Population also changes with the availability of prey, which may follow prey abundance. White-tailed kite prefers open stages of habitats dominated by herbaceous species (Zeiner et al. 1990). This species will nest in tall trees adjacent to foraging habitat (Zeiner et al. 1990). They feed mainly on small mammals such as voles (Microtus spp.) but will take other small vertebrate and invertebrate prey.
Survey History
A pair of white-tailed kites was observed in the project site during biological surveys on April 4, 2019.
The pair was observed defending their territory from one red-tailed hawk, which was driven away from the project site by both kites. Habitat is present for foraging and nesting in the project site. No active nests were observed in or adjacent to the project site, although suitable nest trees are present in the project site. One old nest was observed in a pine tree along the southern boundary of the project site, FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
51 which could be an old kite nest, but is likely being used by American crow. White-tailed kites were observed on the project site again during the biological survey on February 28, 2020.
The nearest reported occurrences in CNDDB of white-tailed kite is located approximately 1.5 miles north of the project site. The occurrence is from 1971 and is presumed not to be extant (CDFW 2020). The occurrence documents white-tailed kite nesting in a deciduous tree (CDFW 2020).
Habitat Suitability/Potential to Occur in the Project Site The project site provides suitable foraging habitat for this species but is unlikely to provide nesting habitat. This species was documented on site on April 4, 2019, during the general biological survey and was observed again in February 2020. The project site contains a few trees tall enough for nesting and one old nest suitable for white-tailed kite was observed in a pine tree on the southern boundary of the project site along Enterprise Drive. However, remediation is ongoing on the site in the vicinity of the potential nest trees and properties adjacent to the project site are currently being developed with constant activity and disturbance from heavy machinery and personnel. The pair of white-tailed kites observed during the survey did not appear to be nesting onsite even though they displayed territorial behaviors; they only appeared to be foraging. The pair was likely nesting somewhere near the project site and occasionally using the site for foraging.
Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris)
Federal Status – Endangered
State Status – Endangered
Other – None
The salt marsh harvest mouse (SMHM) was federally listed as endangered in its entire range on October 13, 1970 (Federal Register 35: 16047). Critical habitat has not been designated for this species. This mouse is also state listed as endangered. A recovery plan for the SMHM was prepared in 1984 and is currently under revision.
The SMHM is endemic to tidal and brackish marsh habitats of the San Francisco Bay region. SMHM are primarily found in the salt marshes along northern San Pablo Bay, surrounding Suisun Bay, and along southern San Francisco Bay (USFWS 1984). The acreage believed to be necessary to sustain a healthy SMHM population is 150 acres or more (USFWS 2010). The SMHM is critically dependent on dense cover and its preferred habitat is considered to be pickleweed dominated salt marsh wetlands. Studies have found SMHM occur not only in tidal wetlands dominated by pickleweed, but also in wetlands with little or no pickleweed, in diked wetlands, and in transition zones dominated by annual grasses. However, the extent to which SMHM depend upon these habitats has not been explicitly quantified (Sustaita et al. 2011). Recent studies have also shown that SMHM are more flexible in habitat use and with their diet than previously thought (Smith and Kelt 2019). SMHM will use non-native plant species, such as rabbitsfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), in their diet (Smith and Kelt 2019) in addition to other native species. They are not tied exclusively to pickleweed dominated wetlands and will also use other mixed vegetation wetlands (Sustaita et al. 2011). This shows that SMHM may use mixed vegetation salt marsh habitat (Sustaita et al. 2011; Smith et al 2014).
In marshes with an upper zone of halophytes in the intertidal zone, SMHM will use the tall vegetation to escape high tides and may also move into adjoining grasslands during the highest winter tides, especially in areas with shorter emergent salt marsh habitat (Sustaita et al. 2011; Smith et al 2014). During a live FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
52 trapping study that used radio telemetry, the study found that salt marsh harvest mice rarely used upland areas with annual grasses but preferred to stay in taller vegetation in the intertidal zone during high tide (Smith et al. 2014). The best type of pickleweed association for the species has: 100 percent vegetative cover with a cover depth of 30 to 50 centimeters at summer maximum, at least 60 percent cover of pickleweed, and additional halophytes such as fat hen (Atriplex patula) and alkali heath (Frankenia salina). The amount of salt grass, brass buttons (Cotula coronopifolia), alkali bulrush (Bolboschoenus maritimus), or other species (e.g., Schoenoplectus sp. or Typha sp.) should be low (USFWS 1984).
The SMHM and California Clapper Rail Recovery Plan (USFWS 1984) lists five principal reasons for the decline of the SMHM: (1) habitat loss, (2) fragmentation of the remaining marshes, (3) widespread loss of the high marsh zone as a result of backfilling, (4) land subsidence, and (5) vegetational change. It further points out that small marshes, separated by open land or dikes, have very low immigration, and that very few areas are likely to be recolonized.
Survey History
A habitat assessment for SMHM was conducted by a SMHM-permitted biologist in accordance with the requirements of the Bayside Newark TOD EIR MMRP (Appendix G of the BTR provided as Appendix C to this Initial Study).
Habitat Suitability/Potential to Occur in the Project Site The project site and immediate vicinity does not contain suitable habitat for SMHM. There is no potential for SMHM to occur within the project boundaries. Refer to the habitat assessment for SMHM in Appendix G of the BTR (provided as Appendix C to this Initial Study) for further discussion.
Nesting Migratory Birds and Raptors
Native birds are protected by the MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code, which prohibit direct take of adults, nests, eggs, and chicks. Disturbance that leads to nest abandonment can be considered take of eggs and chicks. Common bird species found on the project site include species that nest on all types of substrata, including bare ground, herbaceous and woody vegetation, pipes, debris, poles, and structures.
Potential nesting habitat is limited on the project site; however, the proposed project may include removal of vegetation that provides potential nesting habitat for nesting birds. Project construction activities would potentially result in impacts to nesting birds if construction of the proposed project commences during the typical nesting period for migratory birds. Construction activities and construction-related disturbance (noise, vibration and increased human activity) could adversely affect these species if they were to nest in or adjacent to the project area. Potential effects include physical destruction of nests by construction equipment and/or nest abandonment.
Construction of the proposed project would increase the number of people in close vicinity to potentially suitable nesting and foraging habitat for nesting birds. Similar to those identified for burrowing owl and white-tailed kite, associated potential impacts would include harassment from increased noise and activity in the vicinity of potentially suitable habitat, degradation of habitat from litter and light spillover from the nearby development, and the potential for increased depredation as a FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
53 result of increased traffic from potential nest predators, such as feral cats, dogs, raccoons, foxes and other predatory domestic animals and wildlife associated with an urban setting.
The keeping of outside feline pets or feral cat feeding stations would be prohibited, thereby reducing the potential for cats to prey on or harass nesting birds in suitable habitat near the project site. Lighting would be designed consistent with Policy LU-6.6 of the City General Plan Land Use Element, and the Site and Architecture Design Guidelines contained in the Specific Plan which require that the lighting be designed to reduce glare and over-lighting impacts.
Special-Status Plants
Habitat for special-status plants is not present on the site because the site has been developed, and it is currently disturbed with non-native and imported soil and paved surfaces. In addition, no special-status plant species have been documented on the site during focused botanical surveys or numerous other biological surveys.
Protected Trees
A total of 32 trees meeting the City of Newark Municipal Code definition of protected trees were identified in the project site. Two additional trees that would have met the size threshold were dead.
The condition of the 32 live trees ranged from good to declining. Tree species present included Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei), carrotwood (Cupaniopsis anacardioides), cork oak (Quercus suber), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), and Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta). These trees do not provide a windbreak on which a substantial number of people depend, and therefore are eligible for removal to facilitate development of the proposed project. A permit would likely be required from the City of Newark Public Works Director prior to removal, destruction, or transplantation of any trees included in the inventory. Details regarding the location and condition of the trees in the project site are provided in Appendix C.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the Bayside Newark Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan Certified PEIR
Biological Resources are discussed in Chapter 4.3 of the PEIR prepared for the Specific Plan. The PEIR concludes that implementation of the Specific Plan could have potentially significant adverse impacts on biological resources and includes measures to reduce impacts to less than significant. The PEIR concluded that the Specific Plan area is not located within a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan and would not conflict with the provisions of any such plan. Potential impacts to biological resources identified in the Specific Plan EIR include potential impacts to SMHM (Measure 4.3-1), nesting raptors (4.3-2), burrowing owl (4.3-3), nesting passerines (4.3-4), special-status plants (4.3-5), wetlands and waters of the U.S./State (4.3-6), wildlife corridors (4.3-7), and protected trees (4.3-8). The subject project was evaluated for its potential to result in impacts identified in the PEIR, as well as any potential impacts not identified in the PEIR. Each potentially significant impact in the Specific Plan PEIR is discussed below. No other potential impacts were identified for the proposed project that were not evaluated in the Specific Plan PEIR.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
54 Evaluation of Biological Resources
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No New Impact.
Potential Impacts to Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse
The project site lacks marsh habitat, associated dense stands of perennial marsh vegetation, and stands of pickleweed necessary to support SMHM. The areas surrounding the project site are generally developed or undergoing development currently and therefore also do not have the required habitat to support SMHM. There is no suitable habitat for SMHM on or immediately adjacent to the project site, and therefore no potential for SMHM to occur within the project boundaries or be impacted by project construction. A SMHM habitat assessment was conducted by a SMHM-permitted biologist that concluded the project site has no potential to support SMHM, and the project would not impact this species. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact to SMHM, and no new impact would occur.
Potential Impacts to Nesting Raptors
There are trees on and adjacent to the site that are potentially suitable for raptor nesting, although no active raptor nests were observed during biological surveys. Potential impacts to nesting raptors could occur if nesting began on or near the site prior to construction including destruction of nests, forced fledging of young, or nest abandonment by the adults. Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 shall be implemented in accordance with the Specific Plan MMRP to reduce potential impacts to nesting raptors.
Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 (Nesting Raptors) In order to avoid impacts on nesting raptors, a nesting survey shall be conducted on individual project site parcels prior to commencing with earth-moving or construction work if this work would occur during raptor nesting season (between February 1 and August 31). The raptor nesting survey shall include examination of all trees on or within 300 feet of the entire project site, not just trees slated for removal, since ground vibrations and noise from earth-moving equipment can disturb nesting birds and potentially result in nest abandonment. Since northern harriers are ground nesting raptors, the nesting survey shall also include systematic walking transects across all suitable ground on the project site parcels.
If nesting raptors are identified during the surveys, orange construction fence shall be installed to establish a 300-foot radius around the nest unless a qualified biologist determines that a lesser distance will adequately protect the nest (refer to discussion below for more detail). If the tree or nest is located off the project site, then the buffer shall be demarcated per the above where the buffer intersects the project site.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
55 The size of the non-disturbance buffer may be altered if a qualified raptor biologist conducts behavioral observations and determines the nesting raptors are well acclimated to disturbance.
If this occurs, the raptor biologist shall prescribe a modified buffer that allows sufficient room to prevent undue disturbance/harassment to nesting raptors.
If the buffer is reduced, the qualified raptor biologist shall remain onsite to monitor the raptors’ behavior during heavy construction in order to ensure that the reduced buffer does not result in take of eggs or nestlings. No construction or earth-moving activity shall occur within the established buffer until it is determined by a qualified raptor biologist that the young have fledged (that is, left the nest) and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid project construction zones. This typically occurs by August 1. This date may be earlier or later and would have to be determined by a qualified raptor biologist.
If a qualified biologist is not hired to monitor the nesting raptors, then the full 300-foot buffers shall be maintained in place from February 1 through the month of August. The buffer may be removed, and work may proceed as otherwise planned within the buffer on September 1.
With implementation of Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 4.3-2, impacts to nesting raptors would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
Potential Impacts to Burrowing Owl
No burrowing owl has been observed on the project site; however, additional pre-construction surveys are warranted as the site provides moderately suitable habitat for burrowing owl. This species could potentially be impacted by construction if it were to occupy the site. Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 above shall be implemented in accordance with the Specific Plan MMRP. If burrowing owl pair(s) or resident burrowing owl is observed during any of the pre-construction surveys, avoidance and compensatory mitigation would be required, as described below. The project specific mitigation presented below reflects revisions to Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measure
4.3-3 for consistency with the 2012 CDFW guidelines for preconstruction surveys and to address potential impacts to burrowing owls in the project site.
Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 4.3-3 (Western Burrowing Owls) Western burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted by a qualified western burrowing owl biologist 90 days prior to construction of any project within the project site and again 30 days prior to construction of a project as described below to ensure there are no impacts on burrowing owls. Burrowing owl surveys conducted according to the methodologies prescribed by California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) in their 1995 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation are more likely to be accepted by CDFW. The survey methodologies that will otherwise meet the standards of care required by CEQA are provided below. These methods may not be as intense as those methods described in the document cited above but these methods have been coordinated with CDFW biologists for other projects and are sufficient for detecting burrowing owls provided an experienced burrowing owl biologist conducts the surveys.
Using the methodology prescribed below, burrowing owl and burrow surveys shall be conducted 90 and 30 days in advance of project site disturbance. Two surveys shall be conducted 90 days FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
56 before ground disturbance associated with the project, and two surveys shall be conducted in the 30-day period prior to ground disturbance associated with the project. The CDFW Staff Report states that preconstruction surveys need to be completed within 30 days of grading prior to CDFW accepting a survey conclusion that no burrowing owls occur in a proposed study area (i.e., negative findings). Western burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted from two hours before sunset to one hour after, or one hour before to two hours after sunrise. All burrowing owl sightings, occupied burrows, and burrows with owl sign (e.g., pellets, excrement, and molt feathers) shall be counted and mapped. Surveys shall be conducted by walking all suitable habitat on the entire project site and (where possible) in areas within 150 meters (approximately 500 feet) of the project impact zone. The 150-meter buffer zone is surveyed to identify burrows and owls outside of the project area which may be impacted by factors such as noise and vibration (heavy equipment) during project construction. Pedestrian survey transects shall be systematically spaced to allow 100 percent visual coverage of the ground surface. The distance between transect center lines shall be no more than 30 meters (approx. 100 feet) and shall be reduced to account for differences in terrain, vegetation density, and ground surface visibility. To effectively survey large projects (100 acres or larger), two or more surveyors shall be used to walk adjacent, parallel transects. To avoid impacts on owls from surveyors, owls and/or occupied burrows shall be avoided by a minimum of 50 meters (approx. 160 feet) if in the non-breeding months (October 1 through February 1) and 250 feet during the breeding months (February 1 through October 1). Disturbance to occupied burrows and within the established buffers shall be avoided until no burrowing owls occur on the site.
If burrowing owls are detected on the site during the breeding season (peak of the breeding season is April 15 through July 15), and appear to be engaged in nesting behavior, a fenced 250- foot buffer shall be required between the nest site(s) (i.e., the active burrow(s)) and any earthmoving activity or other disturbance in the project area. This 250-foot buffer could be decreased to 160 feet once it is determined by a qualified burrowing owl biologist that the young have fledged (that is, left the nest). Typically, the young fledge by August 31. This date may be earlier than August 31, or later, and would have to be determined by a qualified burrowing owl biologist. If burrowing owls were found on the project site, a qualified biologist shall delineate the extent of burrowing owl habitat on the site.
To mitigate impacts to burrowing owls, CDFW prescribes that 6.5 acres of replacement habitat be set aside (i.e., protected in perpetuity) per pair of burrowing owls, or unpaired resident bird.
Such a set-aside would offset permanent impacts on burrowing owl habitat. To illustrate the extent of mitigation land required by CDFW, this example is provided: If two pairs of burrowing owls are identified on the study area, 13 acres of mitigation land would be acquired. Or, if one pair and one resident bird are identified, 13 acres of mitigation land would be acquired. The protected lands shall be adjacent to occupied burrowing owl habitat if possible, and at a location selected in consultation with CDFW. Land identified to offset impacts on burrowing owls shall be protected in perpetuity by a suitable property instrument (e.g., a conservation easement or fee title acquisition). A Mitigation Plan shall be prepared in consultation with CDFW for review and approval by the City.
The Mitigation Plan shall identify the mitigation site and any activities proposed to enhance the site, including the construction of artificial burrows and maintenance of California ground squirrel populations on the mitigation site. In addition, for each pair of burrowing owls found in the construction area, two artificial nesting burrows shall be created at the mitigation site. The FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
57 Plan shall also include a description of monitoring and management methods proposed at the mitigation site. Monitoring and management of any lands identified for mitigation purposes shall be the responsibility of the applicant for at least five years. An annual report shall be prepared for submittal to CDFW and the City by December 31 of each monitoring year.
Contingency measures for any anticipated problems should be identified in the plan.
If a burrowing owl pair(s) or resident burrowing owl is observed during any of the pre-construction surveys completed in accordance with Mitigation Measure 4.3-2, then implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-3 would be required, and impacts to burrowing owl would be reduced to a less-thansignificant level. No new impact would occur.
Potential Impacts to Nesting Passerines and Other Birds Potential nesting habitat is limited on the project site; however, the proposed project may include removal of vegetation that provides potential nesting habitat for nesting birds. Project construction activities would potentially result in impacts to nesting birds if construction of the proposed project commences during the typical nesting period for migratory birds. Construction activities and construction-related disturbance (noise, vibration, and increased human activity) could adversely affect these species if they were to nest in or adjacent to the project area. Potential effects include physical destruction of nests by construction equipment and/or nest abandonment.
Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 4.3-4 shall be implemented in accordance with the Specific Plan MMRP. Pre-construction surveys will be conducted, and appropriate nest-avoidance measures shall be implemented if these species are present adjacent to the construction area. No surveys will be required if construction is initiated outside of the nesting season.
Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 4.3-4 (Nesting Birds) In order to avoid impacts on nesting passerines, a nesting survey shall be conducted on individual project site parcels and within 100 feet of the parcel being developed prior to commencing initial earth-moving or construction work on that parcel if this work would occur during the passerine nesting season, that is, between March 1 and September 1. The nesting survey shall also survey lands within 100 feet of the parcel being developed. The nesting surveys shall be completed approximately 15 days prior to commencing work. If special-status birds are identified nesting on or near the project site, a 100-foot radius around all identified active nests shall be demarcated with orange construction fencing to establish a non-disturbance buffer. If an active nest is found offsite, the intersecting portion of the buffer that is onsite shall be fenced. No construction or earth-moving activity shall occur within this 100-foot staked buffer until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the young have fledged (that is, left the nest) and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid project construction zones.
If common (that is, not special-status) birds, for example, red-winged blackbird, are identified nesting on or adjacent to the project site, a non-disturbance buffer of 75 feet shall be established or as otherwise prescribed by a qualified ornithologist. The buffer shall be demarcated with orange construction fencing. Disturbance around an active nest shall be postponed until it is determined by the qualified wildlife biologist that the young have fledged and have attained sufficient flight skills to leave the area.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
58 Typically, most birds in the region of the project site are expected to complete nesting by August
1. However, in the region many species can complete nesting by the end of June or in early to mid-July. Regardless, nesting buffers shall be maintained until August 1 unless a qualified wildlife biologist determines that young have fledged and are independent of their nests at an earlier date. If buffers are removed prior to August 1, the biologist conducting the nesting surveys shall prepare a report that provides details about the nesting outcome and the removal of buffers. This report shall be submitted to the City project planner prior to the time that buffers are removed if the date is before August 1.
With implementation of the above measure, impacts to nesting passerines and other birds would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
Potential Impacts to Special Status Plants
HELIX biologists conducted focused botanical surveys on April 4, May 23, and June 18, 2019, during the bloom season of regionally-occurring special-status plants. No special-status plant species were observed on the site. Habitat for special-status plants on the site is not present since the site has been disturbed from soil remediation and is currently covered with nonnative and imported soil and paved surfaces. Therefore, special-status plants are presumed absent from the project site, and no impacts to special-status plant species are anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary for special-status plants, and no new impact would occur.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No New Impact. Neither non-jurisdictional seasonal wetland nor ruderal/disturbed habitat are considered riparian habitat or a sensitive community. Therefore, no riparian habitat or other sensitive community would be impacted by the project, and no new impact would occur. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No New Impact. Although 0.015 acre of seasonal wetland occurs on the site, WRA concluded that the entire 0.015-acre of land meeting wetland criteria appears to be isolated as no connection to navigable waters was apparent. All features appear to be man-made ditches and depressions left over from industrial activities on the site.
The analysis by WRA Environmental Consultants in April 2013 (Appendix C) concluded that the seasonal wetland does not qualify as potential waters of the U.S. and State and are not regulated by the USACE or the RWQCB. Additionally, the seasonal wetland in the project site does not meet the definition of a lake or stream under Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code.
Therefore, no potential impact to State or federally jurisdictional areas would occur and neither notification of nor authorization from CDFW, RWQCB, or USACE is required. No protected wetlands would be impacted by the project, and no new impact would occur.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
59 d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No New Impact. The project site and surrounding area feature previous industrial land uses and mixed uses that are currently under construction or planned for development. The project site does not provide important habitat for movement of any native species or a migratory wildlife corridor, nor would development of the project impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Therefore, there would be no impact, and no new impact would occur.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No New Impact.
Potential Impacts to Protected Trees
A total of 32 trees meeting the City of Newark Municipal Code definition of protected trees were identified in the project site. The condition of the 32 trees ranged from good to declining. Tree species present included Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei), carrotwood (Cupaniopsis anacardioides), cork oak (Quercus suber), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), and Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta). These trees do not provide a windbreak on which a substantial number of people depend, and therefore are eligible for removal to facilitate development of the proposed project.
A permit would be required from the City of Newark Public Works Director prior to removal, destruction, or transplantation of any trees included in the tree inventory conducted on the project site (See Appendix G of the BTR provided as Appendix C to this Initial Study for the Arborist Report).
Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 4.3-8 (Protected Trees) A tree permit shall be obtained from the City prior to the removal of any tree protected by City ordinance on project site parcels. To offset impacts resulting from the removal of these trees, replacement trees shall be planted in designated open space areas on the subject parcel. Tree replacement shall be at a 1:1 ratio (that is, for each tree removed, one tree shall be planted as a replacement). Replacement trees shall be species that are native to the Newark area.
Replacement trees planted adjacent to the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge should first be coordinated with the Refuge to avoid the introduction of perching sites for predatory species.
A Tree Management Plan shall be prepared for any project on any project site parcel where tree removal occurs. Preparation of this plan and subsequent planting and monitoring shall be a condition of project approval and shall be tied to a security bond or cash deposit posted by the developer with the City to pay for any remedial work that might need to occur if the prior effort fails.
All planted trees shall be provided with a buried, irrigation system that shall be maintained over a minimum three-year establishment period. The irrigation system shall be placed on automatic FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
60 electric or battery-operated timers so that trees are automatically watered during the dry months of the establishment period. At the end of the three-year establishment period, the irrigation system could be removed, if necessary. The planted trees’ health shall be monitored annually for five years by a qualified biologist or arborist. Annual monitoring reports shall be submitted to the City.
At the end of a five-year monitoring period, at least 80 percent of planted trees shall be in good health. If the numbers of planted trees falls below an 80 percent survival rate, additional trees shall be planted to bring the total number of planted trees up to 100 percent of the original number of trees planted. Irrigation and follow-up monitoring shall be established over an additional three-year period after any replanting occurs. Any replanting and follow-up monitoring shall be reported in annual reports prepared for the City, Community Development Department. A performance bond, letter of credit, or other financial instrument shall be established to pay for any remedial work that might need to occur if the prior effort fails.
With implementation of Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 4.3-8, impacts to protected trees would be less than significant. No new impact would occur. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No New Impact. No Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan has been approved for the City of Newark.
Therefore, no impacts to an existing adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan would occur, and no new impact would occur.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
61 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
New
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Projectlevel
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
A project-specific cultural resources assessment (CRA) was prepared by HELIX (Appendix D; HELIX 2021d), and the methods and results are summarized in the following subsections.
Regulatory Setting
State and federal legislation requires the protection of historical and cultural resources. In 1971, President’s Executive Order No. 11593 required that all federal agencies initiate procedures to preserve and maintain cultural resources by nomination and inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In 1980, the Governor’s Executive Order No. B-64-80 required that state agencies inventory all “significant historic and cultural sites, structures, and objects under their jurisdiction which are over 50 years of age and which may qualify for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.” Section 15064.5(b)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines specifies that projects that cause “…physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historic resource would be materially impaired” shall be found to have a significant impact on the environment. For the purposes of CEQA, an historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). When a project could impact a resource, it must be determined whether the resource is an historical resource, which is defined as a resource that:
(A) is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political or cultural annals of California; and, (B) Meets any of the following criteria: 1) is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; 2) is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; 3) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or 4) has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. In addition, properties listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP are automatically considered eligible for the CRHR.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
62 CEQA applies to archaeological resources when (1) the archaeological resource satisfies the definition of a historical resource, or (2) the archaeological resource satisfies the definition of a “unique archaeological resource.” A unique archaeological resource is an archaeological artifact, object, or site that has a high probability of meeting any of the following criteria:
• The archaeological resource contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information. • The archaeological resource has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.
