uses and land uses that typically generate air pollutants, toxic air contaminants, or obnoxious fumes or odors, including but not limited to industrial, manufacturing, and processing facilities, high-volume roadways, and industrial rail lines. New sensitive receptors, such as residences (including residential care and assisted living facilities for the elderly), childcare centers, schools, playgrounds, churches, and medical facilities shall be located away from existing point sources of air pollution such that excessive levels of exposure do not result in unacceptable health risks. Compliance shall be verified through the preparation of a Health Risk Assessment when deemed necessary by the Planning Director.

CON 7-4: Require projects to adhere to the requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).

CON 7-5: Use the City’s development review process and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate and mitigate the local and cumulative effects of new development on air quality.

CON 7-7: Comply with regional, state, and federal standards and programs for control of all airborne pollutants and noxious odors, regardless of source.

7 CON 7-8: Consider the health risks associated with Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) when reviewing development applications.

CON 7-11: Encourage improvements and design features that reduce vehicle delay such as bus turnouts, and synchronized traffic signals for new development to reduce excessive vehicle emissions caused by idling.

CON 7-12: Encourage and prioritize infrastructure investments and improvements that promote safe walking, bicycling and increased transit ridership.

Actions
Action CIR-1j: Seek opportunities to eliminate close walking and bicycling network gaps across barriers to mobility, including I-680, I-880, SR 237, and the Union Pacific and BART tracks.

Action CIR-4q: Make improvements to roads, signs, and traffic signals as needed to improve accessible, safe, and convenient bicycle and pedestrian travel.

Action CON-7e: Require dust control measures, including those included in the Santa Clara Valley Non-point Source Pollution Control Program, and BAAQMD’s Best Management Practices for fugitive dust control during construction.

Action CON-7f: Use the BAAQMD “Air Quality Guidelines”, as amended, or replaced, in identifying thresholds, evaluating the potential project and cumulative impacts, and determining appropriate mitigation measures.

Review development, infrastructure, and planning projects for consistency with BAAQMD requirements during the CEQA review process. Require project applicants to prepare air quality analyses to address BAAQMD, and General Plan requirements, which includes analysis and identification of:
 Air pollutant emissions associated with the project during construction, project operation, and cumulative conditions;  Potential exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants;  Significant air quality impacts associated with the project for construction, project operation, and cumulative conditions; and  Mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts to less than significant or the maximum extent feasible where impacts cannot be mitigated to less than significant.

Action CON-7i: Require construction activity plans and grading and drainage plans to include and/or provide for dust management to prevent fugitive dust from leaving the property boundaries and causing a public nuisance or a violation of an ambient air standard. Project applicants, or their assigned agents/contractors, shall be responsible for ensuring that all adequate dust

8 control measures are implemented in a timely manner during all phases of project grading and construction.

Milpitas Metro Specific Plan (formerly Transit Area Specific Plan) In early 2019, the city began updating the Transit Area Specific Plan (TASP) to enrich the Plan’s scope and character of development and to update the goals and strategies to reflect current and future needs for the Plan area. The updated document is called the Milpitas Metro Specific Plan (MMSP). The Milpitas Metro Specific Plan outlines a vision for the redevelopment of an approximately 437-acre area in the southern portion of the city that currently includes a number of industrial uses near the Great Mall shopping center. The proposed new bridge and roadway connection is within the Plan area.

Section 4.3 of the draft MMSP contains several mobility and circulation goals that are applicable to the proposed project including:

M 1. Multi-Modal
Circulation.:

Develop a highly connected street grid that prioritizes multimodal transportation including walking, bicycling, and transit.

M 4. Neighborhood
Streets.:

Create local streets within residential neighborhoods with a slower, pedestrian character.

M 5. Trails.: Develop trails that link into the citywide trail system in order to aid connectivity and provide recreational and leisure spaces.

When completed, the MMSP will be accompanied by a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) to assess and mitigate, as feasible, the impacts of the Plan, of which this project is a part.

As noted above, the MMSP would replace the TASP, for which a prior Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared. The SEIR analysis will focus on the potential impacts of the changes to the MMSP and will not reassess the Plan as a whole. Accordingly, the SEIR examines the Plan in the context of the 2007 EIR focusing on the changes to environmental impacts and mitigation that would result from its revisions.

The 2007 TASP EIS identifies the applicable City and air district policies that reduce air quality impacts associate with the project. The EIS determined that the City’s General Plan Goals, Policies, and Actions and BAAQMD’s CEQA thresholds, emissions control measures, and CEQA guidance were sufficient to control and mitigate the impacts of the TASP and likely the subsequent MMSP. No additional air quality mitigation requirements were provided in the 2007 TASP EIS.

Significance Thresholds
In June 2010, BAAQMD adopted thresholds of significance to assist in the review of projects under the CEQA and these significance thresholds were contained in the district’s 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. These thresholds were designed to establish the level at which BAAQMD believed air pollution emissions would cause significant environmental impacts under CEQA. The thresholds were challenged through a series of court challenges and were mostly upheld.

BAAQMD updated the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines in 2017 to include the latest significance

9 thresholds, which were used in this analysis and are summarized in Table 1. Impacts above these thresholds are considered potentially significant.

Table 1. BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds Criteria Air
Pollutant
Construction
Thresholds Operational Thresholds
Average Daily Emissions
(lbs./day)
Average Daily
Emissions (lbs./day)
Annual Average
Emissions (tons/year)
ROG 54 54 10
NOx 54 54 10
PM10 82 (Exhaust) 82 15
PM2.5 54 (Exhaust) 54 10
CO Not Applicable 9.0 ppm (8-hour average) or 20.0 ppm (1-hour average)
Fugitive Dust
Construction Dust
Ordinance or other Best
Management Practices
None
Health Risks and
Hazards
Single Sources Within
1,000-foot Zone of
Influence
Combined Sources (Cumulative from all
sources within 1000-foot zone of influence)
Excess Cancer Risk 10 per one million 100 per one million Hazard Index 1.0 10.0
Incremental annual PM2.5 0.3 µg/m3 0.8 µg/m3
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Land Use Projects –
direct and indirect
emissions
Compliance with a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy
OR
1,100 metric tons annually or 4.6 metric tons per capita (for 2020) * Note: ROG = reactive organic gases, NOx = nitrogen oxides, PM10 = course particulate matter or particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers (µm) or less, PM2.5 = fine particulate matter or particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5µm or less. GHG = greenhouse gases. *BAAQMD does not have a recommended post-2020 GHG threshold.

10 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact AIR-1: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable State or federal ambient air quality standard?
The Bay Area is considered a non-attainment area for ground-level ozone and PM2.5 under both the Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act. The area is also considered nonattainment for PM10 under the California Clean Air Act, but not the federal act. The area has attained both State and federal ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide. As part of an effort to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards for ozone and PM10, the BAAQMD has established thresholds of significance for these air pollutants and their precursors. These thresholds are for ozone precursor pollutants (ROG and NOX), PM10, and PM2.5 and apply to both construction period and operational period impacts.

Construction Period Emissions
Two emissions models were utilized to estimate construction emissions from the project. The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District’s Road Construction Emission Model (RCEM) version 9.0 was used to estimate construction emissions from the bridge and roadway components of the project, while the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2020.4.0 was used to estimate emissions from the demolition of the existing office building and associated parking lot.

RCEM Modeling
BAAQMD recommends the use of RCEM to analyze construction emissions for transportation projects. The model provides emission estimates for both on-site and off-site construction activities and uses California Air Resources Board’s OFFROAD database to compute emissions from construction equipment use and CARB’s EMission FACtors 2017 model (EMFAC2017) on-road motor vehicle emissions estimation model to predict emissions from trucks and worker vehicles.

The model predicts emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), ozone precursor pollutants (ROG and NOX), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) and greenhouse gases (GHGs) in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e).

RCEM models were developed for two project types (bridge and roadway) with four default phases for each project type: Grubbing/Land Clearing (including mobilization), Grading/Excavation, Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade, and Paving. Data on the construction start date, durations, equipment, material quantities, etc. were provided by the applicant in September and October 2021.

Construction would begin in June 2023, with bridge construction occurring first, lasting approximately 4 months. The demolition of the existing office building and construction of the new roadway connections would occur after the bridge is substantially complete and take approximately 2 months and 12 months to complete, respectively, for a total project duration of 18 months.

11 RCEM defaults were used for worker trips and haul trips unless specific information was provided by the applicant. Material haul trip capacity was assumed to be 10 cubic yards (CY) given the size and location of the project. Worker vehicle trip emissions were adjusted to include the Safer Affordable Efficient (SAFE) Vehicle Rule Part One impacts. The SAFE vehicle Rule Part One revoked California’s authority to set its own GHG emission standards and set zero emission vehicle mandates in California. As a result of this ruling, criteria pollutant, and CO2 emissions from construction worker vehicles (i.e., light-duty vehicles) were increased using CARB’s SAFE Rule adjustment factors. Attachment 2 lists all the constructions inputs provided and entered into RCEM. Detailed construction plans were not available at the time of this analysis.

CalEEMod Modeling
CalEEMod computes annual emissions for construction that are based on the project type, size, and acreage. The model provides emission estimates for both on-site and off-site construction activities. On-site activities are primarily made up of construction equipment emissions, while offsite activity includes worker, hauling, and vendor traffic. CalEEMod was used to estimate emissions from the demolition of the approximately 42,000-sf single-story office building that would be removed to make way for the proposed new roadway connection.

The demolition site size (1.06 acre) and anticipated demolition schedule were input to CalEEMod.

The demolition scenario, including equipment list and schedule, were based on the information provided by the applicant. The work schedule assumes demolition would start in October 2023, after work on the new bridge is complete, and take approximately 20 workdays and 2 months to complete.8
Like RCEM, the latest version of CalEEMod uses on-road vehicle emissions factors from EMFAC2017 with SAFE Rule adjustment factors applied. CalEEMod estimated 509 haul trips would be associated with the demolition of the existing general office building, based on the total square footage of both the building and associated parking lot (i.e., 112,000-sf total). The model output from CalEEMod along with demolition inputs are included as Attachment 2.

Summary of Computed Construction Period Emissions
Annual emissions were predicted using CalEEMod and the estimated 396 construction workdays spread over two calendar years (2023 and 2024). Average daily emissions were computed by dividing the construction emissions in a given year by the number of construction days in that year.

Table 2 shows average daily construction emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10 exhaust, and PM2.5 exhaust during construction of the project. As indicated in Table 2, predicted uncontrolled construction period emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds.

8 CalEEMod default duration for demolition is 20 days.

12 Table 2. Uncontrolled Construction Period Emissions
Year Source ROG NOx PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5
Exhaust
2023
Bridge Construction
Emissions (tons) 0.06 0.59 0.03 0.02
Demolition Emissions (tons) 0.01 0.16 0.01 0.01
Roadway Construction
Emissions (tons) 0.04 0.39 0.02 0.02
Total (tons) 0.11 1.15 0.05 0.04
Daily emissions
(pounds per day)
1 1.69 17.36 0.75 0.66
BAAQMD Thresholds
(pounds per day) 54 54 82 54
Exceed Threshold? No No No No
2024
Roadway Construction
Emissions (tons) 0.15 1.57 0.07 0.06
Daily emissions
(pounds per day)
2 1.17 11.87 0.54 0.47
BAAQMD Thresholds
(pounds per day) 54 54 82 54
Exceed Threshold? No No No No
Total/Average
Total Construction (tons) 0.27 2.71 0.12 0.11
Project average daily
emissions (pounds) 1.34 13.70 0.61 0.54
BAAQMD Thresholds
(pounds per day) 54 54 82 54
Exceed Threshold? No No No No
Notes: 1Assumes 132 workdays in 2023. 2 Assumes 264 workdays in 2024.

Construction activities, particularly during site preparation and grading, would temporarily generate fugitive dust in the form of PM10 and PM2.5. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction site and trucks carrying uncovered loads of soils. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would deposit mud on local streets, which could be an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines consider these impacts to be less than significant if best management practices (BMPs) are implemented to reduce these emissions. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would implement BAAQMD’s basic and additional best management practices.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Implement BAAQMD-Recommended Basic and Additional Measures to Control Fugitive Dust Emissions during
Construction.

Basic and additional dust control BMPs are needed to reduce fugitive dust (i.e., PM2.5) emissions from construction and are recommended to and ensure that health impacts to nearby sensitive receptors are minimized. During any construction period ground disturbance, the applicant shall ensure that the project contractor implements basic BMPs to control dust. Implementation of the dust control measures recommended by BAAQMD and listed below would reduce the air quality impacts associated with grading and new construction to a less-than-significant level. The contractor shall implement the following BMPs:

13 1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe.

2. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.

3. The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction activities on the same area at any one time shall be limited. Activities shall be phased to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time.

4. Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction. Wind breaks should have at maximum 50 percent air porosity.

5. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established.

6. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

7. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.

8. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

9. Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6 to 12 inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel.

10. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.

11. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

12. Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent.

13. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time two minutes (as required by the California airborne

14 toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]).

Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.

14. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.

15. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure AQ-1
The measures above are consistent with BAAQMD-recommended basic and additional control measures for reducing fugitive particulate matter that are contained in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. It is estimated implementing these BMPs will reduce fugitive PM2.5 emissions by approximately 69 percent.9
Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Selection of equipment during construction to minimize emissions.

The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment used onsite to construct the project would achieve a fleet-wide average 86-percent reduction in DPM exhaust emissions or greater. One feasible plan to achieve this reduction would include the following:
 All diesel-powered off-road equipment, larger than 25 horsepower, operating on the site for more than two days continuously shall, at a minimum, meet U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 4 Final engines. Where Tier 4 equipment is not available, exceptions could be made for equipment that includes CARB-certified Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters or equivalent. Equipment that is electrically powered or uses non-diesel fuels would also meet this requirement.

Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure AQ-2
RCEM and CalEEMod were used to compute emissions associated with this mitigation measure assuming that all equipment met U.S. EPA Tier 4 Final engines standards. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2, the cancer risk levels and total annual PM2.5 concentrations from the project’s construction would be reduced by approximately 90 percent and would not exceed the BAAQMD single-source health risk significance thresholds (see Impact AIR-2 below).
9 Based on emissions reductions estimated using CalEEMod.

15 Operational Period Emissions
Operational air emissions from the project would be generated primarily from traffic using the new bridge and roadway connections. EMFAC2021 was used to estimate emissions from operation of the proposed project using traffic volumes estimated using the new bridge.

Traffic
Emissions associated with vehicle travel depend on the year of analysis because emission control technology requirements are phased-in over time. Therefore, the earlier the year analyzed in the model, the higher the emission rates projected by EMFAC2021. This analysis assumed that the bridge and new roadway connection would be operating in the year 2024. Emissions associated with operation later than 2024 would be lower assuming traffic growth on the new bridge and roadways remains at one percent or less per year.

Daily traffic forecasts for the new bridge and roadway connections were provided by the project’s traffic consultant10 and used to estimate VMT associated with the new bridge/roadways, which were used to estimate emissions. Attachment 3 provides the traffic volumes, lengths, and emissions factors used to estimate emissions from operation of the project.

EMFAC2021 and CT-EMFAC2017
Emissions rates for criteria pollutants (i.e., ROG, NOX, PM10 and PM2.5) and GHGs (i.e., CO2, N2O, CH4, and HFCs) were developed using the latest version of CARB’s on-road vehicle emissions model, EMFAC2021. EMFAC2021 became available for use in January 2021 but has yet to be approved by the EPA.11 It includes the latest data on California’s car and truck fleets and travel activity. Emission processes modeled for the analysis include running exhaust, running evaporative losses, and fugitive dust (i.e., road dust, tire ware, and break ware).

The 2024 CalEEMod default fleet mix for Santa Clara County was used to estimate the fraction of trucks (i.e., Truck 1 and Truck 2) in the project area. CT-EMFAC2017 was used to estimate the fraction of gasoline and diesel vehicles in three vehicle categories (i.e., Non-Truck, Truck 1, and Truck 2) based on the CalEEMod default truck percentage of 4.5 percent. CT-EMFAC2017 is the Caltrans version of the CARB’s EMFAC2017 emissions model and provides the vehicle fractions by fuel type based on the fraction of trucks and non-trucks. These CT-EMFAC2017 fractions were then applied to the EMFAC2021 emissions rates and aggregated to provide one emissions factor for each pollutant and speed needed. Attachment 3 provides the information used to generate the emissions factors used.

CT-EMFAC2017 was also used to develop the fugitive road dust emissions factors based on CARB’s current methodology. EMFAC2021 does not include road dust emissions factors. For other pollutants not included in the EMAC2021 model (i.e., DPM, N2O, HFC, etc.), a ratio of emissions factors produced by CT-EMFAC2017 model was applied to an appropriate 10 Email from Natalie Noyes, David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. to Illingworth & Rodkin. September 25, 2021. Daily vehicle trips estimated by Hexagon Traffic Consultants to be 700-800. 11 While approved for use by CARB, EMFAC2021 has yet to be approved by the EPA for use on federally funded transportation projects.

16 EMFAC2021 pollutant emissions factor to develop an appropriate EMFAC2021-based emissions factor for the speed needed (i.e., 25 miles per hour). Inputs to both emissions models include region (i.e., Santa Clara County), year of analysis (i.e., 2024), and season (i.e., annual).

Existing Uses
A CalEEMod model run was developed to estimate the indirect emissions from operation of the existing land use, a 41,307-sf general office building and associated parking lot, in 2024 to compare to the operation of the new bridge and roadway connection. CalEEMod default data were used to estimate emissions. Table 3 shows that, when compared to the existing use, the new bridge and roadway connections would generate less criteria pollutant emissions. Thus, the project would result in a regional air quality benefit to criteria pollutant emissions. Attachment 2 provides the CalEEMod run conducted to generate the emissions existing condition emissions.

Summary of Computed Operational Period Emissions
The emissions factors described above were applied to the daily traffic data (i.e., VMT estimated based on traffic volumes) for the new bridge and roadway connections to estimate daily emissions in grams per day. These estimates were then converted to pounds of pollutant per day and tons of pollutant per year. GHG emissions were estimated at the grams per day level and then converted to metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MT CO2e) using the appropriate global warming potential (GWP). Table 3 shows average daily construction emissions of ROG, NOX, total PM10, and total PM2.5 during operation of the project. GHG emissions are provided in Table 10. The operational period emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds.

Table 3. Operational Period Emissions
Scenario ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
2024 Project Operational Emissions (tons/year)
1 0.002 tons 0.004 tons 0.03 tons 0.004 tons
BAAQMD Thresholds (tons /year) 10 tons 10 tons 15 tons 10 tons Exceed Threshold? No No No No
2024 Project Operational Emissions (pounds/day) 0.01 0.02 0.14 0.02 BAAQMD Thresholds (pounds/day) 54 lbs. 54 lbs. 82 lbs. 54 lbs.

Exceed Threshold? No No No No
2024 Existing Use Emissions (tons/year)
1 0.39 0.17 0.25 0.07
Net Change (tons/year) -0.39 -0.16 -0.22 -0.06
Notes: 1 Assumes 365-day operation.

17 Impact AIR-2: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Project impacts related to increased community risk can occur either by introducing a new source of TACs during construction and operation with the potential to adversely affect existing sensitive receptors in the project vicinity or by introducing a new sensitive receptor, such as residents, in proximity to an existing source of TACs.

Temporary project construction activity would generate dust and equipment exhaust that could affect nearby sensitive receptors. Additionally, the new bridge and roadway connections would attract traffic, which would produce additional TAC and air pollutant emissions not currently being emitted near the existing residential areas. The project traffic would consist of primarily light-duty vehicles and the number of daily trips generated by the project are small (i.e., 700-800 daily trips).12 Emissions from automobile traffic generated by the project would be localized in the area of the new bridge and roadway connections and would not be considered a substantial new source of TACs or PM2.5. Despite this, an analysis of the health risks associated with both the temporary construction activities and long-term operational conditions of the project were conducted.

Community risk impacts are addressed by predicting increased lifetime cancer risk, the increase in annual PM2.5 concentrations, and computing the Hazard Index (HI) for non-cancer health risks.

This involved modeling of TAC and PM2.5 emissions, dispersion modeling, and computing cancer risk and HI. The methodology for computing community risks impacts is provided in Attachment

1. Additionally, the impact of the existing sources of TACs upon the existing sensitive receptors was assessed. There are a few existing sources of TACs in the vicinity of the project: one auto body shop and two major roadways exceeding average daily traffic (ADT) of 10,000 vehicles (Montague Expressway and E. Capitol Avenue). All the other roadways near the project site are assumed to have an ADT of less than 10,000 vehicles.

Community Risk from Project Construction Activity
Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic generates diesel exhaust, which is a known TAC. Although it was concluded in the previous sections (see Table 2) that construction exhaust air pollutant emissions would not contribute substantially to existing or projected air quality violations, construction exhaust emissions may still pose health risks for sensitive receptors such as surrounding residents. The primary community risks associated with construction emissions are cancer risk and exposure to PM2.5. A health risk assessment of the project construction activities was conducted to evaluate the potential health effects to nearby sensitive receptors from construction emissions of DPM and PM2.5. 13 12 Based on daily trip rates provided to DJP by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. via email to Natalie Noyes.

September 25, 2021.
13 DPM is identified by California as a toxic air contaminant due to the potential to cause cancer.

18 Construction Period Emissions
The RCEM and CalEEMod models provided total annual PM10 exhaust emissions (assumed to be DPM) for the off-road construction equipment and on-road vehicles. Total uncontrolled DPM emissions from the construction site was estimated to be 0.11 tons (218 pounds). The on-road emissions are a result of haul truck travel during grading activities, worker travel, and vendor deliveries during construction. A trip length of a half-mile was used to represent vehicle travel while at or near the construction site. It was assumed emissions from on-road vehicles traveling at or near the site would occur at the construction site. Uncontrolled fugitive PM2.5 dust emissions were estimated to be 0.11 tons (227 pounds) using the same methods and assumptions used to estimate site DPM emissions.

Dispersion Modeling
The U.S. EPA AERMOD dispersion model was used to predict DPM and PM2.5 concentrations at sensitive receptors (i.e., residents, school children) in the vicinity of the project construction area.

The AERMOD dispersion model is a BAAQMD-recommended model for use in modeling ambient impacts of these types of emission activities for CEQA projects.14 Emission sources for the construction site were grouped into two categories: exhaust emissions of DPM and fugitive PM2.5 dust emissions. Combustion equipment exhaust emissions were modeled as a series of point sources with a 9-foot release height (i.e., construction equipment exhaust stack height) placed at

32.8-feet (10-meter) intervals throughout the construction site. This resulted in 169 individual point sources being used to represent mobile equipment DPM exhaust emissions in the construction area, with DPM emissions occurring throughout the project construction site.

Construction fugitive PM2.5 dust emissions were modeled as an area source encompassing the entire construction site with a near ground level release height of 7 feet (2 meters). Fugitive emissions from the construction activities and on-site vehicle travel were distributed throughout the modeled area sources. Construction emissions were modeled as occurring daily between 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

A five-year data set (2013-2017) of hourly meteorological data from Norman Y. Mineta San José International Airport (SJC) prepared for use with the AERMOD model by BAAQMD was used.

Annual DPM and PM2.5 concentrations from construction activities during June 2023 through October 2024 were calculated at nearby sensitive receptors using AERMOD. Receptor heights of

4.9 feet (1.5 meters), 15.1 feet (4.6 meters), and 24.9 feet (7.6 meters) were used to represent the breathing heights at nearby multi-family homes.

Construction Impacts
The maximum modeled annual DPM and PM2.5 concentrations, and thus the maximally exposed individuals (MEIs), were identified as those living at an adjacent multi-family residence approximately 16 feet to the east of the project site (as shown in Figure 1). Both the maximum cancer risk and maximum PM2.5 concentration occurred at the same location (i.e., the MEI) with the highest PM2.5 concentration occurring on the first floor of the MEI (4.9 feet or 1.5 meters above 14 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2012, Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, Version 3.0. May.

19 ground) and the maximum cancer risk occurring on the second floor (15.1 feet or 4.6 meters above ground). Using the maximum modeled annual DPM concentrations, maximum increased cancer risks were calculated using BAAQMD recommended methods and exposure parameters described in Attachment 1. Non-cancer health hazards and maximum annual PM2.5 concentrations were also calculated and identified. Attachment 4 to this report includes the emission calculations used for the construction area source modeling and the construction cancer risk calculations.

Figure 1. Project Construction Site, Locations of Off-Site Sensitive Receptors, and Locations of TAC Impacts
Results indicate the unmitigated maximum increased cancer risks and maximum annual PM2.5 concentrations from construction exceed the BAAQMD single-source thresholds of greater than

10.0 per million for cancer risk and greater than 0.3 µg/m3 for PM2.5 concentrations. However, with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and Mitigation Measure AQ-2, the increased project cancer risk and PM2.5 concentration from construction would not exceed their single-source thresholds. Both the unmitigated and mitigated non-cancer HI from construction activities would be below the single-source significance threshold of 1.0. Table 4 summarizes the maximum cancer risks, PM2.5 concentrations, and HIs for project related construction activities affecting the off-site residential MEI. Implementing Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would reduce the maximum increased cancer risk to nearby residential areas from construction, assuming infant exposure, to 8.28 in one million or less and implementing Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would reduce the total maximum annual PM2.5 concentration to 0.24 μg/m3.

20 Table 4. Construction Risk Impacts at the Off-site Residential MEI Source Cancer Risk
(per million)
Annual PM2.5
(µg/m3)
Hazard
Index
Project Construction Unmitigated
Mitigated*

82.77 (infant)

8.28 (infant)

0.87 0.24

0.06 <0.01
BAAQMD Single-Source Threshold 10 0.3 1.0
Exceed Threshold? Unmitigated
Mitigated*
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
* Mitigation Measure AQ-1 includes basic and enhanced fugitive dust controls and Mitigation Measure AQ-2 includes construction equipment engines with Tier 4 Final emissions limits.

Community Risks from Project Operation – Traffic
Operation of the project would generate emissions from mobile sources (i.e., traffic). While these emissions would not be as intensive at or near the site as construction activity, they would contribute to long-term effects to sensitive receptors.

It is estimated the new roadway connection would attract 700-800 vehicles per day. Most of the vehicles using the new route consist mostly of light-duty vehicles that are not a source of substantial TACs or PM2.5. Despite this, the TAC emissions generated from the traffic on the new route were estimated using EMFAC2021 and the length (in miles) of the new roadway. Attachment 3 provides the traffic volumes, lengths, and emissions factors used to estimate emissions from operation of the project.

EMFAC2021 and CT-EMFAC2017
Emissions rates for TAC pollutants (i.e., DPM and Fugitive PM2.5) were developed using EMFAC2021 using the same methodology describe previously for project operation emissions.

The 2024 CalEEMod default fleet mix for Santa Clara County was used to estimate the fraction of trucks (i.e., Truck 1 and Truck 2) in the project area and CT-EMFAC2017 was used to estimate the fraction of gasoline and diesel vehicles in three vehicle categories (i.e., Non-Truck, Truck 1, and Truck 2) and emissions factors for PM2.5 fugitive road dust. CT-EMFAC2017 vehicle fractions were then applied to EMFAC2021 emissions rates and aggregated to provide one emissions factor for each pollutant needed.

To estimate DPM, which is not included in the EMAC2021 model, the CT-EMFAC2017 ratio of PM2.5 emissions rates to DPM emissions rates was applied to the EMFAC2021 PM2.5 emissions factor to produce an appropriate EMFAC2021-based emissions factor for the speed needed (i.e., 25 miles per hour). Inputs to both emissions models include region (i.e., Santa Clara County), year of analysis (i.e., 2024), and season (i.e., annual). Attachment 3 provides the information used to generate the emissions factors used.

Hourly TAC emissions rates were developed for the traffic using the new roadway connection.

Hourly traffic distributions were estimated using the hourly distributions obtained from Caltrans Performance Measurement System (PeMS). PeMS data is collected in real-time from nearly 40,000 individual detectors spanning the freeway system across all major metropolitan areas of

21 California.15 The fraction of traffic volume on each hour on Interstate 880 west of the project area and Interstate 680 east of the project area were calculated, averaged, and applied to the ADT estimate (700) to obtain hourly traffic emissions for the project. These emissions were then input into the dispersion model to estimate the impacts to existing residents.

Dispersion Modeling
To obtain an estimate of potential cancer risks and PM2.5 impacts from operation of the new roadway, the U.S. EPA AERMOD dispersion model was used to calculate the maximum annual TAC concentrations at off-site sensitive receptor locations (nearby residences). The same receptors, breathing heights, and meteorological data used in the construction dispersion modeling were used for this analysis. Hourly emissions from vehicle traffic were modeled using a series of area sources along a line (line area sources), with line segments used to represent the new roadway connections. Figure 2 shows the roadway links used for the modeling and receptor locations where concentrations were calculated.

To calculate the increased cancer risk from the new roadway connection at the MEI, the cancer risks exposure duration was adjusted to account for the MEI being exposed to traffic on the new roadway for a 30-year lifetime period. Table 5 lists the risks and hazards from the project. The emissions and health risk calculations for the new roadway connections are included in Attachment

4. Summary of Operations-Related Community Risks at the Off-site MEI The MEI related to the operation of the new roadway is located at the multi-family residential building directly to the east of the new roadway. PM2.5 and HI are based on an annual maximum exposure, which would be approximately the same every year over the 30-year operation of the roadway. However, cancer risk is based on a total 30-year exposure to traffic using the new roadway. Full operation of the project is assumed to occur in 2024 or later. Emissions associated with vehicle travel depend on the year of analysis because emission control technology requirements are phased-in over time. Therefore, the earlier the year analyzed in the model, the higher the emission rates produced by EMFAC2021 and CT-EMFAC2017. Year 2024 emissions were conservatively assumed as being representative of future conditions over the period that cancer risks are evaluated (30 years), since, as discussed above, overall vehicle emissions, in particular diesel truck emissions will decrease in the future.

Table 5 shows the health risk associated with operation of the new roadway connection would be well below the BAAQMD single-source thresholds for increased cancer risk, maximum annual PM2.5 concentration, and HI.
15 https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/mpr/pems-source

22 Table 5. Operation Risk Impacts at the Off-site Residential MEI Source Cancer Risk
(per million)
Annual PM2.5
(µg/m3)
Hazard
Index
Roadway Operation (Years 0-30) Unmitigated 0.05 (infant) 0.02 <0.1 BAAQMD Single-Source Threshold 10 0.3 1.0
Exceed Threshold? No No No
Summary of Project-Related Community Risks at the Off-site Project MEI For this project, the construction MEI identified in Figure 1 is also the MEI for the project. PM2.5 and HI are based on an annual maximum exposure, which would occur during construction.

However, cancer risk is based on a total 30-year exposure. At the MEI location, individuals would be exposed to 18 months (i.e., 2 years) of health risk impacts from construction and 28 years of impacts from the new roadway connection. Thus, to estimate total project cancer risk from construction and operation of the project were summed together for a 30-year exposure period at the MEI. Unlike the increased maximum cancer risk, the annual PM2.5 concentration and HI risks are not additive but based on an annual maximum risk for the entirety of the project.

As shown in Table 6, the total unmitigated project risks would exceed the BAAQMD single-source thresholds for increased cancer risk and maximum PM2.5 concentration. However, with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and Mitigation Measure AQ-2, the total increased cancer risk and maximum PM2.5 concentration would be reduced to below the BAAQMD singlesource thresholds. The maximum annual HI value for the project does not exceed the BAAQMD annual HI single-source thresholds.

Table 6. Construction and Operation Risk Impacts at the Off-site Residential MEI Source Cancer Risk
(per million)
Annual PM2.5
(µg/m3)
Hazard
Index
Project Construction (Years 0-2) Unmitigated
Mitigated*

82.77 (infant)

8.28 (infant)

0.87 0.24

0.06 <0.01
Roadway Operation (Years 3-30) 0.02 0.02 <0.01
Total/Maximum Project Risks (Years 0-30) Unmitigated
Mitigated*

82.79 (infant)

8.30 (infant)

0.87 0.24

0.06 <0.01
BAAQMD Single-Source Threshold 10 0.3 1.0
Exceed Threshold? Unmitigated
Mitigated*
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
* Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 include basic fugitive dust controls and construction equipment engines with Tier 4 Final emissions limits.

23 Cumulative Impact of TAC Sources on the Off-Site Construction MEI Community health risk assessments typically look at all substantial sources of TACs that can affect sensitive receptors that are located within 1,000 feet of the project site (i.e., influence area). These sources include railroads, freeways or highways, busy surface streets, and existing stationary sources identified by BAAQMD. A review of the project area indicates that traffic on Montague Expressway and E. Capitol Avenue exceed the ADT threshold of 10,000 vehicles. All other roadways within the area are assumed to be below the 10,000 ADT threshold. One existing stationary source of TACs is located within the 1,000-foot influence area according to BAAQMD’s stationary source website map. Figure 2 shows the existing TAC sources near the project site.

Community risk impacts from these sources upon the project MEI are reported in Table 6. Details of the modeling and community risk calculations are included in Attachments 5 and 6.

Montague Expressway and E. Capitol Avenue
The project site and project MEI are both close to Montague Expressway and E. Capitol Avenue, with the project MEI located approximately 1,186 feet east of Montague Expressway and 635 feet south of E. Capitol Avenue. A refined analysis of the impacts of TACs and PM2.5 from the arterial roadways on the project MEI is necessary to evaluate potential cancer risks and PM2.5 concentrations associated with it. A review of the 2024 with project peak hour traffic information provided by Hexagon16 indicates this portion of Montague Expressway would have an estimated weekday traffic volume of approximately 33,000 vehicles per day and E. Capitol Avenue would have an estimated weekday traffic volume of 20,100 northwest of S. Milpitas Boulevard. and approximately 12,000 vehicles southeast of S. Milpitas Boulevard. The emissions estimation methodology previously described to estimate emissions from the project was used to estimate emissions for these roadways given the daily traffic volumes and posted speeds. 16 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic data provided to Illingworth and Rodkin by DJP via email from Natalie Noyes. September 25, 2021.

24 Figure 2. Project Site and Nearby TAC and PM2.5 Sources Modeling Roadway Emissions
Analysis of Montague Expressway and E. Capitol Avenue involved developing emissions estimates of DPM, organic TACs (as TOG), and PM2.5 emissions for 2024 traffic volume estimates were developed using EMFAC2021 and the same methodology describe previously for project operation emissions. The 2024 CalEEMod default fleet mix for Santa Clara County was used to estimate the fraction of trucks (i.e., Truck 1 and Truck 2) in the project area and CT-EMFAC2017 was used to estimate the fraction of gasoline and diesel vehicles in three vehicle categories (i.e., Non-Truck, Truck 1, and Truck 2) and emissions factors for PM2.5 fugitive road dust. CTEMFAC2017 vehicle fractions were then applied to EMFAC2021 emissions rates and aggregated to provide one emissions factor for each pollutant needed.

To estimate DPM, which is not included in the EMAC2021 model, the CT-EMFAC2017 ratio of PM2.5 emissions rates to DPM emissions rates was applied to the EMFAC2021 PM2.5 emissions factor to produce an appropriate EMFAC2021-based emissions factor for the speeds needed.

Inputs to both emissions models include region (i.e., Santa Clara County), year of analysis (i.e., 2024), and season (i.e., annual). For all hours of the day, other than during peak a.m. and p.m. periods, an average speed of 45 mph was assumed for all vehicles on Montague Expressway and an average speed of 40 mph was used for E. Capitol Avenue. Traffic speeds during the peak a.m. and p.m. periods were assumed to be 5 miles per hour slower (i.e., 40 mph and 35 mph, respectively) to account for congestion and the limited amount of access in the area. Attachment 5 provides the information used to generate the emissions factors used for the analysis of Montague Expressway and E. Capitol Avenue.

25 Full operation of the project is assumed to occur in 2024 or later with construction beginning in June 2023. Emissions associated with vehicle travel depend on the year of analysis because emission control technology requirements are phased-in over time. Therefore, the earlier the year analyzed in the model, the higher the emission rates produced by EMFAC2021 and CTEMFAC2017. Year 2024 emissions were conservatively assumed as being representative of future conditions over the period that cancer risks are evaluated (30 years), since, as discussed above, overall vehicle emissions, in particular diesel truck emissions will decrease in the future.

Hourly traffic distributions were estimated using the hourly distributions obtained from Caltrans (PeMS) data as previously described. The fraction of traffic volume on each hour on Interstate 880 west of the project area and Interstate 680 east of the project area were calculated, averaged, and applied to the AADT estimates for each roadway to obtain hourly traffic. Emissions rates were then applied to the hourly traffic estimates to produce hourly emissions estimates for DPM, organic TACs, and PM2.5 along the applicable roadway segments within 1,000 feet of the project. These emissions were then input into an air quality dispersion model (AERMOD) to estimate TAC and PM2.5 concentrations at the project MEI previously identified.

Dispersion Modeling
Dispersion modeling of TAC and PM2.5 emissions was conducted using the U.S. EPA AERMOD dispersion model, which is recommended by the BAAQMD for this type of analysis. Traffic on Montague Expressway and E. Capitol Avenue within approximately 1,000 feet of the project site was evaluated with the model. Emissions from vehicle traffic were modeled using a series of area sources along a line (line area sources), with line segments used to represent all lanes of traffic.

The modeling used a five-year data set (2013-2017) of hourly meteorological data from Norman Y. Mineta San José International Airport (SJC) prepared by the BAAQMD for use with the AERMOD model. Other inputs to the model included road geometry, hourly traffic emissions, and receptor locations and heights. Figure 2 shows the roadway links used for the modeling and receptor locations where concentrations were calculated.

Computed Cancer and Non-Cancer Health Impacts of Montague Expressway and E. Capitol Avenue
The increased lifetime cancer risks and maximum annual PM2.5 concentrations from the major roadways in the area at the MEI were computed using the modeled TAC and PM2.5 concentrations and BAAQMD methods and exposure parameters described in Attachment 1. The maximum increased cancer risk associated with Montague Expressway at the MEI receptor would be 0.61 in one million, the maximum PM2.5 concentration at the MEI receptors would be 0.03 μg/m3, and the HI at the MEI location would be less than 0.01. The maximum increased cancer risk associated with E. Capitol Avenue at the MEI receptor would be 0.13 in one million, the maximum PM2.5 concentration at the MEI receptors would be less than 0.01 μg/m3, and the HI at the MEI location would be less than 0.01.

The risk impacts from both roadways on the MEI are shown in Table 7. Details of the emission calculations, dispersion modeling and cancer risk calculations for the MEI are provided in Attachment 6.

26 Stationary Sources
Permitted stationary sources of air pollution near the project site were identified using BAAQMD’s Permitted Stationary Sources 2018 GIS website,17 which identifies the location of nearby stationary sources and their estimated risk and hazard impacts, including emissions and adjustments to account for new OEHHA guidance. A Stationary Source Information Form (SSIF) containing the identified sources was prepared and submitted to BAAQMD. BAAQMD provided updated emissions data and risk values.18 The provided risk values were then adjusted for distance using the appropriate BAAQMD Distance Multiplier Tool for Diesel Internal Combustion Engines, Gasoline Dispensing Facilities (GDFs), or Generic Sources.

Four stationary sources were initially identified in the area, but only one of the stationary sources was identified within 1,000 ft of the project, Facility IDs #17576 (an Auto Body Coating Operation). Estimated risk values for this stationary source at the MEI are listed in Table 7.

Combined Community Health Risk at Off-Site Construction MEI Table 7 reports both the construction and cumulative community risk impacts at the sensitive receptors most affected by the project (i.e., the construction MEI). Without mitigation, the project’s community risk from construction activities would exceed the single-source maximum cancer risk and PM2.5 concentration significance thresholds but would not exceed the HI significance threshold. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and AQ-2, the project would not exceed single-source thresholds. The cumulative HI value would not exceed cumulative significance thresholds for either the unmitigated or mitigated condition.

The cumulative unmitigated construction cancer risk and HI would not exceed the BAAQMD cumulative significance thresholds of 100 in a million, and 10.0, respectively. However, the unmitigated annual maximum PM2.5 concentration would exceed the BAAQMD cumulative significance threshold of 0.8 µg/m3 PM2.5. With Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and AQ-2 the cumulative annual maximum PM2.5 concentration would not exceed the cumulative-source threshold.

17BAAQMD,
https://baaqmd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2387ae674013413f987b1071715daa65 18 Email correspondence with Matthew Hanson, BAAQMD, November 4, 2021.

27 Table 7. Impacts from Combined Sources at Off-Site Construction MEI Source Cancer Risk
(per million)
Annual PM2.5
(µg/m3)
Hazard
Index
Project Impacts
Total/Maximum Construction Risks (Years 0-30)
Unmitigated
Mitigated*

82.77 (infant)

8.28 (infant)

0.87 0.24

0.06 <0.01
BAAQMD Single-Source Threshold 10 0.3 1.0
Exceed Single Source Threshold? Unmitigated
Mitigated*
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Cumulative Impacts
Montague Expressway 0.61 0.03 <0.01
E. Capitol Avenue 0.13 <0.01 <0.01
Facility #17576 (Auto Body Coating Operation) NA NA <0.01 Cumulative Total Unmitigated
Mitigated*

83.51 9.02

0.91 0.28
<0.09
<0.04
BAAQMD Cumulative Source Threshold 100 0.8 10.0
Exceed Cumulative Source Threshold? Unmitigated
Mitigated*
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
* Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 include basic fugitive dust controls and construction equipment engines with Tier 4 Final emissions limits.

Cumulative Impact of TAC Sources on the Off-Site Operations MEI The cumulative impacts of operating the project with the existing TAC sources described above are presented in Table 8. Operation of the new roadway connection with the existing TAC sources would not exceed the BAAQMD cumulative-source thresholds for increased cancer risk, maximum annual PM2.5 concentration, or HI.

Table 8. Impacts from Combined Sources at Off-Site Operation MEI Source Cancer Risk
(per million)
Annual PM2.5
(µg/m3)
Hazard
Index
Project Impacts
Roadway Operation (Years 0-30) Unmitigated 0.05 (infant) 0.02 <0.01 BAAQMD Single-Source Threshold 10 0.3 1.0
Exceed Single Source Threshold? Unmitigated No No No
Cumulative Impacts
Montague Expressway 0.61 0.03 <0.01
E. Capitol Avenue 0.13 <0.01 <0.01
Facility #17576 (Auto Body Coating Operation) NA NA <0.01 Cumulative Total Unmitigated 0.79 <0.06 <0.04
BAAQMD Cumulative Source Threshold 100 0.8 10.0
Exceed Cumulative Source Threshold? Unmitigated No No No Cumulative Impact of Project and TAC Sources on the Off-Site Project MEI The cumulative impacts of the total project (i.e., operations and construction) including the existing TAC sources previously described are presented in Table 9. Because the Construction MEI and

28 the Project MEI are the same, the only difference between the impacts in Table 7 and Table 9 is the addition of 28 years of TAC emissions from the new roadway connection. Without mitigation, the project’s total community risk would exceed BAAQMD’s single-source maximum cancer risk and PM2.5 concentration significance thresholds but would not exceed the HI significance threshold. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and AQ-2, the project would not exceed single-source thresholds.

Table 9. Impacts from Combined Sources at Off-Site Project MEI Source Cancer Risk
(per million)
Annual PM2.5
(µg/m3)
Hazard
Index
Project Impacts
Total/Maximum Construction Risks (Years 0-2)
Unmitigated
Mitigated*

82.77 (infant)

8.28 (infant)

0.87 0.24

0.06 <0.01
Roadway Operation (Years 3-30) 0.02 0.02 <0.01
BAAQMD Single-Source Threshold 10 0.3 1.0
Exceed Single Source Threshold? Unmitigated
Mitigated*
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Cumulative Impacts
Montague Expressway 0.61 0.03 <0.01
E. Capitol Avenue 0.13 <0.01 <0.01
Facility #17576 (Auto Body Coating Operation) NA NA <0.01 Cumulative Total Unmitigated
Mitigated*

83.53 9.04

0.91 0.28
<0.09
<0.04
BAAQMD Cumulative Source Threshold 100 0.8 10.0
Exceed Cumulative Source Threshold? Unmitigated
Mitigated*
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
* Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 include basic fugitive dust controls and construction equipment engines with Tier 4 Final emissions limits.

The cumulative unmitigated construction cancer risk and HI would not exceed the BAAQMD cumulative significance thresholds of 100 in a million, and 10.0, respectively. However, the unmitigated annual maximum PM2.5 concentration would exceed the BAAQMD cumulative significance threshold of 0.8 µg/m3 PM2.5. With Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and AQ-2 the cumulative annual maximum PM2.5 concentration would not exceed the cumulative-source threshold.

29 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Setting
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, GHGs, regulate the earth’s temperature. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate. The most common GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor but there are also several others, most importantly methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These are released into the earth’s atmosphere through a variety of natural processes and human activities. Sources of GHGs are generally as follows:
 CO2 and N2O are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion.  N2O is associated with agricultural operations such as fertilization of crops.  CH4 is commonly created by off-gassing from agricultural practices (e.g., keeping livestock) and landfill operations.
 Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were widely used as refrigerants, propellants, and cleaning solvents but their production has been stopped by international treaty.  HFCs are now used as a substitute for CFCs in refrigeration and cooling.  PFCs and sulfur hexafluoride emissions are commonly created by industries such as aluminum production and semi-conductor manufacturing.

Each GHG has its own potency and effect upon the earth’s energy balance. This is expressed in terms of a global warming potential (GWP), with CO2 being assigned a value of 1 and sulfur hexafluoride being several orders of magnitude stronger. In GHG emission inventories, the weight of each gas is multiplied by its GWP and is measured in units of CO2 equivalents (CO2e).

An expanding body of scientific research supports the theory that global climate change is currently affecting changes in weather patterns, average sea level, ocean acidification, chemical reaction rates, and precipitation rates, and that it will increasingly do so in the future. The climate and several naturally occurring resources within California are adversely affected by the global warming trend. Increased precipitation and sea level rise will increase coastal flooding, saltwater intrusion, and degradation of wetlands. Mass migration and/or loss of plant and animal species could also occur. Potential effects of global climate change that could adversely affect human health include more extreme heat waves and heat-related stress; an increase in climate-sensitive diseases; more frequent and intense natural disasters such as flooding, hurricanes and drought; and increased levels of air pollution.

Recent Regulatory Actions for GHG Emissions
Executive Order S-3-05 – California GHG Reduction Targets Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 was signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005 to set GHG emission reduction targets for California. The three targets established by this EO are as follows:
(1) reduce California’s GHG emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, (2) reduce California’s GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and (3) reduce California’s GHG emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

30 Assembly Bill 32 – California Global Warming Solutions Act (2006) Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, codified the State’s GHG emissions target by directing CARB to reduce the State’s global warming emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 was signed and passed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger on September 27, 2006. Since that time, the CARB, CEC, California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), and Building Standards Commission have all been developing regulations that will help meet the goals of AB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05, which has a target of reducing GHG emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels.

A Scoping Plan for AB 32 was adopted by CARB in December 2008. It contains the State’s main strategies to reduce GHGs from business-as-usual emissions projected in 2020 back down to 1990 levels. Business-as-usual (BAU) is the projected emissions in 2020, including increases in emissions caused by growth, without any GHG reduction measures. The Scoping Plan has a range of GHG reduction actions, including direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, and market-based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade system.

As directed by AB 32, CARB has also approved a statewide GHG emissions limit. On December 6, 2007, CARB staff resolved an amount of 427 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2e as the total statewide GHG 1990 emissions level and 2020 emissions limit. The limit is a cumulative statewide limit, not a sector- or facility-specific limit. CARB updated the future 2020 BAU annual emissions forecast, due to the economic downturn, to 545 MMT of CO2e. Two GHG emissions reduction measures currently enacted that were not previously included in the 2008 Scoping Plan baseline inventory were included, further reducing the baseline inventory to 507 MMT of CO2e. Thus, an estimated reduction of 80 MMT of CO2e is necessary to reduce statewide emissions to meet the AB 32 target by 2020.

Executive Order B-30-15 & Senate Bill 32 GHG Reduction Targets – 2030 GHG Reduction Target In April 2015, Governor Brown signed EO B-30-15, which extended the goals of AB 32, setting a greenhouse gas emissions target at 40 percent of 1990 levels by 2030. On September 8, 2016, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 32, which legislatively established the GHG reduction target of 40 percent of 1990 levels by 2030. In November 2017, CARB issued California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan.
19 While the State is on track to exceed the AB 32 scoping plan 2020 targets, this plan is an update to reflect the enacted SB 32 reduction target.

SB 32 was passed in 2016, which codified a 2030 GHG emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels. CARB is currently working on a second update to the Scoping Plan to reflect the 2030 target set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. The proposed Scoping Plan Update was published on January 20, 2017 as directed by SB 32 companion legislation AB 197. The mid-term 2030 target is considered critical by CARB on the path to obtaining an even deeper GHG emissions target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, as directed in Executive Order S-3-05. The Scoping Plan outlines the suite of policy measures, regulations, planning efforts, 19 California Air Resource Board, 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Targets. November. Web:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf

31 and investments in clean technologies and infrastructure, providing a blueprint to continue driving down GHG emissions and obtain the statewide goals.