• The archaeological resource is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.
Cultural Background
Following is a brief summary providing a context in which to understand the background and relevance of resources that may occur in the general project area. This section is not intended to be a comprehensive review of the current resources available; rather, it serves as a general overview. Further details can be found in ethnographic studies, mission records, and major published sources.
Native American Background
At the time of European contact, the general Newark area was occupied by various tribelets that were part of the Ohlone (previously Costanoan) tribe of California Native Americans (Levy 1978). The Ohlone group designates a language family consisting of eight branches of the Ohlone language that are considered too distinct to be dialects, with each being related to its geographically adjacent neighbors (Levy 1978).
The various Ohlone tribes subsisted as hunter-gatherers and relied on local terrestrial and marine flora and fauna for subsistence (Levy 1978). The predominant plant food source was the acorn, but they also exploited a wide range of other plants and the protein sources included grizzly bear, elk, and black-tailed deer as well as smaller mammals. Waterfowl, including Canada geese, mallards, green-winged teal, and American widgeon, were captured in nets using decoys to attract them. Fish also played an important role in the Ohlone diet and included steelhead, salmon, and sturgeon (Jones 2007).
The Ohlone constructed watercraft from tule reeds and possessed bow and arrow technology. They fashioned blankets from sea otter pelts, fabricated basketry from twined reeds of various types, and assembled a variety of stone and bone tools in their assemblages. Ohlone villages typically consisted of domed dwelling structures, communal sweathouses, dance enclosures, and assembly houses constructed from thatched tule reeds and a combination of wild grasses, wild alfalfa, and ferns.
The Ohlone were politically organized into autonomous tribelets that had distinct cultural territories.
Individual tribelets contained one or more villages with several seasonal camps for resource procurement within the tribelet territory. The tribelet chief could be either male or female, and the position was inherited patrilineally, but approval of the community was required. The tribelet chief and council were essentially advisors to the community and were responsible for feeding visitors, directing hunting and fishing expeditions, ceremonial activities, and warfare on neighboring tribelets.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
63 The Gold Rush brought disease to the native inhabitants, and by the 1850s, nearly all the Ohlone had adapted in some way or another to economies based on cash income. Hunting and gathering activities continued to decline and were rapidly replaced with economies based on ranching and farming.
Historic Background – Spanish Mission Period
The most drastic and permanent change came to the local Ohlone way of life with the establishment of the Spanish Mission system. By the early 1800s, the mission fathers began a process of cultural change that brought the majority of local Native Americans into the missions. At the expense of traditional skills, the neophytes were taught the pastoral and horticultural skills of the Hispanic tradition. If the Native Americans tried to escape, the Spanish missionaries traveled into valley regions to recapture them and recruit inland Native Americans for the coastal missions. In 1834, the Mission system was officially secularized, and most of the mission Native American population dispersed to local ranches, villages, or nearby pueblos. Following the collapse of the mission system, many of the local Native Americans returned to northern California, bringing with them language and agricultural practices learned from the Spanish. During the latter half of the 19th century, the size of all Native American populations dwindled dramatically, due to the spread of European settlements and the diseases the Europeans brought with them (Mission San Jose 2020).
Historic Background – Mexican Period
With the declaration of Mexican independence in 1821, Spanish control of Alta California ended, although little change occurred. Political change did not take place until mission secularization in 1834, when Native Americans were released from missionary control and the mission lands were granted to private individuals. Shoup and Milliken (1999) state that mission secularization removed the social protection and support on which Native Americans had come to rely. It exposed them to further exploitation by outside interests, often forcing them into a marginal existence as laborers for large ranchos. Following mission secularization, the Mexican population grew as the native population continued to decline. Anglo-American settlers began to arrive in Alta California during this period and often married into Mexican families, becoming Mexican citizens, which made them eligible to receive land grants. In 1846, on the eve of the U.S.-Mexican War (1846 to 1848), the estimated population of Alta California was 8,000 non-natives and 10,000 natives. However, these estimates have been debated.
Cook (1976) suggests the Native American population was 100,000 in 1850; the U.S. Census of 1880 reports the Native American population as 20,300.
Historic Background – European Expansion
In 1848, as a result of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, California became a United States territory. Also in 1848, John Marshall found gold at Sutter’s Mill in Coloma, which marked the start of the Gold Rush.
The influx of miners and entrepreneurs increased the population of California, not including Native Californians, from 14,000 to 224,000 in just four years. This massive jump in population allowed California to meet the requirements to petition for statehood resulting in California becoming a state in 1850. At this point, large numbers of American businessmen, ranchers, orchardists, farmers, entrepreneurs, immigrants, religious groups, and anyone else who could make the trip by boat or overland flocked to California. Drawn by the benign climate, fertile land, access to ports for shipping and trade, and a vast array of business opportunities, Euro-Americans flocked to California. More came each decade, establishing businesses, farms, and ranches, creating commercial and industrial ventures and buying up land from the Mexican families to subdivide and create towns and cities. Cities such as San FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
64 Francisco and Sacramento benefited greatly from the newcomers and the business developments, becoming more diverse and economically successful with each decade.
Historic Background – City of Newark
The City of Newark is comprised of approximately 14 square miles of land. Newark was incorporated on September 22, 1955, and it is part of what is referred to as the “Tri-City” area which includes Newark, Fremont, and Union City. In 2015, the city’s population was approximately 44,000 people. The development of Newark followed the same patterns of change and growth as did most of California during the Mexican and American periods. After California statehood, the American presence in the San Francisco Bay region increased steadily. The following is excerpted from www.newark.org/vistors/history.
By the early 1850s, small landings were under construction along the San Francisco Bay area near Newark. In 1853, Mayhew's Landing included warehouses for wheat, hay, and coal and by 1856 the Mayhew Ranch included 1,500 acres of farmland extending inland to present-day I-880. Less than 20 years later, the Perrin brothers acquired the old Mayhew’s Ranch and extended their holdings to include property stretching from today's Jarvis Avenue on the north to south of Thornton Avenue. The Perrin brothers' "development project," the Green Point Dairy and Transportation Company, set the tone for future development. It was the Perrin brothers who first drew up plans to subdivide the Green Point Dairy into a townsite (located in the general vicinity of Thornton and Jarvis Avenues).
Work started on a railroad through the townsite from Bayside Newark Point in 1875. In 1876, the railroad, together with the Green Point Dairy, were purchased and completed the South Pacific Coast Railroad, from Bayside Newark Point south to Santa Cruz. Soon, a railroad station, roundhouse, and railroad shop buildings were being erected in the center of Newark in the area between Thornton Avenue, Sycamore Street, and Carter Avenue. Eventually, the railroad was extended north from Newark to Alameda, providing direct ferry service to San Francisco.
The completion of the railroad precipitated additional development in Newark. Hotels and stores were soon constructed, along with some of the first manufacturing industries, including a railroad car building firm and a foundry which later manufactured Wedgewood stoves. These enterprises joined the production of salt, which had been underway in the Newark area since the 1850s. Acquisitions and mergers of salt production companies throughout the Bay area ultimately resulted in formation of the Arden Salt Company, predecessor to Leslie Salt Company and today's Cargill Salt.
The City of Newark lies close to Silicon Valley with its high-tech companies and digital technology. Over the twentieth century, industrial growth within and surrounding Newark, added to the economic base.
In September 1955, Newark was incorporated as the first new city in Alameda County in 47 years.
Because of these efforts, Newark has built the Newark Mall, with its jobs and tax revenues, completed the Bayside Newark Bridge and maintained and improved much of the Nimitz Freeway.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
65 Record Searches
Northwest Information Center Record Search
A records search addressing the project area and a 0.5-mile radius beyond the project area boundary (together referred to as the study area) was conducted on April 17, 2018, at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) in Rohnert Park by HELIX Archaeologist Katherine D. Thomas, M.A., RPA. Sources of information included previous survey and cultural resources files; the NRHP; the CRHR; the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility; the OHP Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File; and historical topographic maps and aerial photographs.
Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File Search A Sacred Lands File (SLF) search request was submitted to the NAHC on November 3, 2017. On November 17, 2017, a response was received from the NAHC indicating that the results of the SLF record search were negative for the project APE. Included with the response was a list of six Native American tribal representatives who may have additional information pertaining to the project. On November 28, 2017, HELIX sent information request letters to each of the representatives listed below asking for any additional information they may have. HELIX noted that the request was for informational purposes only and not related to consultation under Assembly Bill (AB) 52. To date, no responses have been received from any of the tribal representatives.
Pedestrian Survey
On May 6, 2020, HELIX Staff Archaeologist Katherine D. Thomas, M.A, RPA conducted an intensive pedestrian survey to characterize any prehistoric or historic-era archaeological resources located within the FMC Willow portion of the Areas of Potential Effect (APE) (i.e., the portion of the site proposed for residential, transit, and commercial uses). The survey consisted of a pedestrian walk-over of all accessible portions of the APE in parallel transects spaced at 15-meter intervals. During the survey, the ground surface was examined for the presence of historic-era artifacts (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics), prehistoric artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, tool-making debris), and other features that might represent human activity that took place more than 50 years ago. Representative photographs of the APE are found in Appendix C of the CRA provided in Appendix D of this IS.
Survey conditions were poor, with less than 20 percent surface visibility due to heavy grass cover in areas that were not capped by asphalt or industrial pads. The entire FMC Willow portion of the APE is flat, and its eastern portion is almost entirely overgrown with grass. The eastern portion is also bisected from east to west by the Hetch Hetchy pipeline ROW, a 100-foot-wide corridor that has been excluded from the project and is not part of the APE.
In contrast, the western portion of the FMC Willow portion of the APE is almost completely covered in the remains of concrete industrial pads and asphalt access roads, some of which are lined with trees.
The western section also includes areas that are currently used for staging remediation equipment and materials.
No historic-era resources were found within the FMC Willow portion of the APE, although approximately 30 feet north of the northern border of the APE is the Bayside Newark Cutoff (P-01-001783), a railroad FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
66 grade that was formerly a component of the Southern Pacific Railroad and is now owned by SamTrans.
The Bayside Newark Cutoff has previously been evaluated for significance and was recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP.
No prehistoric resources have been previously recorded within the FMC Willow portion of the APE or a
0.50-mile radius around the APE, and none were identified during the field survey. Given its history of industrial use and previous ground disturbance, the APE is considered to have a low sensitivity for prehistoric resources.
On April 26, 2021, HELIX Archaeologist Katherine D. Thomas surveyed the Grand Park portion of the APE. The Grand Park portion of the APE consists of partially developed land surrounded by industrial and commercial buildings in the western section of the City of Newark. The Grand Park portion of the APE has been partially paved, and there is very little surface visibility present. Additionally, the unpaved areas are covered in grass, gravel, and equipment that further obscures the surface. A portion of a railroad spur evaluated by HELIX and found ineligible in 2017 is visible in the northern portion of the APE. The Grand Park portion of the APE is completely flat, with the exception of a small, raised area that has been recently created using fill from work being done elsewhere on the parcel. The Grand Park portion of the APE used to contain a warehouse, but that has been removed, and the area is currently being used for equipment storage.
No historic age or pre-contact resources have been previously recorded within the Grand Park portion of the APE, and none were found during the field survey. Therefore, the Grand Park portion of the APE is considered to have a very low sensitivity for historic age or pre-contact resources.
Senate Bill 18 Tribal Consultation
Senate Bill (SB) 18 requires that the City initiate consultation with any tribes listed on the NAHC’s official contact list for an amendment of a General Plan. SB 18 requires the City to send a letter to each contact on the NAHC’s SB 18 list, extending an invitation for consultation. Tribes have 90 days from receipt of the letter to request consultation. The City must also send a notice to all contacts 45 days prior to adopting or amending the General Plan regardless of whether prior consultation has taken place, but the notice does not initiate a new consultation process. Lastly, the City must send notice of a public hearing to all tribes who have filed a written request for such notice as least 10 days prior to the hearing. For the City of Newark, the following tribes previously submitted general request letters, requesting such noticing:
• Ohlone Indian Tribe;
• Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan;
• Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista; • North Valley Yokuts Tribe;
• Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area; and
• Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe.
The proposed project includes a General Plan amendment, and formal invitations to participate in the SB 18 consultation process on the proposed project were sent by the City to six tribal representatives on October 20, 2020. Each tribe was provided a brief description of the project and its location, the contact information for the City’s authorized representative, and a notification that the tribe has been invited to FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
67 consult with the City on this project in accordance with Government Code Section 65352.3.
Letters were sent the following representatives:
• Andrew A. Galvan, The Ohlone Indian Tribe;
• Ann Marie Sayers, Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan; • Irenne Zwierlein, Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista; • Katherine Erolinda Perez, North Valley Yokuts Tribe;
• Rosemary Cambra, Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the SF Bay Area; and • Tony Cerda, Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe.
As of June 2022, no tribe has responded requesting consultation under SB 18.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the Bayside Newark Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan Certified PEIR
The PEIR concludes there are no NRHP or CRHR listed, determined, or potential archaeological sites, significant local, State or Federal historic properties, landmarks, etc., in or adjacent to the Specific Plan area. Additionally, there are no recorded archaeological resources, including prehistoric sites and no recorded, reported, or known Native American sites, villages, trails, traditional use areas, or contemporary use areas in, adjacent, or near the Specific Plan area. No historic resources have been formally recorded or reported in or near the Specific Plan area.
There is a possibility that potentially significant unrecorded archaeological resources, including prehistoric resources and human remains, as well as historic resources, and are present beneath the ground surface and could be exposed during construction activities.
Evaluation of Cultural Resources
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No New Impact. No prehistoric, historic-era, or paleontological resources have been previously recorded within the APE, and none were identified during the pedestrian survey. Given the APE’s disturbed setting and long history of industrial use, there is a low potential of identifying Native American resources and a low to moderate potential of identifying historic-period resources during ground-disturbing activities associated with the proposed project.
A search of the NAHC’s SLF returned a negative result, suggesting that there are no known Native American resources in the immediate vicinity, and to date, no responses have been received from the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
68 Native American individuals who were contacted about the proposed project. The results of the projectspecific CRA indicate there would be no impacts to significant cultural resources of prehistoric or historic age by the proposed project, and therefore no additional studies, archaeological work, or construction monitoring are recommended (see Appendix D for more detail). Although no cultural or historic age resources were identified during the field survey, ground disturbance during project construction could reveal unknown cultural or historic age resources below the ground surface. Measures contained in the Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan MMRP (Mitigation Measure 4.4-1a) would be implemented to minimize potential impacts to cultural resources to a less-than-significant level. No new impact would occur for questions a), b), c), and d).
Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 4.4-1a (Subsurface Resources) Prior to the issuance of grading permits for future development allowed within the Specific Plan area, project sponsors shall retain qualified archaeologists meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards to train the construction crew on the mechanisms used to identify cultural resources and to caution them on the legal and/or regulatory implications of knowingly destroying cultural resources or removing artifacts or human remains from the project sites.
If subsurface deposits believed to be cultural or human in origin are discovered during the construction of future development projects within the Specific Plan area, then all work shall halt within a 200-foot radius of the discovery and they shall be evaluated by a professional archaeologist. If a potentially-eligible resource is encountered, then the archaeologist, lead agency, and project sponsor shall arrange for either: 1) total avoidance of the resource, if possible; or 2) test excavations to evaluate eligibility and, if eligible, data recovery as mitigation.
If human remains of any kind are found during construction activities, all activities shall cease immediately and the Alameda County Coroner shall be notified as required by State law (Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code). If the coroner determines the remains to be of Native American origin, he or she shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then identify the most likely descendant(s) (MLD) to be consulted regarding treatment and/or reburial of the remains.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
69 VI. GEOLOGY/SOILS
New
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Projectlevel
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42?
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
Environmental Setting
A project-specific preliminary geotechnical investigation was prepared by Berlogar Stevens & Associates (BSA) and is included as Appendix E. Information pertinent to the project is summarized below.
Geology
The project site is located in the San Francisco Bay Area, and this region is known to be one of the most seismically active places in the United States. Although the project site is not located within an AlquistPriolo Study Zone (i.e., active faults), the following three major active faults are located in the greater San Francisco Bay Area: the Hayward Fault, which is located approximately 6 miles east of the project site; the San Andreas Fault, which is located approximately 13 miles west of the project site; and the Calaveras Fault, which is located approximately 11 miles east of the project site.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
70 Soils
The project site was subject to years of soil remediation activities and is barren except for remnant cement pads and cement and asphalt roads. The extensive soil remediation included the export of contaminated soils and import of clean fill so fill soils cover the majority of the site. Geologic deposits below the fill consist of Holocene Basin deposits. Basin Deposits are silty clay to clay deposits found at the distal edge of alluvial fans adjacent to the Bay Mud.
Site reconnaissance of the area did not indicate the presence of bedrock on the site. However, bedrock was encountered at shallow depths at the site during previous evaluations. The shallow bedrock appears to be continuous with two areas of bedrock hills (North Hill and South Hill) southwest of the site on the Cargill Salt property. These two bedrock hills, which are in line with the Coyote Hills, located about 3,600 feet northwest of the site, were previously investigated by BSA and BGC. The Coyote Hills are shown on the Preliminary Geologic Map Emphasizing Bedrock (Graymer, et. al., 1996). The Coyote Hills are mapped as consisting of Undivided Franciscan rocks, chert, greenstone, limestone and serpentinite.
With respect to the two bedrock hills southwest of the site, previous investigations of those hills by BSA and BGC indicated that the North Hill is composed of sandstone and claystone and is mantled with undocumented fill. The North Hill was partially covered with magnesia from salt production operations, which is reported to have been removed from the site. The South Hill is composed of serpentinite.
The shallow bedrock logged by BSA on the site consisted of slightly weathered to competent siltstone and sandstone of the Franciscan Assemblage. ERM logged weathered serpentine, consistent with Franciscan Assemblage bedrock, in their soil boring D2-A and test pit TP-5W at a depth of about nine feet below ground surface (bgs).
The site is blanketed by a layer of fill generally ranging in thickness from about two to five feet. Deeper fills, on the order of about eight feet deep, are present in areas where clearing of past structures and environmental investigation and remediation activities have been performed. The surficial fills in the western portion of the site are predominately silty to clayey gravels or sands in the upper 2 to 3 feet.
The surface soils in the eastern portion of the site are predominately clays and silts. The fill contains crushed rock, concrete, and brick in several areas.
The alluvial soils underlying the fill consist of varying layers of lean silty to sandy clays, clayey to sandy silts, sand, and silty to clayey sands. The sandy layers were generally encountered between about 8 and 18 feet bgs, with sand deposits also encountered below about 38 feet in two of the four CPTs that extended to depths of at least 50 feet bgs. The granular soils are loose to medium dense, where present in the upper 10 to 20 feet of the site and medium dense to dense below. The fine-grained soils range in consistency from medium stiff to very stiff.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the Bayside Newark Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan Certified PEIR
Geology and soils are discussed in Chapter 4.5 of the PEIR prepared for the Specific Plan (RBF 2011). The PEIR concludes that project construction could expose people or structures to potentially substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death as a result of seismic-related ground shaking, liquefaction, or landslides and includes measures to reduce impacts to less than significant. The project FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
71 could also result in substantial soil erosion, the loss of topsoil, or be located on a geologic formation or soil that is unstable and includes measures to reduce impacts to less than significant.
The PEIR concluded that there are no identified faults running through the Specific Plan area, and there is no risk of ground rupture. Additionally, future development allowed by the Specific Plan would connect to the municipal sewer system and would not require the construction of septic tanks or an alternative wastewater disposal system.
Evaluation of Geology and Soils
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42?
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides?
No New Impact. Because no active earthquake faults transect the project site, there is no risk of ground rupture on the project site from known earthquake faults. However, the San Francisco Bay Area is one of the most seismically active places in the United States, and the project site will likely be subject to at least one moderate to severe earthquake and associated seismic shaking during the life of the planned development, as well as periodic slight to moderate earthquakes. Some degree of structural damage due to strong seismic shaking is expected at the site, but the impact of seismic-related ground shaking on the project site would be reduced if the project is constructed in compliance with the geotechnical engineering investigation recommendations and the California Building Code requirements, including seismic design codes.
Due to the relatively flat topography of the project site and surrounding area, the project site is not susceptible to landslides.
The project-specific preliminary geotechnical investigation identified potentially liquefiable soils in the southwest area of the project site to a depth of 25 feet or more that could result in seismically-induced ground failure from a substantial earthquake from nearby, off-site faults. Therefore, Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 would be implemented to reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. No new impact would occur.
Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 (Geotechnical Investigation) The ACWD regulates the construction, repair, and destruction of wells, exploratory holes, and other excavations located within the City of Newark under ACWD Ordinance No. 2010.01.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
72 Future developers within the Specific Plan area shall have a design-level geotechnical engineering investigation performed for their individual property or properties prior to its (their) development. The mitigation measures specified by the design-level geotechnical engineering investigations shall become conditions to the issuance of grading permits for such individual property. The design-level geotechnical engineering investigations shall only address each specific individual property proposing construction unless future developers mutually agree to include more than one property in a single investigation.
The design-level geotechnical engineering investigations shall take into consideration the specific locations and types of development, as well as specific soil and rock conditions identified by subsurface investigation and laboratory testing. The likely mitigation measure recommendations of the design-level geotechnical engineering investigations regarding the design and construction of project-related development are regularly employed, have known and proven efficacy, and could include without limitation, one or more of the following:
• Removing the soft/loose soil by excavating the soil and backfilling the excavation with compacted soil, thus densifying the soft/loose soil;
• Supporting structures on deep foundations, such as piles or piers; • Improving the soft/loose soils by various methods, such as dynamic deep compaction, constructing surcharge fills, installing wick drains, grouting, and other methods; • Strengthening structures to withstand seismic shaking and differential ground settlement; and/or,
• Other methods as determined by the geotechnical engineer in the geotechnical report to be prepared for the sites.
With implementation of Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 4.5-1, impacts from seismic-related ground shaking, liquefaction, or landslides would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No New Impact. Construction activities on the project site, such as grading and excavation, could potentially result in increased erosion or loss of topsoil from wind or stormwater. While the project could be exposed to erosion hazards or loss of topsoil, as noted in the PEIR, erosion can be controlled through compliance with ACWD Ordinance No. 2010-01 as required by Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 4.5-2.
Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 4.5-2 (Soil Improvement) Prior to any soil improvement measures and/or dewatering activities, the project geotechnical engineer(s) shall coordinate with the ACWD to ensure compliance with ACWD Ordinance No. 2010-01.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
73 With implementation of Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 4.5-2, impacts related to soil erosion would be less than significant. No new impact would occur. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
No New Impact. The site-specific geotechnical investigation (Appendix E) assessed the potential for landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, and liquefaction to occur, amongst other geotechnical considerations. While landslides were not identified as a concern, the site has low to moderate potential for lateral spreading, subsidence (settlement related to liquefaction), and a moderate to high potential for liquefaction.
While the project could experience liquefaction-induced field settlement and ground-surface disruption, implementation of Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 discussed under question a) of this section and adherence to the recommendations prescribed in the design-level geotechnical engineering investigation would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. No new impact would occur.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
No New Impact. Moderately expansive soils were encountered in the surficial soils that blanket the site, which could result in structural damage. While the project could be exposed to impacts caused by unstable soils, implementation of Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 discussed under question a) of this section and adherence to the recommendations prescribed in the design-level geotechnical engineering investigation would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. No new impact would occur.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No New Impact. The proposed project would connect to a municipal wastewater treatment system provided by the City of Newark and would not require septic systems or an alternative waste disposal system. Therefore, there would be no impact, and no new impact would occur.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
74 VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
New
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Projectlevel
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
Environmental Setting
The potential greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts associated with implementation of the Specific Plan were evaluated in Chapter 4.6 of the PEIR. Additionally, a project-specific GHG emissions evaluation was completed as part of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project, included as Appendix B to this Initial Study (HELIX 2021a). The results of the GHG evaluation are summarized below.
Climate Change Overview
Global climate change refers to changes in average climatic conditions over the entire Earth including temperature, wind patterns, precipitation, and storms. Global temperatures are moderated by naturally occurring atmospheric gases. These gases are commonly referred to as GHGs because they function like a greenhouse by letting light in but preventing heat from escaping, thus warming the Earth’s atmosphere. These gases allow solar radiation (sunlight) into the Earth’s atmosphere but prevent radiative heat from escaping.
GHGs are emitted by natural processes and human (anthropogenic) activities. Anthropogenic GHG emissions are primarily associated with (1) the burning of fossil fuels during motorized transport, electricity generation, natural gas consumption, industrial activity, manufacturing, and other activities; (2) deforestation; (3) agricultural activity; and (4) solid waste decomposition.
Greenhouse Gases
The GHGs defined under California’s Assembly Bill (AB) 32 include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).
GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes that range from one year to several thousand years. Long atmospheric lifetimes allow for GHG emissions to disperse around the globe. Because GHG emissions vary widely in the power of their climatic effects, climate scientists have established a unit called global warming potential (GWP). The GWP of a gas is a measure of both potency and lifespan in the atmosphere as compared to CO2. For example, because methane and N2O are approximately 25 and 298 times more powerful than CO2, respectively, in their ability to trap heat in the atmosphere, they have GWPs of 25 and 298, respectively (CO2 has a GWP of 1). CO2e is a quantity that enables all GHG FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
75 emissions to be considered as a group despite their varying GWP. The GWP of each GHG is multiplied by the prevalence of that gas to produce CO2e. Typically, the GWP ratio corresponding to the warming potential of CO2 over a 100-year period is used as a baseline. The atmospheric lifetime and GWP of selected GHGs are summarized in Table 13, Global Warming Potentials and Atmospheric Lifetimes.
TABLE 13.
GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIALS AND ATMOSPHERIC LIFETIMES
Greenhouse Gas Atmospheric Lifetime
(years)
Global Warming Potential
(100-year time horizon)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 50-200 1
Methane (CH4) 12 25
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 114 298
HFC-324a 14 1,430
PFC: Tetrafluoromethane (CF4) 50,000 7,390
PFC: Hexafluoroethane (C2F6) 10,000 12,200
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 3,200 22,800
Source: IPCC 2007
HFC: hydrofluorocarbon; PFC: perfluorocarbon
GHG Emissions Regulatory Framework
Refer to the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project (Appendix B; HELIX 2021a) for detailed descriptions of regulations and plans related to GHGs.
California GHG Regulations
The primary legislation governing GHG emissions in California and directing the related actions taken by state and local agencies is AB 32, California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, and SB 32, California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: emissions limit.
AB 32 requires that CARB develop and enforce regulations for the reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. CARB was directed to set a GHG emission limit, based on 1990 levels, to be achieved by 2020. The bill requires CARB to adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission reductions. As a follow-up to AB 32, SB 32 was passed by the California legislature in August 2016 to codify the Executive Order B-30-15 GHG emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and requires the State to invest in the communities most affected by climate change.
On December 11, 2008, CARB adopted the Scoping Plan (CARB 2008) as directed by AB 32. The Scoping Plan proposes a set of actions designed to reduce overall GHG emissions in California to the levels required by AB 32. Measures applicable to development projects include those related to energyefficiency building and appliance standards, the use of renewable sources for electricity generation, regional transportation targets, and green building strategy. Relative to transportation, the Scoping Plan includes nine measures or recommended actions related to reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle GHG emissions through fuel and efficiency measures. These measures would be implemented statewide rather than on a project-by-project basis.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
76 In response to EO B-30-15 and SB 32, all state agencies with jurisdiction over sources of GHG emissions were directed to implement measures to achieve reductions of GHG emissions to meet the 2030 and 2050 targets. CARB was directed to update the Scoping Plan to reflect the 2030 target (CARB 2014). The mid-term target is critical to help frame the suite of policy measures, regulations, planning efforts, and investments in clean technologies and infrastructure needed to continue driving down emissions. In December 2017, CARB adopted the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update, the Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target, to reflect the 2030 target set by EO B-30-15 and codified by SB 32 (CARB 2017b).
Regional and Local GHG Policies and Plans
The BAAQMD provides direction and recommendations for the analysis of GHG impacts of a project and approach to mitigation measures in its CEQA Guidelines (BAAQMD 2017a). The guidance provided in the handbook was used to prepare this analysis.
In October 2021, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) jointly adopted Plan Bay Area 2050 (MTC and ABAG 2021). The Plan Bay Area 2050 is comprised of 35 strategies to improve housing, the economy, transportation, and environment across the Bay Area’s nine counties. The plan also meets all State and federal requirements for a Regional Transportation Plan and a Sustainable Communities Strategy.
The City adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) Initial Framework in 2010. The CAP Initial Framework presents a summary of actions the City has already taken towards the reduction of GHG emissions; summarizes the 2005 emissions inventory; presents actions the City, residents and businesses can take to further reduce emissions; sets reduction goals; and, describes a monitoring plan (City 2010).
The City General Plan Conservation and Sustainability element supports the CAP with goals, policies, and actions to reduce the City’s contribution to climate change by encouraging TOD, increasing transportation options, and planning for rising sea levels. The General Plan’s goals and policies for building energy and water efficiency, and for conservation and management of the City’s tree resources and urban forest also support the CAP and statewide GHG reduction goals (City 2013).
Methods
Construction Emissions
GHG emissions from the project’s construction activities were calculated using CalEEMod, version 2020.4.0. CalEEMod is a computer model used to estimate air emissions resulting from land development projects throughout the state of California. CalEEMod was developed by CAPCOA in collaboration with the California air quality management and pollution control districts, primarily the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). CalEEMod utilizes emission factors from CARB’s OFFROAD and EMFAC models for off-road equipment and on-road vehicles, respectively. The calculation methodology, source of emission factors used, and default data is described in the CalEEMod User’s Guide Appendices A, D, and E (CAPCOA 2021).
Based on a conservative estimate (earliest and highest intensity of construction activities) of the project construction timeline provided by the project applicant, Phase 1 construction would begin in April 2023 FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
77 and be completed in October 2025 for a total construction period of 30 months. Construction of Phase 2 buildings would commence with grading as early as August 2023 and is anticipated to be complete by December 2025 but could be completed as early as October 2025 (27 months). Phase 2 construction would overlap the Phase 1 construction activities. Construction of the project would result in emissions of GHGs from the use of diesel-powered equipment, from worker and vendor vehicles traveling to and from the project site, and from trucks hauling debris and soil. Construction would require heavy equipment during site preparation, grading, underground utilities, paving and building construction.
Construction equipment estimates are based on default values in CalEEMod, with additional equipment added for excavation for underground utilities, based on assumptions used for similar projects. The number of worker and vendor trips is based on CalEEMod defaults for each constructing activity. During demolition, an export of approximately 12,680 tons of old concrete/asphalt is anticipated. During grading, an import of approximately 77,700 cubic yards of soil is anticipated.
Operation Emissions
GHG emissions from long-term operation of the project were estimated using CalEEMod. Operational emissions include area sources, energy sources, mobile sources (vehicle trips), solid waste sources, and water/wastewater sources.
Area Sources
Area sources include landscape equipment, consumer products, and hearths (e.g., fireplaces, woodstoves). No hearths (including woodstoves and fireplaces) are included in the design of the proposed project. The CalEEMod default values for landscape equipment and consumer products were used.
Energy Sources
GHGs are emitted as a result of activities in buildings for which electricity and natural gas are used as energy sources. GHGs are generated during the generation of electricity from fossil fuels off-site in power plants. These emissions are considered indirect and are calculated in CalEEMod as associated with a building’s operation.
Energy source emissions were estimated assuming implementation of energy-reducing project design features to comply with the 2019 Title 24 standards which include a requirement for new residential buildings with three or fewer residential floors to have on-site generation of electricity through photovoltaic (solar) panels. The project’s mixed-use affordable housing/commercial building and some of the townhome buildings have four or more residential floors and would not require solar panels. The project’s remaining residential buildings (234 DU) total approximately 365,038 sf of conditioned space (total floor area minus garage area, as listed in the project floor plans) and would require solar panels producing a minimum of 436 kilowatts (kW). The annual electricity generated by a rooftop mounted solar power system varies by the climate, amount of sunlight available per day, the pitch and orientation of the roof, and the efficiency of the electrical transmission. Assuming a capacity factor of 20 percent, which accounts for climate, daylight hours, roof pitch and orientation, and transmission loss, the power produced by the project’s solar panels would be approximately 860,799 kilowatt-hours (kWhr) per year.
The complete solar power requirement calculations are included with the Air Quality and GHG Emissions Technical Report CalEEMod output files.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
78 Mobile Sources
The emissions from mobile sources were calculated using the project ADT estimate of 1,824 trips after internalization reductions (Fehr & Peers 2021) and CalEEMod default trip lengths. However, the trip generation analysis used older project data that assumed more residential units (377) and retail space (12,100 SF) than the proposed project. Trip generation rates used in the modeling were calculated from the trip generation data. The trip generation rates include trip reductions for internalization. Therefore, no pass-by or linked trip reductions were included in the modeling.
Solid Waste Sources
The disposal of solid waste produces GHG emissions from anaerobic decomposition in landfills, incineration, and transportation of waste. CalEEMod determines the GHG emissions associated with disposal of solid waste into landfills. Portions of these emissions are biogenic. CalEEMod methods for quantifying GHG emissions from solid waste are based on the IPCC method using the degradable organic content of waste. Existing land use GHG emissions associated with waste disposal were all calculated using CalEEMod’s default parameters. A conservative 25 percent solid waste diversion rate was applied in CalEEMod to the new construction and redevelopment that would occur to account for mandatory compliance with AB 341 that is not included in the model defaults.
Water and Wastewater Sources
The amount of water used, and wastewater generated, by a project has indirect GHG emissions associated with it. These emissions are a result of the energy used to supply, distribute, and treat the water and wastewater. In addition to the indirect GHG emissions associated with energy use, wastewater treatment can directly emit both methane and nitrous oxide. The default CalEEMod water use assumptions were used for the GHG emissions estimates. For the project’s water and wastewater GHG emissions, an overall 20 percent reduction in water use was applied in the CalEEMod mitigation section to account for recent requirements of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen).
Levels of Significance
The BAAQMD has adopted GHG thresholds of significance that a lead agency may use for determining the significance of a land use development project’s GHG impacts. For development project, the BAAQMD recommends an efficiency threshold of 4.6 metric ton (MT) or carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) per service population year for a project’s long-term operational GHG emissions (BAAQMD 2017a).4 The BAAQMD’s GHG thresholds were developed to meet the year 2020 statewide GHG emissions targets as mandated by AB 32 and implemented by the CARB Scoping Plan. The BAAQMD has not adopted guidance or revised thresholds to account for a GHG reduction target beyond 2020.
Therefore, this analysis compares the project’s emissions to a reduced threshold corresponding to the SB 32 reduction target of emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Accordingly, a threshold reduced by 4.98 percent for each year between 2020 and 2030 would meet the mandates of SB 32. The first full year of operation for the project is anticipated to be 2025. Therefore, a threshold 22.6 percent 4 Service population is the total number of residents living in an area plus the employees working in the same area.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
79 below the BAAQMD threshold of 4.6 MT CO2e per service population per year (or 3.56 MT) is used in this analysis.
The BAAQMD has not adopted a threshold for determining the significance of a project’s construction GHG emissions. However, the BAAQMD recommends quantification and disclosure of GHG emissions that would occur during construction.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the Bayside Newark Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan Certified PEIR
GHG Emissions are discussed in Chapter 4.6 of the PEIR prepared for the Specific Plan. The PEIR concluded that the Specific Plan’s contribution to regional GHG emissions would be potentially significant. Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan PEIR Mitigation Measure 4.6-1 requires implementation of project design features to reduce building energy and transportation related GHG emissions and would reduce the impact to less than significant. The PEIR which concluded that the Specific Plan would not conflict with the City’s CAP.
Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
No New Impact.
Construction Emissions
Project construction GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod as described in the methods, above. Emissions of GHGs related to the construction of the project would be temporary. As shown in Table 14, Construction GHG Emissions, the total estimated GHG emissions associated with construction of the project would be 5,065 MT CO2e.
TABLE 14.
CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS
Project Phase and Year Emissions
(MT CO2e)
Phase 1 2023 1,519.0
Phase 1 2024 2,333.2
Phase 1 2025 1,059.3
Phase 2 2025 153.4
TOTAL 5,064.9
Amortized Emissions (Total Emission/30 Years) 168.8
Source: CalEEMod, output data is provided in Appendix A.
Notes: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
MT = metric ton; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
Construction period emissions are typically amortized (i.e., averaged) over the anticipated 30-year lifespan of the project buildings. Averaged over 30 years, the proposed construction activities would FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
80 contribute 168.8 MT CO2e emissions per year. As noted above, BAAQMD has not adopted a threshold for determining the significance of a project’s temporary construction GHG emissions. However, anticipated construction emissions for the project are provided above for informational purposes.
Impacts would be less than significant, and no new impact would occur.
Operation Emissions
The project’s operational GHG emissions and the existing land use GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod as described in methods, above. The project’s net annual operational emissions would be the total project annual emissions for the first year of full buildout, after completion of both Phase 1 and Phase 2 in 2025. As shown in Table 15, Total Operational GHG Emissions, the project would result in approximately 2,024 MT CO2e per year.
For comparison with the BAAQMD efficiency threshold, adjusted for the year 2026, the project’s total operational emissions were divided by the project’s estimated future service population. Based on the emissions modeling, the CalEEMod default population density for condos/townhomes for Alameda County would be 2.86 persons per DU, and the project’s future residential population would be approximately 1,058 residents. From information provided by the project applicant, the project commercial retail space would result in approximately 6 employees. Therefore, the projects estimated service population would be 1,065.
TABLE 15.
TOTAL OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS
Project Phase and Source Emissions
(MT CO2e/year)
Phase 1 Area 4.2
Phase 1 Energy 410.6
Phase 1 Vehicular (Mobile) 1,371.9
Phase 1 Solid Waste 61.8
Phase 1 Water and Wastewater 38.1
Phase 1 Subtotal1 1,886.5
Phase 2 Area 0.3
Phase 2 Energy 31.8
Phase 2 Vehicular (Mobile) 96.5
Phase 2 Solid Waste 4.7
Phase 2 Water and Wastewater 4.4
Phase 2 Subtotal1 137.7
Total Emissions
(Phase 1 Subtotal + Phase 2 Subtotal)1
2,024.2
Service Population 1,065
Emissions Per Service Population2 1.90
Threshold (MT CO2e per service population per year) 3.56 Exceed Threshold? No
Source: CalEEMod, output data is provided in Appendix B. 1 Totals may not sum due to rounding. 2 Net emissions per service population = total emissions divided by the estimated future service population of 1,098.
MT = metric ton; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
81 As shown in Table 15 above, the project’s per capita emissions would be 1.90 MT CO2e per year, below the adjusted threshold of 3.56 MT CO2e per service population per year. Therefore, the project would not generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment, and the impact would be less than significant and would not exceed the significance determination in the PEIR. No new impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
The Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan PEIR included Mitigation Measure 4.6-1, which included a list of project design features that were intended to reduce the Specific Plan’s GHG emissions to below the 4.6 MT/SP threshold. The proposed project includes mandated project-specific design features, including solar electricity generation, low water use plumbing fixtures, water efficient landscaping and irrigations, and solid waste diversion. In addition, the project trip generation analysis accounts for trip reductions resulting from the project’s mixed land use (residential and local serving commercial/retail; Fehr & Peers 2021). As shown in Table 15, above, incorporation of these project design features would achieve the same goal as Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan PEIR Mitigation Measure 4.6-1, and the project’s emissions would be below the threshold. Therefore, no mitigation is required, and no new impact would occur.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No New Impact. There have been no updates to the City’s CAP Initial Framework or GHG reductionrelated policies in the General Plan since the PEIR was certified in 2011. Since the project would be consistent with the Specific Plan’s intent for mixed-use TOD, the project would be consistent with the CAP Initial Framework and General Plan. In addition, because the growth in the City’s housing and population as a result of the project would be consistent with the Specific Plan, the project would be consistent with the growth assumptions used to develop the Plan Bay Area 2050.
The project design features listed in Section 1.4 of Appendix B would support the policies included in the 2013 General Plan (2013). These General Plan policies include:
Action CS-3.E Water Efficient Landscaping. Continue to implement the City’s Bay Friendly Landscaping Guidelines for water-efficient landscaping, including low water use plants and more efficient irrigation systems. Adopt more stringent outdoor water use policies for individual development proposals where feasible.
Policy CS-3.2. Water Conservation Standards. Promote conservation through development standards, building requirements, irrigation requirements, landscape design guidelines, and other applicable City policies and programs.
Policy CS-5.1 Linking Land Use and Transportation. Encourage land use and transportation patterns that reduce dependence on automobiles. This includes siting well-designed higher-density, mixed-use development near the proposed Bayside Newark Rail station and in other areas with frequent transit service.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
82 Policy CS-5.2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Friendly Design. Ensure that new development is planned and designed to facilitate walking and bicycling as well as driving. This can potentially reduce the number of vehicle trips and related GHG emissions.
Policy CS-6.2 Encouraging Greener Construction. Encourage greener construction methods and greater use of recycled-content materials in new residential, commercial, and industrial construction projects in accordance with the latest CalGreen building standards.
Policy CS-7.1 Reducing Energy Use. Support measures to reduce energy consumption and increase energy efficiency in residential, commercial, industrial, and public buildings.
Policy CS-7.3 Designing for Energy Efficiency. Support building design, site planning, and subdivision design methods that reduce heating and cooling costs and achieve greater energy efficiency.
As discussed in question a), above, the project would not exceed the BAAQMD’s project level thresholds developed to meet the reduction mandates of AB 32 or the adjusted 2023 threshold to meet the reduction mandates of SB 32. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the CARB Climate Change Scoping Plan developed to implement the mandates of AB 32 and SB 32.
In addition, if a future transit project is approved and constructed using the Bayside Newark Rail Corridor, then the project’s future residents would be within 0.5 mile of the future train station and the project would be considered TOD. The transportation sector is the largest source of GHG emissions in the state and in the San Francisco Bay Area. While Plan Bay Area 2050 seeks to reduce the overall need for vehicle trips, it also recognizes that every trip is different and that cars will continue to be a transportation option into the future. In addition to the strategies that reduce driving trips, the plan also explores strategies that can make those remaining auto trips as sustainable as possible by expanding clean vehicle initiatives. The long lifespan of most vehicles presents an opportunity for Bay Area residents to retire their older, more polluting vehicles in exchange for rebates to buy zero-emission vehicles (MTC and ABAG 2021).
Therefore, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases, and impacts would be less than significant and would not exceed the conclusions in the PEIR. No new impact would occur.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
83 VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
New
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Projectlevel
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Environmental Setting
Hazards and hazardous materials are discussed in Chapter 4.7 of the PEIR (RBF 2011) prepared for the Specific Plan. The project site has a history of soil and groundwater contamination associated with previous land use. The project site was historically in industrial land uses as chemicals were manufactured and stored on-site from 1942 to 1995. FMC Corporation is the property owner responsible for the site cleanup efforts and submits all remediation documentation for this project site in electronic format to the State Water Resources Control Board’s GeoTracker database, pursuant to the California Code of Regulations (Title 23, Section 3890, et.seq.). These files are available to the public and can be accessed at the State’s database by searching by File Number (01S0131), address (8787 Enterprise Drive, Newark), or site name (FMC Corp – Newark) (SWRCB 2021).
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
84 Soil Remediation
Soil remediation on the project site began in 2002 in a small area in the northeast corner of the project site containing phosphorus impacted soils. Remediation in this area was conducted by isolation using an asphalt cap (P4 Cap). Soil remediation activities continued in May of 2015 in accordance with Work Order No. R2-2015-0017 by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Following soil removal activity and P4 cap construction, FMC Corporation submitted a Risk Management Plan (RMP) in August of 2019 (ERM 2019). The RMP was developed to manage and set procedures for any unexpected threats from soil or groundwater during future site development. The RMP provides for long term protection, inspection, monitoring, and maintenance of the P4 Cap. The RMP was approved in September of 2019 (SWRCB 2021). In December of 2019, the asphalt cap was removed and replaced by a reinforced concrete cap. The new cap, which consists of an 8-inch steel-reinforced concrete cap installed over 24-inch minimum compacted subgrade material and a witness layer, was completed in January 2020 (ERM 2021).
Remediation of soils on the FMC Willow portion of the project site was completed between August 2019 and November 2019, in which all excavated areas were backfilled with approved clean imported material to grades specified in approved workplans. A letter from the RWQCB dated November 27, 2019, stated that concentrations of chemicals in soils at the Willow Parcel had reached acceptable risk based on cleanup levels, and no further remedial action was necessary within the Willow Area (RWQCB 2019).
Remediation of soils on the previously approved Grand Park portion of the project site was conducted between January and October 2020. FMC Corporation submitted a Soil and Shallow Groundwater Remedial Action Completion Report – Phase 1 Area to the San Francisco Bay RWQCB on February 5, 2021, that addressed the Grand Park area (referred to as the Park Redevelopment Area) in the report.
The report requests that the San Francisco Bay RWQCB approve the completion of the Phase 1 Area work and issue a No Further Active Remediation for soil letter for this portion of the project site. The San Francisco Bay RWQCB issued a Report Acceptance letter on April 16, 2021, stating that the agency has no concerns with the remedial activities that were performed but prefers not to make a formal determination on further remedial action for soil until all remedies for the Park Redevelop Area are complete (SWRCB 2021). Soil remediation activities are ongoing in the Grand Park portion of the project site. Additionally, the purpose of the reconfiguration of the previously approved Grand Park site is to ensure that no residential dwellings are developed on the remediation site.
Groundwater Remediation
FMC Corporation submitted a Shallow Groundwater Interim Remedial Action Completion Report to the San Francisco Bay RWQCB on June 1, 2020, for the FMC Willow portion of the project site (ERM 2020).
Based on the documentation presented in the report, FMC requested that the RWQCB approve the Interim Remedial Action Completion Report and concur that the shallow groundwater Interim Remedial Action is complete for the affected area (including the FMC Willow portion of the project site).
Groundwater remediation activities in the Willow and Park Redevelopment areas are ongoing.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
85 Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the Bayside Newark Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan Certified PEIR
Impacts associated with hazardous materials identified in the certified PEIR include risks to the public or the environment as a result of developing the sites included on lists of hazardous materials sites, routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, or foreseeable or accidental conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Measures include requiring regulatory oversight of the contaminated property to determine that the remediation and mitigation measures, and the proposed land uses are sufficient to ensure the property, proposed development and design do not pose an unacceptable risk to human health.
Evaluation of Hazardous Materials
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No New Impact. During construction, oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, paints, solvents, and other hazardous materials would be used. The routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials are subject to local, State, and federal regulations to minimize risk and exposure. If spilled, these substances could pose a risk to the environment and to human health. However, both federal and State laws include provisions for the safe handling of hazardous substances. Following construction, no hazardous materials use or storage would be expected other than minor amounts of residential cleaning and landscaping chemicals. No existing or proposed schools are within 0.25 mile of the project site.
Therefore, impacts from transport of, accidental release of, or emissions from hazardous materials would be less than significant for questions a), b), and c). No new impact would occur. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No New Impact. The project site has a history of hazardous materials contamination associated with previous land uses that may create a significant hazard to the public or the environment if not appropriately remediated. The San Francisco Bay RWQCB provides regulatory oversight of the properties within the Specific Plan area, including the project site, and has participated in ongoing coordination to remediate the project site (SWRCB 2021).
As discussed above, soil remediation on the project site began in 2002 in a small area in the northeast corner of the project site containing phosphorus impacted soils. Remediation in this area was conducted by isolation using an asphalt cap (P4 Cap). Following soil removal activity and P4 cap construction, FMC Corporation submitted an RMP in August of 2019 (ERM 2019). The RMP sets forth health and safety procedures and pollutant management protocols to be followed during construction or maintenance activities within the Willow Area. The RMP also sets forth procedures for long-term management of FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
86 residual pollutants in the Willow Area to ensure protection of human health and the environment. The RMP states that all buildings constructed within the Willow Area must have vapor intrusion mitigation systems installed under the foundations to mitigate potential health risks from potential vapor intrusion of volatile contaminants and that no buildings shall be constructed on the P4 Cap area in the Willow Area. The RMP was approved in September of 2019 (SWRCB 2021). The RMP, including any addenda, revisions or amendments approved by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB, is incorporated in the deed restriction for the Willow Area, recorded on November 19, 2019. The San Francisco Bay RWQCB anticipates an RMP and deed restriction would be developed for the Park Area before the land is redeveloped.
In December of 2019, the asphalt cap was removed and replaced by a reinforced concrete cap. The new cap, which consists of an 8-inch steel-reinforced concrete cap installed over 24-inch minimum compacted subgrade material and a witness layer, was completed in January 2020 (ERM 2021). In compliance with the Mitigation Measure 4.7-1a of the PEIR, annual inspections of the P4 Cap are conducted by a qualified engineer that is a duly authorized representative of FMC, and the inspection conducted in January 2021 by ERM concluded that there were no action items for repairs for the 2021 maintenance year (ERM 2021). The property owner of the Willow area is responsible for notifying and repairing the P4 Cap if damaged by the property owner or its designee as reported in the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Report. FMC, former property owner, is responsible for ensuring the annual inspection of the P4 Cap and reporting in the O&M Report is completed by qualified personnel.