The new Scoping Plan establishes a strategy that will reduce GHG emissions in California to meet the 2030 target (note that the AB 32 Scoping Plan only addressed 2020 targets and a long-term goal). Key features of this plan are:
 Cap and Trade program places a firm limit on 80 percent of the State’s emissions.  Achieving a 50-percent Renewable Portfolio Standard by 2030 (currently at about 29 percent statewide).
 Increase energy efficiency in existing buildings.
 Develop fuels with an 18-percent reduction in carbon intensity.  Develop more high-density, transit-oriented housing.
 Develop walkable and bikeable communities.
 Greatly increase the number of electric vehicles on the road and reduce oil demand in half.
 Increase zero-emissions transit so that 100 percent of new buses are zero emissions.  Reduce freight-related emissions by transitioning to zero emissions where feasible and near-zero emissions with renewable fuels everywhere else, and  Reduce “super pollutants” by reducing methane and hydrofluorocarbons or HFCs by 40 percent.

In the updated Scoping Plan, CARB recommends statewide targets of no more than 6 metric tons CO2e per capita (statewide) by 2030 and no more than 2 metric tons CO2e per capita by 2050. The statewide per capita targets account for all emissions sectors in the State, statewide population forecasts, and the statewide reductions necessary to achieve the 2030 statewide target under SB 32 and the longer-term State emissions reduction goal of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Executive Order B-55-18 – Carbon Neutrality
In 2018, a new statewide goal was established to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and to maintain net negative emissions thereafter. CARB and other relevant state agencies are tasked with establishing sequestration targets and create policies/programs that would meet this goal.

Senate Bill 375 – California's Regional Transportation and Land Use Planning Efforts (2008) California enacted legislation (SB 375) to expand the efforts of AB 32 by controlling indirect GHG emissions caused by urban sprawl. SB 375 provides incentives for local governments and applicants to implement new conscientiously planned growth patterns. This includes incentives for creating attractive, walkable, and sustainable communities and revitalizing existing communities.

The legislation also allows applicants to bypass certain environmental reviews under CEQA if they build projects consistent with the new sustainable community strategies. Development of more alternative transportation options that would reduce vehicle trips and miles traveled, along with traffic congestion, would be encouraged. SB 375 enhances CARB’s ability to reach the AB 32 goals by directing the agency in developing regional GHG emission reduction targets to be

32 achieved from the transportation sector for 2020 and 2035. CARB works with the metropolitan planning organizations (e.g., Association of Bay Area Governments [ABAG] and Metropolitan Transportation Commission [MTC]) to align their regional transportation, housing, and land use plans to reduce vehicle miles traveled and demonstrate the region's ability to attain its GHG reduction targets. A similar process is used to reduce transportation emissions of ozone precursor pollutants in the Bay Area.

Senate Bill 350 - Renewable Portfolio Standards
In September 2015, the California Legislature passed SB 350, which increases the states Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) for content of electrical generation from the 33 percent target for 2020 to a 50 percent renewables target by 2030.

Senate Bill 100 – Current Renewable Portfolio Standards In September 2018, SB 100 was signed by Governor Brown to revise California’s RPS program goals, furthering California’s focus on using renewable energy and carbon-free power sources for its energy needs. The bill would require all California utilities to supply a specific percentage of their retail sales from renewable resources by certain target years. By December 31, 2024, 44 percent of the retails sales would need to be from renewable energy sources, by December 31, 2026 the target would be 40 percent, by December 31, 2017 the target would be 52 percent, and by December 31, 2030 the target would be 60 percent. By December 31, 2045, all California utilities would be required to supply retail electricity that is 100 percent carbon-free and sourced from eligible renewable energy resource to all California end-use customers.

California Building Standards Code – Title 24 Part 11 & Part 6 The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) is part of the California Building Standards Code under Title 24, Part 11.20 The CALGreen Code encourages sustainable construction standards that involve planning/design, energy efficiency, water efficiency resource efficiency, and environmental quality. These green building standard codes are mandatory statewide and are applicable to residential and non-residential developments. The most recent CALGreen Code (2019 California Building Standard Code) was effective as of January 1, 2020.

The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Code) is under Title 24, Part 6 and is overseen by the California Energy Commission (CEC). This code includes design requirements to conserve energy in new residential and non-residential developments, while being cost effective for homeowners. This Energy Code is enforced and verified by cities during the planning and building permit process. The current energy efficiency standards (2019 Energy Code) replaced the 2016 Energy Code as of January 1, 2020. Under the 2019 standards, single-family homes are predicted to be 53 percent more efficient than homes built under the 2016 standard due more stringent energy-efficiency standards and mandatory installation of solar photovoltaic systems. For nonresidential developments, it is predicted that these buildings will use 30 percent less energy due to lightening upgrades.21
20 See: https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Resources/Page-Content/Building-Standards-Commission-Resources-ListFolder/CALGreen#:~:text=CALGreen%20is%20the%20first%2Din,to%201990%20levels%20by%202020. 21 See: https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ_ada.pdf

33 Federal and Statewide GHG Emissions
The U.S. EPA reported that in 2018, total gross nationwide GHG emissions were 6,676.6 million metric tons (MMT) carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e).22 These emissions were lower than peak levels of 7,416 MMT that were emitted in 2007. CARB updates the statewide GHG emission inventory on an annual basis where the latest inventory includes 2000 through 2018 emissions.23 In 2018, GHG emissions from statewide emitting activities were 425 MMT. Per capita GHG emissions in California have dropped from a 2001 peak of 14.0 MMT per person to 10.7 MMT per person in 2018, a 24 percent decrease. They are also 6 MMT below the 1990 emissions level and the State’s 2020 GHG limit. The most recent Bay Area emission inventory was computed for the year 2011.24 The Bay Area GHG emission were 87 MMT. As a point of comparison, statewide emissions were about 444 MMT in 2011.

City of Milpitas Climate Action Plan
In May 2013, the City of Milpitas’ Climate Action Plan (CAP) was adopted.25 It is designed to streamline environmental review of future development projects in the City of Milpitas consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b) and BAAQMD Air Quality Guidelines. The CAP identifies a strategy, reduction measures, and implementation strategies to comply with AB 32 and SB 375. The CAP establishes a local GHG reduction target of 15% below baseline 2005 emissions levels by 2020 which matches the State’s goals. The purpose of the reduction target is to identify a level of community GHG emissions below which emissions would not be cumulatively considerable under the State and BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. The CAP does not have a specific metric ton GHG threshold for project-level construction or operation. Therefore, the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guideline’s thresholds are used.

Milpitas Metro Specific Plan (formerly Transit Area Specific Plan) In early 2019, the city began updating the Transit Area Specific Plan (TASP) to enrich the Plan’s scope and character of development and to update the goals and strategies to reflect current and future needs for the Plan area. The updated document is called the Milpitas Metro Specific Plan (MMSP). When completed, the MMSP will be accompanied by a SEIR to assess and mitigate, as feasible, the impacts of the Plan, of which this project is a part. As previously noted, the MMSP would replace the TASP, for which a prior EIR was prepared.26 The SEIR analysis will focus on the potential impacts of the changes to the MMSP and will not reassess the Plan as a whole. 22 United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2020. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2018. April. Web: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-04/documents/us-ghg-inventory-2020- main-text.pdf
23 CARB. 2020. 2020 Edition, California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory: 2000 – 2018. Web:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2018/ghg_inventory_trends_00-18.pdf 24 BAAQMD. 2015. Bay Area Emissions Inventory Summary Report: Greenhouse Gases Base Year 2011. January.

Web: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/emission-inventory/by2011_ghgsummary.pdf accessed Nov. 26, 2019.
25 City of Milpitas, Climate Action Plan – A Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy, May 2013. Web:
https://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/_pdfs/Climate_ActionPlan.pdf 26 TASP DEIR available at https://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/_pdfs/plan_eir_tasp_draft.pdf

34 Accordingly, the SEIR examines the Plan in the context of the 2007 EIR focusing on the changes to environmental impacts and mitigation that would result from its revisions.

The 2007 TASP EIS identified several Plan policies that would reduce GHG emissions. They include:

Policy 3.16: Establish and implement a travel demand management (TDM) program in order to encourage alternate modes of travel and thereby reduce automobile trips.

Policy 3.21: Provide continuous pedestrian sidewalks and safe bike travel routes throughout the entire Transit Area and within development projects.

Policy 3.28: Provide continuous bicycle circulation through the project site and to adjacent areas by closing existing gaps in bicycle lanes and bicycle routes.

Policy 3.28: Provide continuous bicycle circulation through the project site and to adjacent areas by closing existing gaps in bicycle lanes and bicycle routes.

By implementing the TSAP and subsequent MMSP, GHG emissions in the city will be reduced by reducing VMT in the area and encouraging walking, biking, and use of public transportation.

BAAQMD Significance Thresholds
For quantified emissions, the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommended a GHG threshold of 1,100 metric tons or 4.6 metric tons (MT) per capita. These thresholds were developed based on meeting the 2020 GHG targets set in the scoping plan that addressed AB 32. Development of the project would occur beyond 2020, so a threshold that addresses a future target is appropriate.

Although BAAQMD has not published a quantified threshold for 2030 yet, this assessment uses a bright-line threshold of 660 MT CO2e/year based on the GHG reduction goals of EO B-30-15. The 2030 bright-line threshold of 660 MT CO2e/year is a 40 percent reduction of the 2020 1,100 MT CO2e/year threshold.

Impact GHG-1: Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
GHG emissions associated with development of the proposed project would occur over the shortterm from construction activities, consisting primarily of emissions from equipment exhaust and worker and vendor trips. There would also be long-term operational emissions associated with vehicular traffic on the new bridge and roadway connection. Emissions for the proposed project are discussed below and were analyzed using the methodology recommended in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.

Emissions Modeling
Both RCEM and CalEEMod were used to predict GHG emissions from construction and operation of the new roadway connection as previously described in Impact AIR-1. The project’s daily traffic

35 estimate and other project-specific information were input to the emissions models, as previously described. RCEM and CalEEMod outputs are included in Attachment 2.

Existing Uses
A CalEEMod run was developed to estimate GHG emissions from the existing land use. The project land use types, sizes, and other project-specific information were input to the model, as previously described. CalEEMod output is included in Attachment 2.

Construction Emissions
GHG emissions associated with construction were computed to be 608 MT of CO2e for the 18- month construction period. These are the emissions from on-site operation of construction equipment, vendor and hauling truck trips, and worker trips. Neither the City nor BAAQMD have an adopted threshold of significance for construction related GHG emissions, though BAAQMD recommends quantifying emissions and disclosing that GHG emissions would occur during construction. BAAQMD also encourages the incorporation of best management practices to reduce GHG emissions during construction where feasible and applicable.

Operational Emissions
The EMFAC2021 and CT-EMFAC2017 emissions models, along with the projected AADT for the new connection were used to estimate daily emissions associated with operation of the proposed project. As shown in Table 10, the net annual emissions resulting from operation of the proposed project are predicted to be a reduction of 353 MT of CO2e in 2030. As shown in Table 10, the project would not exceed the 660 MT CO2e/year bright-line threshold in 2024 or 2030.

Therefore, the project would not be significant for GHG emissions.

Table 10. Annual Project GHG Emissions (CO2e) in Metric Tons Source Category
Existing Use
(MT CO2e/yr)
Proposed
Project
(MT CO2e/yr)
2030 2030
Area 0.0 NA
Energy Consumption 106.8 NA
Mobile 227.5 10.3
Solid Waste Generation 19.3 NA
Water Usage 9.7 NA
Total Emissions (MT CO2e/yr) 363.3 10.3
Net Emissions Decrease
(MT CO2e/yr) 353.1
Bright-Line Significance Threshold 660 MT CO2e/year
Exceed threshold? No

36 Impact GHG-2: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The proposed project would not conflict or otherwise interfere with the statewide GHG reduction measures identified in CARB’s Scoping Plan. Vehicles using the new connection would be subject to CARB emissions standards which are projected to reduce the amount of GHGs emitted in future.

The project would also reduce vehicle miles traveled in the area by providing a more direct travel route from new high-density residential areas to major roadways and transit centers. The project would also facilitate biking and walking trips to the nearby transit centers.

37 Supporting Documentation
Attachment 1 is the methodology used to compute community risk impacts, including the methods to compute lifetime cancer risk from exposure to project emissions.

Attachment 2 includes the RCEM and CalEEMod modeling assumptions and outputs for project construction criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions. The operational outputs for existing uses are also included in this attachment.

Attachment 3 includes the traffic volumes, lengths, and EMFAC2021/CT-EMFAC2017 emissions factors used to estimate emissions from operation of the project The input files for these calculations are voluminous and are available upon request in digital format.

Attachment 4 is the project’s construction and operations health risk assessment. AERMOD dispersion modeling files for this assessment, which are quite voluminous, are available upon request and would be provided in digital format.

Attachment 5 includes the major roadway and stationary source emissions information.

Attachment 6 includes the Cumulative Community Health Risk Impacts.

Attachment 1: Health Risk Calculation Methodology
A health risk assessment (HRA) for exposure to Toxic Air Contaminates (TACs) requires the application of a risk characterization model to the results from the air dispersion model to estimate potential health risk at each sensitive receptor location. The State of California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and California Air Resources Board (CARB) develop recommended methods for conducting health risk assessments. The most recent OEHHA risk assessment guidelines were published in February of 2015.27 These guidelines incorporate substantial changes designed to provide for enhanced protection of children, as required by State law, compared to previous published risk assessment guidelines. CARB has provided additional guidance on implementing OEHHA’s recommended methods.28 This HRA used the 2015 OEHHA risk assessment guidelines and CARB guidance. The BAAQMD has adopted recommended procedures for applying the newest OEHHA guidelines as part of Regulation 2, Rule 5: New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants.29 Exposure parameters from the OEHHA guidelines and the recent BAAQMD HRA Guidelines were used in this evaluation.

Cancer Risk
Potential increased cancer risk from inhalation of TACs is calculated based on the TAC concentration over the period of exposure, inhalation dose, the TAC cancer potency factor, and an age sensitivity factor to reflect the greater sensitivity of infants and children to cancer causing TACs. The inhalation dose depends on a person’s breathing rate, exposure time and frequency and duration of exposure. These parameters vary depending on the age, or age range, of the persons being exposed and whether the exposure is considered to occur at a residential location or other sensitive receptor location.

The current OEHHA guidance recommends that cancer risk be calculated by age groups to account for different breathing rates and sensitivity to TACs. Specifically, they recommend evaluating risks for the third trimester of pregnancy to age zero, ages zero to less than two (infant exposure), ages two to less than 16 (child exposure), and ages 16 to 70 (adult exposure). Age sensitivity factors (ASFs) associated with the different types of exposure are an ASF of 10 for the third trimester and infant exposures, an ASF of 3 for a child exposure, and an ASF of 1 for an adult exposure. Also associated with each exposure type are different breathing rates, expressed as liters per kilogram of body weight per day (L/kg-day) or liters per kilogram of body weight per 8-hour period for the case of worker or school child exposures. As recommended by the BAAQMD for residential exposures, 95th percentile breathing rates are used for the third trimester and infant exposures, and 80th percentile breathing rates for child and adult exposures. For children at schools and daycare facilities, BAAQMD recommends using the 95th percentile 8-hour breathing rates.

Additionally, CARB and the BAAQMD recommend the use of a residential exposure duration of 30 years for sources with long-term emissions (e.g., roadways). For workers, assumed to be adults, 27 OEHHA, 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

February.
28 CARB, 2015. Risk Management Guidance for Stationary Sources of Air Toxics. July 23. 29 BAAQMD, 2016. BAAQMD Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment (HRA) Guidelines. December 2016.

a 25-year exposure period is recommended by the BAAQMD. For school children a 9-year exposure period is recommended by the BAAQMD.

Under previous OEHHA and BAAQMD HRA guidance, residential receptors are assumed to be at their home 24 hours a day, or 100 percent of the time. In the 2015 Risk Assessment Guidance, OEHHA includes adjustments to exposure duration to account for the fraction of time at home (FAH), which can be less than 100 percent of the time, based on updated population and activity statistics. The FAH factors are age-specific and are: 0.85 for third trimester of pregnancy to less than 2 years old, 0.72 for ages 2 to less than 16 years, and 0.73 for ages 16 to 70 years. Use of the FAH factors is allowed by the BAAQMD if there are no schools in the project vicinity have a cancer risk of one in a million or greater assuming 100 percent exposure (FAH = 1.0).

Functionally, cancer risk is calculated using the following parameters and formulas:

Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 106 Where:

CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)
FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless)
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR* x A x (EF/365) x 10-6
Where:

Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3
)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
8HrBR = 8-hour breathing rate (L/kg body weight-8 hours) A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
10-6 = Conversion factor
* An 8-hour breathing rate (8HrBR) is used for worker and school child exposures.

The health risk parameters used in this evaluation are summarized as follows:

Exposure Type  Infant Child Adult
Parameter Age Range  3rd
Trimester
0<2 2 < 16 16 - 30
DPM Cancer Potency Factor (mg/kg-day)-1 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 Daily Breathing Rate (L/kg-day) 80th Percentile Rate 273 758 572 261 Daily Breathing Rate (L/kg-day) 95th Percentile Rate 361 1,090 745 335 8-hour Breathing Rate (L/kg-8 hours) 95th Percentile Rate - 1,200 520 240 Inhalation Absorption Factor 1 1 1 1
Averaging Time (years) 70 70 70 70
Exposure Duration (years) 0.25 2 14 14*
Exposure Frequency (days/year) 350 350 350 350*
Age Sensitivity Factor 10 10 3 1
Fraction of Time at Home (FAH) 0.85-1.0 0.85-1.0 0.72-1.0 0.73*

Non-Cancer Hazards
Non-cancer health risk is usually determined by comparing the predicted level of exposure to a chemical to the level of exposure that is not expected to cause any adverse effects (reference exposure level), even to the most susceptible people. Potential non-cancer health hazards from TAC exposure are expressed in terms of a hazard index (HI), which is the ratio of the TAC concentration to a reference exposure level (REL). OEHHA has defined acceptable concentration levels for contaminants that pose non-cancer health hazards. TAC concentrations below the REL are not expected to cause adverse health impacts, even for sensitive individuals. The total HI is calculated as the sum of the HIs for each TAC evaluated and the total HI is compared to the BAAQMD significance thresholds to determine whether a significant non-cancer health impact from a project would occur.

Typically, for residential projects located near roadways with substantial TAC emissions, the primary TAC of concern with non-cancer health effects is diesel particulate matter (DPM). For DPM, the chronic inhalation REL is 5 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3).

Annual PM2.5 Concentrations
While not a TAC, fine particulate matter (PM2.5) has been identified by the BAAQMD as a pollutant with potential non-cancer health effects that should be included when evaluating potential community health impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The thresholds of significance for PM2.5 (project level and cumulative) are in terms of an increase in the annual average concentration. When considering PM2.5 impacts, the contribution from all sources of PM2.5 emissions should be included. For projects with potential impacts from nearby local roadways, the PM2.5 impacts should include those from vehicle exhaust emissions, PM2.5 generated from vehicle tire and brake wear, and fugitive emissions from re-suspended dust on the roads.

Attachment 2: RCEM and CalEEMod Modeling Output

Off-road Equipment - Demo Only
Trips and VMT - Demo OnlyDemolition - Existing office building to be demo-ed to make way for roadway connectivity project. Existing Building: approximate 42,000 SF. Existing Pavement: approximate 70 000 SF Grading - Off-road Equipment - Demo OnlyOff-road Equipment - Demo OnlyOff-road Equipment - Demo Emissions only, CalEEMod Default onlyOff-road Equipment - Demo OnlyOff-road Equipment - Demo Only

0.004

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics - Roadway/Bridge Project with building Demo. RCEM used for roadway and bridge construction emissions. CalEEMod used for estimating emissions from building Demo Land Use - Using CalEEMod for Demo Emissions onlyConstruction Phase - Demo Emissions only CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr)
203.98 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.033 N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Climate Zone 4 Operational Year 2024Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 58 Other Asphalt Surfaces 1.06 Acre 1.06 46,173.60
Milpitas Blvd Bridge and Roadway Project
Santa Clara County, Annual

1.0 Project Characteristics1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/2/2021 4:49 PM
Milpitas Blvd Bridge and Roadway Project - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/2/2021 4:49 PM
Milpitas Blvd Bridge and Roadway Project - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 0.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 2.00 0.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 200.00 0.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 4.00 0.00 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 0.00
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 FinaltblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 FinaltblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 FinaltblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadMoistureContent 0 12 Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - T4 mitigation, Consistent with RCEM analysis. Enhanced Fug Dust Mit

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/2/2021 4:49 PM
Milpitas Blvd Bridge and Roadway Project - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 19.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 4.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 8.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/2/2021 4:49 PM
Milpitas Blvd Bridge and Roadway Project - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e

5.5800e003 2.4300e- 003 36.8684
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2

6.3000e004 3.9000e-004 0.0266 6.4000e- 3.6600e-003 0.0000 36.0039 36.0039 004 0.0273 3.0300e- 003 Maximum 3.4700e- 003 0.0464 0.1498

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

5.5800e003 2.4300e- 003 36.8684
2024 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

6.3000e004 3.9000e-004 0.0266 6.4000e- 3.6600e-003 0.0000 36.0039 36.0039 004 0.0273 3.0300e- 003 2023 3.4700e- 003 0.0464 0.1498 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO

5.5800e003 2.4300e- 003 36.8685
Mitigated Construction

5.9000e003 3.9000e-004 0.0602 6.2900e- 0.0157 0.0000 36.0039 36.0039 003 0.0665 9.7400e- 003 Maximum 0.0144 0.1627 0.1328

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

5.5800e003 2.4300e- 003 36.8685
2024 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

5.9000e003 3.9000e-004 0.0602 6.2900e- 0.0157 0.0000 36.0039 36.0039 003 0.0665 9.7400e- 003 2023 0.0144 0.1627 0.1328 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4

2.1 Overall Construction
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/2/2021 4:49 PM
Milpitas Blvd Bridge and Roadway Project - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Mitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

2.0000e005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e- 005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 3.9500e003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e005
Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e005 2.0000e- 005 Area 3.9500e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4

2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
Highest 0.1651 0.0469
1 10-16-2023 1-15-2024 0.1651 0.0469
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Reduction

75.85 71.48 -12.80 0.00 55.83 89.83 59.04 68.89 89.32 76.61 0.00

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/2/2021 4:49 PM
Milpitas Blvd Bridge and Roadway Project - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 50 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 9/10/2024 9/9/2024 50 5 Paving Paving 8/27/2024 8/26/2024 5 04 Building Construction Building Construction 11/21/2023 11/20/2023 50 3 Grading Grading 11/15/2023 11/14/2023 5 02 Site Preparation Site Preparation 11/11/2023 11/10/2023 Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 10/16/2023 11/10/2023 5 20
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date

0.00 0.00 0.00

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PM2.5
Total
Fugitive Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO SO2

2.0000e005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e- 005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 3.9500e003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e005
Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e005 2.0000e- 005 Area 3.9500e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 Category tons/yr MT/yr

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/2/2021 4:49 PM
Milpitas Blvd Bridge and Roadway Project - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

0.48 Trips and VMT
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 0 0.00 78

0.38 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 0.00 97 0.37Paving Rollers 0 0.00 80

0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 0 0.00 132 0.36Paving Pavers 0 0.00 130

0.45 Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 0 0.00 9 0.56Building Construction Welders 0 0.00 46

0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 0.00 97 0.37Building Construction Generator Sets 0 0.00 84

0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 0 0.00 89 0.20Building Construction Cranes 0 0.00 231

0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 0.00 97 0.37Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 0 0.00 247

0.37 Grading Graders 0 0.00 187 0.41Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 0.00 97

0.41 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 0 0.00 247 0.40Site Preparation Graders 0 0.00 187

0.40 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247

0.73 Demolition Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 Acres of Paving: 1.06
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 2,770 (Architectural OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/2/2021 4:49 PM
Milpitas Blvd Bridge and Roadway Project - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

20.1517 20.1517 5.0400e003 0.0000 20.2778

5.0400e003 0.0000 20.2778
Total 0.0136 0.1280 0.1225 2.3000e-004 0.0551 6.0100e003 0.0611 8.3500e- 003 5.6300e- 003 0.0140 0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road 0.0136 0.1280 0.1225 2.3000e-004 6.0100e003 6.0100e-003 5.6300e- 003 5.6300e-003 0.0000 20.1517 20.1517

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0551 0.0000 0.0551 8.3500e003 0.0000 8.3500e-003 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O
Water Unpaved RoadsReduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads

3.2 Demolition - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
HHDT

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction EquipmentReplace Ground CoverWater Exposed Area Architectural Coating 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTBuilding Construction 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTSite Preparation 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix Hauling Vehicle
Class
Demolition 4 10.00 0.00 509.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor Vehicle
Class

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/2/2021 4:49 PM
Milpitas Blvd Bridge and Roadway Project - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

5.0400e003 3.6000e- 0.0000 20.2778 004 2.3000e-004 0.0215 3.6000e- 1.9900e-003 0.0000 20.1517 20.1517 004 0.0219 1.6300e- 003 Total 2.6900e- 003 0.0116 0.1395

20.1517 20.1517 5.0400e003 0.0000 20.2778

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.6900e003 0.0116 0.1395 2.3000e-004 3.6000e- 004 3.6000e-004 3.6000e- 004 3.6000e-004 0.0000