A letter from the RWQCB dated November 27, 2019, states that FMC Corporation has completed soil remediation within the Willow Parcel for soils impacted by historic site operations. As a result, concentrations of chemicals in the Willow parcel soils have reached acceptable risk based cleanup levels, and no further remedial action is required in the Willow Area (RWQCB 2019). Soil remediation activities within the Park Redevelopment Area are ongoing.
For the groundwater remediation on site, a Shallow Groundwater Interim Remedial Action Completion Report was submitted to the San Francisco Bay RWQCB on June 1, 2020, requesting that the RWQCB approve the Interim Remedial Action Completion Report and concur that the shallow groundwater Interim Remedial Action is complete for the affected area (ERM 2020). Groundwater remediation activities in the Willow and Park Redevelopment areas are ongoing.
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB has been overseeing the soil and groundwater investigation and remediation of the project site, and residential use of the site would not present an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment with the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures. While maintenance and monitoring of the P4 Cap is ongoing, the P4 Cap is located within the area designated for the future Transit Station, and no residential homes are proposed to be developed over or adjacent to the P4 Cap. However, because the site was previously developed and maintenance of the P4 Cap is ongoing, Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measures 4.7-1a, -1b, and 1c would be implemented to avoid, minimize, and mitigate any hazardous materials impacts to the public and the environment. No new impact would occur.
Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 4.7-1a (Environmental Contamination) Prior to the issuance of grading or building permit for an individual property within the Specific Plan area with known, suspected, or potential residual environmental contamination, the property owner shall, to the extent such activities have not previously been performed by the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
87 property owner pursuant to the requirements of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) or other overseeing agency under applicable environmental laws (Oversight Agency), do all of the following:
1) Summarize available information regarding the magnitude and extent of soil and groundwater contamination at the subject property;
2) Perform a data gap analysis;
3) Based on the results of the data gap analysis, determine whether any additional investigation is needed to fill data gaps and, if so, propose and perform such investigation with the approval of the Oversight Agency;
4) Provide either a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) or Feasibility Study (FS) containing an HRA to summarize potential risks to human health and the environmental posed by the contamination with respect to the proposed development; 5) Based on the HRA or as set forth in the FS, develop remedial options to address the identified risks based upon the proposed development, which remedial option may include engineering or institutional controls, and tentatively select the most appropriate remedial option to ensure that the proposed development will not present an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment as required by applicable environmental laws, as well as procedures for proper management of contaminated soil and groundwater that may be encountered during development; and
6) Submit a report to the Oversight Agency for review and regulatory approval of the proposed remedial plan, including engineering and/or institutional controls, under applicable environmental laws.
Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 4.7-1b (Site Clearance) Prior to grading permit issuance, areas to be graded shall be cleared of debris, significant vegetation, pre-existing abandoned utilities, buried structures, and asphalt concrete.
Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 4.7-1c (Imported Soils) Prior to the import of a soil to a particular property within the Specific Plan area as part of that property’s site development, such soils shall be sampled for toxic or hazardous materials exceeding applicable Environmental Screening Levels for the proposed land use at such a property as required by the Oversight Agency prior to importing to such a property.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
88 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No New Impact. The project site is not located in an Airport Land Use Plan area, and no public or private airfields are within two miles of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area, and there would be no impact for questions e) and f). No new impact would occur.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No New Impact. The City is a cooperating agency in two emergency response plans: the Alameda County Emergency Operations Plan (Alameda County 2012) and Union City/Newark Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan (Tetra Tech 2016) as described above. Both plans were reviewed during preparation of this Initial Study. Implementation of these plans would not be affected by the proposed project. Primary access to the project site is via Willow Street and Enterprise Drive, which are fully paved and functional roadways, and no off-site road improvements that could interfere with an adopted emergency plan or evacuation plan would be necessary for project implementation. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no new impact would occur. h) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
No New Impact. The project site is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or a Very High Fire Hazard Zone of a Local Responsibility Area (LRA; CAL FIRE 2021). Site topography is flat and fuels adjacent to the site following project construction would be limited to a small amount of fine herbaceous fuels. The site would receive adequate levels of fire protection from the Alameda County Fire Department, and adequate site ingress and egress would be provided. Any potential impacts would be less than significant, and no new impact would occur.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
89 IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
New
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Projectlevel
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Environmental Setting
Hydrology and water quality are discussed in Chapter 4.8 of the PEIR prepared for the Specific Plan (RBF 2011). The project site has undergone soil remediation and reflects the history of past hydrologic manipulation. Precipitation and municipal water are the only sources of water for the study area.
Precipitation collected on the site may pond in low areas or flow off site to adjacent parcels where it may percolate into the ground or evaporate.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
90 An LID storm drain system comprised of bio-retention areas, curbs and gutters along the roadways, and underground storm drainpipes would be installed as part of the proposed project storm water management plan (CBG 2021). The proposed project would install storm drainpipes throughout the project site that would connect to existing City-owned storm drains located within Enterprise Drive and Willow Street. This storm drain system is designed to convey surface runoff to an outfall located within the southwestern corner of the Specific Plan area and, ultimately, to the San Francisco Bay. The project site would be delineated into 50 DMAs with approximately 23,024-sf of bioretention treatment areas proposed within the project site.
FEMA flood insurance rate maps were reviewed for the project’s proximity to a 100-year floodplain. The project site is within FEMA panel 06001C0443G effective 8/3/2009. The majority of the project site is located within an area classified as an area of minimal flood hazard. The east side of the site is located in Zone X and has a 0.2 percent annual chance of flooding. A portion of the site along the western boundary, including the majority of the Grand Park, is within an area classified as Zone AE which indicates this area has a 1 percent annual chance of flooding and is within a 100-year floodplain (FEMA 2021). The City of Newark Municipal Code (Section 15.40.51 Newark Municipal Code) has flood elevation standards for lands within special flood hazard areas as defined by FEMA. These standards include requirements such as minimum elevations for finished floors above building pads and top of curb grades.
The project site is in the inundation areas for the James H. Turner and New Calaveras dams, all of which are east of the project site and classified as extremely high downstream hazard dams because their failure could result in a significant loss of life and property damage. The California Division of Safety of Dams inspects each dam on an annual basis to ensure the dam is safe, performing as intended, and is not developing problems.
The Specific Plan is within the coverage area for the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES General Permit administered by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The permit applies to projects disturbing one acre or more of land. The terms of the permit usually provide requirements and standards for categories such as municipal maintenance, public outreach, illicit discharge controls, industrial and commercial discharge controls, and new development discharge controls.
The Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (ACFC) works specifically to protect County citizens from flooding and enforces pollution control regulations governing County waterways.
The ACFC has a Hydrology and Hydraulics Manual that outlines the ACFC’s requirements for new development and modifications of existing flood control systems.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the Bayside Newark Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan Certified PEIR
Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality are discussed in Section 4.8 of the PEIR prepared for the Specific Plan. The PEIR concluded that the Specific Plan would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, as all elements of the project would be required to comply with the requirements of the NPDES General Permit which includes implementation of best management practices to prevent or minimize environmental impacts and ensure that discharges during the construction phase of the project would not cause or contribute to the degradation of water quality in receiving waters, reducing construction-related water quality impacts to less than significant. The PEIR FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
91 contains measures to minimize impacts to water quality as a result of altered drainage patterns that may cause flooding and may also result in cumulatively considerable hydrology and water quality impacts. Future storm drainage lines for the project would be designed to carry flow to a new outfall being created by others within the southwestern corner of the Specific Plan area. No new drainage outfall was installed for Drainage 1.
Evaluation of Hydrology and Water Quality
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge? No New Impact. Site clearing, grading, excavation, and construction activities have the potential to impact water quality through soil erosion and increased silt and debris discharged via surface runoff.
Additionally, the use of construction materials such as fuels, solvents, and paints may present a risk to surface water quality. Temporary storage of construction materials and equipment in work areas or staging areas could create the potential for a release of hazardous materials, trash, or sediment to the storm drain system. Since construction of the proposed project would result in disturbance of an area greater than one acre, the project applicant would be required to enroll for coverage under the Storm Water Construction General Permit for the NPDES program. The Storm Water Construction General Permit requires the submittal of Permit Registration Documents to the SWRCB prior to the start of construction and a Notice of Intent (NOI), risk assessment, site map, annual fee, signed certification statement, SWPPP, and post-construction water balance calculations would be included in the submittal. A project-specific SWPPP would be prepared and BMPs would be implemented during construction. Typical BMPs would include diversion of runoff from disturbed areas, protective measures for sensitive areas, temporary soil stabilization measures, storm water runoff quality control measures, concrete waste management, watering for dust control, and installation of perimeter silt fences, as needed. New requirements by the SWRCB also require the SWPPP to include post-construction treatment measures aimed at minimizing stormwater runoff.
Additionally, the project site is within the existing urban area of the City served by urban stormwater facilities and would be subject to all of the conditions of the City’s Municipal Code and ACFC’s requirements for new development and modifications of existing flood control systems. With compliance of all the NPDES permit conditions, City code conditions, and ACFC’s requirements, water quality impacts from the proposed project would be less than significant. No new impact would occur. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level?
No New Impact. Water use for the proposed project would be obtained from the ACWD, which utilizes treated groundwater as a source of its local supply along with other sources. The Specific Plan is included in ACWD’s forecast and water supply planning, and it would not increase water shortages from what has already been factored into ACWD’s planning. While the project would result in additional impervious surfaces on the site that can interfere with the natural groundwater recharge process, the Alameda Creek Watershed is the primary source of recharge for the San Francisco Bay Area Basin, and rainfall and applied water provide a local recharge to a lesser extent. Therefore, the proposed development would not substantially reduce groundwater recharge, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
92 c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site? No New Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would increase impervious surfaces on site by 38 percent which could potentially increase stormwater generation and runoff from the project site.
However, the proposed project would be split into 50 DMAs with approximately 23,024-sf of bioretention treatment areas to control and contain stormwater runoff and reduce the potential for erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Additionally, following project construction and during the life of the project, areas would be paved or landscaped which would stabilize soils. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off-site?
No New Impact. Implementation of the project would increase impervious areas within the project site by approximately 38 percent, subsequently reducing absorption rates in some areas and altering the site’s existing drainage pattern and percolation rates. By increasing the impervious area and channelizing stormwater runoff, the rates and volumes of runoff would increase.
The Specific Plan delineates the 205-acre Specific Plan area into three drainage shed areas. The eastern portion of the project site lies within drainage Shed 1 and the western portion of the project site lies within drainage Shed 2. However, as noted in Exhibits 8.2 and 8.3 of the Specific Plan, the drainage shed boundaries may be adjusted to optimize drainage. Therefore, the proposed project has been designed to include 50 DMAs and an on-site storm drain system within the project site to provide flood control and to ensure the storm water system can adequately accommodate the proposed project. Additionally, Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 4.8-4a would be implemented to further reduce potential stormwater runoff impacts.
Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 4.8-4a (Hydrology) Plans submitted for grading permits shall include a detailed hydrology report. The report shall include calculations regarding the anticipated volume of stormwater runoff generated by the proposed development, and shall demonstrate that adequate stormwater conveyance and capacity is available in the existing facilities selected depending on the location of the proposed development (i.e., the Line F-1 channel, the City’s existing outfall into the Line F-1 channel, the existing human-created tidal channel that is tributary to Newark Slough, and existing City facilities in Willow Street). The hydrology report shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
If the hydrology report determines that the existing facilities do not have adequate stormwater conveyance and capacity to serve the proposed development, then the project applicant shall develop a detailed stormwater detention plan for the retention/detention of stormwater runoff on the project site. The stormwater detention facilities shall be designed with adequate capacity to ensure that that stormwater generated on the project site during a peak storm event is retained at a rate that would ensure that discharges from the site do not exceed preconstruction levels. All detention facilities shall be developed in conformance with the City’s FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
93 standards and the standards of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The plans and specifications of the proposed detention facilities shall meet the standards of the City Engineering Department as an adequate engineering product. The construction of stormwater detention facilities may be phased to correspond with development of the project site over time, provided that adequate detention is provided at all times to ensure that runoff from the site does not exceed pre-construction levels.
With implementation of Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 4.8-4a, impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
No New Impact. The proposed project would install storm drainpipes throughout the project site that would connect to existing City-owned storm drains located within Enterprise Drive and Willow Street.
Stormwater from the proposed project would be designed to flow to a new drainage outfall within the southwestern portion of the Specific Plan area created by others that has been sized to accommodate the proposed project and adjacent developments. Operation of these requirements, which would be unchanged with approval of the project, would ensure that no adverse impacts due to stormwater generation or contamination would take place, and impacts would be less than significant for questions e) and f).
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No New Impact. As noted above, a portion of the project site along the western boundary is within the 100-year flood plain. Section 15.40.51 of the Newark Municipal Code requires that building pads of all occupied structures to be a minimum of 11.25 feet above sea level with the finished floor being a minimum of six inches above the building pad. Also, Section 16.08.06 requires that top of curb grades for residential streets must be no less than 10 feet above sea level throughout the City. As discussed in Section 3.3, approximately 77,700 cubic yards of clean fill soil would be imported to elevate future structures above the 100-year flood hazard area. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant for questions g) and h).
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
No New Impact. The project would expose new development to inundation in the event of the failure of James H. Turner and New Calaveras dams. Dam failure would most likely occur with adequate warning to evacuate residents. A failure would be preceded by increased seepage to the drain, initiation of seepages on the side slopes, and very high lake levels, however, permanent structures would likely be extensively damaged or destroyed. New Calaveras Dam was previously documented as having a higherthan-normal risk of failure. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission began construction on the New Calaveras Dam Replacement Project in August 2011, and construction of the new dam was FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
94 completed in June 2019 (SFWPS 2019). With this improvement, the risk of failure is low. With the annual inspections of the James H. Turner dam and operation of the recently-constructed New Calaveras dam, the risk of dam failure is low and not considered a significant hazard to the project. Impacts would be less than significant, and no new impact would occur.
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No New Impact. Risks of inundation by tsunami, seiche, and mudflow were evaluated in the Specific Plan PEIR. The PEIR concluded that the risk of flooding due to a tsunami event is considered low due to the location of the Specific Plan area in the San Francisco Bay Area. Further, the portion of the Bay Area near the Specific Plan area is not subject to potential flooding by seiches since several levees and stretches of shallow water would minimize waves generated by a seiche. No areas of potential mud flow hazard, such as a volcano or hillside, are located near the project site or Specific Plan area. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no new impact would occur.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
95 X. LAND USE AND PLANNING
New
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Projectlevel
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
Environmental Setting
Land use in the project area is regulated by the City of Newark through various plans and ordinances adopted by the City, including the City of Newark 2013 General Plan and the City of Newark Zoning Ordinance. Further, the FMC Willow and Grand Park project is included in the Bayside Newark TOD (formerly Dumbarton TOD) Specific Plan. A summary of the existing land use designations and zoning for the project site is provided below:
• Existing Specific Plan Land Use Designations: The current Specific Plan land use designations for the project site are Commercial/Retail, Commercial/Office, High Density Residential, Parks & Recreational Open Space, and Transit Station (RBF 2011). • Existing General Plan Land Use Designations: The current General Plan land use designations for the project site are Community Commercial, High Density Residential, Public Institutional, and Parks and Recreational Facilities (City of Newark 2013). • Existing Zoning: The current City of Newark zoning for the project site are Business and Technology Park (BTP) and Park (PK). The City of Newark Zoning Map from 2018 shows the entire project site is zoned as BTP (City of Newark 2018). However, as noted in Section 2.0, Project Background, the Newark City Council unanimously voted to rezone the previouslyproposed Grand Park site from BTP to PK on January 24, 2019 which is not reflected on the City’s Zoning Map. Therefore, a portion of the project site along the western boundary is also zoned as PK.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
96 Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the Bayside Newark Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan Certified PEIR
Land Use is discussed in Chapter 4.9 of the PEIR certified for the Specific Plan (RBF 2011). The PEIR concluded that, although the project would result in a change in the project area, the development would be required to comply with the Design Guidelines in the Specific Plan that would complement the surrounding land uses and would be an extension of existing residential and commercial development in the vicinity. Therefore, the project would not disrupt or divide an established community. Further, the Specific Plan would not result in a conflict with the City’s General Plan land use strategy, the Bay Area Regional Smart Growth Strategy/Regional Livability Footprint Project, the San Francisco Bay Trail Plan, or the San Francisco Bay Plan. All lands use impacts were anticipated to be less-than-significant, and no mitigation measures were required.
As discussed under the Transfer of Dwelling Units header in Section 4.5, Adjustments/Transfers Regulations, the Specific Plan allows for the transfer of DU between APNs as long as the net increase does not exceed the total DU permitted by the Specific Plan (2,500 units). As of June 2022, a total of 2,171 DU have been approved or are pending approval in the Specific Plan area, including the proposed FMC Willow and Grand Park project (See Table 1 in Section 2.0). See below for the Transfer of Dwelling Units language in the Specific Plan:
“The transfer of dwelling units between owners of legal Parcels is permitted as of right provided that there is no net increase to the total dwelling units, 2,500, permitted in this Specific Plan and provided that such transfer complies with the applicable zoning requirements for each land use designation involved, including density requirements (i.e. units may not be transferred to a Parcel to the extent that the applicable maximum density would be exceeded).” Evaluation of Land Use and Planning
a) Physically divide an established community?
No New Impact. The lots surrounding the project site are actively being developed in accordance with the Specific Plan, of which the FMC Willow and Grand Park project is a part. Residential units planned within the Specific Plan area west, south, and southeast of the project site have been constructed and/or are under construction. The proposed project would contribute to a planned mixed use community development and would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, there would be no impact, and no new impact would occur.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No New Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would require Specific Plan, General Plan, and Zoning Map amendments. See below for a summary of the proposed amendments.
Specific Plan Amendment
The proposed project would change the total gross acreage of a land use planning area by more than 20 percent from the original gross acreage approved under the Specific Plan by reducing commercial/office, FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
97 commercial/retail, high density, and transit station land uses. Therefore, the project applicant is seeking a Specific Plan Amendment to change the Specific Plan land use designations in the project site from Commercial/Retail, Commercial/Office, High Density Residential, Transit Station, Parks & Recreational Open Space to Commercial Mixed Use, Medium/High Density Residential, Transit Station, Restricted Use Areas, and Parks & Recreational Open Space (see Figure 6, Specific Plan Land Use Changes, below). Table 16 below shows how the approval of the Specific Plan Amendment would impact the maximum number of dwelling units allowed to be developed on the project site.
TABLE 16.
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT IMPACT TO MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DWELLING UNITS ON PROJECT SITE Specific Plan Land Use Category
Specific Plan Land
Use Category
Acreage
Specific Plan
Maximum
Allowable
Dwelling Units
Project Land
Use Category
Acreage
Project
Maximum
Allowable
Dwelling Units
High Density Residential
(25-60 DU/acre) 4.7 acres 282 DU 0 0
Medium/High Density Residential
(16-60 DU/acre) 0 0 13.4 acres 804 DU
Delta from Approval of the Specific Plan Amendment +522 DU The Specific Plan designates 4.7 acres within the project site for High Density Residential (25-60 DU/acre) which would allow for a maximum of 282 DU to be developed within the project site as currently designated. The proposed project would amend the Specific Plan land use designations on the project site to allow for 1.6 acres of Commercial/Mixed Use and approximately 13.4 acres of Medium/High Density Residential (16-60 DU/acre) to allow for the development of the proposed 370- unit mixed use community. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would allow up to 522 more residential dwelling units to be developed on the project site than currently allowed, and the approval of a Specific Plan Amendment would not result in a net loss of residential units planned to be developed on the project site per the Specific Plan as the project proposes the development of 370 dwelling units on the project site (88 more dwelling units than currently allowed without the Specific Plan Amendment). No net loss of residential capacity would occur as required by SB 330 (Gov. Code section 66300(i)(1).
The Specific Plan planned for the development of a total of 2,500 DU and 35,000 sf of retail. As of June 2022, a total of 2,171 DU and 3,600 sf of retail have been approved or are pending approval in the Specific Plan area, including the proposed FMC Willow and Grand Park project (see Table 1 in Section
2.0). Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not cause an exceedance of the development thresholds planned for the Specific Plan and evaluated in the Specific Plan PEIR.
General Plan Amendment
The proposed project would require a General Plan amendment to change the General Plan land use designations of the project site from Community Commercial, High Density Residential, Parks and Recreational Facilities, and Public Institutional to Medium Density Residential, Commercial Mixed Use, Public Institutional, and Parks and Recreational Facilities (see Figure 7, General Plan Land Use Changes, FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
98 below). Table 17 below shows how the approval of the General Plan Amendment would impact the maximum number of dwelling units allowed to be developed on the project site.
TABLE 17.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT IMPACT TO MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DWELLING UNITS ON PROJECT SITE General Plan Land Use Category
General Plan
Land Use
Category Acreage
General Plan
Maximum
Allowable
Dwelling Units
Project Land Use
Category
Acreage
Project
Maximum
Allowable
Dwelling
Units
High Density Residential
(25-60 DU/acre) 5.9 acres 354 DU 0 0
Medium Density Residential
(14-30 DU/acre) 0 0 13.4 acres 402 DU
Delta from the Approval of the General Plan Amendment +48 DU The General Plan designates 5.9 acres of land within the project site for High Density Residential (25-60 DU/acre) which would allow for a maximum of 354 DU to be developed within the project site as currently designated. The proposed project would amend the General Plan land use designations on the project site to allow for 1.6 acres of Commercial/Mixed Use and approximately 13.4 acres of Medium Density Residential (14-30 DU/acre) to allow for the development of the proposed 370-unit mixed use community. Therefore, the proposed General Plan Amendment would allow for 48 more residential dwelling units to be developed on the project site than currently allowed, and the approval of the General Plan Amendment would not result in a net loss of residential units planned to be developed on the project site per the General Plan as the project proposes the development of 370 dwelling units on the project site (16 more dwelling units than currently allowed without the General Plan Amendment).
No net loss of residential capacity would occur as required by SB 330 (Gov. Code section 66300(i)(1).
Zoning Map Amendment
The proposed project would require a zoning map amendment to change the zoning of the project site from Business and Technology Park and Park to Medium Density Residential - Form Based Code, Commercial/Mixed Use - Form Based Code, Transit Station, Public Facilities, and Park.
On January 24, 2019, the Newark City Council unanimously voted to rezone the 5-acre Grand Park site from Business and Technology Park (BTP) to Park (PK). The proposed project includes the reconfiguration of the previously approved Grand Park site to ensure that no residential dwellings are developed on the remediation site. With this reconfiguration, the Grand Park site would still be 5 acres, but the easternmost boundary line of the proposed park site would be shifted farther east as part of the proposed FMC Willow and Grand Park project while its northeastern corner would be adjusted to the southwest. Therefore, the areas of the reconfigured Grand Park site that are currently zoned for BTP would need to be rezoned by the City to allow for parks and recreational open space use (see Figure 8, Zoning Changes, below).
City approval of the proposed project would include approval of the General Plan, Specific Plan, and zoning amendment requests and resolve any land use designation or zoning inconsistencies. As noted FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
99 above, approval of the General Plan and Specific Plan land use changes would not result in a net loss of residential dwelling units that could be developed on site. Additionally, none the plans discussed above were developed for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with an existing land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and impacts from the proposed project would be less than significant. No new impact would occur. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No New Impact. As discussed in the biological resources section, no Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan has been approved for the City of Newark. Therefore, there would be no impact to an existing adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. No new impact would occur.
FMC Willow and Grand Park
\\folsomdc2\vol4\PROJECTS\I\IntegralCommunities_00357\IPQ-37 Willow\GIS\InDesign\Fig9_SPLU.indd ABC-01 04/17/17 -!! Specific Plan Land USe Changes
Figure 6
Source: CBG Civil Engineers 2022
FMC Willow and Grand Park
\\folsomdc2\vol4\PROJECTS\I\IntegralCommunities_00357\IPQ-37 Willow\GIS\InDesign\Fig7_GPLU.indd ABC-01 04/17/17 -!! General Plan Land Use Changes
Figure 7
Source: CBG Civil Engineers 2022
FMC Willow and Grand Park
\\folsomdc2\vol4\PROJECTS\I\IntegralCommunities_00357\IPQ-37 Willow\GIS\InDesign\Fig8_Zoning.indd ABC-01 04/17/17 -!! Zoning Changes
Figure 8
Source: CBG Civil Engineers 2022
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
100
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES
New
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Projectlevel
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the Bayside Newark Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan Certified PEIR
As discussed in Chapter 1.2 of the PEIR prepared for the Specific Plan, mineral resources issues were not addressed in the PEIR because it was determined based on substantial evidence that the project would have no impacts to mineral resources (RBF 2011).
Evaluation of Mineral Resources
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No New Impact. The project site is not located in a zone of known mineral or aggregate resources. No active mining operations are present on or near the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with the extraction of any known mineral resources. Therefore, there would be no impact for questions a) and b). No new impact would occur.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
101
XII. NOISE
New
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Projectlevel
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in any applicable plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project (including construction)?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
Environmental Setting
The noise and vibration impacts associated with implementation of the Specific Plan were evaluated in Chapter 4.10 of the PEIR. Additionally, a project-specific noise and vibrations assessment was completed as part of the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project Noise Assessment Technical Report, included as Appendix F to this Initial Study (HELIX 2021b). The results of the noise and vibration assessment are summarized below.
Noise Terminology and Metrics
All noise level or sound level values presented herein are expressed in terms of decibels (dB), with A-weighting (dBA) to approximate the hearing sensitivity of humans. Time-averaged noise levels are expressed by the symbol LEQ, with a specified duration.
The amplitude of pressure waves generated by a sound source determines the loudness of that source.
Sound pressure amplitude is measured in micro-Pascals (mPa). One mPa is approximately one hundred billionth (0.00000000001) of normal atmospheric pressure. Sound pressure amplitudes for different kinds of noise environments can range from less than 100 to 100,000,000 mPa. Because of this wide range of values, sound is rarely expressed in terms of mPa. Instead, a logarithmic scale is used to FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
102
describe sound pressure level (SPL) in terms of dBA. The threshold of hearing for the human ear is about 0 dBA, which corresponds to 20 mPa.
Because decibels are logarithmic units, SPL cannot be added or subtracted through standard arithmetic.
Under the decibel scale, a doubling of sound energy corresponds to a 3 dBA increase. In other words, when two identical sources are each producing sound of the same loudness, the resulting sound level at a given distance would be 3 dBA higher than from one source under the same conditions. For example, if one automobile produces an SPL of 70 dB when it passes an observer, two cars passing simultaneously would not produce 140 dBA—rather, they would combine to produce 73 dBA. Under the decibel scale, three sources of equal loudness together produce a sound level 5 dBA louder than one source.
Under controlled conditions in an acoustical laboratory, the trained, healthy human ear is able to discern 1-dBA changes in sound levels, when exposed to steady, single-frequency (“pure-tone”) signals in the mid-frequency (1,000 Hz–8,000 Hz) range. In typical noisy environments, changes in noise of 1 to 2 dBA are generally not perceptible. It is widely accepted, however, that people begin to detect sound level increases of 3 dBA in typical noisy environments. Further, a 5 dBA increase is generally perceived as a distinctly noticeable increase, and a 10 dBA increase is generally perceived as a doubling of loudness.
Maximum noise levels are expressed by the symbol LMAX. Time-averaged noise levels are expressed by the symbol LEQ, with a specified duration. The Day Night sound level (LDN) is a 24-hour average with an added 10 dBA weighting during the hours from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a 24-hour average similar to LDN, where noise levels during the evening hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. have an added 5 dBA weighting, and noise levels during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. have an added 10 dBA weighting. These metrics are used to express noise levels for both measurement and municipal regulations, as well as for land use guidelines and enforcement of noise ordinances.
Groundborne Vibration Terminology and Metrics
Groundborne vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves transmitted through the ground with an average motion of zero. Sources of groundborne vibrations include natural phenomena and anthropogenic causes (e.g., explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment). Vibration sources may be continuous (e.g., factory machinery) or transient (e.g., explosions). Several different methods are typically used to quantify vibration amplitude. One is the peak particle velocity (PPV) and another is vibration velocity decibels (VdB). The PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave.
Noise and Vibration Sensitive Land Uses
Noise-sensitive land uses (NSLUs) are land uses that may be subject to stress and/or interference from excessive noise, such as residential dwellings, schools, transient lodging (hotels), hospitals, educational facilities, and libraries. Industrial and commercial land uses are generally not considered sensitive to noise. The closest NSLUs in the project vicinity are single-family homes approximately 190 feet southeast, across Willow Street. In addition, a residential development, under construction at the time of this analysis, is located approximately 100 feet south of the project site, across Enterprise Drive, and a future residential development would be located west of the project site, adjacent to the Grand Park.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
103
The closest school to the project site is the August Schilling Elementary School, approximately 1,450 feet northeast.
Land uses in which groundborne vibration could potentially interfere with operations or equipment, such as research, manufacturing, hospitals, and university research operations (California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2013a) are considered “vibration-sensitive.” The degree of sensitivity depends on the specific equipment that would be affected by the groundborne vibration. In addition, excessive levels of groundborne vibration of either a regular or an intermittent nature can result in annoyance to residential uses or schools. The closest land uses in the project area that are subject to annoyance from vibration would be the single-family residences to the south and southeast.
Regulatory Framework
City of Newark General Plan
The City General Plan Noise Element identifies noise and land use compatibility standards for various land uses. These standards are intended to provide compatible land uses throughout the community as related to environmental noise. Low density single-family residential land uses are considered “normally acceptable” in exterior noise environments of 60 dBA LDN or less and multi-family residential land uses are considered “normally acceptable” in exterior noise environments of 65 dBA LDN or less (City 2013).
The Noise Element identifies interior noise standards of 45 dBA LDN or less for all residential land uses.
The following goals and implementation policies from the Noise Element are relevant to the proposed Project:
Policy NO 1.2.1: The City shall require that all new developments incorporate design elements to minimize adverse noise impacts on surrounding land uses.
Program NO 1.2.1a: Establish design and planning requirements that lessen the impact of noise such as setbacks, earthen berms, building orientation, and landscaping.
Program NO 1.2.1b: Require multi-family residences and hotels comply with the California Noise Insulation Standards, in the California Administrative Code, Title 25, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, when they fall within the 60 dB (CNEL or LDN) noise exposure contours.
Program NO 1.2.1c: Establish planning requirements for designers and architects on placement of windows, doors, and bedrooms relative to noise sources.
Policy NO 1.3.4: Control noise that causes discomfort between neighbors.
Program NO 1.3.4c: No person shall be allowed to cause any noise to be emitted past his/her property line in any manner so as to create any noise that would cause the ambient noise level to be increased by more than 6 dB.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
104
City of Newark Municipal Code
The City Municipal Code prohibits or limits the level of noise produced on private or public land and requires an analysis of future noise levels for projects which would site a noise sensitive land use. The following sections would be applicable to the project:
Section 17.24.100 – Noise
A. Noise Limits. It shall be unlawful for any person to disturb the peace, quiet, and comfort of the community, or any portion thereof, or neighborhood therein, by creating or causing to be created any unreasonable noises.
2. Noise Restriction by Decibel.
a. Residential Property Noise Limits.
i. No person shall produce or allow to be produced by human voice, machine, device, or any combination of same, on residential property, a noise level at any point outside of the property plane that exceeds 70 dBA between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. or 60 dBA between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. ii. No person shall produce or allow to be produced by human voice, machine, device, or any combinations of same, on multifamily residential property, a noise level more than 60 dBA three feet from any wall, floor, or ceiling inside any dwelling unit on the same property, when the windows and doors of the dwelling unit are closed, except within the dwelling unit in which the noise source or sources may be located. b. Commercial and Industrial Property Noise Limits. Except for commercial and industrial property abutting residential property, no person shall produce or allow to be produced by human voice, machine, device, or any other combination of same, on commercial or industrial property, a noise level at any point outside of the property plane that exceeds 70 dBA.
i. Abutting Residential Property. Commercial and industrial property that abuts residential property shall be subject to the residential property noise limits set forth in subsections (a)(i) and (ii) above.
c. Public Property Noise Limits. Except as otherwise provided in these regulations, no person shall produce or allow to be produced on public property, by human voice, machine, device, or any combination of same, a noise level that exceeds 60 dBA at a distance of 25 feet or more from the source. Noise from activities of the City of Newark is exempted from these regulations.
3. Construction and Landscaping Activities. Unless otherwise provided pursuant to a duly-issued permit or a condition of approval of a land use entitlement, the construction, alteration, or repair of structures and any landscaping activities, occurring between the hours of 10:00 FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
105
a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays, and 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on other days, shall be subject to the following:
a. No individual device or piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding 83 dBA at a distance of twenty-five feet from the source. If the device or equipment is housed within a structure on the property, the measurement shall be made outside the structure at a distance as close as possible to twenty-five feet from the equipment. b. The noise level at any point outside of the property plane shall not exceed 86 dBA.
During all other times, the decibel levels set forth in Subsection 17.24.100.A.2, Noise Restriction by Decibel, control.
B. Noise Creation and Noise Exposure.
1. Acoustic Study. An acoustic study shall be required for any proposed project which could create or be subject to a noise exposure greater than that deemed "normally acceptable" by the general plan.
2. Noise Attenuation Measures. Any project subject to the acoustic study requirements of Subsection 17.24.100.B.1, Acoustic Study, may be required as a condition of approval to incorporate noise attenuation measures deemed necessary to ensure that noise standards are not exceeded.
a. New noise-sensitive uses (e.g., schools, hospitals, churches, and residences) shall incorporate noise attenuation measures to achieve and maintain an interior noise level of 45 dBA.
b. Noise attenuation measures identified in an acoustic study shall be incorporated into the project to reduce noise impacts to satisfactory levels. c. Emphasis shall be placed upon site planning and project design measures. The use of noise barriers shall be considered and may be required only after all feasible designrelated noise measures have been incorporated into the project.
The following municipal code section would be applicable to vibration generated by the project, or affecting the project:
17.24.120 - Vibration.
No vibration shall be produced that is transmitted through the ground and is discernible without the aid of instruments by a reasonable person at the lot lines of the site. Vibrations from temporary construction, demolition, and vehicles that enter and leave the subject parcel (e.g., construction equipment, trains, trucks, etc.) are exempt from this standard.
A. Development Near Railroads. An acoustic study shall be required for any proposed development within two hundred feet of a railroad track. Measures may be required to ensure that vibration impacts remain below acceptable levels.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
106
Existing Noise Conditions
The predominant existing noise sources in the vicinity of the project site are vehicular traffic on Willow Street and Enterprise Drive, and overflights of commercial aircraft. Although there are old train tracks within the right-of-way on the north side of the project, the Bayside Newark Rail Corridor is not currently active and has no train traffic.
Three short-term (10 to 15 minute) ambient noise measurements (M1, M2, and M3) were conducted during a site visit on December 4, 2018. Site M1 was located in the southwestern portion of the site, approximately 200 feet north of Enterprise Drive and 700 feet west of Willow Street. Site M2 was located in the northeaster portion of the site, approximately 500 feet north of Enterprise Drive and 450 feet west of Willow Street. Because of road construction on Willow Street adjacent to the project site, a representative traffic noise measurement was taken at site M3 on Willow Street between Seawind Way and Bayshore Avenue, approximately 1,100 feet (0.2 mile) southeast of the project site. All measurements were taken with the noise meter mounted on a tripod 5 feet above the ground.
Sources of noise noted during measurement M1 and M2 included construction activity on Willow Street and Enterprise Drive, and commercial aircraft overflying the site. Sources of noise noted during measurement M3 included traffic on Willow Street and commercial aircraft overflying the site. Traffic was counted on Willow Street during measurement M3 and included: 62 cars and light trucks; 3 medium trucks; and 5 heavy trucks. The measured noise levels were 56.7 dBA LEQ at location M1, 52.4 dBA LEQ at location M2, and 54.9 dBA LEQ at measurement location M3.
Methods
Modeling of the exterior noise environment for the report was accomplished using a computer noise model: Computer Aided Noise Abatement (CadnaA) version 2021. CadnaA is a model-based computer program developed by DataKustik for predicting noise impacts in a wide variety of conditions. CadnaA assists in the calculation, presentation, assessment, and mitigation of noise exposure. It allows for the input of project-related information, such as noise source data, barriers, structures, and topography to create a detailed CadnaA model, and uses the most up-to-date calculation standards to predict outdoor noise impacts.
The traffic noise was modeled using the Traffic Noise Model (TNM) version 2.5. The TNM was released in February 2004 by the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) and calculates the daytime average hourly LEQ from three-dimensional model inputs and traffic data (USDOT 2004). The one-hour LEQ noise level is calculated utilizing peak-hour traffic. The one-hour LEQ noise level is calculated utilizing peak-hour traffic calculations provided in the project-specific trip generation analysis (Fehr & Peers 2021). The onehour LEQ noise level output calculated by the model is equivalent to the LDN (Caltrans 2013b).
Potential future rail noise in the project vicinity was analyzed using the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Noise Impact Assessment Model, version 1/29/2019 (2019). The spreadsheet enables users to predict noise from combinations of locomotives, rail cars, and at-grade tracks crossing roads.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
107
Levels of Significance
The significance of noise and vibration levels, or the increase in noise levels as a result of the project, are based on the following standards from the City General Plan or other agencies, consistent with the standards used to determine significance in the PEIR:
• Temporary Construction Noise: Construction activities which are not authorized by the City through a permit or condition of approval would be subject to the City Municipal Code Section
17.24.100.A.3 which limits the level of allowable construction noise. • Permanent Operational Noise:
o Traffic Noise sources: A substantial direct or cumulative permanent increase in traffic noise could occur if the resulting noise level exceeds the normally acceptable exterior level specified in the City General Plan for the land use affected (60 dBA LDN for single-family residences and 65 dBA LDN for multi-family residences), and the resulting noise level increase exceeds any of the following criteria:
An increase of the existing ambient noise levels by 5 dB or more, where the existing ambient level is less than 60 dBA LDN;
An increase of the existing ambient noise level by 3 dB or more, where the existing ambient level is 60 to 65 dBA LDN; or
An increase of the existing ambient noise level by 1.5 dB or more, where the existing ambient level is greater than 65 dBA LDN.
A significant portion of the noise increase would be the result of the project, and the “cumulative plus project” condition results in a 1 dBA increase in noise over the “cumulative no project” condition.
o Non-Transportation Noise Sources: The City Municipal Code Section 17.24.100.2.a establishes noise limits for residential property, or commercial property which abuts residential property. Noise levels measured at any point outside of the property plane that exceed 70 dBA between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. or 60 dBA between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. would be significant.
• Construction Groundborne Vibration: The FTA has guidelines and recommendations to limit groundborne vibration based on the age and/or construction type of the structures near construction activity. Per the FTA, a groundborne vibration level of 0.2 inch-per-second peak particle velocity (PPV) would be considered the damage threshold criterion for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings (FTA 2018). This analysis assumes a conservative threshold of 0.2- inch-per-second.
• Rail Groundborne Vibration: Based on FTA vibration impact criteria, 80 vibration velocity decibels (VdB) is the applicable maximum acceptable vibration level for residential uses adjacent to a rail corridor with less than 30 vibration events per day passing by the project site (FTA 2018).
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
108
Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the Bayside Newark Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan Certified PEIR
Noise and vibration impacts are discussed in Chapter 4.10 of the PEIR prepared for the Specific Plan. The PEIR concluded that that implementation of the Specific Plan could have potentially significant adverse noise and vibration impacts and includes measures to reduce impacts to less than significant.
The PEIR concluded that temporary construction noise impacts to NSLUs in the Specific Plan vicinity and to future residents of the Specific Plan sited prior to full buildout of the Specific Plan would be potentially significant. Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan PEIR Mitigation Measures 4.10-1a and 4.10-1b would limit the hours of construction activity and require project applicants to implement a site-specific constructions noise reduction program, and measures to track and respond to noise complaints.
Implementation of Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measures 4.10-1a and 4.10-1b would reduce the impacts to less than significant.
The PEIR concluded that construction activities associated with implementation of the Specific Plan could require the use of impact pile drivers and the vibration impacts would be potentially significant.
Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan PEIR Mitigation Measure 4.10-2 would require alternatives to impact pile drivers be used where feasible, or a project specific vibration analysis if pile driving activities would occur with 25 feet of an occupied structure. Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan PEIR Mitigation Measure
4.10-2 would reduce impacts to less than significant.
The PEIR concluded that noise from residential and commercial stationary sources would be consistent with the surrounding residential uses. Any new stationary noise source would be required to provide adequate sound attenuation such that City noise standards are achieved, and impacts would be less than significant.
The PEIR concluded that the impacts on project residences related to noise from future trains would be potentially significant. Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 4.10-3 requires a projectspecific acoustical study and identification of noise reduction measures to reduce noise levels, if necessary, to reduce noise to a less than significant level.
The PEIR concluded that the Specific Plan area is not located within two miles of an airport or within an airport land use plan area and would not be exposed to excessive noise from aircraft, and the impact would less than significant.
The PEIR concluded that traffic noise increases on Willow Street between Thornton Avenue and Central Avenue would be potentially significant and cumulatively considerable. Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan PEIR Mitigation Measure 4.10-4 would require a reduction in the speed limit on Willow Street to 25 mph and would reduce impacts to less than significant.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
109
Evaluation of Noise
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in any applicable plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? And c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? and
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project (including construction)? No New Impact.
Construction Noise
Construction activities would result in noise from the use of heavy construction equipment on the project site, from heavy trucks hauling debris from the site and hauling soil and building materials to the site, and from worker and vendor vehicles traveling to and from the site. The equipment to be used in construction of the project has not been determined, but could include backhoes, bulldozers, front loaders, scrapers, graders, compacting equipment, concrete saws, and jackhammers. The loudest equipment anticipated to be used would be a backhoe mounted jackhammer used to breakup old asphalt or concrete. Noise levels from a typical backhoe mounted jackhammer would measure 83 dBA LEQ at 50 feet (FTA 2018). As discussed above, the nearest NSLU are residences approximately 100 feet south of the project site. A backhoe mounted jackhammer would be attenuated to approximately 77 dBA LEQ at 100 feet.
The City Municipal Code Section 17.24.100.3 limits the allowable noise for any individual piece of construction equipment to 83 dBA measured at 25 feet, during the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. The ordinance exempts construction noise from activities authorized by a duly issued permit or a condition of approval of a land use entitlement. The project would be required to obtain construction permits (e.g., grading, building), or a condition of approval, which specify that the project’s daytime temporary construction noise would be exempt from the noise ordinance limits since the project was included as part of the approvals and MMRP requirements in the PEIR. Implementation of Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 4.10-1a would limit the construction activity to the hours between 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. In addition, Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measures 4.10-1a and 4.10-1b contain best management practices to reduce, track, and address construction noise. Therefore, the construction of the project would not result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels. The impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated and would not exceed the severity of the impact conclusions in the PEIR. No new impact would occur.
Operational Residential Noise
The project residential uses would be consistent with the residential uses analyzed in the PEIR.
Therefore, residential stationary noise sources, including HVAC systems (e.g., mechanical equipment) would not result in noise levels higher than that anticipated in the PEIR.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
110
Further, the project design would ensure that residential HVAC sources would not exceed 45 dBA LDN for interior habitable space prior to building occupancy. As a Condition of Approval, the City will require that a noise study be conducted prior to issuance of an occupancy permit to ensure that residential HVAC sources would not exceed 45 dBA LDN. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant and would not exceed the severity of the impact conclusions in the PEIR. No new impact would occur.
Operational Non-Residential Noise
The project’s commercial/retail uses would be consistent with the non-residential uses analyzed in the PEIR. Therefore, commercial stationary noise sources, including heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems (e.g., mechanical equipment) would not result in noise levels higher than that anticipated in the PEIR.
Noise from cars and buses (three buses per hour) approaching and circulating in the bus area (the fourlane entrance drive and within the Transit Station), and driving on Willow Street and Enterprise Drive was modeled as described in Section 3.2 of Appendix F. Peak hourly cars utilizing the entrance drive were estimated using the trip generation data from the transportation memorandum assuming 42 percent of project trips from the residential units (157 units in PA1 and PA2 out of the 370 total project units) and all of the commercial trips would utilize the entrance drive (59 peak hour trips; Fehr & Peers 2021).
Noise levels were predicted at receiver locations in the exterior spaces of the closest project residences to the Transit Station and Willow Street: ground level patios for the PA2 townhomes and second floor residences in the PA1 mixed-use building. The highest predicted noise level from the cars and buses using the entrance drive and vehicles on Willow Street would be 61.1 dBA LDN and would not exceed the City’s normally acceptable standard of 65 dBA LDN. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant and would not exceed the impact severity of the conclusion in the PEIR. No new impact would occur.
Train Noise
The railroad tracks in the right-of-way along the project’s northern boundary are not currently active, and there are no approved proposals to resume train traffic in the right-of-way. However, there is a potential for future passenger rail service which could result in noise impacts on future project residents. Potential future noise from passenger trains was modeled for two scenarios. Scenario 1 is six passenger trains per day, as assumed in the PEIR. Modeling assumes diesel locomotives pulling passenger cars similar to existing trains in use by Caltrain. Scenario 2 is the maximum anticipated rail traffic scenario in the DTCS, which would use diesel or electric multiple-unit trains (self-propelled trains, no locomotives). Assuming three-car diesel multiple-unit (DMU) trains similar to those in service for Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit, 25 daily trains would be required to carry the maximum anticipated daily ridership. The earliest anticipated train service in the DTCS would start in 2028.
The modeling conservatively assumes that all future train traffic would stop at the proposed platform adjacent to the Transit Station and continue east, crossing Willow Street at-grade. Trains approaching an at-grade crossing are required to sound their warning horns before reaching the crossing. In addition, the at-grade crossing would be equipped with an audible warning device when the roadway barriers are lowered. Due to the high density of existing and planned residential land uses along the DRC in the Newark area, if future regular passenger service on the DRC were to commence it is reasonable to FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
111
assume that the operator of the future rail service and/or the City would install upgraded traffic and vehicle barriers and seek designation of the area around the Willow Street crossing as a “quiet zone” by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). A quiet zone is an FRA exemption to the rule requiring trains to sound their horns when approaching public highway-rail grade crossings. Within a quiet zone, train crews can still sound train horns in emergency situations or for safety reasons, but routine sounding of horns on approach to a crossing is prohibited.
Potential noise from future trains and from the at-grade crossing warning devices at Willow Street, was modeled using the FTA Noise Impact Assessment Model. The highest predicted noise levels would be in the exterior spaces of the PA2 townhome closest to the railroad tracks in the northeastern portion of the project site. This residence would be approximately 50 feet from the railroad track centerline and 500 feet from the Willow Street at-grade crossing. For Scenario 1, six commuter trains per day, the highest predicted exterior noise level is 58 dBA LDN. For Scenario 2, 25 DMU trains per day, the highest predicted exterior noise level is 56 dBA LDN.
The predicted future train noise levels would not exceed the City standard of 65 dBA LDN for multi-family residential exterior spaces. Because the residence location analyzed would be the closest to the railroad track and also the closest to the at-grade crossing at Willow Street, all other project residences, and their outdoor spaces, would experience less noise from trains than the analyzed location. In addition, an 8-foot masonry unit sound wall is planned between the PA2 Townhomes and the DRC which would further reduce noise in ground-level exterior spaces. Therefore, train noise levels predicted for exterior spaces of all project residences would be less than the City standard of 65 dBA LDN.
The Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan PEIR Mitigation Measure 4.10-3 requires an acoustical assessment and identification of noise reduction measures (e.g., building wall, door, and window Sound Transmission Class [STC] ratings) prior to issuing building permits. Because the assessment of train noise indicates that the City noise standards would not be exceeded, the requirements of Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan PEIR Mitigation Measure 4.10-3 are met and the possible noise reduction measures listed in the mitigation measure would not be needed. The impact would be less than significant and would not exceed the impact severity of conclusions in the PEIR. No new impact would occur.
Traffic Noise
TNM software was used to calculate the noise levels at the nearest NSLUs for roadway segments in the project vicinity (including the portion of Willow Street that is adjacent to the proposed project site) for the following scenarios: Existing (year 2011 from the PEIR), Existing plus Project, Cumulative (year 2035), and Cumulative plus Project. The off-site roadway modeling represents a conservative analysis that does not account for topography or attenuation provided by existing structures. Table 18, Off-Site Traffic Noise Levels, presents the predicted noise levels and changes in LDN as a result of the project.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
112
TABLE 18.
OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
Roadway Segment
Distance to
Nearest
NSLU
(feet)1
NSLU
Type
LDN at Nearest NSLU
Existing (2011) Cumulative (2035)
2011 2011 +
Project
Change in
LDN
2035 2035 +
Project
Change in
LDN
Thornton Ave.
Gateway Blvd. to Willow St. 70 SF 63.3 63.4 0.3 66.9 67.0 0.1 Willow St. to Spruce St. 40 SF 65.3 65.7 0.4 69.3 69.6 0.3 Spruce St. to Cherry St. 40 SF 66.4 66.7 0.3 69.8 69.9 0.1 Cherry St. to Newark Blvd. 45 SF 66.9 67.1 0.1 68.5 68.6 0.1 Newark Blvd. to Cedar Blvd. 45 SF 67.6 67.7 0.1 69.2 69.3 0.1 Newark Blvd.
Cedar St. to Thornton Ave. 50 SF 67.1 67.2 0.1 70.2 70.2 <0.1 Cedar St.