0.0215 0.0000 0.0215 1.6300e- 0.0000 1.6300e-003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 003
Fugitive Dust
N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

15.8522 15.8522 5.4000e004 2.4400e- 003 16.5906

2.0000e005 2.0000e- 005 0.6168
Total 7.8000e004 0.0348 0.0103 1.6000e-004 5.1100e- 003 2.8000e- 004 5.4000e-003 1.4000e- 003 2.7000e- 004 1.6700e-003 0.0000

1.0000e-005 7.9000e- 0.0000 2.1000e-004 0.0000 0.6114 0.6114 004

0.0000 8.0000e-004 2.1000e004 Worker 2.5000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 2.2400e-003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

5.2000e004 2.4200e- 003 15.9738
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

2.7000e004 1.5000e-004 4.3200e- 1.4600e-003 0.0000 15.2408 15.2408 003 2.8000e- 004 4.6000e-003 1.1900e- 003 Hauling 5.3000e- 004 0.0346 8.0200e-003 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/2/2021 4:49 PM
Milpitas Blvd Bridge and Roadway Project - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4

3.3 Site Preparation - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

15.8522 15.8522 5.4000e004 2.4400e- 003 16.5906

2.0000e005 2.0000e- 005 0.6168
Total 7.8000e004 0.0348 0.0103 1.6000e-004 5.1100e- 003 2.8000e- 004 5.4000e-003 1.4000e- 003 2.7000e- 004 1.6700e-003 0.0000

1.0000e-005 7.9000e- 0.0000 2.1000e-004 0.0000 0.6114 0.6114 004

0.0000 8.0000e-004 2.1000e004 Worker 2.5000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 2.2400e-003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

5.2000e004 2.4200e- 003 15.9738
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

2.7000e004 1.5000e-004 4.3200e- 1.4600e-003 0.0000 15.2408 15.2408 003 2.8000e- 004 4.6000e-003 1.1900e- 003 Hauling 5.3000e- 004 0.0346 8.0200e-003 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/2/2021 4:49 PM
Milpitas Blvd Bridge and Roadway Project - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

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

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/2/2021 4:49 PM
Milpitas Blvd Bridge and Roadway Project - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4

3.4 Grading - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/2/2021 4:49 PM
Milpitas Blvd Bridge and Roadway Project - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

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

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/2/2021 4:49 PM
Milpitas Blvd Bridge and Roadway Project - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/2/2021 4:49 PM
Milpitas Blvd Bridge and Roadway Project - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

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

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/2/2021 4:49 PM
Milpitas Blvd Bridge and Roadway Project - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Exhaust CH4 N2O CO2e
PM2.5
SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4

3.6 Paving - 2024
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Category tons/yr MT/yr

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/2/2021 4:49 PM
Milpitas Blvd Bridge and Roadway Project - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Exhaust CH4 N2O CO2e
PM2.5
SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

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

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Category tons/yr MT/yr

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/2/2021 4:49 PM
Milpitas Blvd Bridge and Roadway Project - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Exhaust CH4 N2O CO2e
PM2.5
SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Archit. Coating 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Category tons/yr MT/yr

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/2/2021 4:49 PM
Milpitas Blvd Bridge and Roadway Project - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Exhaust CH4 N2O CO2e
PM2.5
SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

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

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Category tons/yr MT/yr

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/2/2021 4:49 PM
Milpitas Blvd Bridge and Roadway Project - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Category tons/yr MT/yr

Bridge_Output
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 9.0.0
Daily Emission Estimates for -> Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Project Phases (Pounds) ROG (lbs/day) CO (lbs/day) NOx (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) SOx (lbs/day) CO2 (lbs/day) CH4 (lbs/day) N2O (lbs/day) CO2e (lbs/day)Grubbing/Land Clearing 1.44 10.75 14.90 1.44 0.64 0.80 0.75 0.58 0.17 0.02 2,411.11 0.74 0.02 2,436.70Grading/Excavation 1.82 15.81 20.39 1.73 0.93 0.80 0.92 0.75 0.17 0.05 5,012.08 0.86 0.29 5,121.34Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 1.67 14.19 16.54 1.57 0.77 0.80 0.84 0.67 0.17 0.03 3,080.76 0.84 0.04 3,112.56Paving 1.23 12.26 11.83 0.53 0.53 0.00 0.47 0.47 0.00 0.03 2,880.29 0.79 0.05 2,913.99Maximum (pounds/day) 3.26 26.56 35.29 3.18 1.58 1.60 1.67 1.34 0.33 0.08 7,423.18 1.64 0.32 7,558.04Total (tons/construction project) 0.06 0.56 0.59 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 136.83 0.04 0.00 138.69 Notes: Project Start Year -> 2023
Project Length (months) -> 4
Total Project Area (acres) -> 0
Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (acres) -> 0
Water Truck Used? -> No
Phase Soil Asphalt Soil Hauling Asphalt Hauling Worker Commute Water Truck Grubbing/Land Clearing 0 00 0 200 0
Grading/Excavation 135 0 420 0 1,120 0
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0 00 0 720 0
Paving 0 0 0 30 320 0
CO2e emissions are estimated by multiplying mass emissions for each GHG by its global warming potential (GWP), 1 , 25 and 298 for CO2, CH4 and N2O, respectively. Total CO2e is then estimated by summing CO2e estimates over all GHGs.

Total Emission Estimates by Phase for -> Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Project Phases (Tons for all except CO2e. Metric tonnes for CO2e) ROG (tons/phase) CO (tons/phase) NOx (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) SOx (tons/phase) CO2 (tons/phase) CH4 (tons/phase) N2O (tons/phase) CO2e (MT/phase) Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.01 0.05 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.61 0.00 0.00 9.73Grading/Excavation 0.01 0.09 0.11 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.57 0.00 0.00 25.55Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.78 0.00 0.00 6.21Paving 0.04 0.39 0.38 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 91.88 0.03 0.00 84.33Maximum (tons/phase) 0.04 0.39 0.38 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 91.88 0.03 0.00 84.33Total (tons/construction project) 0.06 0.56 0.59 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 136.83 0.04 0.00 125.82CO2e emissions are estimated by multiplying mass emissions for each GHG by its global warming potential (GWP), 1 , 25 and 298 for CO2, CH4 and N2O, respectively. Total CO2e is then estimated by summing CO2e estimates over all GHGs.The CO2e emissions are reported as metric tons per phase.PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns G and H. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column I are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns J and K.

Milpitas Blvd. Bridge
Total Material Imported/Exported
Volume (yd3/day) Daily VMT (miles/day)
PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns G and H. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column I are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns J and K.

Milpitas Blvd. Bridge

Bridge_Adj
Worker Commute Emissions ‐RCEM
Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CO2ePounds per day ‐ Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.02974687 0.463082407 0.03841911 0.0204571 0.0084945 141.5687898 142.7087 Tons per const. Period ‐ Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.000130886 0.002037563 0.00016904 9.0011E‐05 3.7376E‐05 0.622902675 0.627918 Pounds per day ‐ Grading/Excavation 0.166582471 2.593261477 0.21514703 0.11455976 0.04756922 792.7852229 799.1685Tons per const. Period ‐ Grading/Excavation 0.000916204 0.014262938 0.00118331 0.00063008 0.00026163 4.360318726 4.395427 Pounds per day ‐ Drainage/Utilities/Sub‐Grade 0.107088731 1.667096664 0.13830881 0.07364556 0.03058021 509.6476433 513.7512 Tons per const. Period ‐ Drainage/Utilities/Sub‐Grade 0.000235595 0.003667613 0.00030428 0.00016202 6.7276E‐05 1.121224815 1.130253 Pounds per day ‐ Paving 0.047594992 0.740931851 0.06147058 0.03273136 0.01359121 226.5100637 228.3339 Tons per const. Period ‐ Paving 0.00151828 0.023635726 0.00196091 0.00104413 0.00043356 7.225671032 7.28385 Total tons per construction project 0.002800965 0.043603839 0.00361754 0.00192624 0.00079984 13.33011725 13.43745 SAFE Adjustment Factors for EMFAC2017 Gasoline Light Duty Vehicles Year TOG Exhaust CO Exhaust NOx Exhaust
2023 1.0007 1.0027 1.0007
Worker Commute Emissions ‐SAFE AdjustedEmissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CO2ePounds per day ‐ Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.029767693 0.464332729 0.03844601 0.02052256 0.00852169 143.3525566 144.3269 Tons per const. Period ‐ Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.000130978 0.002043064 0.00016916 9.0299E‐05 3.7495E‐05 0.630751249 0.635038 Pounds per day ‐ Grading/Excavation 0.166699078 2.600263283 0.21529764 0.11492635 0.04772144 802.7743167 808.2305Tons per const. Period ‐ Grading/Excavation 0.000916845 0.014301448 0.00118414 0.00063209 0.00026247 4.415258742 4.445268 Pounds per day ‐ Drainage/Utilities/Sub‐Grade 0.107163693 1.671597825 0.13840562 0.07388123 0.03067807 516.0692036 519.5767 Tons per const. Period ‐ Drainage/Utilities/Sub‐Grade 0.00023576 0.003677515 0.00030449 0.00016254 6.7492E‐05 1.135352248 1.143069 Pounds per day ‐ Paving 0.047628308 0.742932367 0.06151361 0.0328361 0.0136347 229.3640905 230.923Tons per const. Period ‐ Paving 0.001519343 0.023699542 0.00196228 0.00104747 0.00043495 7.316714487 7.366444 Total tons per construction project 0.002802926 0.04372157 0.00362008 0.0019324 0.0008024 13.49807673 13.58982 PM Exhaust

1.0032
CO2 Exhaust

1.0126
RCEM_SAFE Adjustments_NoMit.xlsx

Bridge_Emissions
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 9.0.0SAFE Adjustments Applied Daily Emission Estimates for -> Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Project Phases (Pounds) ROG (lbs/day) CO (lbs/day) NOx (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) SOx (lbs/day) CO2 (lbs/day) CH4 (lbs/day) N2O (lbs/day) CO2e (lbs/day)Grubbing/Land Clearing 1.44 10.75 14.90 1.44 0.64 0.80 0.75 0.58 0.17 0.02 2,412.89 0.74 0.02 2,438.31Grading/Excavation 1.82 15.82 20.39 1.73 0.94 0.80 0.92 0.75 0.17 0.05 5,022.06 0.86 0.29 5,130.40Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 1.67 14.19 16.54 1.57 0.77 0.80 0.84 0.67 0.17 0.03 6.42 0.84 0.04 3,118.38Paving 1.23 12.26 11.83 0.53 0.53 0.00 0.47 0.47 0.00 0.03 2,883.15 0.79 0.05 2,916.58Maximum (pounds/day) 3.26 26.56 35.29 3.18 1.58 1.60 1.67 1.34 0.33 0.08 7,423.18 1.64 0.32 7,558.04Total (tons/construction project) 0.06 0.56 0.59 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 137.00 0.04 0.00 138.84 Notes: Project Start Year -> 2023
Project Length (months) -> 4
Total Project Area (acres) -> 0
Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (acres) -> 0
Water Truck Used? -> No
Phase Soil Asphalt Soil Hauling Asphalt Hauling Worker Commute Water Truck Grubbing/Land Clearing 0 00 0 200 0
Grading/Excavation 135 0 420 0 1,120 0
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0 00 0 720 0
Paving 0 0 0 30 320 0
CO2e emissions are estimated by multiplying mass emissions for each GHG by its global warming potential (GWP), 1 , 25 and 298 for CO2, CH4 and N2O, respectively. Total CO2e is then estimated by summing CO2e estimates over all GHGs.

Total Emission Estimates by Phase for -> Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Project Phases (Tons for all except CO2e. Metric tonnes for CO2e) ROG (tons/phase) CO (tons/phase) NOx (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) SOx (tons/phase) CO2 (tons/phase) CH4 (tons/phase) N2O (tons/phase) CO2e (MT/phase) Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.01 0.05 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.62 0.00 0.00 9.73Grading/Excavation 0.01 0.09 0.11 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.62 0.00 0.00 25.60Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.79 0.00 0.00 6.22Paving 0.04 0.39 0.38 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 91.97 0.03 0.00 84.41Maximum (tons/phase) 0.04 0.39 0.38 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 91.88 0.03 0.00 84.33Total (tons/construction project) 0.06 0.56 0.59 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 137.00 0.04 0.00 125.97CO2e emissions are estimated by multiplying mass emissions for each GHG by its global warming potential (GWP), 1 , 25 and 298 for CO2, CH4 and N2O, respectively. Total CO2e is then estimated by summing CO2e estimates over all GHGs.The CO2e emissions are reported as metric tons per phase.PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns G and H. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column I are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns J and K.

Milpitas Blvd. Bridge
Total Material Imported/Exported
Volume (yd3/day) Daily VMT (miles/day)
PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns G and H. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column I are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns J and K.

Milpitas Blvd. Bridge
RCEM_SAFE Adjustments_NoMit.xlsx

Roadway_Output
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 9.0.0
Daily Emission Estimates for -> Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Project Phases (Pounds) ROG (lbs/day) CO (lbs/day) NOx (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) SOx (lbs/day) CO2 (lbs/day) CH4 (lbs/day) N2O (lbs/day) CO2e (lbs/day)Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.66 5.91 7.06 10.30 0.30 10.00 2.34 0.26 2.08 0.02 1,523.91 0.41 0.04 1,545.52Grading/Excavation 3.10 31.10 32.04 11.38 1.38 10.00 3.29 1.21 2.08 0.07 7,277.87 1.98 0.18 7,380.86Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 2.46 25.63 23.55 11.00 1.00 10.00 2.99 0.91 2.08 0.05 5,235.69 1.07 0.07 5,284.14Paving 0.85 12.79 9.05 0.45 0.45 0.00 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.03 2,581.80 0.56 0.12 2,630.46Maximum (pounds/day) 3.76 38.42 39.11 21.68 1.68 20.00 5.63 1.47 4.16 0.09 8,801.77 2.39 0.22 8,926.38Total (tons/construction project) 0.19 2.27 1.96 0.58 0.09 0.50 0.18 0.08 0.10 0.00 482.48 0.11 0.01 489.68 Notes: Project Start Year -> 2023
Project Length (months) -> 12
Total Project Area (acres) -> 1
Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (acres) -> 1
Water Truck Used? -> Yes
Phase Soil Asphalt Soil Hauling Asphalt Hauling Worker Commute Water Truck Grubbing/Land Clearing 0 00 0 160 40
Grading/Excavation 48 0 150 0 680 40
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0 00 0 560 40
Paving 0 0 0 120 400 40
CO2e emissions are estimated by multiplying mass emissions for each GHG by its global warming potential (GWP), 1 , 25 and 298 for CO2, CH4 and N2O, respectively. Total CO2e is then estimated by summing CO2e estimates over all GHGs.

Total Emission Estimates by Phase for -> Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Project Phases (Tons for all except CO2e. Metric tonnes for CO2e) ROG (tons/phase) CO (tons/phase) NOx (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) SOx (tons/phase) CO2 (tons/phase) CH4 (tons/phase) N2O (tons/phase) CO2e (MT/phase) Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 8.38 0.00 0.00 7.71Grading/Excavation 0.07 0.68 0.70 0.25 0.03 0.22 0.07 0.03 0.05 0.00 160.11 0.04 0.00 147.31Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.05 0.56 0.52 0.24 0.02 0.22 0.07 0.02 0.05 0.00 115.19 0.02 0.00 105.46Paving 0.07 0.98 0.70 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 198.80 0.04 0.01 183.75Maximum (tons/phase) 0.07 0.98 0.70 0.25 0.03 0.22 0.07 0.03 0.05 0.00 198.80 0.04 0.01 183.75Total (tons/construction project) 0.19 2.27 1.96 0.58 0.09 0.50 0.18 0.08 0.10 0.00 482.48 0.11 0.01 444.23CO2e emissions are estimated by multiplying mass emissions for each GHG by its global warming potential (GWP), 1 , 25 and 298 for CO2, CH4 and N2O, respectively. Total CO2e is then estimated by summing CO2e estimates over all GHGs.The CO2e emissions are reported as metric tons per phase.PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns G and H. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column I are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns J and K.

Milpitas Blvd. Road Extension
Total Material Imported/Exported
Volume (yd3/day) Daily VMT (miles/day)
PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns G and H. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column I are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns J and K.

Milpitas Blvd. Road Extension

Roadway_Adj
Worker Commute Emissions ‐RCEM
Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CO2ePounds per day ‐ Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.023797496 0.370465925 0.03073529 0.01636568 0.0067956 113.2550318 114.1669 Tons per const. Period ‐ Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.000130886 0.002037563 0.00016904 9.0011E‐05 3.7376E‐05 0.622902675 0.627918 Pounds per day ‐ Grading/Excavation 0.097336504 1.51472249 0.12260992 0.06949953 0.02883098 472.9203621 476.6332Tons per const. Period ‐ Grading/Excavation 0.002141403 0.033323895 0.00269742 0.00152899 0.00063428 10.40424797 10.48593 Pounds per day ‐ Drainage/Utilities/Sub‐Grade 0.077112354 1.199536364 0.09455063 0.05719115 0.02370282 382.7223083 385.6495 Tons per const. Period ‐ Drainage/Utilities/Sub‐Grade 0.001696472 0.0263898 0.00208011 0.00125821 0.00052146 8.419890782 8.484289 Pounds per day ‐ Paving 0.055080253 0.856811689 0.06753617 0.04085082 0.01693059 273.3730773 275.4639 Tons per const. Period ‐ Paving 0.004241179 0.0659745 0.00520028 0.00314551 0.00130366 21.04972696 21.21072 Total tons per construction project 0.008209941 0.127725757 0.01014686 0.00602272 0.00249677 40.49676838 40.80886 SAFE Adjustment Factors for EMFAC2017 Gasoline Light Duty Vehicles Year TOG Exhaust CO Exhaust NOx Exhaust
2023 1.0007 1.0027 1.0007
Worker Commute Emissions ‐SAFE AdjustedEmissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CO2ePounds per day ‐ Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.023814154 0.371466183 0.03075681 0.01641805 0.00681735 114.6820452 115.4615 Tons per const. Period ‐ Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.000130978 0.002043064 0.00016916 9.0299E‐05 3.7495E‐05 0.630751249 0.635038 Pounds per day ‐ Grading/Excavation 0.097404639 1.518812241 0.12269575 0.06972193 0.02892323 478.8791587 482.0389Tons per const. Period ‐ Grading/Excavation 0.002142902 0.033413869 0.00269931 0.00153388 0.00063631 10.53534149 10.60486 Pounds per day ‐ Drainage/Utilities/Sub‐Grade 0.077166333 1.202775112 0.09461682 0.05737416 0.02377867 387.5446094 390.0242 Tons per const. Period ‐ Drainage/Utilities/Sub‐Grade 0.001697659 0.026461052 0.00208157 0.00126223 0.00052313 8.525981406 8.580533 Pounds per day ‐ Paving 0.055118809 0.85912508 0.06758344 0.04098154 0.01698476 276.8175781 278.5887 Tons per const. Period ‐ Paving 0.004244148 0.066152631 0.00520392 0.00315558 0.00130783 21.31495351 21.45133 Total tons per construction project 0.008215688 0.128070617 0.01015396 0.00604199 0.00250476 41.00702766 41.27176 PM Exhaust CO2 Exhaust

1.0032 1.0126

Roadway_Emissions
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 9.0.0SAFE Adjustments Applied Daily Emission Estimates for -> Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Project Phases (Pounds) ROG (lbs/day) CO (lbs/day) NOx (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) SOx (lbs/day) CO2 (lbs/day) CH4 (lbs/day) N2O (lbs/day) CO2e (lbs/day)Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.66 5.91 7.06 10.30 0.30 10.00 2.34 0.26 2.08 0.02 1,525.33 0.41 0.04 1,546.82Grading/Excavation 3.10 31.10 32.04 11.38 1.38 10.00 3.29 1.21 2.08 0.07 7,283.82 1.98 0.18 7,386.26Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 2.46 25.63 23.55 11.00 1.00 10.00 2.99 0.91 2.08 0.05 4.82 1.07 0.07 5,288.52Paving 0.85 12.79 9.05 0.45 0.45 0.00 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.03 2,585.24 0.56 0.12 2,633.58Maximum (pounds/day) 3.76 38.42 39.11 21.68 1.68 20.00 5.63 1.47 4.16 0.09 8,801.77 2.39 0.22 8,926.38Total (tons/construction project) 0.19 2.27 1.96 0.58 0.09 0.50 0.18 0.08 0.10 0.00 482.99 0.11 0.01 490.14 Notes: Project Start Year -> 2023
Project Length (months) -> 12
Total Project Area (acres) -> 1
Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (acres) -> 1
Water Truck Used? -> Yes
Phase Soil Asphalt Soil Hauling Asphalt Hauling Worker Commute Water Truck Grubbing/Land Clearing 0 00 0 160 40
Grading/Excavation 48 0 150 0 680 40
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0 00 0 560 40
Paving 0 0 0 120 400 40
CO2e emissions are estimated by multiplying mass emissions for each GHG by its global warming potential (GWP), 1 , 25 and 298 for CO2, CH4 and N2O, respectively. Total CO2e is then estimated by summing CO2e estimates over all GHGs.

Total Emission Estimates by Phase for -> Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Project Phases (Tons for all except CO2e. Metric tonnes for CO2e) ROG (tons/phase) CO (tons/phase) NOx (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) SOx (tons/phase) CO2 (tons/phase) CH4 (tons/phase) N2O (tons/phase) CO2e (MT/phase) Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 8.39 0.00 0.00 7.72Grading/Excavation 0.07 0.68 0.70 0.25 0.03 0.22 0.07 0.03 0.05 0.00 160.24 0.04 0.00 147.43Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.05 0.56 0.52 0.24 0.02 0.22 0.07 0.02 0.05 0.00 115.29 0.02 0.00 105.56Paving 0.07 0.99 0.70 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 199.06 0.04 0.01 183.99Maximum (tons/phase) 0.07 0.98 0.70 0.25 0.03 0.22 0.07 0.03 0.05 0.00 198.80 0.04 0.01 183.75Total (tons/construction project) 0.19 2.27 1.96 0.58 0.09 0.50 0.18 0.08 0.10 0.00 482.99 0.11 0.01 444.69CO2e emissions are estimated by multiplying mass emissions for each GHG by its global warming potential (GWP), 1 , 25 and 298 for CO2, CH4 and N2O, respectively. Total CO2e is then estimated by summing CO2e estimates over all GHGs.The CO2e emissions are reported as metric tons per phase.PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns G and H. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column I are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns J and K.

Milpitas Blvd. Road Extension
Total Material Imported/Exported
Volume (yd3/day) Daily VMT (miles/day)
PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns G and H. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column I are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns J and K.

Milpitas Blvd. Road Extension

Off-road Equipment - Ops Analysis
Off-road Equipment - Ops AnalysisGrading - Trips and VMT - Ops AnalysisConstruction Phase - Ops analysis, No constructionOff-road Equipment - Ops AnalysisOff-road Equipment - Ops AnalysisOff-road Equipment - Ops AnalysisOff-road Equipment - Ops Analysis N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr)

0.004

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics - Analysis of Existing Ops EmissionsLand Use - Emissions Analysis for Existing Ops Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric CompanyCO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 203.98 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.033
Precipitation Freq (Days) 58
Climate Zone 4 Operational Year 2024

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2
0 Parking Lot 140.85 1000sqft 3.23 140,850.00 0
General Office Building 41.31 1000sqft 0.95 41,307.00
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis
Santa Clara County, Annual

1.0 Project Characteristics1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 10/20/2021 5:11 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 10/20/2021 5:11 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/5/2023 4/28/2023
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/17/2023 5/5/2023tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 4/29/2024 4/3/2024tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 4/3/2024 5/17/2023tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 4/28/2023 3/31/2023tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 0.00tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/23/2024 4/29/2024tblConstructionPhase NumDays 8.00 0.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 18.00 0.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 230.00 0.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 0.00 Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 18.00 0.00
Vehicle Emission Factors - Vehicle Emission Factors - Fleet Mix - Fleet Mix based on county vehilcle Pop in EMFAC2021Water And Wastewater - 100% WWTP, city sewerConstruction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - No ConstructionVehicle Emission Factors - EMFAC2021 EFs

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 10/20/2021 5:11 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 4.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 10/20/2021 5:11 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblVehicleEF HHD 2.0000e-006 1.9600e-004tblVehicleEF HHD 9.3000e-005 5.8000e-005tblVehicleEF HHD 8.8830e-003 8.7810e-003tblVehicleEF HHD 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF HHD 2.4710e-003 2.0820e-003tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF HHD 0.04 0.04tblVehicleEF HHD 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF HHD 2.5820e-003 2.1820e-003tblVehicleEF HHD 0.06 0.08tblVehicleEF HHD 2.69 1.85tblVehicleEF HHD 2.32 2.73tblVehicleEF HHD 7.0000e-006 2.0000e-005tblVehicleEF HHD 5.39 4.11tblVehicleEF HHD 0.17 0.13tblVehicleEF HHD 0.22 0.26tblVehicleEF HHD 1,413.90 1,617.13tblVehicleEF HHD 0.05 0.02tblVehicleEF HHD 5.9420e-003 6.2600e-004tblVehicleEF HHD 1,048.88 832.32tblVehicleEF HHD 6.33 5.20tblVehicleEF HHD 0.40 0.77tblVehicleEF HHD 0.02 0.23tblVehicleEF HHD 0.05 0.12 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 72.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 14.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 30.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 10/20/2021 5:11 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblVehicleEF LDA 1.1880e-003 1.0780e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 1.6800e-003 1.9100e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 2.5090e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.04 7.1680e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 1.2900e-003 1.1710e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.03 0.04tblVehicleEF LDA 0.16 0.23tblVehicleEF LDA 3.9560e-003 4.1620e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF LDA 234.59 246.81tblVehicleEF LDA 49.79 63.85tblVehicleEF LDA 0.52 0.65tblVehicleEF LDA 2.08 2.89tblVehicleEF LDA 1.7200e-003 2.0530e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.04 0.06tblVehicleEF HHD 4.1000e-005 5.2500e-004tblVehicleEF HHD 3.0000e-006 0.00tblVehicleEF HHD 1.0000e-006 0.00tblVehicleEF HHD 0.08 0.14tblVehicleEF HHD 9.3000e-005 5.8000e-005tblVehicleEF HHD 0.49 0.59tblVehicleEF HHD 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF HHD 2.0000e-006 1.9600e-004tblVehicleEF HHD 2.0000e-006 0.00tblVehicleEF HHD 9.7610e-003 7.2800e-003tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.02tblVehicleEF HHD 4.1000e-005 5.2500e-004tblVehicleEF HHD 0.43 0.33tblVehicleEF HHD 1.0000e-006 0.00

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 10/20/2021 5:11 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblVehicleEF LDT1 2.1080e-003 2.8980e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.02 3.2290e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.04 9.2260e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 1.6380e-003 1.9270e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.07 0.13tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.21 0.38tblVehicleEF LDT1 5.8110e-003 9.3750e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.03 0.04tblVehicleEF LDT1 280.86 327.08tblVehicleEF LDT1 60.30 86.29tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.85 1.42tblVehicleEF LDT1 2.26 5.22tblVehicleEF LDT1 3.6010e-003 6.2220e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.06 0.10tblVehicleEF LDA 0.03 0.20tblVehicleEF LDA 0.21 0.32tblVehicleEF LDA 0.03 0.00tblVehicleEF LDA 9.3170e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF LDA 0.04 0.27tblVehicleEF LDA 0.08 0.08tblVehicleEF LDA 2.3210e-003 2.4400e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 4.9300e-004 6.3100e-004tblVehicleEF LDA 0.03 0.20tblVehicleEF LDA 0.19 0.30tblVehicleEF LDA 0.03 0.00tblVehicleEF LDA 6.4090e-003 7.8860e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.04 0.27tblVehicleEF LDA 0.08 0.08tblVehicleEF LDA 1.5440e-003 1.7560e-003

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 10/20/2021 5:11 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.7010e-003 2.1080e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.04 8.8660e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.3400e-003 1.3330e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.06 0.07tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.25 0.33tblVehicleEF LDT2 5.6680e-003 6.0190e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.03 0.04tblVehicleEF LDT2 301.75 340.73tblVehicleEF LDT2 65.36 87.22tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.73 0.83tblVehicleEF LDT2 2.69 3.62tblVehicleEF LDT2 2.9320e-003 2.8180e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.06 0.08tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.08 0.47tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.30 0.59tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.06 0.00tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.02 0.04tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.07 0.60tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.15 0.16tblVehicleEF LDT1 2.7790e-003 3.2330e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 5.9700e-004 8.5300e-004tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.08 0.47tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.27 0.54tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.06 0.00tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.07 0.60tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.15 0.16tblVehicleEF LDT1 1.5070e-003 1.7740e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 1.9380e-003 2.6650e-003

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 10/20/2021 5:11 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.04 0.04tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.02 0.04tblVehicleEF LHD1 11.55 17.84tblVehicleEF LHD1 7.4200e-004 6.4000e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.86 8.72tblVehicleEF LHD1 779.34 782.62tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.71 0.90tblVehicleEF LHD1 1.05 2.16tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.01 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.18 0.20tblVehicleEF LHD1 4.9880e-003 5.3690e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 7.8580e-003 8.1950e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.06 0.21tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.31 0.42tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.06 0.00tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.06 0.29tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.12 0.08tblVehicleEF LDT2 2.9850e-003 3.3680e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 6.4700e-004 8.6200e-004tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.06 0.21tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.28 0.38tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.06 0.00tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.06 0.29tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.12 0.08tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.2340e-003 1.2260e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.5640e-003 1.9380e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.02 3.1030e-003

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 10/20/2021 5:11 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.20 0.18tblVehicleEF LHD1 9.8500e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.11 0.11tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.07 0.03tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF LHD1 1.1400e-004 1.7600e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 1.9120e-003 0.13tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.6000e-005 8.5000e-005tblVehicleEF LHD1 7.6080e-003 7.6450e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.20 0.18tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.07 0.11tblVehicleEF LHD1 9.8500e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.09 0.09tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.07 0.03tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD1 2.2800e-004 2.0900e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 1.9120e-003 0.13tblVehicleEF LHD1 2.4450e-003 2.3540e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 9.1590e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.0500e-004 6.5100e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF LHD1 9.6230e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF LHD1 2.4700e-004 2.2700e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.08 0.08tblVehicleEF LHD1 9.7790e-003 9.4140e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.30 0.44tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.4200e-004 6.8100e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.06 0.05tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.65 0.66

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 10/20/2021 5:11 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.04 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.1700e-004 9.3000e-005tblVehicleEF LHD2 9.8500e-004 0.07tblVehicleEF LHD2 2.6920e-003 2.6640e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.3750e-003 1.3110e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.04 0.03tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.2700e-004 1.0100e-004tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.09 0.09tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.17 0.24tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.4370e-003 1.3710e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.09 0.09tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.77 0.90tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.07 0.08tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD2 7.59 9.92tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.7350e-003 1.6800e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 13.88 13.77tblVehicleEF LHD2 754.92 827.31tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.59 0.57tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.60 1.22tblVehicleEF LHD2 7.7290e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.14 0.14tblVehicleEF LHD2 3.0380e-003 3.1580e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 6.6540e-003 6.9670e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.08 0.12

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 10/20/2021 5:11 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblVehicleEF MCY 1.8650e-003 1.7790e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 2.9300e-003 3.4560e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 5.0400e-003 4.2000e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF MCY 1.9970e-003 1.9020e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 1.15 0.57tblVehicleEF MCY 0.27 0.14tblVehicleEF MCY 0.07 0.04tblVehicleEF MCY 0.02 8.0200e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 210.08 187.74tblVehicleEF MCY 60.71 48.38tblVehicleEF MCY 18.60 12.67tblVehicleEF MCY 9.06 8.00tblVehicleEF MCY 0.33 0.16tblVehicleEF MCY 0.25 0.18tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.09 0.09tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.04 0.07tblVehicleEF LHD2 5.1400e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.13 0.13tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.04 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD2 7.5000e-005 9.8000e-005tblVehicleEF LHD2 9.8500e-004 0.07tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.3300e-004 1.3200e-004tblVehicleEF LHD2 7.2890e-003 7.9720e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.09 0.09tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.04 0.06tblVehicleEF LHD2 5.1400e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.11 0.12

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 10/20/2021 5:11 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblVehicleEF MDV 1.8100e-003 2.1610e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 0.02 3.1500e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 0.04 9.0000e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 1.4300e-003 1.3730e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 0.07 0.10tblVehicleEF MDV 0.29 0.41tblVehicleEF MDV 7.5920e-003 8.3490e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 0.03 0.04tblVehicleEF MDV 364.87 411.00tblVehicleEF MDV 77.92 104.37tblVehicleEF MDV 0.78 0.94tblVehicleEF MDV 2.95 3.90tblVehicleEF MDV 3.4000e-003 3.7500e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 0.07 0.10tblVehicleEF MCY 0.53 3.75tblVehicleEF MCY 2.10 1.46tblVehicleEF MCY 0.49 0.00tblVehicleEF MCY 2.72 1.28tblVehicleEF MCY 0.90 0.09tblVehicleEF MCY 0.68 3.56tblVehicleEF MCY 2.0790e-003 1.8560e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 6.0100e-004 4.7800e-004tblVehicleEF MCY 0.53 3.75tblVehicleEF MCY 1.93 1.35tblVehicleEF MCY 0.49 0.00tblVehicleEF MCY 2.19 1.06tblVehicleEF MCY 0.90 3.90tblVehicleEF MCY 0.68 3.56tblVehicleEF MCY 2.7520e-003 3.2480e-003

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 10/20/2021 5:11 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblVehicleEF MH 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF MH 0.13 0.04tblVehicleEF MH 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF MH 1.31 1.54tblVehicleEF MH 0.24 0.30tblVehicleEF MH 0.06 0.07tblVehicleEF MH 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF MH 1,501.42 1,686.59tblVehicleEF MH 18.14 22.55tblVehicleEF MH 0.93 1.29tblVehicleEF MH 2.03 2.49tblVehicleEF MH 9.5570e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF MH 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF MDV 0.06 0.27tblVehicleEF MDV 0.38 0.54tblVehicleEF MDV 0.07 0.00tblVehicleEF MDV 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF MDV 0.07 0.35tblVehicleEF MDV 0.13 0.09tblVehicleEF MDV 3.6060e-003 4.0610e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 7.7100e-004 1.0320e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 0.06 0.27tblVehicleEF MDV 0.34 0.49tblVehicleEF MDV 0.07 0.00tblVehicleEF MDV 0.01 0.02tblVehicleEF MDV 0.07 0.35tblVehicleEF MDV 0.13 0.09tblVehicleEF MDV 1.3190e-003 1.2660e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 1.6640e-003 1.9870e-003

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 10/20/2021 5:11 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblVehicleEF MHD 9.15 8.53tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 0.02tblVehicleEF MHD 72.08 160.26tblVehicleEF MHD 1,080.76 1,229.18tblVehicleEF MHD 0.23 0.35tblVehicleEF MHD 1.07 1.07tblVehicleEF MHD 9.1320e-003 8.7730e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 0.39 0.67tblVehicleEF MHD 3.5790e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF MHD 1.6940e-003 9.6580e-003tblVehicleEF MH 0.01 0.20tblVehicleEF MH 0.10 0.12tblVehicleEF MH 0.23 0.00tblVehicleEF MH 0.08 0.11tblVehicleEF MH 0.64 32.73tblVehicleEF MH 0.05 8.70tblVehicleEF MH 0.01 0.02tblVehicleEF MH 1.7900e-004 2.2300e-004tblVehicleEF MH 0.01 0.20tblVehicleEF MH 0.09 0.11tblVehicleEF MH 0.23 0.00tblVehicleEF MH 0.06 0.08tblVehicleEF MH 0.64 32.73tblVehicleEF MH 0.05 8.70tblVehicleEF MH 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF MH 2.4000e-004 2.8800e-004tblVehicleEF MH 0.06 0.02tblVehicleEF MH 3.2790e-003 3.3010e-003tblVehicleEF MH 2.6100e-004 3.1300e-004

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 10/20/2021 5:11 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblVehicleEF MHD 0.02 0.05tblVehicleEF MHD 1.9800e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF MHD 0.02 0.05tblVehicleEF MHD 0.02 6.2600e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 0.02 0.04tblVehicleEF MHD 9.1000e-005 8.4000e-005tblVehicleEF MHD 3.8300e-004 0.03tblVehicleEF MHD 6.8400e-004 1.4900e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF MHD 0.02 0.05tblVehicleEF MHD 0.05 0.05tblVehicleEF MHD 1.9800e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF MHD 0.02 0.04tblVehicleEF MHD 0.02 6.2600e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF MHD 1.0600e-004 9.8000e-005tblVehicleEF MHD 3.8300e-004 0.03tblVehicleEF MHD 0.06 0.02tblVehicleEF MHD 6.7130e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF MHD 1.1500e-004 1.0700e-004tblVehicleEF MHD 3.5300e-004 2.0350e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 0.13 0.05tblVehicleEF MHD 7.0230e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF MHD 1.70 1.41tblVehicleEF MHD 3.6900e-004 2.1280e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 0.41 0.89tblVehicleEF MHD 1.45 1.11tblVehicleEF MHD 0.14 0.16tblVehicleEF MHD 7.2440e-003 6.0320e-003

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 10/20/2021 5:11 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblVehicleEF OBUS 4.8500e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 0.05tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.05 0.04tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.3300e-004 1.2400e-004tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.0900e-003 0.07tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.06 0.02tblVehicleEF OBUS 7.0600e-003 0.02tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.4500e-004 1.3400e-004tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.1700e-004 4.0500e-004tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.13 0.05tblVehicleEF OBUS 7.3930e-003 0.02tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.09 0.98tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.2200e-004 4.2300e-004tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.38 0.37tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.47 1.01tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.13 0.16tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF OBUS 15.18 15.49tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF OBUS 92.66 85.71tblVehicleEF OBUS 1,326.08 1,388.86tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.43 0.49tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.84 1.96tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.58 0.51tblVehicleEF OBUS 7.0640e-003 7.4580e-003tblVehicleEF OBUS 3.6240e-003 9.2750e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 0.05 0.05

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 10/20/2021 5:11 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.74 0.04tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.86 0.48tblVehicleEF SBUS 3.6120e-003 1.3090e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 3.44 1.39tblVehicleEF SBUS 4.65 2.57tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.13 0.13tblVehicleEF SBUS 4.7550e-003 4.2250e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 4.12 3.73tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.05 0.03tblVehicleEF SBUS 346.78 189.38tblVehicleEF SBUS 1,049.23 1,027.72tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.49 0.88tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.72 0.66tblVehicleEF SBUS 4.9720e-003 4.8000e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 2.27 1.65tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.05 0.07tblVehicleEF SBUS 6.0180e-003 0.09tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.04 0.08tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.10 0.10tblVehicleEF OBUS 4.8500e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.03 0.06tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.06 0.05tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.5000e-004 1.5300e-004tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.0900e-003 0.07tblVehicleEF OBUS 8.8000e-004 8.1100e-004tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.04 0.08tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.09 0.09

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 10/20/2021 5:11 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblVehicleEF UBUS 10.12 4.17tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.14 0.53tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.35 0.35tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.5380e-003 3.7340e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.01 0.02tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF SBUS 2.4700e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.10 0.16tblVehicleEF SBUS 5.5090e-003 7.3010e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.36 0.30tblVehicleEF SBUS 4.1000e-005 3.7000e-005tblVehicleEF SBUS 5.6700e-004 0.03tblVehicleEF SBUS 3.3010e-003 1.7230e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.01 9.5530e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.01 0.02tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF SBUS 2.4700e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.08 0.06tblVehicleEF SBUS 5.5090e-003 7.3010e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.25 0.18tblVehicleEF SBUS 4.4000e-005 3.6000e-005tblVehicleEF SBUS 5.6700e-004 0.03tblVehicleEF SBUS 2.7190e-003 2.6500e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.03 0.01tblVehicleEF SBUS 3.4560e-003 1.2520e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.32 0.02tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.03 0.01tblVehicleEF SBUS 4.8000e-005 4.0000e-005tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.01 0.01

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 10/20/2021 5:11 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblWater AerobicPercent 87.46 100.00
tblVehicleEF UBUS 2.9000e-005 7.9870e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 7.0150e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF UBUS 9.0000e-006 0.00tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.38 0.42tblVehicleEF UBUS 2.1000e-005 9.8940e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.6100e-004 3.3030e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.01 9.4250e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.4000e-005 3.2000e-005tblVehicleEF UBUS 2.9000e-005 7.9870e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 6.4070e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF UBUS 9.0000e-006 0.00tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.02 0.06tblVehicleEF UBUS 2.1000e-005 9.8940e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.6100e-004 3.3030e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 5.0960e-003 5.9560e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.4000e-005 1.1000e-005tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.03 0.04tblVehicleEF UBUS 8.3320e-003 8.1710e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 5.3280e-003 6.2290e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.5000e-005 1.2000e-005tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.07 0.11tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.73 0.33tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.01 0.04tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.26 0.17tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.0770e-003 6.2180e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 1,597.16 1,098.80tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.39 3.20

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 10/20/2021 5:11 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated Construction
Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
2024 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00002023 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4

2.0 Emissions Summary

2.1 Overall Construction
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
tblWater SepticTankPercent 10.33 0.00tblWater SepticTankPercent 10.33 0.00tblWater AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPercent 2.21 0.00tblWater AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPercent 2.21 0.00tblWater AerobicPercent 87.46 100.00

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 10/20/2021 5:11 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 354.4444 364.8410 0.4969 0.0192 382.9765

9.7700e003 5.7500e-003 9.6885
Total 0.3942 0.1653 1.2914 2.8400e-003 0.2462 4.3600e003 0.2506 0.0614 4.2400e- 003 0.0656 10.3966 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.5977 5.1331 7.7308

0.0000 7.7989 0.4609 0.0000 19.3215

0.0141 0.0114 247.1644
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.7989

1.7400e003 2.6400e-003 0.2462 1.8600e- 0.0631 0.0000 243.4156 243.4156 003 Mobile 0.1956 0.1325 1.2622 0.2481 0.0614 105.8925 105.8925 0.0120 2.0300e-003 106.7987

1.0000e005 0.0000 3.4700e- 003
Energy 3.6100e003 0.0328 0.0276 2.0000e-004 2.4900e- 003 2.4900e-003 2.4900e- 003 2.4900e-003 0.0000

1.0000e005 1.0000e-005 0.0000 3.2500e- 003 3.2500e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 Area 0.1951 2.0000e-005 1.6700e- 1.0000e-005 003 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4

2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
Highest
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2
Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
2024 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00002023 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 10/20/2021 5:11 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

0.00 0.00 0.00
N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PM2.5
Total
Fugitive Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO SO2
354.4444 364.8410 0.4969 0.0192 382.9765

9.7700e003 5.7500e-003 9.6885
Total 0.3942 0.1653 1.2914 2.8400e-003 0.2462 4.3600e003 0.2506 0.0614 4.2400e- 003 0.0656 10.3966 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.5977 5.1331 7.7308

0.0000 7.7989 0.4609 0.0000 19.3215

0.0141 0.0114 247.1644
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.7989

1.7400e003 2.6400e-003 0.2462 1.8600e- 0.0631 0.0000 243.4156 243.4156 003 Mobile 0.1956 0.1325 1.2622 0.2481 0.0614 105.8925 105.8925 0.0120 2.0300e-003 106.7987

1.0000e005 0.0000 3.4700e- 003
Energy 3.6100e003 0.0328 0.0276 2.0000e-004 2.4900e- 003 2.4900e-003 2.4900e- 003 2.4900e-003 0.0000

1.0000e005 1.0000e-005 0.0000 3.2500e- 003 3.2500e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 Area 0.1951 2.0000e-005 1.6700e- 1.0000e-005 003 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
Mitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 10/20/2021 5:11 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

0.000914 0.002776

5.0 Energy Detail

0.000380 0.024412 0.000914 0.002776
Parking Lot 0.572464 0.055653 0.187060 0.115672 0.020329 0.005102 0.007934 0.006404 0.000900 0.000380 0.024412 General Office Building 0.572464 0.055653 0.187060 0.115672 0.020329 0.005102 0.007934 0.006404 0.000900 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2
Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
General Office Building 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by

4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Total 402.33 91.29 28.91 727,801 727,801
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual VMT
General Office Building 402.33 91.29 28.91 727,801 727,801 Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT

0.0141 0.0114 247.1644

4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
247.1644
Unmitigated 0.1956 0.1325 1.2622 2.6400e-003 0.2462 1.8600e003 0.2481 0.0614 1.7400e- 003 0.0631 0.0000 243.4156 243.4156

0.0000 243.4156 243.4156 0.0141 0.0114
CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yrMitigated 0.1956 0.1325 1.2622 2.6400e-003 0.2462 1.8600e003 0.2481 0.0614 1.7400e- 003 0.0631 Exhaust Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total
PM10

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 10/20/2021 5:11 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

35.7096 6.8000e-004 6.5000e004 35.9219
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

2.4900e003 0.0276 2.0000e- 2.4900e-003 0.0000 35.7096 004 2.4900e-003 2.4900e- 003 General Office Building 669173 3.6100e- 003 0.0328 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5

35.7096 35.7096 6.8000e004 6.5000e-004 35.9219

6.8000e004 6.5000e-004 35.9219
NaturalGas
Unmitigated

3.6100e003 0.0328 0.0276 2.0000e-004 2.4900e- 003 2.4900e-003 2.4900e- 003 2.4900e-003 0.0000

2.4900e003 2.0000e-004 2.4900e- 2.4900e-003 0.0000 35.7096 35.7096 003 NaturalGas 2.4900e-003 Mitigated 3.6100e- 003 0.0328 0.0276

70.1829 70.1829 0.0114 1.3800e-003 70.8768

0.0114 1.3800e-003 70.8768
Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Electricity Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 70.1829 70.1829 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO
Historical Energy Use: N

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 10/20/2021 5:11 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

9.0000e-005 4.6063
Total 70.1829 0.0114 1.3800e-003 70.8768
Parking Lot 49297.5 4.5612 7.4000e-004
Land Use kWh/yr t
on
MT/yr
General Office
Building
709241 65.6217 0.0106 1.2900e-003 66.2706

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

35.7096 35.7096 6.8000e-004 6.5000e004 35.9219

0.0000 0.0000
Total 3.6100e003 0.0328 0.0276 2.0000e- 004 2.4900e-003 2.4900e- 003 2.4900e- 003 2.4900e-003 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

35.7096 6.8000e-004 6.5000e004 35.9219
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

2.4900e003 0.0276 2.0000e- 2.4900e-003 0.0000 35.7096 004 2.4900e-003 2.4900e- 003 General Office Building 669173 3.6100e- 003 0.0328 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
Mitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5

35.7096 35.7096 6.8000e-004 6.5000e004 Total 3.6100e- 35.9219 003 0.0328 0.0276 2.0000e- 004 2.4900e-003 2.4900e- 003 2.4900e- 003 2.4900e-003 0.0000

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 10/20/2021 5:11 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

1.0000e005 0.0000 3.4700e- 003

3.4700e003
Unmitigated 0.1951 2.0000e-005 1.6700e003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e-005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e-005 0.0000 3.2500e- 003 3.2500e- 003

0.0000 3.2500e003 3.2500e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000
CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yrMitigated 0.1951 2.0000e-005 1.6700e003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e-005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e-005 Exhaust Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total

6.0 Area Detail6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10

9.0000e-005 4.6063
Total 70.1829 0.0114 1.3800e-003 70.8768
Parking Lot 49297.5 4.5612 7.4000e-004
Land Use kWh/yr t
on
MT/yr
General Office
Building
709241 65.6217 0.0106 1.2900e-003 66.2706
Mitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 10/20/2021 5:11 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

1.0000e005 0.0000 3.4700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e-005 0.0000 3.2500e- 003 3.2500e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 Landscaping 1.5000e- 1.0000e-005 004 2.0000e-005 1.6700e- 003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.1704 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Architectural 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating

0.0245
N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
Mitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

3.2500e003 3.2500e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.4700e- 003

1.0000e005 0.0000 3.4700e- 003
Total 0.1951 2.0000e-005 1.6700e003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e-005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e-005 0.0000

1.0000e005 1.0000e-005 0.0000 3.2500e- 003 3.2500e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 Landscaping 1.5000e- 1.0000e-005 004 2.0000e-005 1.6700e- 003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.1704 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Architectural 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating

0.0245
CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO

6.2 Area by SubCategory
Unmitigated

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 10/20/2021 5:11 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Land Use Mgal t
on
MT/yr
General Office
Building

7.34218 /

4.50005

7.7308 9.7700e-003 5.7500e-003 9.6885

9.6885

7.2 Water by Land Use
Unmitigated
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Unmitigated 7.7308 9.7700e-003 5.7500e003
Category t
on
MT/yr
Mitigated 7.7308 9.7700e-003 5.7500e003 9.6885

7.0 Water Detail7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

3.2500e003 3.2500e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.4700e- 003 Total 0.1951 2.0000e-005 1.6700e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e-005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e-005 0.0000

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 10/20/2021 5:11 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ton
MT/yr
Mitigated 7.7989 0.4609 0.0000 19.3215

8.0 Waste Detail8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Category/Year
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

0.0000 0.0000
Total 7.7308 9.7700e-003 5.7500e-003 9.6885
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000
Land Use Mgal t
on
MT/yr
General Office
Building

7.34218 /

4.50005

7.7308 9.7700e-003 5.7500e-003 9.6885
Mitigated
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Total 7.7308 9.7700e-003 5.7500e-003 9.6885