Lake Blvd. to Thornton Ave. 50 SF 65.9 65.9 <0.1 68.4 68.4 <0.1 Thornton Ave. to Central Ave. 35 SF 67.1 67.1 <0.1 69.3 69.3 <0.1 Cherry Street
Thornton Ave. to Central Ave. 50 SF 64.6 64.7 0.1 67.6 67.6 <0.1 Central Ave. to Mowry Ave. 45 SF 67.4 67.5 0.1 70.0 70.0 <0.1 Willow St.
Thornton Ave. to Enterprise Dr. 60 SF 61.4 62.3 0.9 64.4 64.8 0.4 Central Ave.
Cherry St. to Cedar St. 45 SF 65.1 65.1 <0.1 67.6 67.6 <0.1 Mowry Ave.
Cherry Street to I-880 50 SF 68.4 68.5 0.1 70.4 70.4 <0.1 Enterprise Dr.
2 Willow St. to Hickory St. 50 MF - - - 61.6 62.1 0.5
Source: TNM 2.5
Ave. = Avenue; Blvd. = Boulevard; Dr. = Drive; I-880 = Interstate 880; MF = Multi-Family Residential; NSLU = Noise Sensitive Land Use; SF = Single-Family Residential; St. = Street
Notes:
1 Distance measured from roadway centerline. 2 No NLSU and no traffic occur along Enterprise Drive for the segment between Willow Street and Hickory Street under existing conditions.
As shown in Table 18, the existing 60 dBA LDN exterior noise standard for single-family residences would be exceeded for all roadway segments with or without the project. Under Existing + Project conditions, the highest predicted change in ambient noise for roadway segments that include existing adjacent NSLU would be 0.9 dBA LDN on Willow Street. This change in permanent ambient noise level would not exceed the criterion of a 3.0 dBA or more increase where the existing ambient level is between 60 and 65 dBA LDN. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant and would not exceed the severity of the impact conclusions in the PEIR. No new impact would occur for questions a), c), and d).
Cumulative Traffic Noise
As discussed above and shown in Table 18, the 60 dBA LDN exterior noise standard for single-family residences would be exceeded for all roadway segments with or without the project. The highest FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
113
predicted change in cumulative noise level as a result of the project would be 0.5 dBA LDN on Enterprise Drive. This change in permanent ambient noise level would not exceed the cumulative criterion of a 1 dBA or more incremental increase.
Some future residents of the project would be located along Willow Street, as close as 120 feet from the roadway centerline, and along Enterprise Drive, as close as 50 feet from the roadway centerline. As shown in Table 18, the traffic noise from traffic for the Cumulative (year 2035) plus project scenario (the scenario with the highest traffic levels), at street level, was estimated to be 64.8 dBA LDN on Willow Street and 64.2 dBA LDN on Enterprise Drive. Additional modeling was conducted to estimate noise levels at the second-floor exterior spaces of the affordable housing units in the northeastern portion of the project site along Willow Street and ground floor exterior spaces for the townhomes along Enterprise Drive. Units on higher floors would have lower exterior noise levels.
Maximum estimated exterior noise levels for third-floor exterior spaces of the affordable housing units along Willow Street and ground floor levels for the townhomes along Enterprise Drive are predicted to be 64.8 dBA LDN. This modeled estimate would not exceed the City normally acceptable standard of 65 dBA LDN for multi-family residential exterior spaces.
The Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan PEIR Mitigation Measure 4.10-4 would require the applicant to work with the City to reduce the speed limit on Willow Street to 25 mph. However, the project site plan has been revised since the analysis in the PEIR has been conducted. Because the assessment of project and cumulative traffic noise indicates that the City noise standards would not be exceeded for project residences proposed along Willow Street, the requirements of Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan PEIR Mitigation Measure 4.10-4 would not be needed. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant and would not exceed the severity of the impact conclusions in the PEIR. No new impact would occur for questions a), c), and d).
Mitigation Measures
Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 4.10-1a To reduce noise impacts due to construction, project applicants shall require construction contractors to implement a site-specific noise reduction program, subject to City review and approval, which includes the following measures, ongoing through demolition, grading, and/or construction:
• Restrict noise-generating activities at the construction site or in areas adjacent to the construction site to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays.
• Equipment and trucks used for project construction shall utilize the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds, wherever feasible).
• Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for project construction shall be hydraulically or electronically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
114
However, where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler shall be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 dBA.
External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used where feasible, and this could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures shall be used, such as drills rather than impact equipment, whenever feasible.
• Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from adjacent receptors as possible, and they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporated insulation barriers, or other measures to the extent feasible.
• If feasible, the noisiest phases of construction shall be limited to less than 10 days at a time.
Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 4.10-1b Prior to the issuance of each grading permit, project applicants shall submit to the City Building Inspection Division a list of measures to respond to and track complaints pertaining to construction noise, ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction. These measures shall include the following:
• A procedure and phone numbers for notifying the City Building Inspection Division staff and Newark Police Department (during regular construction hours and off-hours); • A sign posted onsite containing the permitted construction days and hours and complaint procedures and who to notify in the event of a problem. The sign shall also include a listing of both the City and construction contractor’s telephone numbers (during regular construction hours and off-hours);
• The designation of an onsite construction complaint and enforcement manager for the project. The manager shall act as a liaison between the project and its neighbors (including onsite residents). The manager’s responsibilities and authority shall include the following:
o An active role in monitoring project compliance with respect to noise; o Ability to reschedule noisy construction activities to reduce effects on surrounding noise sensitive receivers;
o Site supervision of all potential sources of noise (e.g., material delivery, shouting, debris box pick-up and delivery) for all trades; and,
o Intervening or discussing mitigation options with contractors. • Notification of neighbors and occupants within 300 feet of the project construction area at least 30 days in advance of construction activities regarding the details and estimated duration of the activity; and,
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
115
• A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the job inspectors and the general contractor/onsite project manager to confirm that noise measures and practices (including construction hours, neighborhood notification, posted signs, etc.) are completed.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
No New Impact.
Construction Vibrations
The project’s building foundation design and installation method has not been determined at the time of this analysis. Based on the size and height of the proposed project PA1 six-story building and fourstory townhomes along Enterprise Drive and the soil typical of the project site, the building foundations may require support by deep piles. Impact driven piles could result in vibrations as high as 1.52 inches per second PPV at a distance of 25 feet (Caltrans 2013a). The closest vibration sensitive land use to potential pile driving activity would be approximately 180 feet across Enterprise drive to the south. A
1.52 inches per second PPV vibration level would equal approximately 0.17 inches per second PPV at a distance of 160 feet.
5 This would be lower than the 0.2-inches per second PPV FTA threshold for nonengineered wood and masonry structures. In addition, Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan PEIR Mitigation Measure 4.10-2 requires alternatives to impact pile drivers to be used wherever possible, notification of all occupied residences within 300 feet of pile driving activities, and a site-specific vibration analysis if pile driving would be required within 25 feet of an occupied structure.
Another potential source of vibration during project construction activities would be a vibratory roller, which may be used within 100 feet of the nearest off-site residences to the south. A vibratory roller could create vibrations as high as 0.210 inches per second PPV at a distance of 25 feet (Caltrans 2013a).
A 0.210 inches per second PPV vibration level would equal approximately 0.046 inches per second PPV at a distance of 100 feet. This would be lower than the 0.2 inches per second PPV FTA threshold for nonengineered wood and masonry structures.
Therefore, although vibrations from pile driving and vibratory rollers may be perceptible to nearby receptors, with implementation of Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan PEIR Mitigation Measure 4.10-2, temporary groundborne vibration impacts associated with project construction would be less than significant and would not exceed the severity of the impact conclusions in the PEIR. No new impact would occur.
Train Vibrations
Potential groundborne vibration from trains was estimated following the general vibration assessment methodology in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018). For the closest project residential buildings to the potential future railroad tracks, 50 feet from the center of the right-of-way, the predicted groundborne vibration level for a train pass-by event would be 78.7 VdB for 5 Equipment PPV = Reference PPV * (25/D)n (in/sec), where Reference PPV is PPV at 25 feet, D is distance from equipment to the receiver in feet, and n = 1.1 (the value related to the attenuation rate through typical soil); formula from Caltrans 2013a.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
116
a diesel locomotive commuter train (Scenario 1, six trains per day) and 73.7 VdB for a DMU train (Scenario 2, 25 trains per day). This vibration would be below the FTA standard of 80 VdB for rail lines with less than 30 vibration events per day. Therefore, future residents of the project would not be subject to excessive groundborne vibrations from future passenger trains. No new impact would occur.
Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 4.10-2 If pile driving is required for building construction, construction contractors shall incorporate the following additional requirements:
• Wherever possible, sonic or vibratory pole drivers shall be used instead of impact pile drivers (sonic pile drivers are only effective in certain soils). • Engine and pneumatic exhaust controls on pile drivers shall be required as necessary to ensure that exhaust noise from pile driver engines is minimized to the extent feasible. • Where feasible, pile holes will be pre-drilled to reduce potential noise and vibration impacts. • Occupied residences within 300 feet of pile driving activities shall be notified of pile-driving activities at least two weeks prior to the commencement of pile driving. • Should pile driving activities take place within 25 feet of an occupied structure, a sitespecific vibration impact analysis shall be conducted to ensure vibration levels do not exceed 0.2 inches per second PPV.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No New Impact. The closest airport or private airstrip to the project site is the Palo Alto Airport, approximately 4.5 miles southwest of the project. The project site is not within the airport influence area or the 55 dBA CNEL noise contour for the Palo Alto Airport (Santa Clara County 2016). Commercial aircraft fly over the project site at altitudes between 4,000 and 10,000 feet above sea level while approaching or departing the three major commercial airports in the Bay Area: the San Francisco International Airport (approximately 18 miles northwest); the Oakland International Airport (approximately 15 miles northwest); and the Norman Mineta San Jose International Airport (approximately 12 miles southeast). According to the noise exposure maps for the three airports, the project site in not within the 65 dBA CNEL contour for any of the airports (San Francisco 2015; Port of Oakland 2006; San Jose 2009). Therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels from airports. The impact would be less than significant and would not exceed the impact severity of the conclusions in the PEIR. No new impact would occur for questions e) and f).
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
117
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
New
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Projectlevel
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Environmental Setting
The proposed project would redevelop the 22.1-acre site into a 370-unit multi-family community including a mixed-use area of 3,600 sf of retail and 90 affordable units (plus 1 manager unit), a 1,485 square foot community building, a 5-acre park (Grand Park), along with approximately 1.8 acres set aside for a future transit station. The proposed residential land uses on site would be medium density residential (14-30 DU/acre). The Specific Plan planned for the development of a total of 2,500 DU and 35,000 sf of retail. As of June 2022, a total of 2,171 DU and 3,600 sf of retail have been approved or are pending approval in the Specific Plan area, including the proposed FMC Willow and Grand Park project (see Table 1 in Section 2.0).
The proposed project is anticipated to create jobs for at least 6 workers to staff the 3,600 sf of proposed retail and assumes that the retail workers would be based locally.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the Bayside Newark Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan Certified PEIR
Population and Housing is discussed in Chapter 4.11 of the PEIR prepared for the Specific Plan (RBF 2011). The PEIR concluded that although the project would directly induce population growth in the City through new housing and businesses, the Specific Plan area is already planned for urban-level development and services and would be phased so that buildout is achieved gradually over time.
Impacts to population and housing were anticipated to be less-than-significant, and therefore no mitigation measures were required.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
118
Evaluation of Population and Housing
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
No New Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the construction of 370 commercial/mixed-use and medium-density residential units with 3,600 sf of retail. The proposed project would increase the available housing, which would be expected to increase population in the area. However, the increase in housing and retail is consistent with the Specific Plan as the Specific Plan planned for a development of up to 2,500 DU and 35,000 sf of retail, and a total of 2,171 DU and 3,600 sf of retail have been approved or are pending approval in the Specific Plan area, including the DU and retail proposed as part of this project (See Table 1 in Section 2.0). Therefore, the proposed project would not induce unplanned substantial growth in the City of Newark, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No New Impact. There are no existing residences on the project site. Therefore, neither housing units nor people would be displaced from implementation of the proposed project, and no replacement housing would be required. There would be no impact, and no new impact would occur for questions b) and c).
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
119
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES
New
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Projectlevel
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public facilities?
Environmental Setting
The project site is in an area currently served by urban public services. Fire protection is provided by the Alameda County Fire Department. Police protection is provided by the City of Newark Police Department. Public education services for residents of the project site are provided by the Newark Unified School District (NUSD). Effective June 6, 2022, the school impact developer fee collected by NUSD is $4.79 per square foot for new residential habitable space and $0.78 per square foot for new commercial and industrial uses (NUSD 2022). Parks and recreational facilities are constructed and maintained by the City of Newark Public Works Department, and operational services are provided by City of Newark Recreation and Community Services Department.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the Bayside Newark Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan Certified PEIR
Public Services are discussed in Chapter 4.12 of the PEIR prepared for the Specific Plan (RBF 2011). The PEIR concluded that the project would result in a population increase that would affect public services and identified several required actions to ensure individual projects within the Specific Plan would comply with development standards of public services and address additional costs. With implementation of the following actions, no mitigation measures would be required. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Alameda County Fire Department would be involved in the review of project plans and the project sponsor would be required to incorporate the department’s requirements into the final project design as conditions of approval. The project applicant would be required to pay development impact fees for fire protection, police protection, and schools.
Effective June 6, 2022, the fee set by NUSD is $4.79 per square foot for new residential habitable space and $0.78 per square foot for new commercial and industrial uses (NUSD 2022).
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
120
Evaluation of Public Services
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
No New Impact. The project site is within the City of Newark and is part of a larger planned development (Specific Plan) for which public services have been evaluated for service adequacy. As of June 2022, a total of 2,171 DU and 3,600 sf of retail have been approved or are pending approval in the Specific Plan area, including the proposed FMC Willow and Grand Park project (see Table 1 in Section
2.0). Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant increase in service demands or render the current service levels to be inadequate, as the total unit count and retail amount approved and pending in the Specific Plan area is below 2,500 DU and 35,000 sf of retail. Therefore, the service demands for the proposed project are within the service demands projected for the buildout of the Specific Plan.
Additionally, the project applicant is required to involve the Alameda County Fire Department in reviewing the project plans and incorporate the department’s requirements into the final project design.
Further, the project applicant is required to pay development impact fees for fire protection, police protection, and schools. By coordinating with the Alameda County Fire Department and paying the appropriate developer fees, impacts to public services would be less than significant for questions a) through d). No new impact would occur.
e) Other public facilities?
No New Impact. The Union Sanitary District (USD) would provide sanitary sewer service to the project site. Eight-inch diameter sanitary sewer lines would be installed in the main and ancillary roadways throughout the project site, and wastewater would gravity-flow off-site to the east. The proposed sewer lines in the southern portion of the project site would connect to an existing 10-inch sewer main in Enterprise Drive (which eventually connects to an existing 36-inch sewer main in Willow Street), and the northern portion of the proposed project would connect directly to the existing 36-inch gravity sewer main in Willow Street, which ultimately connects to additional existing gravity mains and flows to the Newark Pump Station near the northwest corner of the Specific Plan area. Wastewater from the Newark Station is then pumped to the Alvarado Treatment Plant, approximately 5 miles to the north. To ensure that the wastewater services to support the proposed project are adequate, Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 4.12-2 would be implemented.
Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 4.12-2 (Wastewater) Prior to approval of a tentative map within the Specific Plan area, additional necessary improvements, if any, beyond those already included in the USD Master Plan and updated fee program, shall be determined regarding proposed new connections (from such tentative map development) and then-existing or proposed wastewater facilities. Such improvements shall be installed prior to issuance of a building permit and shall be consistent with requirements in the Sewer Master Plan (anticipated to be available in the summer of 2012). The City and USD shall FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
121
verify that any necessary improvements will be available prior to occupation of those new residential DU for which such improvements are necessary.
With implementation of Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 4.12-2, the impact of the project on wastewater services would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
122
XV. RECREATION
New
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Projectlevel
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Environmental Setting
Recreation is discussed in Chapter 4.13 of the PEIR prepared for the Specific Plan (RBF 2011). The project site is surrounded by several regional recreational resources located both within and outside of the City of Newark. The Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge is a span of 30,000 acres that is located approximately 1,000 feet northwest of the project site, on the other side of the existing SamTrans railroad tracks. Coyote Hills Regional Park, which is managed by East Bay Regional Park District, is a 978-acre park located approximately 1.8 miles north of the project site. Ardenwood Historic Farm is located approximately 2 miles north of the project site. Several trails that connect to the San Francisco Bay Trail can be accessed near the project site, including the Newark Slough Trail, which is located approximately 0.75-mile northwest of the project site.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the Bayside Newark Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan Certified PEIR
As outlined in the Specific Plan PEIR, the Specific Plan area, which includes the FMC Willow and Grand Park project, designates approximately 16.3 acres of parkland for 2,500 residential units. This equates to a ratio of two acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, which falls short of the General Plan goal of 3.5 acres. The Specific Plan proposes a reduced parkland ratio because of the extensive amount of regional open space within the vicinity of the project area that will be available to future Specific Plan residents (Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge, Coyote Hills Regional Park, and Ardenwood Regional Preserve), as well as the open space and recreational facilities available adjacent to schools, within private development, and facilities not maintained by the City of Newark. In addition, the Specific Plan proposes a wide variety parkland and recreational open space for future residents, including, a park on the Gallade property adjacent to the existing residential homes northeast of the intersection of Willow Street and Enterprise Drive and a connection to the Bay Trail at its currently “unimproved connection” on Willow Street. The Grand Park, included as part of the proposed project, would provide an additional recreational area along the northern boundary of the Specific Plan area.
The Specific Plan PEIR (RBF 2011) concluded that the 16.3 acres of parkland and San Francisco Bay Trail connection that is proposed by the Specific Plan, as well as the regional open space available within the project vicinity, would provide future Specific Plan residents with ample opportunities to enjoy FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
123
recreational facilities and open space, which would not increase the use or result in the deterioration of existing recreational resources. The PEIR also concluded that construction of parkland could potentially have adverse effects on the environment; however, implementation of construction-related mitigation measures would reduce those impacts to a less than significant level.
Evaluation of Recreation
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No New Impact. The Specific Plan planned for the development of 16.3 acres of park facilities to offset impacts from the buildout of the Specific Plan area, in which the FMC Willow and Grand Park project is included. The Specific Plan proposed a wide variety of parkland and recreational open space for future residents, including a community park (Grand Park), a park on the Gallade Property east of the project site on the opposite side of Willow Street, and a connection to the San Francisco Bay trail along the northern and western boundaries of the Specific Plan area.
The construction of the Grand Park envisioned in the Specific Plan is included as part of this proposed project and would provide 5 acres of recreational space for use by community residents. Additionally, the proposed project would also provide a 20-foot-wide trail corridor, containing a 12-foot-wide multipurpose trail, that runs along the northwest boundary of the project site and curves to the south, transecting the Grand Park, to avoid pedestrian crossing of the Hetch Hetchy ROW. At the intersection with Enterprise Drive, the trail corridor reduces to a 12-foot-wide corridor and continues east along Enterprise Drive and curves north up Willow Street along the project site frontage. The quality and variety of the parkland space that would be provided by the proposed project, in accordance with the Specific Plan, would encourage future residents to use recreational facilities within the Specific Plan area. Additionally, the regional open space located near the project site, along with the proposed connection to the San Francisco Bay trail, would provide future residents with many opportunities to enjoy recreational resources and open space.
Therefore, there is abundant parkland space existing in the vicinity of the project site and proposed as part of the project, and the proposed project would not result in substantial deterioration of existing neighborhood or regional parks or require unplanned construction or expansion of recreational facilities.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant for questions a) and b). No new impact would occur.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
124
XVI. TRANSPORTATION
New
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Projectlevel
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system, taking into
account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of
the circulation system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management
program, including but not limited to level of service
standards and travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such
facilities?
Environmental Setting
Transportation and Circulation were evaluated in Chapter 4.14 of the PEIR prepared for the Specific Plan (RBF 2011). Additionally, a project-specific trip generation and intersection operations analysis was conducted to determine the proposed project’s contribution to the traffic evaluated in the Specific Plan and to evaluate the project site circulation and access (Appendix G, Fehr & Peers 2021).
This IS does not include a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis as this IS/Addendum tiers from a PEIR that was certified in 2011. SB 743 (Steinberg 2013) required an update to the CEQA Guidelines regarding analysis of transportation impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 requires VMT to be used as the metric for analysis of transportation impacts for environmental documents prepared after July 1, 2020 and precludes use of the "level of service" (LOS) metric. The State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has opined that an agency analyzing changes to a project for which an EIR has already been prepared using the LOS metric has the discretion to analyze the project under Pub. Res. Code Section 21066 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 without preparing new VMT analysis. (See OPR, SB 743 Frequently Asked Questions; https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/sb-743/faq.html#tier-env-doc [accessed FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
125
December 16, 2021].) The agency thus may use its discretion to determine whether the changes to the project require revisions to the EIR or whether new information is available that would require revisions. This project reallocates land uses within the Specific Plan area and, as shown and analyzed in detail below, does not anticipate additional vehicle trips. Further, the project is located adjacent to a proposed transit center, which would reduce any VMT associated with the project (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1).) Therefore, there is substantial evidence to support the determination that further VMT analysis is not required for this project. (See also CREED v. San Diego (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 515 (general global warming comments insufficient to qualify as new information requiring preparation of an EIR) and Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1320 (project could tier from a 2002 program EIR without an updated GHG analysis per new CEQA requirements).)
Access and Circulation
Planning Areas 1 and 2 would be accessible directly from one access point along Willow Street. A twolane entrance road and system of interior roads and alleyways would provide vehicular access and circulation throughout the proposed development, north of the Hetch Hetchy ROW. A 45-foot radius eccentric cul-de-sac would be constructed at the terminus of the public portion of the proposed ‘G’ street which terminates east of PA2 and south of the Transit Station area. The cul-de-sac has been designed to accommodate the entry and exit of buses and emergency vehicles. West of the cul-de-sac, ‘G’ street would continue as a private driveway to access PA2.
Planning Areas 3 and 4, including the community building adjacent to the Grand Park, would be accessible directly from two access points along Enterprise Drive in the southern portion of the project site. The proposed project includes the extension of Hickory Street north of Enterprise Drive to access those planning areas in the southern portion of the project site. No roads, bridges, or paths would be constructed to cross the Hetch Hetchy ROW. One additional access point would be constructed along Enterprise Drive to allow direct access from Enterprise Drive to the proposed Grand Park. See Figures 3 and 4 for the site plan and design elements.
Parking Analysis
The City requires 2 off-street, covered parking spaces with 0.5 guest parking spaces per townhouse unit;
1.5 parking spaces per 1 bedroom unit and 2 parking spaces per 2-3 bedroom unit be provided for affordable units; and 3 parking spaces per 1,000 sf greater than 5,000 sf be provided for the retail space.
The proposed project would construct 370 residential units (90 affordable units, 1 manager’s unit, and 279 townhouse units) and 3,600 sf of retail, requiring 861 parking spaces. Due to the project’s proximity to the Transit Station, the project applicant is seeking a 20 percent reduction in the required parking spaces. The project applicant is also seeking a density bonus incentive to reduce the number of required parking spaces for the affordable units to be 1 parking space per affordable unit. If approved by the City, the required parking spaces for the project would be reduced to 649 spaces.
In PA1, which includes the 90 affordable units plus 1 manager unit and 3,600 sf of retail, 163 parking spaces are required. The proposed project would provide 50 parking spaces within the proposed parking garage, 41 uncovered affordable unit parking spaces within the parking lot adjacent to the west of the mixed-use building, and 18 uncovered retail parking spaces for a total of 109 parking spaces.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
126
Of the 630 parking spaces proposed to be provided for the 279 market-rate, townhouse units in PAs 2, 3, and 4, 558 parking spaces would be off-street garage parking spaces; 40 would be on-street in-tract parking spaces; and 32 would be on-street off-site parking spaces.
A total of 739 parking spaces are proposed to be provided which is 122 parking spaces less than required but 90 parking spaces more than required with City approval of the 20 percent parking reduction requested due to the project’s proximity to the Transit Station and density bonus incentive for the affordable units. A Minor Use Permit would be required to allow for a parking reduction.
Fire Access
The minimum width available for driving or turning movements throughout the project site would be 21 feet in the courts throughout the development. The neighborhood streets would be at least 27 feet wide. The project roadway and neighborhood design meet City standards and would provide adequate turning radii and drive areas for fire engines and other emergency vehicles.
Trip Generation
The proposed project is estimated to generate 1,824 daily, 132 AM peak hour, and 161 PM peak hour external vehicle trips (Fehr & Peers 2021). The proposed project combined with all other approved and pending projects in the Specific Plan area would generate about 16,251 daily, 1,204 AM peak hour, and 1,527 PM peak hour external vehicle trips. This corresponds to about 115 percent of daily, 103 percent of the AM peak hour, and 116 percent of PM peak hour trips assumed in the PEIR. Note that the analysis presented in the transportation technical memorandum prepared by Fehr & Peers considers a slightly larger project than what is currently proposed and also considers the development of a five-story, mixed-use building with 8,300 sf of retail and 146 hotel rooms that is no longer proposed to be developed. Therefore, the proposed project would generate fewer vehicle trips than reported above.