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 10/20/2021 5:11 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

0.0000 0.0000
Total 7.7989 0.4609 0.0000 19.3215
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000
Land Use tons t
on
MT/yr
General Office
Building

38.42 7.7989 0.4609 0.0000 19.3215
Mitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

0.0000 0.0000
Total 7.7989 0.4609 0.0000 19.3215
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000
Land Use tons t
on
MT/yr
General Office
Building

38.42 7.7989 0.4609 0.0000 19.3215

19.3215

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Unmitigated 7.7989 0.4609 0.0000

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 10/20/2021 5:11 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number

11.0 Vegetation
Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel TypeEquipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year

FleetMixLandUseSubType LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY

0.53116 0.041583 0.227794 0.127091 0.023141 0.005641 0.009358 0.007307 0.001055 0.000417 0.022105 CalEEMod EMFAC2021 Fleet Mix Input ‐ 2024

SBUS MH

0.000682 0.002666

Season EmissionType LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH A CH4_IDLEX 0000 0.005377 0.003249 0.013383 0.232934116 0.007458 0 0 0.074531 0 A CH4_RUNEX 0.002051 0.006222 0.002817 0.003749 0.00818 0.006974 0.009658 0.121678903 0.009275 0.353984559 0.171772 0.091035 0.012488A CH4_STREX 0.067726 0.104963 0.08275 0.099602 0.022625 0.012599 0.008773 8.02769E‐08 0.017671 0.00393016 0.189534 0.0048 0.026745 A CO_IDLEX 0000 0.196553 0.142433 0.671381 5.195559849 0.514566 0 0 1.654918 0 A CO_RUNEX 0.649711 1.418726 0.829327 0.943281 0.89701 0.569575 0.346173 0.774886828 0.491534 4.169641806 14.38328 0.884386 1.294901A CO_STREX 3.008478 5.230353 3.655626 3.931792 2.13326 1.201025 1.07433 0.000626211 1.960551 0.525737998 7.689677 0.664389 2.491606A CO2_NBIO_IDLEX 0000 8.727528 13.78864 160.3244 832.6005736 85.71146 0 0 189.4507 0 A CO2_NBIO_RUNEX 246.8081 327.0753 340.7339 411.0049 784.1623 828.9778 1229.838 1617.576982 1389.139 1098.805139 190.6913 1028.119 1686.59A CO2_NBIO_STREX 64.09427 86.29597 87.2747 104.4236 17.80424 9.907975 8.533177 0.019577946 15.49631 3.197080643 51.77839 3.727325 22.54937A NOX_IDLEX 0000 0.048387 0.093022 0.894313 4.111213715 0.365684 0 0 1.389668 0 A NOX_RUNEX 0.037369 0.127832 0.068032 0.098516 0.661225 0.88969 1.112922 1.850604526 1.007061 0.327856595 0.598844 2.57268 1.5351A NOX_STREX 0.240038 0.379704 0.332074 0.41728 0.438657 0.24651 1.407896 2.731408381 0.979918 0.042218612 0.148555 0.480958 0.299202A PM10_IDLEX 0000 0.000681 0.001371 0.002128 0.002182492 0.000423 0 0 0.001309 0 A PM10_PMBW 0.007168 0.009226 0.008866 0.009 0.077823 0.090794 0.045399 0.08129752 0.049798 0.11066361 0.012 0.044858 0.044947A PM10_PMTW 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.009414 0.010658 0.012 0.035125425 0.012 0.032683644 0.004 0.0106 0.013206A PM10_RUNEX 0.001171 0.001927 0.001333 0.001373 0.014027 0.022761 0.012985 0.025474433 0.015841 0.006229362 0.001954 0.013303 0.03019A PM10_STREX 0.001911 0.002898 0.002107 0.002161 0.000227 0.000101 0.000107 6.09682E‐07 0.000134 1.21066E‐05 0.00338 3.95E‐05 0.000313 A PM25_IDLEX 0000 0.000651 0.001311 0.002035 0.002082052 0.000405 0 0 0.001252 0 A PM25_PMBW 0.002509 0.003229 0.003103 0.00315 0.027238 0.031778 0.01589 0.028454132 0.017429 0.038732263 0.0042 0.0157 0.015732A PM25_PMTW 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002354 0.002664 0.003 0.008781356 0.003 0.008170911 0.001 0.00265 0.003301A PM25_RUNEX 0.001078 0.001774 0.001226 0.001266 0.01338 0.021758 0.012415 0.0243688 0.015147 0.005956092 0.001827 0.012712 0.028836A PM25_STREX 0.001757 0.002664 0.001938 0.001987 0.000209 9.28E‐05 9.82E‐05 5.6058E‐07 0.000124 1.11315E‐05 0.003177 3.63E‐05 0.000288 A ROG_DIURN 0.272416 0.595124 0.287823 0.349834 0.128573 0.066802 0.025795 0.000195977 0.069031 0.00989389 3.900294 0.027017 32.73442A ROG_HTSK 0.080672 0.164385 0.080502 0.093899 0.032798 0.017191 0.00626 5.82846E‐05 0.0166 0.00330336 3.559276 0.007301 8.700008 A ROG_IDLEX 0000 0.021942 0.016299 0.026359 0.329789936 0.040067 0 0 0.181581 0 A ROG_RESTL 0000000 00 0000
A ROG_RUNEX 0.007886 0.027617 0.0111 0.015872 0.087665 0.11544 0.038113 0.018605536 0.047576 0.063031406 1.123169 0.055863 0.083758A ROG_RUNLS 0.203855 0.469715 0.214096 0.266358 0.182065 0.092651 0.050964 0.000525006 0.075921 0.007986926 3.75283 0.017605 0.204308A ROG_STREX 0.311462 0.537261 0.383703 0.4977 0.112219 0.061861 0.048943 4.36152E‐07 0.093584 0.014025351 1.402019 0.027327 0.113367A SO2_IDLEX 0000 8.5E‐05 0.000132 0.001491 0.007282701 0.000811 0 0 0.001724 0 A SO2_RUNEX 0.00244 0.003233 0.003368 0.004061 0.00766 0.007988 0.011671 0.014639651 0.013278 0.009424764 0.001885 0.009556 0.01654A SO2_STREX 0.000634 0.000853 0.000863 0.001032 0.000176 9.8E‐05 8.44E‐05 1.93548E‐07 0.000153 3.16064E‐05 0.000512 3.68E‐05 0.000223 A TOG_DIURN 0.272416 0.595124 0.287823 0.349834 0.128573 0.066802 0.025795 0.000195977 0.069031 0.00989389 0.086215 0.027017 32.73442A TOG_HTSK 0.080672 0.164385 0.080502 0.093899 0.032798 0.017191 0.00626 5.82846E‐05 0.0166 0.00330336 3.559276 0.007301 8.700008 A TOG_IDLEX 0000 0.031162 0.022074 0.043266 0.594148623 0.053137 0 0 0.296054 0 A TOG_RESTL 0000000 00 0000
A TOG_RUNEX 0.011489 0.040276 0.016182 0.023096 0.108371 0.134469 0.053054 0.142671417 0.063874 0.424562425 1.354171 0.155502 0.11065A TOG_RUNLS 0.203855 0.469715 0.214096 0.266358 0.182065 0.092651 0.050964 0.000525006 0.075921 0.007986926 3.75283 0.017605 0.204308A TOG_STREX 0.341012 0.588232 0.420106 0.544917 0.122865 0.06773 0.053586 4.77531E‐07 0.102462 0.015355994 1.524416 0.029919 0.124122A N2O_IDLEX 0000 0.000642 0.001685 0.024699 0.134118084 0.012191 0 0 0.025119 0A N2O_RUNEX 0.004156 0.009374 0.006017 0.008347 0.041472 0.08253 0.158314 0.25814886 0.157784 0.166447984 0.040955 0.128311 0.069357A N2O_STREX 0.030787 0.038539 0.037034 0.039993 0.035165 0.019738 0.006032 1.94763E‐05 0.015206 0.00682938 0.008948 0.004225 0.031398 CalEEMod EMFAC2021 Emission Factors Input ‐2024

Off-road Equipment - Ops Analysis
Off-road Equipment - Ops AnalysisTrips and VMT - Ops AnalysisGrading - Construction Phase - Ops analysis, No constructionOff-road Equipment - Ops AnalysisOff-road Equipment - Ops AnalysisOff-road Equipment - Ops AnalysisOff-road Equipment - Ops Analysis N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr)

0.004

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics - Analysis of Existing Ops EmissionsLand Use - Emissions Analysis for Existing Ops Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric CompanyCO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 203.98 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.033
Precipitation Freq (Days) 58
Climate Zone 4 Operational Year 2030

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2
0 Parking Lot 140.85 1000sqft 3.23 140,850.00 0
General Office Building 41.31 1000sqft 0.95 41,307.00
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis
Santa Clara County, Annual

1.0 Project Characteristics1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/8/2021 4:30 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/8/2021 4:30 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblFleetMix MCY 0.02 0.02tblFleetMix MDV 0.12 0.14tblFleetMix LHD2 5.3980e-003 6.1702e-003tblFleetMix MCY 0.02 0.02tblFleetMix LHD1 0.02 0.02tblFleetMix LHD2 5.3980e-003 6.1702e-003tblFleetMix LDT2 0.18 0.24tblFleetMix LHD1 0.02 0.02tblFleetMix LDT1 0.06 0.04tblFleetMix LDT2 0.18 0.24tblFleetMix LDA 0.58 0.51tblFleetMix LDT1 0.06 0.04tblFleetMix HHD 6.1320e-003 7.8440e-003tblFleetMix LDA 0.58 0.51 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 18.00 0.00
tblFleetMix HHD 6.1320e-003 7.8440e-003
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 230.00 0.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 18.00 0.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 0.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 8.00 0.00 Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 0.00
Vehicle Emission Factors - Vehicle Emission Factors - Water And Wastewater - 100% WWTP, city sewerConstruction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - No ConstructionFleet Mix - Fleet Mix based on county vehilcle Pop in EMFAC2021Vehicle Emission Factors - EMFAC2021 EFs

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/8/2021 4:30 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 4.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 tblFleetMix UBUS 3.3500e-004 3.9649e-004
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 41,310.00 41,307.00
tblFleetMix SBUS 8.3700e-004 6.8094e-004tblFleetMix UBUS 3.3500e-004 3.9649e-004tblFleetMix OBUS 8.5200e-004 1.0637e-003tblFleetMix SBUS 8.3700e-004 6.8094e-004tblFleetMix MHD 8.2190e-003 9.6587e-003tblFleetMix OBUS 8.5200e-004 1.0637e-003tblFleetMix MH 2.5260e-003 2.2720e-003tblFleetMix MHD 8.2190e-003 9.6587e-003tblFleetMix MDV 0.12 0.14tblFleetMix MH 2.5260e-003 2.2720e-003

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/8/2021 4:30 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblVehicleEF HHD 0.05 0.09tblVehicleEF HHD 0.00 4.4000e-008 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 14.00 0.00
tblVehicleEF HHD 0.02 0.20
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 30.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 72.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/8/2021 4:30 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblVehicleEF HHD 2.0000e-006 2.3900e-007tblVehicleEF HHD 0.02 0.01tblVehicleEF HHD 2.5000e-005 1.1399e-004tblVehicleEF HHD 0.42 0.31tblVehicleEF HHD 1.0000e-006 0.00tblVehicleEF HHD 1.0000e-006 4.0200e-005tblVehicleEF HHD 5.8000e-005 1.2700e-005tblVehicleEF HHD 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF HHD 1.0000e-006 1.3200e-007tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF HHD 8.9050e-003 8.7863e-003tblVehicleEF HHD 1.0000e-006 1.4400e-007tblVehicleEF HHD 2.0530e-003 1.6556e-003tblVehicleEF HHD 0.04 0.04tblVehicleEF HHD 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF HHD 2.1460e-003 1.7376e-003tblVehicleEF HHD 0.06 0.08tblVehicleEF HHD 2.52 1.45tblVehicleEF HHD 2.31 2.60tblVehicleEF HHD 2.0000e-006 3.7700e-006tblVehicleEF HHD 5.20 3.81tblVehicleEF HHD 0.15 0.12tblVehicleEF HHD 0.19 0.22tblVehicleEF HHD 1,226.35 1,395.93tblVehicleEF HHD 0.05 9.4375e-003tblVehicleEF HHD 6.6850e-003 8.7263e-004tblVehicleEF HHD 930.05 719.71tblVehicleEF HHD 6.28 5.00tblVehicleEF HHD 0.41 0.63

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/8/2021 4:30 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblVehicleEF LDA 1.1720e-003 1.3623e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.23tblVehicleEF LDA 2.0000e-003 2.0000e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 8.4300e-004 7.7101e-004tblVehicleEF LDA 1.2750e-003 1.4817e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 2.4773e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 8.0000e-003 8.0000e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 9.1600e-004 8.3824e-004tblVehicleEF LDA 0.12 0.18tblVehicleEF LDA 0.04 7.0779e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF LDA 42.17 55.99tblVehicleEF LDA 3.1760e-003 3.1649e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 1.69 2.09tblVehicleEF LDA 199.86 218.64tblVehicleEF LDA 0.03 0.05tblVehicleEF LDA 0.40 0.48tblVehicleEF HHD 2.0000e-006 2.6100e-007tblVehicleEF LDA 9.5900e-004 1.2508e-003tblVehicleEF HHD 0.07 0.10tblVehicleEF HHD 2.5000e-005 1.1399e-004tblVehicleEF HHD 0.49 0.54tblVehicleEF HHD 1.0000e-006 0.00tblVehicleEF HHD 1.0000e-006 4.0200e-005tblVehicleEF HHD 5.8000e-005 1.2700e-005tblVehicleEF HHD 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF HHD 1.0000e-006 9.3300e-008tblVehicleEF HHD 8.6530e-003 6.2147e-003

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/8/2021 4:30 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblVehicleEF LDT1 2.0000e-003 2.0000e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 1.4610e-003 2.0739e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.02 3.1983e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 8.0000e-003 8.0000e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 1.0550e-003 1.2601e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.15 0.27tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.04 9.1380e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.03 0.07tblVehicleEF LDT1 51.55 76.24tblVehicleEF LDT1 3.7700e-003 5.8697e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 1.82 3.41tblVehicleEF LDT1 241.46 296.02tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.04 0.07tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.53 0.90tblVehicleEF LDA 0.13 0.22tblVehicleEF LDT1 1.6710e-003 3.2732e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 4.6990e-003 6.3287e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.17tblVehicleEF LDA 0.06 0.06tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.00tblVehicleEF LDA 4.1700e-004 5.5354e-004tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.23tblVehicleEF LDA 0.12 0.20tblVehicleEF LDA 1.9770e-003 2.1614e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 3.2350e-003 4.3404e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.17tblVehicleEF LDA 0.06 0.06tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.00

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/8/2021 4:30 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblVehicleEF LDT2 8.0000e-003 8.0000e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.0100e-003 9.8896e-004tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.17 0.25tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.04 8.8377e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.03 0.04tblVehicleEF LDT2 53.79 77.16tblVehicleEF LDT2 4.0490e-003 4.5006e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 2.25 2.73tblVehicleEF LDT2 249.80 304.99tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.04 0.06tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.55 0.64tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.17 0.37tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.7260e-003 1.8780e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 9.4480e-003 0.02tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.06 0.36tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.09 0.12tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.04 0.00tblVehicleEF LDT1 5.1000e-004 7.5371e-004tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.05 0.47tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.15 0.34tblVehicleEF LDT1 2.3890e-003 2.9265e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 6.4760e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.06 0.36tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.09 0.12tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.04 0.00tblVehicleEF LDT1 1.3440e-003 1.9069e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.05 0.47tblVehicleEF LDT1 9.7000e-004 1.1586e-003

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/8/2021 4:30 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblVehicleEF LHD1 7.2900e-004 5.8852e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 698.55 665.93tblVehicleEF LHD1 10.09 15.88tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.89 2.05tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.25 7.81tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.18 0.18tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.47 0.54tblVehicleEF LHD1 5.1950e-003 4.0282e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 9.0230e-003 0.02tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.20 0.29tblVehicleEF LHD1 4.1480e-003 4.3354e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 9.4890e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.05 0.19tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.09 0.06tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.05 0.00tblVehicleEF LDT2 5.3200e-004 7.6281e-004tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.05 0.25tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.18 0.27tblVehicleEF LDT2 2.4710e-003 3.0147e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 6.5290e-003 6.8652e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.05 0.19tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.09 0.06tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.05 0.00tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.2320e-003 1.5244e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.05 0.25tblVehicleEF LDT2 2.0000e-003 2.0000e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 9.3000e-004 9.0987e-004tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.3400e-003 1.6579e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.02 3.0932e-003

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/8/2021 4:30 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD1 7.7200e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF LHD1 1.4030e-003 0.09tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.05 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD1 6.8120e-003 6.4983e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 1.0000e-004 1.5704e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.04 0.08tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.0000e-005 7.6000e-005tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.07 0.05tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.18 0.12tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD1 7.7200e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF LHD1 1.4030e-003 0.09tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.05 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD1 6.6710e-003 8.7606e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 1.9300e-004 1.2308e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF LHD1 2.4750e-003 2.3359e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 2.1000e-004 1.3386e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.7500e-004 6.3684e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 9.9010e-003 9.3434e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 7.0190e-003 9.1889e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 9.1500e-004 6.6564e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.08 0.07tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.30 0.31tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.23 0.33tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.05 0.04tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.04 0.04

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/8/2021 4:30 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblVehicleEF LHD2 6.4200e-004 0.05tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD2 9.8000e-005 5.2200e-005tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.04 0.03tblVehicleEF LHD2 2.7110e-003 2.6336e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.0600e-004 5.6700e-005tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.4370e-003 1.3932e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.5020e-003 1.4561e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.09 0.09tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.38 0.50tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.12 0.18tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.07 0.08tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.6660e-003 1.6805e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.06 0.07tblVehicleEF LHD2 679.81 713.03tblVehicleEF LHD2 6.44 8.54tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.48 1.11tblVehicleEF LHD2 13.00 13.36tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.13 0.14tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.49 0.38tblVehicleEF LHD2 5.3390e-003 4.4567e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 4.8110e-003 8.7205e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.05 0.09tblVehicleEF LHD2 2.5050e-003 2.5083e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.09 0.06tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.18 0.12

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/8/2021 4:30 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblVehicleEF MCY 4.0000e-003 4.0000e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 2.1380e-003 1.9967e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 0.27 0.10tblVehicleEF MCY 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF MCY 0.02 6.3407e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 1.14 0.51tblVehicleEF MCY 59.23 42.83tblVehicleEF MCY 0.07 0.04tblVehicleEF MCY 9.20 7.83tblVehicleEF MCY 209.76 185.58tblVehicleEF MCY 0.25 0.16tblVehicleEF MCY 17.61 11.05tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.02 0.05tblVehicleEF MCY 0.32 0.14tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.11 0.10tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.06 0.07tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD2 3.7400e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF LHD2 6.4200e-004 0.05tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.02 0.01tblVehicleEF LHD2 6.5570e-003 6.8595e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 6.4000e-005 8.4500e-005tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.02 0.04tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.2400e-004 1.2789e-004tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.10 0.08tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.06 0.07tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF LHD2 3.7400e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.02 0.01

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/8/2021 4:30 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblVehicleEF MDV 0.04 8.8924e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 0.04 0.05tblVehicleEF MDV 0.18 0.27tblVehicleEF MDV 5.2660e-003 5.4054e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF MDV 301.13 364.04tblVehicleEF MDV 63.46 91.48tblVehicleEF MDV 0.54 0.66tblVehicleEF MDV 2.29 2.78tblVehicleEF MDV 1.7720e-003 2.0971e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 0.04 0.07tblVehicleEF MCY 0.46 3.78tblVehicleEF MCY 2.04 1.23tblVehicleEF MCY 0.47 0.00tblVehicleEF MCY 2.67 1.09tblVehicleEF MCY 0.89 0.08tblVehicleEF MCY 0.63 3.56tblVehicleEF MCY 2.0760e-003 1.8346e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 5.8600e-004 4.2344e-004tblVehicleEF MCY 0.46 3.78tblVehicleEF MCY 1.88 1.13tblVehicleEF MCY 0.47 0.00tblVehicleEF MCY 2.13 0.89tblVehicleEF MCY 0.89 3.68tblVehicleEF MCY 0.63 3.56tblVehicleEF MCY 1.9940e-003 1.8635e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 2.6760e-003 3.1969e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 2.8620e-003 3.4163e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 5.0400e-003 4.2000e-003

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/8/2021 4:30 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblVehicleEF MH 0.05 0.07tblVehicleEF MH 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF MH 1,350.27 1,656.25tblVehicleEF MH 15.54 20.13tblVehicleEF MH 0.31 0.37tblVehicleEF MH 1.64 1.92tblVehicleEF MH 5.0270e-003 6.0741e-003tblVehicleEF MH 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF MDV 0.05 0.21tblVehicleEF MDV 0.22 0.33tblVehicleEF MDV 0.06 0.00tblVehicleEF MDV 9.9460e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF MDV 0.06 0.28tblVehicleEF MDV 0.10 0.07tblVehicleEF MDV 2.9760e-003 3.5970e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 6.2800e-004 9.0434e-004tblVehicleEF MDV 0.05 0.21tblVehicleEF MDV 0.20 0.30tblVehicleEF MDV 0.06 0.00tblVehicleEF MDV 6.8620e-003 8.0915e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 0.06 0.28tblVehicleEF MDV 0.10 0.07tblVehicleEF MDV 9.4000e-004 8.9404e-004tblVehicleEF MDV 1.2360e-003 1.4784e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 0.02 3.1123e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 2.0000e-003 2.0000e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 1.0200e-003 9.7072e-004tblVehicleEF MDV 1.3440e-003 1.6079e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 8.0000e-003 8.0000e-003

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/8/2021 4:30 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblVehicleEF MHD 0.15 0.16tblVehicleEF MHD 8.3830e-003 6.5780e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 0.41 0.63tblVehicleEF MHD 3.8320e-003 0.02tblVehicleEF MHD 1.0340e-003 9.4648e-003tblVehicleEF MH 5.8500e-003 0.12tblVehicleEF MH 0.08 0.10tblVehicleEF MH 0.14 0.00tblVehicleEF MH 0.05 0.06tblVehicleEF MH 0.35 20.30tblVehicleEF MH 0.03 4.90tblVehicleEF MH 0.01 0.02tblVehicleEF MH 1.5400e-004 1.9899e-004tblVehicleEF MH 5.8500e-003 0.12tblVehicleEF MH 0.07 0.09tblVehicleEF MH 0.14 0.00tblVehicleEF MH 0.04 0.05tblVehicleEF MH 0.35 20.30tblVehicleEF MH 0.03 4.90tblVehicleEF MH 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF MH 1.9500e-004 2.1430e-004tblVehicleEF MH 0.06 0.02tblVehicleEF MH 3.2970e-003 3.3357e-003tblVehicleEF MH 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF MH 2.1200e-004 2.3307e-004tblVehicleEF MH 0.13 0.04tblVehicleEF MH 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF MH 1.06 1.28tblVehicleEF MH 0.24 0.30

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/8/2021 4:30 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblVehicleEF MHD 6.1800e-004 1.3196e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 9.4800e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF MHD 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF MHD 0.04 0.03tblVehicleEF MHD 1.6800e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 3.4196e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF MHD 1.0300e-004 7.5600e-005tblVehicleEF MHD 2.8900e-004 0.01tblVehicleEF MHD 3.0000e-003 3.0000e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 6.6960e-003 5.1779e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 1.5500e-004 6.2582e-004tblVehicleEF MHD 0.06 0.02tblVehicleEF MHD 7.0060e-003 5.4200e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 1.1200e-004 8.2300e-005tblVehicleEF MHD 0.13 0.04tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF MHD 1.69 1.22tblVehicleEF MHD 1.6200e-004 6.5479e-004tblVehicleEF MHD 0.34 0.73tblVehicleEF MHD 1.43 0.58tblVehicleEF MHD 0.12 0.14tblVehicleEF MHD 7.7400e-003 4.7598e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 8.55 6.79tblVehicleEF MHD 9.3710e-003 0.02tblVehicleEF MHD 65.10 143.38tblVehicleEF MHD 993.45 1,074.54tblVehicleEF MHD 0.87 0.72

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/8/2021 4:30 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.3600e-004 2.9717e-004tblVehicleEF OBUS 7.8820e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.5600e-004 1.1806e-004tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.13 0.05tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.13 0.93tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.4200e-004 3.1074e-004tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.43 0.33tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.45 0.83tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.12 0.15tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF OBUS 13.46 12.02tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF OBUS 97.36 89.81tblVehicleEF OBUS 1,210.85 1,245.37tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.26 0.29tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.58 1.46tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 0.01tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.64 0.55tblVehicleEF OBUS 7.0980e-003 7.5210e-003tblVehicleEF OBUS 2.1970e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF MHD 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF MHD 0.05 0.04tblVehicleEF MHD 1.6800e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 0.03tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 3.4196e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 0.03 0.04tblVehicleEF MHD 8.5000e-005 6.7100e-005tblVehicleEF MHD 2.8900e-004 0.01

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/8/2021 4:30 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblVehicleEF SBUS 337.48 181.81tblVehicleEF SBUS 970.50 941.81tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.37 0.72tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.86 0.67tblVehicleEF SBUS 6.3380e-003 5.2156e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 2.93 1.82tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.07 0.08tblVehicleEF SBUS 4.4040e-003 0.09tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.05 0.08tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.08 0.08tblVehicleEF OBUS 4.8700e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 0.05tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 0.01tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.06 0.05tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.3300e-004 1.1882e-004tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.0620e-003 0.07tblVehicleEF OBUS 9.2400e-004 8.4613e-004tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.05 0.08tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.08 0.07tblVehicleEF OBUS 4.8700e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 0.01tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.05 0.04tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.4400e-004 1.0855e-004tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.0620e-003 0.07tblVehicleEF OBUS 3.0000e-003 3.0000e-003tblVehicleEF OBUS 7.5260e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.06 0.02

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/8/2021 4:30 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblVehicleEF SBUS 8.3040e-003 9.3352e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 5.0000e-005 3.8800e-005tblVehicleEF SBUS 8.7000e-004 0.04tblVehicleEF SBUS 3.2190e-003 1.6395e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 9.2880e-003 8.7391e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.01 0.03tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.04 0.03tblVehicleEF SBUS 4.1400e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.06 0.04tblVehicleEF SBUS 8.3040e-003 9.3352e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.32 0.20tblVehicleEF SBUS 6.2000e-005 4.2100e-005tblVehicleEF SBUS 8.7000e-004 0.04tblVehicleEF SBUS 2.6690e-003 2.6104e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.02 8.1872e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.9600e-003 7.1267e-004tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.32 0.02tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.02 8.5750e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 6.8000e-005 4.5800e-005tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.74 0.04tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.18 0.52tblVehicleEF SBUS 2.0480e-003 7.4627e-004tblVehicleEF SBUS 2.71 1.09tblVehicleEF SBUS 3.09 1.57tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.12 0.11tblVehicleEF SBUS 6.4910e-003 4.8476e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 5.06 3.93tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.04 0.02

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/8/2021 4:30 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.7600e-004 7.8778e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 9.2610e-003 8.3785e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 3.6000e-005 0.00tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.03 0.05tblVehicleEF UBUS 6.1000e-005 7.0381e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 8.1400e-004 2.0980e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 4.8930e-003 4.6095e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.4000e-005 1.1600e-005tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.03 0.05tblVehicleEF UBUS 8.3320e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF UBUS 5.1160e-003 4.8221e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.5000e-005 1.2600e-005tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.07 0.15tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.03 0.06tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.71 0.26tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.28 0.15tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.2560e-003 4.5820e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 1,668.67 969.99tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.40 3.03tblVehicleEF UBUS 14.11 7.38tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.14 0.53tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.86 0.63tblVehicleEF UBUS 2.1860e-003 2.5024e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.01 0.03tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.04 0.03tblVehicleEF SBUS 4.1400e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.07 0.13tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.46 0.32

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/8/2021 4:30 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
2024 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00002023 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4

2.0 Emissions Summary

2.1 Overall Construction
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
tblWater SepticTankPercent 10.33 0.00tblWater SepticTankPercent 10.33 0.00tblWater AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPercent 2.21 0.00tblWater AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPercent 2.21 0.00tblWater AerobicPercent 87.46 100.00tblWater AerobicPercent 87.46 100.00 tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.7600e-004 7.8778e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.01 9.1734e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 3.6000e-005 0.00tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.90 0.69tblVehicleEF UBUS 6.1000e-005 7.0381e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 8.1400e-004 2.0980e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.01 7.3894e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.4000e-005 2.9900e-005

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/8/2021 4:30 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4

2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
Highest
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2
Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
2024 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00002023 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO
Mitigated Construction

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/8/2021 4:30 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied PM2.5 N20 CO2e
Total
Fugitive Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO SO2
335.3150 345.7116 0.4931 0.0177 363.3128

9.7700e003 5.7500e-003 9.6885
Total 0.3451 0.1270 0.9727 2.6300e-003 0.2466 3.9100e003 0.2505 0.0615 3.8200e- 003 0.0653 10.3966 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.5977 5.1331 7.7308

0.0000 7.7989 0.4609 0.0000 19.3215

0.0104 9.9200e-003 227.5007
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.7989

1.3200e003 2.4300e-003 0.2466 1.4100e- 0.0628 0.0000 224.2862 224.2862 003 Mobile 0.1464 0.0942 0.9435 0.2480 0.0615 105.8925 105.8925 0.0120 2.0300e-003 106.7987

1.0000e005 0.0000 3.4600e- 003
Energy 3.6100e003 0.0328 0.0276 2.0000e-004 2.4900e- 003 2.4900e-003 2.4900e- 003 2.4900e-003 0.0000

1.0000e005 1.0000e-005 0.0000 3.2500e- 003 3.2500e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 Area 0.1951 1.0000e-005 1.6700e- 1.0000e-005 003 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
Mitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
335.3150 345.7116 0.4931 0.0177 363.3128

9.7700e003 5.7500e-003 9.6885
Total 0.3451 0.1270 0.9727 2.6300e-003 0.2466 3.9100e003 0.2505 0.0615 3.8200e- 003 0.0653 10.3966 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.5977 5.1331 7.7308

0.0000 7.7989 0.4609 0.0000 19.3215

0.0104 9.9200e-003 227.5007
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.7989

1.3200e003 2.4300e-003 0.2466 1.4100e- 0.0628 0.0000 224.2862 224.2862 003 Mobile 0.1464 0.0942 0.9435 0.2480 0.0615 105.8925 105.8925 0.0120 2.0300e-003 106.7987

1.0000e005 0.0000 3.4600e- 003
Energy 3.6100e003 0.0328 0.0276 2.0000e-004 2.4900e- 003 2.4900e-003 2.4900e- 003 2.4900e-003 0.0000

1.0000e005 1.0000e-005 0.0000 3.2500e- 003 3.2500e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 Area 0.1951 1.0000e-005 1.6700e- 1.0000e-005 003

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/8/2021 4:30 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
General Office Building 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by

4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Total 402.36 91.30 28.92 727,854 727,854
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual VMT
General Office Building 402.36 91.30 28.92 727,854 727,854 Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT

0.0104 9.9200e-003 227.5007

4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
227.5007
Unmitigated 0.1464 0.0942 0.9435 2.4300e-003 0.2466 1.4100e003 0.2480 0.0615 1.3200e- 003 0.0628 0.0000 224.2862 224.2862

0.0000 224.2862 224.2862 0.0104 9.9200e-003
CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yrMitigated 0.1464 0.0942 0.9435 2.4300e-003 0.2466 1.4100e003 0.2480 0.0615 1.3200e- 003 0.0628 Exhaust Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/8/2021 4:30 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Unmitigated

35.7096 35.7096 6.8000e004 6.5000e-004 35.9219

6.8000e004 6.5000e-004 35.9219
NaturalGas
Unmitigated

3.6100e003 0.0328 0.0276 2.0000e-004 2.4900e- 003 2.4900e-003 2.4900e- 003 2.4900e-003 0.0000

2.4900e003 2.0000e-004 2.4900e- 2.4900e-003 0.0000 35.7096 35.7096 003 NaturalGas 2.4900e-003 Mitigated 3.6100e- 003 0.0328 0.0276

70.1829 70.1829 0.0114 1.3800e-003 70.8768

0.0114 1.3800e-003 70.8768
Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Electricity Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 70.1829 70.1829 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO

0.000681 0.002272

5.0 Energy Detail
Historical Energy Use: N

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

0.000396 0.021950 0.000681 0.002272
Parking Lot 0.514977 0.035448 0.239576 0.135703 0.024260 0.006170 0.009659 0.007844 0.001064 0.000396 0.021950 General Office Building 0.514977 0.035448 0.239576 0.135703 0.024260 0.006170 0.009659 0.007844 0.001064 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/8/2021 4:30 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

35.7096 35.7096 6.8000e-004 6.5000e004 35.9219

0.0000 0.0000
Total 3.6100e003 0.0328 0.0276 2.0000e- 004 2.4900e-003 2.4900e- 003 2.4900e- 003 2.4900e-003 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

35.7096 6.8000e-004 6.5000e004 35.9219
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

2.4900e003 0.0276 2.0000e- 2.4900e-003 0.0000 35.7096 004 2.4900e-003 2.4900e- 003 General Office Building 669173 3.6100e- 003 0.0328 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
Mitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5

35.7096 35.7096 6.8000e-004 6.5000e004 35.9219

0.0000 0.0000
Total 3.6100e003 0.0328 0.0276 2.0000e- 004 2.4900e-003 2.4900e- 003 2.4900e- 003 2.4900e-003 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

35.7096 6.8000e-004 6.5000e004 35.9219
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

2.4900e003 0.0276 2.0000e- 2.4900e-003 0.0000 35.7096 004 2.4900e-003 2.4900e- 003 General Office Building 669173 3.6100e- 003 0.0328 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
NaturalGa PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/8/2021 4:30 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

6.0 Area Detail6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

9.0000e-005 4.6063
Total 70.1829 0.0114 1.3800e-003 70.8768
Parking Lot 49297.5 4.5612 7.4000e-004
Land Use kWh/yr t
on
MT/yr
General Office
Building
709241 65.6217 0.0106 1.2900e-003 66.2706
Mitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

9.0000e-005 4.6063
Total 70.1829 0.0114 1.3800e-003 70.8768
Parking Lot 49297.5 4.5612 7.4000e-004
Land Use kWh/yr t
on
MT/yr
General Office
Building
709241 65.6217 0.0106 1.2900e-003 66.2706

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/8/2021 4:30 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Mitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

3.2500e003 3.2500e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.4600e- 003

1.0000e005 0.0000 3.4600e- 003
Total 0.1951 1.0000e-005 1.6700e003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e-005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e-005 0.0000

1.0000e005 1.0000e-005 0.0000 3.2500e- 003 3.2500e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 Landscaping 1.5000e- 1.0000e-005 004 1.0000e-005 1.6700e- 003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.1704 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Architectural 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating

0.0245
CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO

1.0000e005 0.0000 3.4600e- 003

6.2 Area by SubCategory
Unmitigated

3.4600e003
Unmitigated 0.1951 1.0000e-005 1.6700e003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e-005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e-005 0.0000 3.2500e- 003 3.2500e- 003

0.0000 3.2500e003 3.2500e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000
CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yrMitigated 0.1951 1.0000e-005 1.6700e003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e-005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e-005 Exhaust Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total
PM10

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/8/2021 4:30 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

9.6885

7.2 Water by Land Use
Unmitigated
Unmitigated 7.7308 9.7700e-003 5.7500e003
Category t
on
MT/yr
Mitigated 7.7308 9.7700e-003 5.7500e003 9.6885

7.0 Water Detail7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

3.2500e003 3.2500e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.4600e- 003

1.0000e005 0.0000 3.4600e- 003
Total 0.1951 1.0000e-005 1.6700e003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e-005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e-005 0.0000

1.0000e005 1.0000e-005 0.0000 3.2500e- 003 3.2500e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 Landscaping 1.5000e- 1.0000e-005 004 1.0000e-005 1.6700e- 003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.1704 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Architectural 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating

0.0245
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/8/2021 4:30 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

8.0 Waste Detail8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Category/Year

0.0000 0.0000
Total 7.7308 9.7700e-003 5.7500e-003 9.6885
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000
Land Use Mgal t
on
MT/yr
General Office
Building

7.34218 /

4.50005

7.7308 9.7700e-003 5.7500e-003 9.6885
Mitigated
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

0.0000 0.0000
Total 7.7308 9.7700e-003 5.7500e-003 9.6885
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000
Land Use Mgal t
on
MT/yr
General Office
Building

7.34218 /

4.50005

7.7308 9.7700e-003 5.7500e-003 9.6885
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/8/2021 4:30 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Mitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

0.0000 0.0000
Total 7.7989 0.4609 0.0000 19.3215
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000
Land Use tons t
on
MT/yr
General Office
Building

38.42 7.7989 0.4609 0.0000 19.3215

19.3215

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Unmitigated 7.7989 0.4609 0.0000
ton
MT/yr
Mitigated 7.7989 0.4609 0.0000 19.3215
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/8/2021 4:30 PM
Milpitas Blvd. Bridge - Existing Use Ops Analysis - Santa Clara County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number

11.0 Vegetation
Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel TypeEquipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year

0.0000 0.0000
Total 7.7989 0.4609 0.0000 19.3215
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000
Land Use tons t
on
MT/yr
General Office
Building

38.42 7.7989 0.4609 0.0000 19.3215

FleetMixLandUseSubType LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY

0.514977 0.035448 0.239576 0.135703 0.02426 0.00617 0.009659 0.007844 0.001064 0.000396 0.02195 CalEEMod EMFAC2021 Fleet Mix Input ‐ 2030

SBUS MH

0.000681 0.002272

Season EmissionType LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH A CH4_IDLEX 0000 0.004335 0.002508 0.015544 0.200689575 0.007521 0 0 0.081907 0 A CH4_RUNEX 0.001251 0.003273 0.001878 0.002097 0.004028 0.004457 0.009465 0.087739612 0.010745 0.633168094 0.142987 0.08726 0.006074A CH4_STREX 0.045719 0.070684 0.060357 0.065129 0.016442 0.00872 0.006578 4.40093E‐08 0.013432 0.002502449 0.157242 0.005216 0.022777 A CO_IDLEX 0000 0.182077 0.135546 0.628457 4.997868655 0.549826 0 0 1.823721 0 A CO_RUNEX 0.484447 0.895501 0.639473 0.660784 0.544761 0.383737 0.155266 0.628349624 0.288528 7.378159276 11.04655 0.716417 0.371762A CO_STREX 2.08878 3.413929 2.729559 2.781248 2.051418 1.109837 0.71851 0.00087263 1.464305 0.531636543 7.830862 0.671301 1.918466 A CO2_NBIO_IDLEX 0000 7.808851 13.36322 143.3801 719.710734 89.80588 0 0 181.8136 0 A CO2_NBIO_RUNEX 218.6415 296.0222 304.9904 364.0422 665.9344 713.025 1074.538 1395.928332 1245.372 969.9926525 185.5769 941.807 1656.25A CO2_NBIO_STREX 55.99265 76.24029 77.1602 91.4769 15.88489 8.544837 6.787068 0.009437452 12.01881 3.025945099 42.83228 3.929487 20.12804A NOX_IDLEX 0000 0.036306 0.076255 0.72827 3.806064714 0.333548 0 0 1.088868 0 A NOX_RUNEX 0.023158 0.066035 0.041164 0.048222 0.312391 0.495733 0.584719 1.446947564 0.825827 0.255958394 0.509869 1.567888 1.278466A NOX_STREX 0.178975 0.272625 0.247045 0.271696 0.32724 0.178285 1.220957 2.603954429 0.931305 0.025581732 0.103081 0.520702 0.298107A PM10_IDLEX 0000 0.000666 0.001456 0.000655 0.001737607 0.000311 0 0 0.000746 0 A PM10_PMBW 0.007078 0.009138 0.008838 0.008892 0.0744 0.086908 0.04333 0.082108579 0.049981 0.147119217 0.012 0.043749 0.04494A PM10_PMTW 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.009343 0.010534 0.012 0.035145225 0.012 0.05700071 0.004 0.010442 0.013343A PM10_RUNEX 0.000838 0.00126 0.000989 0.000971 0.009189 0.01687 0.00542 0.023402177 0.012621 0.004822062 0.001997 0.008575 0.022807A PM10_STREX 0.001482 0.002074 0.001658 0.001608 0.000134 5.67E‐05 8.23E‐05 1.43954E‐07 0.000118 1.26121E‐05 0.003416 4.58E‐05 0.000233 A PM25_IDLEX 0000 0.000637 0.001393 0.000626 0.001655588 0.000297 0 0 0.000713 0 A PM25_PMBW 0.002477 0.003198 0.003093 0.003112 0.02604 0.030418 0.015165 0.028738003 0.017493 0.051491726 0.0042 0.015312 0.015729A PM25_PMTW 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002336 0.002634 0.003 0.008786306 0.003 0.014250178 0.001 0.00261 0.003336A PM25_RUNEX 0.000771 0.001159 0.00091 0.000894 0.008761 0.016127 0.005178 0.022386582 0.012067 0.00460949 0.001864 0.008187 0.021783A PM25_STREX 0.001362 0.001907 0.001524 0.001478 0.000123 5.22E‐05 7.56E‐05 1.3236E‐07 0.000109 1.15963E‐05 0.003197 4.21E‐05 0.000214 A ROG_DIURN 0.227323 0.469769 0.248439 0.276762 0.087274 0.048494 0.014918 4.02275E‐05 0.069383 0.007038146 3.680755 0.041692 20.29626 A ROG_HTSK 0.060745 0.120653 0.063468 0.068938 0.020831 0.011136 0.00342 1.26947E‐05 0.014014 0.002098044 3.555147 0.009335 4.900484 A ROG_IDLEX 0000 0.01758 0.01365 0.020875 0.311156106 0.039789 0 0 0.197824 0 A ROG_RESTL 0000000 00 0000
A ROG_RUNEX 0.00434 0.013675 0.006865 0.008091 0.050519 0.082873 0.014952 0.014289903 0.031966 0.05310504 0.890508 0.040189 0.050568 A ROG_RUNLS 0.170881 0.355945 0.18526 0.207423 0.123377 0.065349 0.028627 0.000113992 0.077263 0.007877766 3.783469 0.027699 0.119258A ROG_STREX 0.197184 0.337555 0.26551 0.301161 0.07823 0.041209 0.034167 2.38553E‐07 0.071386 0.008378471 1.134366 0.029472 0.088942 A SO2_IDLEX 0000 7.6E‐05 0.000128 0.00132 0.006214699 0.000846 0 0 0.001639 0 A SO2_RUNEX 0.002161 0.002926 0.003015 0.003597 0.006498 0.00686 0.010167 0.012580529 0.011835 0.007389377 0.001835 0.008739 0.016224A SO2_STREX 0.000554 0.000754 0.000763 0.000904 0.000157 8.45E‐05 6.71E‐05 9.32988E‐08 0.000119 2.99145E‐05 0.000423 3.88E‐05 0.000199 A TOG_DIURN 0.227323 0.469769 0.248439 0.276762 0.087274 0.048494 0.014918 4.02275E‐05 0.069383 0.007038146 0.080793 0.041692 20.29626 A TOG_HTSK 0.060745 0.120653 0.063468 0.068938 0.020831 0.011136 0.00342 1.26947E‐05 0.014014 0.002098044 3.555147 0.009335 4.900484A TOG_IDLEX 0000 0.0248 0.018097 0.03926 0.541395418 0.052568 0 0 0.32342 0 A TOG_RESTL 0000000 00 0000
A TOG_RUNEX 0.006329 0.019954 0.010004 0.011775 0.060583 0.095343 0.026358 0.103810529 0.046832 0.694289379 1.091848 0.133799 0.062589A TOG_RUNLS 0.170881 0.355945 0.18526 0.207423 0.123377 0.065349 0.028627 0.000113992 0.077263 0.007877766 3.783469 0.027699 0.119258A TOG_STREX 0.215892 0.36958 0.2907 0.329734 0.085652 0.045119 0.037409 2.61185E‐07 0.078158 0.009173371 1.234067 0.032269 0.097381 A N2O_IDLEX 0000 0.000589 0.00168 0.022195 0.116327365 0.013129 0 0 0.023481 0A N2O_RUNEX 0.003165 0.00587 0.004501 0.005405 0.035467 0.074134 0.137514 0.223022009 0.151496 0.151061958 0.036967 0.112558 0.068485A N2O_STREX 0.025397 0.032408 0.031653 0.032172 0.028461 0.015119 0.00476 3.77164E‐06 0.011347 0.00458201 0.006341 0.004848 0.033159 CalEEMod EMFAC2021 Emission Factors Input ‐ 2030

Attachment 3: Project Operations Emissions Calculations

Roadway_EFs
Vehicle Category VMT Fraction     Diesel VMT Fraction Gas VMT Fraction Across Category Within Category Within Category
Truck 1 0.029 0.495 0.505
Truck 2 0.017 0.937 0.048
Non‐Truck 0.954 0.014 0.955
<= 5 mph      10 mph      15 mph      20 mph      25 mph      30 mph      35 mph      40 mph      45 mph PM2_5 Ex
Dsl
NonTruck 0.000519025 0.000418211 0.000308436 0.00023232 0.00019271 0.00016993 0.000156988 0.000153 0.000156 Truck1 0.038241407 0.031165753 0.025617735 0.021153089 0.01752134 0.01457783 0.012237826 0.010452 0.009193 Truck2 0.023786596 0.019648679 0.013640291 0.009792214 0.00808297 0.00754693 0.007809315 0.00887 0.010731 Gas
NonTruck 0.008380317 0.005287246 0.003518682 0.002469804 0.00182821 0.00142701 0.001174443 0.001019 0.000932 Truck1 0.001924741 0.001376549 0.001031064 0.000802919 0.00064765 0.00054133 0.0004707 0.000428 0.00041 Truck2 0.000337853 0.000212955 0.00014161 9.93411E‐05 7.3516E‐05 5.7391E‐05 4.72597E‐05 4.11E‐05 3.76E‐05 PM2.5 Running Exh 0.010064905 0.006724381 0.004658179 0.003382706 0.00259352 0.00209121 0.001772294 0.001585 0.0015 DPM Running Exha 0.00125173 0.001031982 0.000814892 0.000657131 0.00056232 0.00050925 0.000485368 0.000488 0.000514 <= 5 mph      10 mph      15 mph      20 mph      25 mph      30 mph      35 mph      40 mph      45 mph PM10 Ex
Dsl
NonTruck 0.000542492 0.000437121 0.000322382 0.000242824 0.00020142 0.00017761 0.000164086 0.000159 0.000163 Truck1 0.039970514 0.03257493 0.026776055 0.022109537 0.01831357 0.01523698 0.012791166 0.010924 0.009608 Truck2 0.02486212 0.020537106 0.014257044 0.010234975 0.00844845 0.00788817 0.008162418 0.009271 0.011216 Gas
NonTruck 0.00911353 0.005749826 0.003826522 0.002685873 0.00198815 0.00155184 0.00127718 0.001108 0.001014 Truck1 0.002093331 0.001497123 0.001121376 0.000873247 0.00070438 0.00058875 0.00051193 0.000466 0.000446 Truck2 0.000367446 0.000231608 0.000154013 0.000108043 7.9956E‐05 6.2418E‐05 5.13992E‐05 4.46E‐05 4.09E‐05 PM10 Running Exh 0.010860599 0.007243504 0.005012068 0.003636309 0.00278535 0.00224401 0.001900392 0.001698 0.001606 TOG Ex
Dsl
NonTruck 0.004461989 0.003292667 0.001792823 0.000942595 0.00068376 0.00055872 0.000471583 0.00041 0.000369 Truck1 0.205483607 0.169186043 0.141168744 0.118711022 0.10027894 0.08498668 0.07231525 0.061962 0.053759 Truck2 0.184182681 0.119389443 0.060975557 0.033812869 0.0247627 0.01987114 0.016209849 0.013746 0.01245 Gas
NonTruck 0.141082716 0.090050002 0.060605954 0.042991364 0.03212929 0.02528811 0.020955613 0.018279 0.016782 Truck1 0.088378875 0.059384219 0.041808141 0.030736591 0.02354925 0.01880399 0.01568774 0.013738 0.012697 Truck2 0.027109942 0.017170313 0.011473141 0.00808717 0.00601274 0.00471475 0.003898603 0.003399 0.003125 TOG Running Exhau 0.150963635 0.09799896 0.066066391 0.046959278 0.03541786 0.02808576 0.023335476 0.020317 0.018555 DEOG Running Exh 0.01394394 0.010050112 0.005409547 0.002736885 0.00189755 0.0014995 0.001234477 0.001057 0.000946 ROG Ex
Dsl
NonTruck 0.003919424 0.002892289 0.001574822 0.00082798 0.00060062 0.00049078 0.000164086 0.000159 0.000163 Truck1 0.1804968 0.14861302 0.124002625 0.104275762 0.08808502 0.0746523 0.012791166 0.010924 0.009608 Truck2 0.161787437 0.104872574 0.053561383 0.029701475 0.02175174 0.01745496 0.008162418 0.009271 0.011216 Gas
NonTruck 0.101016105 0.064543447 0.043484797 0.030878583 0.02310095 0.01820093 0.00127718 0.001108 0.001014 Truck1 0.060566761 0.040696487 0.028651458 0.021064036 0.01613849 0.01288653 0.00051193 0.000466 0.000446 Truck2 0.018578664 0.011766955 0.007862637 0.005542203 0.00412058 0.00323106 5.13992E‐05 4.46E‐05 4.09E‐05 ROG Running Exha 0.110165562 0.07180654 0.048458053 0.034482057 0.02607361 0.02072218 0.001900392 0.001698 0.001606 NOx Ex
Dsl
NonTruck 0.032160113 0.024937447 0.01718601 0.013171581 0.01098323 0.00932308 0.008058634 0.007161 0.006616 Truck1 0.914759599 0.84654122 0.787788761 0.738478111 0.69858303 0.66807586 0.646922552 0.63509 0.632547 Truck2 7.818830478 5.725324901 3.832322392 2.989904998 2.34103156 1.83436415 1.439566792 1.156328 0.984465 Gas
NonTruck 0.107715771 0.092773909 0.081406286 0.072742907 0.06617543 0.06127249 0.057734149 0.055355 0.054005 Truck1 0.11512043 0.10243921 0.092723784 0.08534641 0.07985114 0.07590242 0.073259005 0.071749 0.071255 Truck2 0.037648521 0.03282133 0.029083053 0.026191363 0.02397038 0.02229077 0.021059755 0.020211 0.019701 NOx Running Exhau 0.296868257 0.237705552 0.185235807 0.157126971 0.13638898 0.12048668 0.108482231 0.10014 0.095313 N2O Running Exhau 0.019918404 0.016886315 0.013769858 0.012096669 0.01092927 0.01015331 0.009720915 0.009429 0.009275 CO2 Ex
Dsl
NonTruck 21.50630339 18.11583637 14.68885888 12.43710238 10.9936729 9.94253859 9.209077349 8.716891 8.444368 Truck1 609.6112408 529.7498972 448.5301725 388.3443305 337.775786 295.862711 264.2276176 239.6603 222.9362 EMFAC2021_PL_2024_Annual_EFs.xlsx