Refer to the memorandum containing the results of the trip generation evaluation in Appendix G.
Transportation Services
The proposed project would dedicate 1.8 acres of land that would be reserved for a Transit Station until an official City decision is made regarding the potential development of a Transit Station. When combined with other adjacent land parcels identified in the Specific Plan, this 1.8 acres would satisfy acreage requirements for the Transit Station identified in the Specific Plan. The proposed project would include the construction of a two-lane entrance road off Willow Street that would provide access to the Transit Station area and construction of interim improvements to the Transit Station parcel.
The City maintains a network of pedestrian and bike trails throughout the City, in addition to a network of on-street bike lanes. Sidewalks would be provided along the Enterprise Drive and Willow Street frontages. A system of sidewalks would be provided throughout the project development and each unit would have direct access to a short walking path that connects to the internal sidewalk system. The proposed project would include walkways and crosswalks that would lead to the Transit Station area via Enterprise Drive and Willow Street and connect to off-site sidewalks along the south side of Enterprise Drive and the east side of Willow Street.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
127
The project would also provide a 20-foot-wide trail corridor, containing a 12-foot-wide multi-purpose trail, that runs along the northwest boundary of the project site and curves to the south, transecting the Grand Park, to avoid pedestrian crossing of the Hetch Hetchy ROW. At the intersection with Enterprise Drive, the trail corridor reduces to a 12-foot-wide corridor and continues east along the north side of Enterprise Drive and curves north up Willow Street along the project site frontage. The proposed recreational trail is anticipated to become part of the regional San Francisco Bay Trail.
No private or public airports are located within the City of Newark. The nearest airport to the proposed project site is the Palo Alto general aviation airport located 4.5 miles southwest of the site. The next nearest airport is the Norman Mineta San Jose International Airport which is approximately 12 miles southeast of the project site. No private airports are located within 10 miles of the City.
Emergency Access
The City of Newark identifies most major streets in the city as emergency evacuation routes. No aspect of the project would modify these streets or preclude their continued use as an emergency evacuation route. The project has incorporated turning radii sufficient for fire engine access in the project’s roadway design.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the Bayside Newark Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan Certified PEIR
Transportation and Circulation were evaluated in Chapter 4.14 of the PEIR prepared for the Specific Plan (RBF 2011). The PEIR contains a measure for the City to coordinate with AC Transit to improve bus service to the Specific Plan area. The PEIR identifies impacts to traffic on regional roadways in the project vicinity and includes a measure for project applicants to pay all applicable transportation-related fees in accordance with the latest adopted fee schedule at the time the permits are sought (MMRP measure 4.14-8).
Evaluation of Transportation
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? No New Impact.
Project Trip Generation
The proposed project is estimated to generate 1,824 daily, 132 AM peak hour, and 161 PM peak hour external vehicle trips. The proposed project combined with all other approved and pending projects in FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
128
the Specific Plan area would generate about 16,251 daily, 1,204 AM peak hour, and 1,527 PM peak hour external vehicle trips. This corresponds to about 115 percent of daily, 103 percent of the AM peak hour, and 116 percent of PM peak hour trips assumed in the PEIR (Fehr & Peers 2021). Note that the analysis presented in the transportation technical memorandum prepared by Fehr & Peers considers a slightly larger project than what is currently proposed and also considers the development of a five-story, mixed-use building with 8,300 sf of retail and 146 hotel rooms that is no longer proposed to be developed. Therefore, would generate fewer vehicle trips than reported above. Refer to the memorandum containing the results of the trip generation evaluation in Appendix G.
Intersection Analysis
Because the daily trips for the proposed project combined with all other approved and pending projects would slightly exceed the daily trips assumed in the PEIR, an intersection analysis was completed to determine if the intersection impacts and mitigation measures from the PEIR were still applicable now that the Specific Plan area is reaching its buildout based on building permit applications.
The results of the trip generation evaluation indicate that the expected level of peak hour vehicle trip generation on a typical day with the Specific Plan buildout, as currently understood by the City, would exceed that studied in the PEIR. While the vehicle trip generation is greater, the intersection analysis results (both impacts and mitigation measures) identified in the PEIR would continue to be the same with the current Specific Plan buildout assumptions.
Implementation of Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measures 4.14-2 and 4.14-8 would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level for questions a) and b):
Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 4.14-2 (AC Transit) The City shall coordinate with AC Transit to improve bus service to the Specific Plan area to lessen the impact of vehicular traffic on the local and regional roadways. Potential transit accommodations may include:
• Implementation of shuttle service to the Ardenwood Park and Ride lot to provide a connection to the Bayside Newark Express bus line and the Fremont and/or Union City BART stations;
• Rerouting existing bus lines through the Specific Plan area to provide convenient stop(s) with bus shelters and benches;
• Addition of a new bus line to serve the Specific Plan area.
Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 4.14-8 (Regional Traffic) Prior to issuance of building permits for a Specific Plan use, the applicant shall pay all applicable transportation-related fees in accordance with the latest adopted fee schedule at the time permits are sought. Such fees shall include, but not be limited to, the City of Newark Capital Facilities Fee for Transportation, and the ACTC Regional Transportation Impact Fee.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
129
The Grand Park is expected to primarily serve residents of the project site and other surrounding residential developments. Visitors would likely access the park by foot or by bike from either their residence or nearby bus transit stop. Car traffic at the Grand Park site is expected to be low, and few parking spots are available on-site. Therefore, with implementation of Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measures 4.14-2 and 4.14-8, the proposed project would not conflict with any plan or policy related to transportation, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur for questions a) and b).
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
No New Impact. No private or public airports are located within the City of Newark. The nearest public airfields are 4.5, 10, and 12 miles from the project site. No private airports are located within 10 miles of the project site. The project would not result in modification to any air travel route, and there would be no impact. No new impact would occur.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
No New Impact. The proposed project would extend Hickory Street to the north of Enterprise Drive to provide access the southern portion of the project site. No roads, bridges, or paths would be constructed to cross the Hetch Hetchy ROW. The proposed project would also construct access roads, internal to the development, that would branch from Willow Street, Enterprise Drive, and the Hickory Street extension. Although the project would modify Willow Street and Enterprise Drive by introducing additional access points, the project is consistent with the existing access of developed areas in the vicinity and the proposed access of the Specific Plan area. The project would not require additional modifications to the roadways (e.g. re-alignment) other than those already identified in the PEIR prepared for the Specific Plan (RBF 2011) that will be conducted by others through the Specific Plan buildout. Because the modifications to the roadways would be minor and compatible with the access in the vicinity, and the overall Specific Plan area, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact, and no new impact would occur.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No New Impact. The proposed project would not modify streets currently used for emergency access or preclude their continued use as an emergency evacuation route. The project design has incorporated fire access elements to ensure adequate emergency access to the site, and the plans would be approved by the Alameda County Fire Department prior to project implementation. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? No New Impact. The project would not conflict with any adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. The project also would not result in the decreased performance or safety of such facilities. The project includes the construction of pedestrian facilities throughout the proposed development, including a proposed recreational trail that would be eligible to FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
130
be a part of the San Francisco Bay Trail. This would result in a less-than-significant impact, and no new impact would occur.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
131
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
New
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Projectlevel
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal
needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Environmental Setting
The project site is served by the following service providers:
• Water supply: Alameda County Water District (ACWD) provides water to the cities of Fremont, Newark, and Union City, and would service the project site. • Wastewater treatment and disposal: Union Sanitary District (USD) serves the cities of Fremont, Newark, and Union City, and would service the project site. Build out of the specific plan area could increase wastewater flows rates by 50 percent.
• Storm water drainage facilities: Storm drains within the public streets are maintained by the City of Newark, while storm drains within private yards, lanes, and passes would be privately maintained by the homeowners.
• Solid waste service: Republic Services, Inc. currently provides the City of Newark with solid waste refuse, recycling, and hazardous materials collection services. The landfill servicing the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
132
site is the privately-owned Altamont Landfill. The Altamont Landfill has a permitted capacity of 124.4 million cubic yards. Approximately 48 percent of this capacity has been used and approximately 52 percent remains. The landfill is estimated to cease operation in 2070 (CalRecycle 2021).
Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the Bayside Newark Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan Certified PEIR
Utilities are discussed in Chapter 4.12 of the PEIR prepared for the Specific Plan (RBF 2011). The PEIR concludes that the project would result in a population increase that would affect utilities. The PEIR states that policies would be included in the General Plan to address wastewater services for the Specific Plan, and implementation of Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 4.12-2 would reduce impacts to the wastewater system to less than significant. The measure requires that individual projects within the Specific Plan shall determine proposed new connections outside of those included in the USD Master Plan, and those improvements will be installed prior to issuance of a building permit. The City and USD shall verify that any necessary improvements will be available prior to occupation of those new residential DU for which the improvements are needed.
The PEIR concludes that the landfill that would serve the proposed project has sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs.
Evaluation of Utilities and Service Systems
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water, wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion or existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
No New Impact. Existing power lines, installed to serve previous industrial uses, extend throughout the Specific Plan area. As a result, the existing power grid consists of 21 kilovolt lines that have sufficient capacity to serve all likely development scenarios. For natural gas supply, it is likely that new development within the Specific Plan area, including the proposed project, would be served by an existing low-pressure two-inch line that runs along Willow Street from Central Avenue to just south of Enterprise Drive.
Communications within the Specific Plan area are currently served by overhead AT&T lines on Enterprise Drive and underground lines on Central Avenue. In addition, fiber-optic cable exists along part of Willow Street. AT&T anticipates that it will continue to expand its fiber-optic network on an as-needed basis.
There are no existing Comcast facilities within or immediately adjacent to the Specific Plan area, including the project site. However, according to a company representative, Comcast is interested in FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
133
providing new development in this part of Newark with a full range of entertainment and communications services.
The ACWD would supply water to the proposed project, as described in the Specific Plan PEIR and associated Water Supply Assessment (WSA). The proposed project would include the installation of twelve-inch diameter water mains throughout the northern and southern portions of the development and cross the Hetch Hetchy ROW underground within the existing utility easement. The proposed 12- inch water main in the northern portion of the development would tie into the existing 12-inch water main in Willow Street and in Enterprise Drive from Court 4 in the southern portion of the development.
However, the final determination of the proposed water line sizes would come from ACWD during their plan check review. The ACWD indicated in the adopted WSA for the Specific Plan PEIR that demand associated with the Specific Plan would be consistent with its planning assumptions and is included in its forecast and water supply planning (ACWD 2010). The Specific Plan planned for the development of a total of 2,500 DU and 35,000 sf of retail. As of June 2022, a total of 2,171 DU and 3,600 sf of retail have been approved or are pending approval in the Specific Plan area, including the proposed FMC Willow and Grand Park project (see Table 1 in Section 2.0). Therefore, there would be adequate water supply to support the proposed project.
The USD provides wastewater treatment for the City of Newark and would service the Specific Plan area, which includes the project site. Eight-inch diameter sanitary sewer lines would be installed in the main and ancillary roadways throughout the project site, and wastewater would gravity-flow off-site to the east. The proposed sewer lines in the southern portion of the project site would connect to an existing 10-inch sewer main in Enterprise Drive (which eventually connects to an existing 36-inch sewer main in Willow Street), and the northern portion of the proposed project would connect directly to the existing 36-inch gravity sewer main in Willow Street, which ultimately connects to additional existing gravity mains and flows to the Newark Pump Station near the northwest corner of the Specific Plan area.
Wastewater from the Newark Station is then pumped to the Alvarado Treatment Plant, approximately 5 miles to the north.
The water treatment plant is currently rated to treat and discharge 30 million gallons per day (mgd). The USD has a NPDES General Permit with the SWRCB that allows treatment and discharge of 33 mgd.
Buildout of the Specific Plan area, including the proposed project, could increase wastewater flow rates by 50 percent, which would put the treatment plant at 86.6 percent of capacity. Additional improvements to the Alvarado Treatment Plant, such as a new sewer main or equalization basin, may be required to support buildout of the Specific Plan area, which could potentially have effects on the environment. Therefore, Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 4.12-2 would be implemented to reduce potential wastewater impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 4.12-2 (Wastewater) Prior to approval of a tentative map within the Specific Plan area, additional necessary improvements, if any, beyond those already included in the USD Master Plan and updated fee program, shall be determined regarding proposed new connections (from such tentative map development) and then-existing or proposed wastewater facilities. Such improvements shall be installed prior to issuance of a building permit and shall be consistent with requirements in the Sewer Master Plan (anticipated to be available in the summer of 2012). The City and USD shall verify that any necessary improvements will be available prior to occupation of those new residential DU for which such improvements are necessary.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
134
An LID storm drain system comprised of bio-retention areas, curbs and gutters along the roadways, and underground storm drainpipes would be installed as part of the proposed project storm water management plan (CBG 2021). The proposed project would install storm drainpipes throughout the project site that would connect to existing City-owned storm drains located within Enterprise Drive and Willow Street. This storm drain system is designed to convey surface runoff to an outfall located within the southwestern corner of the Specific Plan area and, ultimately, to the San Francisco Bay. The project site would also be delineated into 50 DMAs with approximately 23,024-sf of bioretention treatment areas proposed within the project site. Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 4.8-4a would be implemented to further reduce potential stormwater runoff impacts.
Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 4.8-4a (Hydrology) Plans submitted for grading permits shall include a detailed hydrology report. The report shall include calculations regarding the anticipated volume of stormwater runoff generated by the proposed development, and shall demonstrate that adequate stormwater conveyance and capacity is available in the existing facilities selected depending on the location of the proposed development (i.e., the Line F-1 channel, the City’s existing outfall into the Line F-1 channel, the existing human-created tidal channel that is tributary to Newark Slough, and existing City facilities in Willow Street). The hydrology report shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
If the hydrology report determines that the existing facilities do not have adequate stormwater conveyance and capacity to serve the proposed development, then the project applicant shall develop a detailed stormwater detention plan for the retention/detention of stormwater runoff on the project site. The stormwater detention facilities shall be designed with adequate capacity to ensure that that stormwater generated on the project site during a peak storm event is retained at a rate that would ensure that discharges from the site do not exceed preconstruction levels. All detention facilities shall be developed in conformance with the City’s standards and the standards of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The plans and specifications of the proposed detention facilities shall meet the standards of the City Engineering Department as an adequate engineering product. The construction of stormwater detention facilities may be phased to correspond with development of the project site over time, provided that adequate detention is provided at all times to ensure that runoff from the site does not exceed pre-construction levels.
Additionally, because the utility plan for the proposed project includes underground crossing of the Hetch Hetchy ROW within the existing utility easement for a 12-inch water line and 24-inch storm drain line, the following mitigation measure from the Specific Plan EIR would be implemented:
Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 4.8-4b (Hetch Hetchy Crossing) Plans submitted for grading permits for future projects requiring storm drainage lines and water mains that cross the Hetch Hetchy Pipeline shall include measures to ensure that there is sufficient room for these infrastructure improvements to pass over Hetch Hetchy Pipeline (i.e., placement of additional fill).
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
135
With implementation of Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Mitigation Measures 4.12-2, 4.8-4a, and 4.8- 4b above, impacts from the construction of new wastewater and storm drainage utilities systems would be reduce to a less-than-significant level for questions a), b), c), and e). No new impact would occur. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
No New Impact. The Specific Plan area, which includes the project site, is serviced by the ACWD. In compliance with SB 610, a WSA was prepared for the Specific Plan, which relies heavily on the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). According to the WSA, the Specific Plan is included in the ACWD’s water demand forecast and is consistent with planning assumptions. The Specific Plan planned for the development of a total of 2,500 DU and 35,000 sf of retail. As of June 2022, a total of 2,171 DU and 3,600 sf of retail have been approved or are pending approval in the Specific Plan area, including the proposed FMC Willow and Grand Park project (see Table 1 in Section 2.0). Therefore, there would be adequate water supply to support the proposed project, and no new or expanded entitlements are needed.
Under normal precipitation conditions, the water supply is projected to meet the Specific Plan area’s demand. However, in the future, water supply to the Specific Plan area, including the proposed project may be cut back because of shortages during dry years. These cutbacks would depend on the severity of the dry-year shortage and would be consistent with the rest of the ACWD’s service areas. According to the WSA, during critically dry years the ACWD would secure additional water supply through the Department of Water Resources, and, if necessary, would implement a drought contingency plan to cut back on water use. This would ensure the project would have sufficient water supply during drought years.
Compliance with the requirements provided in the WSA will ensure that there will be sufficient water supply to serve the Specific Plan area. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no new impact would occur.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statues and regulations related to solid waste?
No New Impact. Republic Services, Inc. currently provides the City of Newark with solid waste refuse, recycling, and hazardous materials collection services. After being processed at a facility in San Leandro, waste from the City is hauled to the privately-owned Altamont Landfill located in Livermore. The Altamont Landfill will serve the Specific Plan area, which includes the FMC Willow and Grand Park project. The Altamont Landfill has a permitted capacity of 124.4 million cubic yards. Approximately 48 percent of this capacity has been used and approximately 52 percent remains. The landfill is estimated to cease operation in 2070 (CalRecycle 2021).
In compliance with requirements stipulated under the Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939), the City of Newark, Republic Services, Inc., and the Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board have implemented measures to reduce the amount of waste hauled to the Altamont Landfill. These FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
136
agencies are promoting the recycling of many different materials, which will help reduce the amount of solid waste entering the Altamont Landfill and would extend the lifetime of the landfill.
Because the landfill serving the project area is of sufficient capacity to accommodate solid waste needs, impacts would be less than significant for questions f) and g), and no new impact would occur.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
137
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
New
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Projectlevel
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
The lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment and thereby require an EIR to be prepared for the project where there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that any of the following conditions may occur. Where prior to commencement of the environmental analysis a project proponent agrees to MMs or project modifications that would avoid any significant effect on the environment or would mitigate the significant
environmental effect, a lead agency need not prepare an EIR solely because without mitigation the environmental effects would have been significant (per Section 15065 of the State CEQA Guidelines):
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
project are significant when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of past, present and probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No New Impact. The preceding analysis indicates that the proposed FMC Willow and Grand Park project would not have a significant adverse impact on overall environmental quality, including the potential to reduce the habitat of fish and wildlife species, or contribute to lowering populations below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
138
California history or prehistory. With implementation of the measures set forth in this Initial Study (and as previously analyzed in the PEIR), potential impacts on overall environmental quality as a result of the proposed project would be less than significant. No new impact would occur. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of past, present and probable future projects)? No New Impact. While the project would indirectly contribute to cumulative impacts associated with increased urban development in the City and region, these impacts have previously been evaluated in the PEIR prepared for the Specific Plan and are incorporated into the City of Newark’s 2013 Updated General Plan. The PEIR concluded that development of the project site as allowed under the Specific Plan may contribute to significant cumulative impacts as a result of contribution to the loss of vegetation and wildlife resources, impacts to cultural resources, seismic or soils hazards, greenhouse gas emissions, hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and noise levels. With implementation of the measures set forth in this Initial Study (and as previously analyzed in the PEIR), cumulative impacts as a result of the proposed project would be less than significant. No new impact would occur. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
No New Impact. As outlined in other sections of this Initial Study, the proposed project would adhere to mitigation measures previously prescribed in the Specific Plan PEIR for potentially significant impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, seismic or soils hazards, greenhouse gases, hazardous materials, hydrology, drainage and water quality, noise, wastewater treatment, regional traffic congestion, and the stormwater system. These impacts have been reduced to a less-thansignificant level at both the project and cumulative level through project design and mitigation measures. No new impact would occur.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
139
9.0 REFERENCES
Alameda County. 2012. Emergency Operations Plan. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Services. Accessed on April 28, 2021 from https://www.acgov.org/ready/documents/EmergencyOperationsPlan.pdf.
Alameda County Transit (AC Transit). 2020a. Reducing Emissions. Available at:
http://www.actransit.org/environment/reducingemissions/#:~:text=Cleaner%20Engines&text=AC%20Transit%20has%20installed%20exhaust,mo noxide%20by%20up%20to%2090%25. Accessed June 5, 2020.
2020b. Maps and Schedules. Available at:
http://www.actransit.org/maps/index.php?line=200&Go=Go#. Accessed June 9, 2020.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017a. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May. Available at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. 2017b. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status. Last updated January 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/research-and-data/air-quality-standards-and-attainmentstatus#eleven. 2017c. Final Clean Air Plan – Spare the Air Cool the Climate. April 19. Available at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-airplan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en.
Berlogar Stevens & Associates (BSA). 2018. Due Diligence Geotechnical Investigation, FMC – Willow Parcel, Enterprise Drive at Hickory Street, Newark, California. August 22.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2021. User's Guide for CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0. Available at: http://www.caleemod.com/.
2018. Health Effects. Available at: http://www.capcoa.org/health-effects/.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2020. Top 4 Measurements and Days Above the Standard.
Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/welcome.html. Accessed April 2020. 2018a. Overview: Diesel Exhaust and Health. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health. 2018b. Federal Standard Area Designations. Available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/feddesig.htm.
2017a. Clean Car Standards – Pavley, Assembly Bill 1493. Accessed December. Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccms/ccms.htm.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
140
2017b. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards. May 4. Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf.
2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework. Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climate_change_scoping_pla n.pdf.
2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan – A Framework for Change. December.
California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (BOF). 2021. State Responsibility Area Viewer. Accessed on April 30, 2021 and available at: https://bof.fire.ca.gov/projects-and-programs/stateresponsibility-area-viewer/.
California Department of Conservation (CDC). 2021. California Important Farmland Finder Interactive Map. Accessed online on May 5, 2021 at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2021. Natural Diversity Database (For: Hayward, Dublin, Redwood Point, Newark, Niles, Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Milpitas USGS 7.5-minute series quadrangles), Sacramento, CA. Accessed on May 11, 2021. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. March.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2021. Map of Officially Designated Scenic Highways near FMC Willow and Grand Park project site. Viewed in ArcGIS map viewer and accessed on May 5, 2021 at
https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?useExisting=1&layers=f0259b1ad0fe4093 a5604c9b838a486a.
2013a. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, September. Available at:
http://website.dot.ca.gov/env/noise/docs/tcvgm-sep2013.pdf. 2013b. Technical Noise Supplement (TeNS) to the Traffic Noise Protocol. September. Available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TeNS_Sept_2013B.pdf.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2021. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-02). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. [Accessed May 11, 2021]. Queried for the San Leandro, Hayward, Dublin, Redwood Point, Newark, Niles, Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Milpitas USGS 7.5-minute quads. Queried for individual species as referenced. Available at:
http://www.rareplants.cnps.org.
CalRecycle. 2021. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details: Altamont Landfill & Resource Recovery (01-AA0009). Accessed May 19, 2021 and available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/7?siteID=7.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
141
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. (CBG). 2021. FMC Willow and Grand Park Tract 8559 – Vesting Tract Map.
October 20.
City of Newark. 2018. City of Newark Zoning Map. Available at:
https://www.newark.org/home/showpublisheddocument?id=1730. Published January 16, 2018. 2013. Newark California General Plan. Available at:
http://www.newark.org/home/showdocument?id=76. Adopted December 12, 2013.
Environmental Resource Management (ERM). 2021. Annual Inspection, Operation, and Maintenance Report for the Former P4 Storage Area Cap. Willow Parcel. January 28, 2021. 2020. Shallow Groundwater Interim Remedial Action Completion Report. Prepared for FMC Corporation. June 1, 2020.
2019. Former P4 Storage Area Remedy Enhancement Remedial Action Plan. Prepared for FMC Corporation. July 29, 2019.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2021. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. Accessed on April 30, 2021 at https://msc.fema.gov/portal.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018a. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Available at: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/researchinnovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no0123_0.pdf. 2018b. Noise Impact Assessment Spreadsheet. Available at:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/environmental-programs/noise-impactassessment-spreadsheet.
Fehr & Peers. 2021. Trip Generation and Intersection Operation Analysis – FMC Willow and Grand Park Project Technical Memorandum. November 19.
HELIX Environmental Planning. 2021a. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project. December.
2021b. FMC Willow and Grand Park Project Noise Assessment Technical Report. December. 2021c. FMC Willow and Grand Park Project Biological Resources Technical Report. December. 2021d. FMC Willow and Grand Park Project Cultural Resources Assessment. December.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Summary for Policymakers. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. February.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
142
Jones, Terry L. and Katheryn A. Klar. 2007. California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture and Complexity.
Altamira Press, a division of Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
Mission San Jose. 2020. The Story of the Mission San Jose. Electronic resource, https://missionsanjose.org/history, accessed May 2020.
MTC and ABAG. 2021. Plan Bay Area 2050. October 21, 2021. Available at:
https://www.planbayarea.org/finalplan2050.