Roadway_EFs
Truck2 2718.604633 2312.541153 1881.379886 1671.924741 1492.61697 1382.37876 1298.350579 1240.253 1207.877 Gas
NonTruck 715.7602331 581.0496753 475.1804698 394.9835245 337.606657 299.563865 277.6860567 268.8041 269.749 Truck1 786.9437031 666.933895 565.132278 480.379805 411.633333 357.61791 317.1744891 289.144 272.3675 Truck2 181.746047 147.5378672 120.6542624 100.2903342 85.7216741 76.0628939 70.5090953 68.25538 68.49685 CO2 Running Exhau 793.1583307 648.1290715 530.7661312 443.9999343 381.129336 339.013555 313.8292334 302.335 301.4587 CH4 Ex
Dsl
NonTruck 0.000182049 0.000134341 7.3147E‐05 3.84578E‐05 2.7897E‐05 2.2796E‐05 1.92405E‐05 1.67E‐05 1.51E‐05 Truck1 0.008383731 0.006902791 0.005759685 0.00484341 0.00409138 0.00346746 0.002950462 0.002528 0.002193 Truck2 0.007514607 0.004871059 0.002487788 0.001379557 0.00101031 0.00081074 0.000661358 0.000561 0.000508 Gas
NonTruck 0.021166075 0.014311963 0.010131703 0.007506998 0.00582011 0.00472034 0.004004141 0.003552 0.003295 Truck1 0.011770358 0.008387415 0.006201341 0.004737477 0.00372964 0.00302515 0.002535486 0.00221 0.002023 Truck2 0.003334557 0.002244125 0.001581729 0.001167525 0.00090244 0.0007304 0.000618966 0.000549 0.00051 CH4 Running Exhau 0.021135015 0.014346148 0.010151479 0.007519511 0.00583833 0.00473943 0.004019164 0.003561 0.003297 PM2_5 BW
Dsl
NonTruck 0.000203525 0.00020867 0.000213489 0.000217072 0.00020642 0.00019978 0.000192868 0.000186 0.000175 Truck1 0.014224377 0.014224377 0.014224377 0.014224377 0.01422438 0.01422438 0.014224377 0.014224 0.014224 Truck2 0.03718473 0.03718473 0.036783206 0.036050602 0.03434067 0.03340799 0.028807297 0.025674 0.02254 Gas
NonTruck 0.002362054 0.002919263 0.003476446 0.00403329 0.00436589 0.00448226 0.004598224 0.00414 0.003105 Truck1 0.014044657 0.014044657 0.014044657 0.014044657 0.01404466 0.01404466 0.014044657 0.014045 0.014045 Truck2 0.001035541 0.001035541 0.001035487 0.001020879 0.00083929 0.00074849 0.000700716 0.0007 0.0007 PM2.5 BW (grams/ 0.003917109 0.004453595 0.004982918 0.005504863 0.00577985 0.00586713 0.00589214 0.005395 0.004344 PM10 BW
Dsl
NonTruck 0.0005815 0.000596199 0.000609969 0.000620206 0.00058978 0.00057079 0.00055105 0.000531 0.000499 Truck1 0.040641077 0.040641077 0.040641077 0.040641077 0.04064108 0.04064108 0.040641077 0.040641 0.040641 Truck2 0.106242087 0.106242087 0.105094875 0.10300172 0.0981162 0.09545141 0.082306562 0.073353 0.0644 Gas
NonTruck 0.006748725 0.008340753 0.009932702 0.011523686 0.01247397 0.01280647 0.013137783 0.011828 0.008873 Truck1 0.040127592 0.040127592 0.040127592 0.040127592 0.04012759 0.04012759 0.040127592 0.040128 0.040128 Truck2 0.002958688 0.002958688 0.002958533 0.002916799 0.00239798 0.00213854 0.002002045 0.002001 0.002 PM10 BW (grams/v 0.011191739 0.012724556 0.014236907 0.015728179 0.01651385 0.01676323 0.016834685 0.015414 0.012412 TOG Running Loss Emissions Factor (grams/veh‐hour) ROG Running Loss Emissions Factor (grams/veh‐hour) Gas Gas
NonTruck 1.062045747 NonTruck 1.062045747
Truck1 0.069816921 Truck1 0.069816921
Truck2 0.041590162 Truck2 0.041590162
TOG Running Loss E 1.173452831 ROG Running L 1.173452831 HFC Running Loss 0.016012165
CH4 Running Loss 0.175260502
PM2_5 TW PM10 TW
Dsl Dsl
NonTruck 4.61623E‐05 NonTruck 0.000184649
Truck1 0.001485 Truck1 0.00594
Truck2 0.006601054 Truck2 0.026404216
Gas Gas
NonTruck 0.001907037 NonTruck 0.00762815
Truck1 0.00101 Truck1 0.00404
Truck2 0.000144154 Truck2 0.000576617
PM2_5 TW 0.002050376 PM10 TW 0.008201504
EMFAC2021_PL_2024_Annual_EFs.xlsx

File Name:

EMFAC2021/CT‐EMFAC2017:

Run Date: 10/21/2021 11:01
Area: Santa Clara (SF)
Analysis Year: 2024
Season: Annual
======================================================================= Vehicle Category VMT Fraction     Diesel VMTGas VMT Fraction Across Category Within CateWithin Category
Truck 1 0.029 0.495 0.505
Truck 2 0.017 0.937 0.048
Non‐Truck 0.954 0.014 0.955
======================================================================= Road Type:

Silt Loading Factor:            CARB 0.32 g/m2
Precipitation Correction:            CARB P = 64 daysN = 365 days ======================================================================= Fleet Average Running Exhaust Emission Factors (grams/veh‐mile) Pollutant Name    <= 5 mph      10 mph      15 mph      20 mph      25 mph      30 mph      35 mph      40 mph      45 mph      50 mph      55 mph      60 mph      65 mph      70 mph      75 mph PM2.5 0.010064905 0.006724 0.004658 0.003383 0.002594 0.002091 0.001772 0.001585 0.0015 000000 PM10 0.010860599 0.007244 0.005012 0.003636 0.002785 0.002244 0.0019 0.001698 0.001606 000000 NOx 0.296868257 0.237706 0.185236 0.157127 0.136389 0.120487 0.108482 0.10014 0.095313 000000 CO
HC
TOG 0.150963635 0.097999 0.066066 0.046959 0.035418 0.028086 0.023335 0.020317 0.018555 000000 ROG 0.110165562 0.071807 0.048458 0.034482 0.026074 0.020722 0.0019 0.001698 0.001606 000000 1,3‐Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
Diesel PM 0.001251732 0.001032 0.000815 0.000657 0.000562 0.000509 0.000485 0.000488 0.000514 000000 Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Naphthalene
POM
DEOG 0.01394394 0.01005 0.00541 0.002737 0.001898 0.0015 0.001234 0.001057 0.000946 000000 CO2 793.1583307 648.1291 530.7661 443.9999 381.1293 339.0136 313.8292 302.335 301.4587 000000 N2O 0.019918404 0.016886 0.01377 0.012097 0.010929 0.010153 0.009721 0.009429 0.009275 000000 CH4 0.021135015 0.014346 0.010151 0.00752 0.005838 0.004739 0.004019 0.003561 0.003297 000000 BC
Fleet Average Fuel Consumption (gallons/veh‐mile)
Fuel Type    <= 5 mph      10 mph      15 mph      20 mph      25 mph      30 mph      35 mph      40 mph      45 mph      50 mph      55 mph      60 mph      65 mph      70 mph      75 mph Gasoline 0.074234 0.060034 0.049124 0.040865 0.034934 0.031008 0.028719 0.027786 0.027897 0.028696 0.029898 0.031 0.031925 0.031925 0.031925 Diesel 0.007686 0.006432 0.004914 0.004206 0.003682 0.003262 0.002995 0.002791 0.002666 0.002665 0.002747 0.00288 0.003095 0.003095 0.003095 ======================================================================= Fleet Average Running Loss Emission Factors (grams/veh‐hour) Pollutant Name Emission Factor
HC
TOG 1.173452831
ROG 1.173452831
1,3‐Butadiene
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
CH4 0.175260502
HFC 0.016012165
======================================================================= Fleet Average Tire Wear Factors (grams/veh‐mile)
Pollutant Name
PM2.5 0.002050376
PM10 0.008201504
======================================================================= Fleet Average Brake Wear Factors (grams/veh‐mile)
Pollutant Name    <= 5 mph      10 mph      15 mph      20 mph      25 mph      30 mph      35 mph      40 mph      45 mph      50 mph      55 mph      60 mph      65 mph      70 mph      75 mph PM2.5 0.003917109 0.004454 0.004983 0.005505 0.00578 0.005867 0.005892 0.005395 0.004344 000000 PM10 0.011191739 0.012725 0.014237 0.015728 0.016514 0.016763 0.016835 0.015414 0.012412 000000 ======================================================================= Fleet Average Road Dust Factors (grams/veh‐mile)
Pollutant Name Emission Factor (Local Urban)
PM2.5 0.120114
PM10 0.800757
=============================END=======================================

Traffic and EFS
(ft) (m) (ft) (m)
DPM_XING DPM from the new Crossing Both 2 0.07 34 10.36 11.15 3.4 6.8 3.16 25mph 700 XXX_XING XXX from The New Crossing Both 2 0.07 34 10.36 4.27 1.3 2.86 1.33 25mph 700 DPM_W DPM from the new roadway west of the Crossing Both 2 0.06 34 10.36 11.15 3.4 6.80 3.16 25mph 350 XXX_W XXX from the new roadway west of the Crossing Both 2 0.06 34 10.36 4.27 1.3 2.79 1.30 25mph 350 DPM_E DPM from the new roadway east of the Crossing Both 2 0.03 34 10.36 11.15 3.4 6.8 3.16 25mph 350 XXX_E XXX from the new roadway east of the Crossing Both 2 0.03 34 10.36 4.27 1.3 2.86 1.33 25mph 350Emission Factors Speed Category 123Travel Speed (mph) 25
DPM 0.000562PM2.5 0.002594TOG Exhaust 0.03352
TOG Evap 0.046938
Fugitive PM2.5 0.127944
Bridge
W/oCrossing
E/oCrossing XXX XXX XXX
Truck 1 (MDT) 20 10 10 00
Truck 2 (HDT) 12 6 6 00
Non‐Truck 668 334 334 00
Total 2024 ADT ‐ 700 350 350
NB ‐SB ‐
Average
Vehicles
per Day
Link Width Release Height
Link
Length
(miles)
No. Lanes
Initial
Vertical
Dimention
(m)
Initial
Vertical
Dispersion
(m)
Directional
Volume
Emisions per
vehicle (g/VMT)
Average Speed
(mph) Road Link Description Direction
Vehicle
Type
Local_Roadway_Emissions_2024.xlsx

CriteriaPol
ADT
Distance(mi) VMT Criteria
Exhaust(grams/day)
Non‐Exhaust
(grams/day) Total (g/day) lbs/day ton/year
Bridge 700 0.07 46.1923 PM2.5 0.21 10.128 10.33 0.022781 0.0042W/o Crossing 350 0.06 22.11771 PM10 0.22 65.34 65.56 0.144546 0.02638E/o Crossing 350 0.03 10.85 ROG 2.06 3.72 5.78 0.012742 0.002325 TOTAL 0.16 79.16001 NOX 10.80 10.80 0.023802 0.004344
Speed (MPH) 25 GHG MT/day MT/yr
CO2 30170 30170.20108 0.03017 11.01212N2O 0.865 0.865160868 8.65E‐07 0.000316 CH4 0.462 0.5549 1.017106901 1.02E‐06 0.000371
HFCs 0.0507 0.050700923 5.07E‐08 1.85E‐05CO2e 30440 86.4 30525.9 0.0305 11.14 Local_Roadway_Emissions_2024.xlsx

DPM
2024 Hourly Traffic Volumes and DPM Emisssions ‐  DPM from the new CrossingHour Fraction Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction Per
Hour VPH g/s
0 0.01085042 8 0.0000001 8 0.0643577 45 4.6436E‐07 16 0.05801478 41 4.18592E‐07 1 0.00740349 5 5.34181E‐08 9 0.0598818 42 4.32063E‐07 17 0.05628001 39 4.06075E‐07 2 0.00719554 5 5.19177E‐08 10 0.0540699 38 3.90128E‐07 18 0.05397567 38 3.89448E‐07 3 0.0090397 6 6.52238E‐08 11 0.0511832 36 3.693E‐07 19 0.04834712 34 3.48837E‐07 4 0.01740988 12 1.25617E‐07 12 0.0526533 37 3.79907E‐07 20 0.03893556 27 2.8093E‐07 5 0.03764755 26 2.71637E‐07 13 0.0561328 39 4.05013E‐07 21 0.03342021 23 2.41135E‐07 6 0.05280664 37 3.81014E‐07 14 0.061969 43 4.47122E‐07 22 0.02602722 18 1.87793E‐07 7 0.06314643 44 0.000000456 15 0.0606367 42 4.37509E‐07 23 0.0186155 13 1.34316E‐07 700
2024 Hourly Traffic Volumes and DPM Emisssions ‐  DPM from the new roadway west of the Crossing Hour
Fraction Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction Per
Hour VPH g/s
0 0.01085042 4 0.00000004 8 0.0643577 23 2.22343E‐07 16 0.05801478 20 2.00429E‐07 1 0.00740349 3 2.55775E‐08 9 0.0598818 21 2.06879E‐07 17 0.05628001 20 1.94436E‐07 2 0.00719554 3 2.48591E‐08 10 0.0540699 19 1.86801E‐07 18 0.05397567 19 1.86475E‐07 3 0.0090397 3 3.12303E‐08 11 0.0511832 18 1.76828E‐07 19 0.04834712 17 1.67029E‐07 4 0.01740988 6 6.01476E‐08 12 0.0526533 18 1.81906E‐07 20 0.03893556 14 1.34514E‐07 5 0.03764755 13 1.30065E‐07 13 0.0561328 20 1.93927E‐07 21 0.03342021 12 1.1546E‐07 6 0.05280664 18 1.82436E‐07 14 0.061969 22 2.1409E‐07 22 0.02602722 9 8.99187E‐08 7 0.06314643 22 2.18158E‐07 15 0.0606367 21 2.09487E‐07 23 0.0186155 7 6.43128E‐08 350
2024 Hourly Traffic Volumes and DPM Emisssions ‐  DPM from the new roadway east of the Crossing Hour
Fraction Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction Per
Hour VPH g/s
0 0.01085042 4 0.00000002 8 0.0643577 23 1.09072E‐07 16 0.05801478 20 9.8322E‐08 1 0.00740349 3 1.25472E‐08 9 0.0598818 21 1.01486E‐07 17 0.05628001 20 9.5382E‐08 2 0.00719554 3 1.21948E‐08 10 0.0540699 19 9.16363E‐08 18 0.05397567 19 9.14766E‐08 3 0.0090397 3 1.53203E‐08 11 0.0511832 18 8.6744E‐08 19 0.04834712 17 8.19375E‐08 4 0.01740988 6 2.95058E‐08 12 0.0526533 18 8.92355E‐08 20 0.03893556 14 6.5987E‐08 5 0.03764755 13 6.38041E‐08 13 0.0561328 20 9.51324E‐08 21 0.03342021 12 5.66397E‐08 6 0.05280664 18 8.94954E‐08 14 0.061969 22 1.05024E‐07 22 0.02602722 9 4.41103E‐08 7 0.06314643 22 1.07019E‐07 15 0.0606367 21 1.02766E‐07 23 0.0186155 7 3.15491E‐08 350

TOTALTOTALTOTAL
Local_Roadway_Emissions_2024.xlsx

FUG 2.5
2024 Hourly Traffic Volumes and Fugitive PM2.5 Emis XXX from The New Crossing Hour
Fraction Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s
0 0.01085042 8 0.000018 8 0.0643577 45 0.000105655 16 0.05801478 41 9.52415E‐05 1 0.00740349 5 1.215E‐05 9 0.0598818 42 9.83066E‐05 17 0.05628001 39 9.23936E‐05 2 0.00719554 5 1.181E‐05 10 0.0540699 38 8.87653E‐05 18 0.05397567 38 8.86106E‐05 3 0.0090397 6 1.484E‐05 11 0.0511832 36 8.40263E‐05 19 0.04834712 34 7.93704E‐05 4 0.01740988 12 2.858E‐05 12 0.0526533 37 8.64397E‐05 20 0.03893556 27 6.39196E‐05 5 0.03764755 26 6.181E‐05 13 0.0561328 39 9.21519E‐05 21 0.03342021 23 5.48652E‐05 6 0.05280664 37 8.669E‐05 14 0.061969 43 0.000101733 22 0.02602722 18 4.27283E‐05 7 0.06314643 44 0.0001037 15 0.0606367 42 9.95458E‐05 23 0.0186155 13 3.05606E‐05 700
2024 Hourly Traffic Volumes and Fugitive PM2.5 Emis XXX from the new roadway west of the Crossing Hour
Fraction Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s
0 0.01085042 4 0.000009 8 0.0643577 23 5.05893E‐05 16 0.05801478 20 4.56034E‐05 1 0.00740349 3 5.82E‐06 9 0.0598818 21 4.7071E‐05 17 0.05628001 20 4.42397E‐05 2 0.00719554 3 5.656E‐06 10 0.0540699 19 4.25024E‐05 18 0.05397567 19 4.24284E‐05 3 0.0090397 3 7.106E‐06 11 0.0511832 18 4.02333E‐05 19 0.04834712 17 3.8004E‐05 4 0.01740988 6 1.369E‐05 12 0.0526533 18 4.13889E‐05 20 0.03893556 14 3.06059E‐05 5 0.03764755 13 2.959E‐05 13 0.0561328 20 4.4124E‐05 21 0.03342021 12 2.62704E‐05 6 0.05280664 18 4.151E‐05 14 0.061969 22 4.87116E‐05 22 0.02602722 9 2.04591E‐05 7 0.06314643 22 4.964E‐05 15 0.0606367 21 4.76643E‐05 23 0.0186155 7 1.4633E‐05 350
2024 Hourly Traffic Volumes and Fugitive PM2.5 Emis XXX from the new roadway east of the Crossing Hour
Fraction Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s
0 0.01085042 4 0.000004 8 0.0643577 23 2.48169E‐05 16 0.05801478 20 2.23711E‐05 1 0.00740349 3 2.855E‐06 9 0.0598818 21 2.3091E‐05 17 0.05628001 20 2.17021E‐05 2 0.00719554 3 2.775E‐06 10 0.0540699 19 2.08499E‐05 18 0.05397567 19 2.08135E‐05 3 0.0090397 3 3.486E‐06 11 0.0511832 18 1.97367E‐05 19 0.04834712 17 1.86431E‐05 4 0.01740988 6 6.713E‐06 12 0.0526533 18 2.03036E‐05 20 0.03893556 14 1.50139E‐05 5 0.03764755 13 1.452E‐05 13 0.0561328 20 2.16453E‐05 21 0.03342021 12 1.28872E‐05 6 0.05280664 18 2.036E‐05 14 0.061969 22 2.38958E‐05 22 0.02602722 9 1.00363E‐05 7 0.06314643 22 2.435E‐05 15 0.0606367 21 2.33821E‐05 23 0.0186155 7 7.17832E‐06 350
TOTALTOTALTOTAL Local_Roadway_Emissions_2024.xlsx

PM2.5
2024 Hourly Traffic Volumes and PM2.5 Emisssions ‐  XXX from The New Crossing Hour
Fraction Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s
0 0.01085042 8 0.0000004 8 0.0643577 45 2.14169E‐06 16 0.05801478 41 1.93061E‐06 1 0.00740349 5 2.46373E‐07 9 0.0598818 42 1.99274E‐06 17 0.05628001 39 1.87288E‐06 2 0.00719554 5 2.39453E‐07 10 0.0540699 38 1.79933E‐06 18 0.05397567 38 1.7962E‐06 3 0.0090397 6 3.00823E‐07 11 0.0511832 36 1.70327E‐06 19 0.04834712 34 1.60889E‐06 4 0.01740988 12 5.79365E‐07 12 0.0526533 37 1.75219E‐06 20 0.03893556 27 1.29569E‐06 5 0.03764755 26 1.25283E‐06 13 0.0561328 39 1.86798E‐06 21 0.03342021 23 1.11216E‐06 6 0.05280664 37 1.7573E‐06 14 0.061969 43 2.0622E‐06 22 0.02602722 18 8.66132E‐07 7 0.06314643 44 2.10138E‐06 15 0.0606367 42 2.01786E‐06 23 0.0186155 13 6.19485E‐07 700
2024 Hourly Traffic Volumes and PM2.5 Emisssions ‐  XXX from the new roadway west of the Crossing Hour
Fraction Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s
0 0.01085042 4 0.0000002 8 0.0643577 23 1.02548E‐06 16 0.05801478 20 9.24412E‐07 1 0.00740349 3 1.17968E‐07 9 0.0598818 21 9.54161E‐07 17 0.05628001 20 8.9677E‐07 2 0.00719554 3 1.14654E‐07 10 0.0540699 19 8.61554E‐07 18 0.05397567 19 8.60052E‐07 3 0.0090397 3 1.44039E‐07 11 0.0511832 18 8.15557E‐07 19 0.04834712 17 7.70367E‐07 4 0.01740988 6 2.7741E‐07 12 0.0526533 18 8.38981E‐07 20 0.03893556 14 6.20402E‐07 5 0.03764755 13 5.99879E‐07 13 0.0561328 20 8.94424E‐07 21 0.03342021 12 5.3252E‐07 6 0.05280664 18 8.41425E‐07 14 0.061969 22 9.87419E‐07 22 0.02602722 9 4.1472E‐07 7 0.06314643 22 1.00618E‐06 15 0.0606367 21 9.66189E‐07 23 0.0186155 7 2.96621E‐07 350
2024 Hourly Traffic Volumes and PM2.5 Emisssions ‐  XXX from the new roadway east of the Crossing Hour
Fraction Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Fraction PerHour VPH g/s
0 0.01085042 4 0.0000001 8 0.0643577 23 5.03057E‐07 16 0.05801478 20 4.53477E‐07 1 0.00740349 3 5.78699E‐08 9 0.0598818 21 4.6807E‐07 17 0.05628001 20 4.39917E‐07 2 0.00719554 3 5.62445E‐08 10 0.0540699 19 4.22641E‐07 18 0.05397567 19 4.21905E‐07 3 0.0090397 3 7.06595E‐08 11 0.0511832 18 4.00077E‐07 19 0.04834712 17 3.77909E‐07 4 0.01740988 6 1.36086E‐07 12 0.0526533 18 4.11568E‐07 20 0.03893556 14 3.04343E‐07 5 0.03764755 13 2.94275E‐07 13 0.0561328 20 4.38766E‐07 21 0.03342021 12 2.61232E‐07 6 0.05280664 18 4.12767E‐07 14 0.061969 22 4.84385E‐07 22 0.02602722 9 2.03444E‐07 7 0.06314643 22 4.93589E‐07 15 0.0606367 21 4.73971E‐07 23 0.0186155 7 1.45509E‐07 350

TOTALTOTALTOTAL
Local_Roadway_Emissions_2024.xlsx