Newark Unified School District (NUSD). 2022. Developer/School Impact Fees. Accessed April 14, 2022.
Available at https://www.newarkunified.org/departments/business-services/developer-feesschool-impactfees#:~:text=The%20NUSD%20Board%20of%20Education,for%20new%20commercial%20and% 20industrial.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. February. Available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf.
Port of Oakland. 2006. Oakland International Airport Master Plan Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) Contours 2004 and 2010. Available at: https://www.oaklandairport.com/wpcontent/uploads/2016/05/2010_CNEL_v_2004.pdf.
RBF Consulting (RBF). 2011. Dumbarton Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2010042012). Prepared for the City of Newark. May 2011.
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 2019. No Further Remedial Action for Willow Parcel Soils, 8787 Enterprise Drive, Newark, Alameda County. November 27, 2019. File No. 01S0131 (PF).
San Francisco, City and County of. 2015. San Francisco International Airport 2019 Noise Exposure Map.
Available at: https://media.flysfo.com/media/sfo/noise-abatement/sfo_p150_2019-nem-36x24- plot-signed_ada.pdf.
San Francisco Water Power Sewer (SFWPS). 2019. Calaveras Dam Replacement. Accessed online April 26, 2021 at https://sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=979.
San Jose, City of. 2009. Envisions San Jose 2040 General Plan Comprehensive Update Noise Background Report. Available at: http://www.sanjoseca.gov/documentcenter/view/511.
San Mateo County Transit District. 2017. Dumbarton Transportation Corridor Study. November.
Available at: http://www.samtrans.com/Assets/Dumbarton+Rail+Corridor/PDFs/171120+DTCS+- +Full+Report.pdf.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
143
Santa Clara, County of (2016). Palo Alto Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Available at:
https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/ALUC_PAO_CLUP.pdf.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2021. GeoTracker for FMC Corp – Newark. Accessed April 23, 2021 and available at:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report?global_id=SL20240858.
Tetra Tech. 2016. Union City/Newark Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan. Accessed on April 28, 2021 from: http://www.newark.org/home/showdocument?id=272.
United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2004. Traffic Noise Model Version 2.5. Available at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/traffic_noise_model/tnm_v25/.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009. Fact Sheet – Emission Factors for Locomotives.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021. List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in and/or may be affected by [the] proposed project. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, San Francisco Bay – Delta Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, California.
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
144
10.0 PREPARERS
City of Newark
Art Interiano, Deputy Community Development Director
Mandy Kang, City Consultant from M-Group
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
Lesley Owning, Project Manager
Erin Gustafson, AICP, Environmental Planner
David Ludwig, Environmental Planner
Julia Pano, Environmental Planner
Joanne Dramko, Senior Air Quality/Noise Specialist
Martin Rolph, Air Quality/Noise Specialist
Stephen Stringer, Senior Biologist
Stephanie McLaughlin, Biologist
Clarus Backes, Senior Archaeologist
Kate Thomas, Staff Archaeologist
Green Valley Planning, LLC.
David Claycomb, AICP, Quality Assurance/Quality Control Fehr & Peers
Robert Rees, P.E, Principal
Jordan Brooks, Senior Transportation Planner
Appendix A
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
1 FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
June 2022
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring/Reporting
Action & Schedule
Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
Air Quality
4.2-1a - Prior to issuance of any Grading
Permit, the Public Works Director and the
Building Official shall confirm that Grading
Plans, Building Plans, and specifications
stipulate that, in compliance with the
BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, the
following basic construction mitigation
measures shall be implemented for all
construction projects:
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas,
staging areas, soil piles, graded areas
and unpaved access roads) shall be
watered two times per day.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or
other loose material off-site shall be
covered.
• 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.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads
shall be limited to 15 mph.
• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks
to be paved shall be completed as soon
as possible.
Require as a
condition of
project approval.
Project applicant
includes measures
on plans submitted
for grading
permits.
Construction
contractor
implements control
measures.
City Council and
Planning Division
Engineering/Building
Division
Building Division
Draft and incorporate
condition as part of
project approval.
Review plans prior to
issuance of grading
permits to ensure that
requirements
described in Mitigation
Measure 4.2-1a have
been met.
Conduct periodic site
visits during
demolition, grading
and construction.
Deny project
approval.
Deny grading
permits.
Halt demolition,
grading or
construction until
control measures
are implemented.
2 FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
June 2022
• Idling times shall be minimized either by
shutting equipment off when not in use
or reducing the maximum idling time to
five minutes (as required by the
California airborne 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.
• 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.
• A publicly visible sign with the telephone
number and person to contact at the
lead agency regarding dust complaints
shall be posted. 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.
4.2-1b - Prior to issuance of any Grading
Permit, the Public Works Director and the
Building Official shall confirm that the
Grading Plans, Building Plans, and
specifications stipulate that, in compliance
with the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality
Guidelines, the following additional
construction mitigation measures shall be
implemented for all construction projects:
Require as a
condition of
project approval.
Project applicant
includes measures
on plans submitted
for grading
permits.
City Council and
Planning Division
Engineering/Building
Division
Draft and incorporate
condition as part of
project approval.
Review plans prior to
issuance of grading
permits to ensure that
requirements
described in Mitigation
Deny project
approval.
Deny grading
permits.
3 FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
June 2022
• All exposed surfaces shall be watered at
a frequency adequate to maintain
minimum soil moisture of 12 percent.
Moisture content can be verified by lab
samples or moisture probe.
• All excavation, grading, and/or
demolition activities shall be suspended
when average wind speeds exceed 20
mph.
• 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.
• Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fastgerminating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as
possible and watered appropriately until
vegetation is established.
• The simultaneous occurrence of
excavation, grading, and grounddisturbing 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.
• All trucks and equipment, including their
tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving
the site.
• Site accesses up to a distance of 100 feet
from the paved road shall be treated
Construction
contractor
implements control
measures.
Building Division
Measure 4.2-1b have
been met.
Conduct periodic site
visits during
demolition, grading
and construction.
Halt demolition,
grading or
construction until
control measures
are implemented.
4 FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
June 2022
with a 6- to 12-inch compacted layer of
wood chips, mulch, or gravel.
• 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.
• Minimizing the idling time of diesel
powered construction equipment to two
minutes.
• The project shall develop a plan
demonstrating that the off-road
equipment (more than 50 horsepower)
to be used in the construction project
(i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor
vehicles) would achieve a project wide
fleet-average 20 percent NOX reduction
and 45 percent PM reduction compared
to the most recent CARB fleet average.
Acceptable options for reducing
emissions include the use of late model
engines, low-emission diesel products,
alternative fuels, engine retrofit
technology, after-treatment products,
add-on devices such as particulate
filters, and/or other options as such
become available.
• Use low VOC (i.e., ROG) coatings beyond
the local requirements (i.e., Regulation
8, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings).
• Requiring that all construction
equipment, diesel trucks, and generators
be equipped with Best Available Control
5 FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
June 2022
Technology for emission reductions of
NOX and PM.
• Requiring all contractors use equipment
that meets CARB’s most recent
certification standard for off-road heavy
duty diesel engines.
Biological Resources
4.3-2 - In order to avoid impacts on nesting
raptors, a nesting survey shall be conducted
on individual project site parcels prior to
commencing with earth-moving or
construction work if this work would occur
during raptor nesting season (between
February 1 and August 31). The raptor
nesting survey shall include examination of
all trees on or within 300 feet of the entire
project site, not just trees slated for
removal, since ground vibrations and noise
from earth-moving equipment can disturb
nesting birds and potentially result in nest
abandonment. Since northern harriers are
ground nesting raptors, the nesting survey
shall also include systematic walking
transects across all suitable ground on the
project site parcels.
If nesting raptors are identified during the
surveys, orange construction fence shall be
installed to establish a 300-foot radius
around the nest unless a qualified biologist
determines that a lesser distance will
adequately protect the nest (refer to
discussion below for more detail). If the tree
or nest is located off the project site, then
the buffer shall be demarcated per the
Require as a
condition of
project approval.
Project applicant
hires qualified
biologist to
conduct nesting
survey if grading or
construction would
occur during
nesting season.
Project applicant
provides necessary
buffer if nests are
identified.
City Council and
Planning Division
Planning Division
Planning/Building
Divisions
Draft and incorporate
condition as part of
project approval.
Prior to
commencement of
construction, ensure
that survey has been
conducted and
requirements
described in Mitigation
Measure 4.3-2 have
been met.
Conduct periodic site
visits during grading
and construction.
Deny project
approval.
Delay
commencement
of construction.
Halt construction
until necessary
buffer is provided.
6 FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
June 2022
above where the buffer intersects the
project site.
The size of the non-disturbance buffer may
be altered if a qualified raptor biologist
conducts behavioral observations and
determines the nesting raptors are well
acclimated to disturbance. If this occurs, the
raptor biologist shall prescribe a modified
buffer that allows sufficient room to prevent
undue disturbance/harassment to nesting
raptors.
If the buffer is reduced, the qualified raptor
biologist shall remain onsite to monitor the
raptors’ behavior during heavy construction
in order to ensure that the reduced buffer
does not result in take of eggs or nestlings.
No construction or earth-moving activity
shall occur within the established buffer
until it is determined by a qualified raptor
biologist that the young have fledged (that
is, left the nest) and have attained sufficient
flight skills to avoid project construction
zones. This typically occurs by August 1. This
date may be earlier or later and would have
to be determined by a qualified raptor
biologist.
If a qualified biologist is not hired to monitor
the nesting raptors then the full 300-foot
buffers shall be maintained in place from
February 1 through the month of August.
The buffer may be removed and work may
proceed as otherwise planned within the
buffer on September 1.
7 FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
June 2022
4.3-3 - Western burrowing owl surveys shall
be conducted by a qualified western
burrowing owl biologist 90 days prior to
construction of any project within the
project site and again 30 days prior to
construction of a project as described below
to ensure there are no impacts on
burrowing owls. Burrowing owl surveys
conducted according to the methodologies
prescribed by CDFG in their 1995 Staff
Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation are
more likely to be accepted by CDFG. The
survey methodologies that will otherwise
meet the standards of care required by
CEQA are provided below. These methods
may not be as intense as those methods
described in the document cited above but
these methods have been coordinated with
CDFG biologists for other projects and are
sufficient for detecting burrowing owls
provided an experienced burrowing owl
biologist conducts the surveys.
Using the methodology prescribed below,
burrowing owl and burrow surveys shall be
conducted 90 and 30 days in advance of
project site disturbance. Two surveys shall
be conducted 90 days before ground
disturbance associated with the project and
two surveys shall be conducted in the 30 day
period prior to ground disturbance
associated with the project. The CDFG Staff
Report states that preconstruction surveys
need to be completed within 30 days of
grading prior to CDFG accepting a survey
conclusion that no burrowing owls occur in a
proposed study area (i.e., negative findings).
Require as a
condition of
project approval.
Project applicant
hires qualified
biologist to
conduct surveys.
Project applicant
provides necessary
buffer and meets
other
requirements, as
described in
Mitigation
Measure 4.3-3.
City Council and
Planning Division
Planning Division and
CDFG
Planning/Building
Divisions
Draft and incorporate
condition as part of
project approval.
Prior to
commencement of
grading or
construction, ensure
that survey has been
conducted and
requirements
described in Mitigation
Measure 4.3-3 have
been met.
Conduct periodic site
visits during grading
and construction.
Deny project
approval.
Delay
commencement
of grading or
construction.
Halt grading
and/or
construction until
buffer is provided
and other
requirements are
met.
8 FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
June 2022
Western burrowing owl surveys shall be
conducted from two hours before sunset to
one hour after, or one hour before to two
hours after sunrise. All burrowing owl
sightings, occupied burrows, and burrows
with owl sign (e.g., pellets, excrement, and
molt feathers) shall be counted and
mapped. Surveys shall be conducted by
walking all suitable habitat on the entire
project site and (where possible) in areas
within 150 meters (approximately 500 feet)
of the project impact zone. The 150-meter
buffer zone is surveyed to identify burrows
and owls outside of the project area which
may be impacted by factors such as noise
and vibration (heavy equipment) during
project construction. Pedestrian survey
transects shall be systematically spaced to
allow 100 percent visual coverage of the
ground surface. The distance between
transect center lines shall be no more than
30 meters (approx. 100 feet) and shall be
reduced to account for differences in
terrain, vegetation density, and ground
surface visibility. To effectively survey large
projects (100 acres or larger), two or more
surveyors shall be used to walk adjacent,
parallel transects. To avoid impacts on owls
from surveyors, owls and/or occupied
burrows shall be avoided by a minimum of
50 meters (approx. 160 feet) if in the non-
breeding months (October 1 through
February 1) and 250 feet during the
breeding months (February 1 through
October 1). Disturbance to occupied
burrows and within the established buffers
9 FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
June 2022
shall be avoided until no burrowing owls
occur on the site.
If burrowing owls are detected on the site
during the breeding season (peak of the
breeding season is April 15 through July 15),
and appear to be engaged in nesting
behavior, a fenced 250-foot buffer shall be
required between the nest site(s) (i.e., the
active burrow(s)) and any earth-moving
activity or other disturbance in the project
area. This 250-foot buffer could be
decreased to 160 feet once it is determined
by a qualified burrowing owl biologist that
the young have fledged (that is, left the
nest). Typically, the young fledge by August
31. This date may be earlier than August 31,
or later, and would have to be determined
by a qualified burrowing owl biologist. If
burrowing owls were found on the project
site, a qualified biologist shall delineate the
extent of burrowing owl habitat on the site.
To mitigate impacts on burrowing owls,
CDFG prescribes that six and a half acres (6.5
acres) of replacement habitat be set aside
(i.e., protected in perpetuity) per pair of
burrowing owls, or unpaired resident bird.
Such a set-aside would offset permanent
impacts on burrowing owl habitat. To
illustrate the extent of mitigation land
required by CDFG, this example is provided:
If two pairs of burrowing owls are identified
on the study area, 13 acres of mitigation
land would be acquired. Or, if one pair and
one resident bird are identified, 13 acres of
mitigation land would be acquired. The
10 FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
June 2022
protected lands shall be adjacent to
occupied burrowing owl habitat if possible,
and at a location selected in consultation
with CDFG. Land identified to offset impacts
on burrowing owls shall be protected in
perpetuity by a suitable property instrument
(e.g., a conservation easement or fee title
acquisition). A Mitigation Plan shall be
prepared in consultation with CDFG for
review and approval by the City.
The Mitigation Plan shall identify the
mitigation site and any activities proposed
to enhance the site, including the
construction of artificial burrows and
maintenance of California ground squirrel
populations on the mitigation site. In
addition, for each pair of burrowing owls
found in the construction area, two artificial
nesting burrows shall be created at the
mitigation site. The Plan shall also include a
description of monitoring and management
methods proposed at the mitigation site.
Monitoring and management of any lands
identified for mitigation purposes shall be
the responsibility of the applicant for at
least five years. An annual report shall be
prepared for submittal to CDFG and the City
by December 31 of each monitoring year.
Contingency measures for any anticipated
problems should be identified in the plan.
4.3-4 - In order to avoid impacts on nesting
passerines, a nesting survey shall be
conducted on individual project site parcels
and within 100 feet of the parcel being
developed prior to commencing initial earthmoving or construction work on that parcel Require as a
condition of
project approval.
Project applicant
hires qualified
City Council and
Planning Division
Planning Division
Draft and incorporate
condition as part of
project approval.
Prior to
commencement of
Deny project
approval.
11 FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
June 2022
if this work would occur during the
passerine nesting season, that is, between
March 1 and September 1. The nesting
survey shall also survey lands within 100
feet of the parcel being developed. The
nesting surveys shall be completed
approximately 15 days prior to commencing
work.
If special-status birds are identified nesting
on or near the project site, a 100-foot radius
around all identified active nests shall be
demarcated with orange construction
fencing to establish a non-disturbance
buffer. If an active nest is found offsite, the
intersecting portion of the buffer that is
onsite shall be fenced. No construction or
earth-moving activity shall occur within this
100-foot staked buffer until it is determined
by a qualified biologist that the young have
fledged (that is, left the nest) and have
attained sufficient flight skills to avoid
project construction zones.
If common (that is, not special-status) birds,
for example, red-winged blackbird, are
identified nesting on or adjacent to the
project site, a non-disturbance buffer of 75
feet shall be established or as otherwise
prescribed by a qualified ornithologist. The
buffer shall be demarcated with orange
construction fencing. Disturbance around an
active nest shall be postponed until it is
determined by the qualified wildlife biologist
that the young have fledged and have
attained sufficient flight skills to leave the
area.
biologist to
conduct nesting
survey if grading or
construction would
occur during
nesting season.
Project applicant
provides necessary
buffer if nests are
identified.
Planning/Building
Divisions
construction, ensure
that survey has been
conducted and
requirements
described in Mitigation
Measure 4.3-2 have
been met.
Conduct periodic site
visits during grading
and construction.
Delay
commencement
of construction.
Halt construction
until necessary
buffer is provided.
12 FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
June 2022
Typically, most birds in the region of the
project site are expected to complete
nesting by August 1. However, in the region
many species can complete nesting by the
end of June or in early to mid-July.
Regardless, nesting buffers shall be
maintained until August 1 unless a qualified
wildlife biologist determines that young
have fledged and are independent of their
nests at an earlier date. If buffers are
removed prior to August 1st, the biologist
conducting the nesting surveys shall prepare
a report that provides details about the
nesting outcome and the removal of buffers.
This report shall be submitted to the City
project planner prior to the time that buffers
are removed if the date is before August 1.
4.3-8 - A tree permit shall be obtained from
the City prior to the removal of any tree
protected by City ordinance on project site
parcels. To offset impacts resulting from the
removal of these trees, replacement trees
shall be planted in designated open space
areas on the subject parcel. Tree
replacement shall be at a 1:1 ratio (that is,
for each tree removed, one tree shall be
planted as a replacement). Replacement
trees shall be native California species that
are native to the Newark area.
Replacement trees planted adjacent to the
Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National
Wildlife Refuge should first be coordinated
with the Refuge to avoid the introduction of
perching sites for predatory species.
Require as a
condition of
project approval.
Project applicant
obtains tree
permit, provides
tree replacement
and prepares a
Tree Management
Plan, as described
in Mitigation
Measure 4.3-8.
City Council and
Planning Division
Planning Division
Draft and incorporate
condition as part of
project approval.
Review tree permit to
ensure that
requirements of
Mitigation Measure
4.3-8 have been met.
Deny project
approval.
Deny issuance of
tree permit.
13 FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
June 2022
A Tree Management Plan shall be prepared
for any project on any project site parcel
where tree removal occurs. Preparation of
this plan and subsequent planting and
monitoring shall be a condition of project
approval and shall be tied to a security bond
or cash deposit posted by the developer
with the City to pay for any remedial work
that might need to occur, if the prior effort
fails.
All planted trees shall be provided with a
buried, irrigation system that shall be
maintained over a minimum three-year
establishment period. The irrigation system
shall be placed on automatic electric or
battery operated timers so that trees are
automatically watered during the dry
months of the establishment period. At the
end of the three-year establishment period,
the irrigation system could be removed, if
necessary. The planted trees’ health shall be
monitored annually for five years by a
qualified biologist or arborist. Annual
monitoring reports shall be submitted to the
City.
At the end of a five-year monitoring period,
at least 80 percent of planted trees shall be
in good health. If the numbers of planted
trees falls below an 80 percent survival rate,
additional trees shall be planted to bring the
total number of planted trees up to 100
percent of the original number of trees
planted. Irrigation and follow-up monitoring
shall be established over an additional three
year period after any replanting occurs. Any
14 FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
June 2022
replanting and follow-up monitoring shall be
reported in annual reports prepared for the
City, Community Development Department.
A performance bond, letter of credit, or
other financial instrument shall be
established to pay for any remedial work
that might need to occur, if the prior effort
fails.
Cultural Resources
4.4-1a - Prior to the issuance of grading
permits for future development allowed
within the Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan
area, project sponsors shall retain qualified
archaeologists meeting the Secretary of the
Interior’s Professional Qualification
Standards to train the construction crew on
the mechanisms used to identify cultural
resources and to caution them on the legal
and/or regulatory implications of knowingly
destroying cultural resources or removing
artifacts or human remains from the project
sites.
If subsurface deposits believed to be cultural
or human in origin are discovered during the
construction of future development projects
within the Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan
area, then all work shall halt within a 200-
foot radius of the discovery and they shall
be evaluated by a professional
archaeologist. If a potentially-eligible
resource is encountered, then the
archaeologist, lead agency, and project
sponsor shall arrange for either: 1) total
avoidance of the resource, if possible; or 2)
test excavations to evaluate eligibility and, if
eligible, data recovery as mitigation.
Require as a
condition of
project approval.
Project applicant
hires qualified
archaeologist to
train construction
crew.
If subsurface
deposits are
discovered during
construction,
contractor halts
work and complies
with requirements,
as described in
Mitigation
Measure 4.4-1a.
City Council and
Planning Division
Planning Division
Planning/Building
Divisions
Draft and incorporate
condition as part of
project approval.
Prior to issuance of
grading permits,
confirm that
archaeologist has been
hired and training has
been completed.
Conduct periodic site
visits during grading
and construction.
Deny project
approval.
Deny issuance of
grading permits.
Halt construction
until requirements
are met.
15 FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
June 2022
If human remains of any kind are found
during construction activities, all activities
shall cease immediately and the Alameda
County Coroner shall be notified as required
by State law (Section 7050.5 of the Health
and Safety Code). If the coroner determines
the remains to be of Native American origin,
he or she shall notify the Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC
shall then identify the most likely
descendant(s) (MLD) to be consulted
regarding treatment and/or reburial of the
remains.
Geology and Soils
4.5-1 - The ACWD regulates the
construction, repair, and destruction of
wells, exploratory holes, and other
excavations located within the City of
Newark under ACWD Ordinance No.
2010.01. Future developers within the
Specific Plan area shall have a design-level
geotechnical engineering investigation
performed for their individual property or
properties prior to its (their) development.
The mitigation measures specified by the
design-level geotechnical engineering
investigations shall become conditions to
the issuance of grading permits for such
individual property. The design-level
geotechnical engineering investigations shall
only address each specific individual
property proposing construction, unless
future developers mutually agree to include
more than one property in a single
investigation.
Require as a
condition of
project approval.
Project applicant
submits designlevel geotechnical
investigation.
City Council and
Planning Division
Engineering Division
Draft and incorporate
condition as part of
project approval.
Prior to issuance of
grading permits, review
geotechnical
investigation and
confirm that
recommendations are
included in
construction plans.
Deny project
approval.
Deny issuance of
grading permits.
16 FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
June 2022
The design-level geotechnical engineering
investigations shall take into consideration
the specific locations and types of
development, as well as specific soil and
rock conditions identified by subsurface
investigation and laboratory testing. The
likely mitigation measure recommendations
of the design-level geotechnical engineering
investigations regarding the design and
construction of project-related development
are regularly employed, have known and
proven efficacy, and could include without
limitation, one or more of the following:
• Removing the soft/loose soil by
excavating the soil and backfilling
the excavation with compacted soil,
thus densifying the soft/loose soil;
• Supporting structures on deep
foundations, such as piles or piers;
• Improving the soft/loose soils by
various methods, such as dynamic
deep compaction, constructing
surcharge fills, installing wick drains,
grouting, and other methods;
• Strengthening structures to
withstand seismic shaking and
differential ground settlement;
and/or,
• Other methods as determined by
the geotechnical engineer in the
17 FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
June 2022
geotechnical report to be prepared
for the sites.
4.5-2 - Prior to any soil improvement
measures and/or dewatering activities, the
project geotechnical engineer(s) shall
coordinate with the ACWD to ensure
compliance with ACWD Ordinance No. 2010-
01. Require as a
condition of
project approval.
Project
geotechnical
engineer
coordinates with
ACWD.
City Council and
Planning Division
Engineering Division
and ACWD
Draft and incorporate
condition as part of
project approval.
Prior to issuance of
grading permits, review
plans and confirm that
requirements of ACWD
Ordinance No. 2010-01
are met.
Deny project
approval.
Deny issuance of
grading permits.
18 FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
June 2022
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.7-1a - Prior to the issuance of grading or
building permit for an individual property
within the Specific Plan area with known,
suspected, or potential residual
environmental contamination, the property
owner shall, to the extent such activities
have not previously been performed by the
property owner pursuant to the
requirements of the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) or other overseeing agency under
applicable environmental laws (Oversight
Agency), do all of the following: 1)
summarize available information regarding
the magnitude and extent of soil and
groundwater contamination at the subject
property; 2) perform a data gap analysis; 3)
based on the results of the data gap
analysis, determine whether any additional
investigation is needed to fill data gaps and,
if so, propose and perform such
investigation with the approval of the
Oversight Agency; 4) provide either a Health
Risk Assessment (HRA) or Feasibility Study
(FS) containing an HRA to summarize
potential risks to human health and the
environmental posed by the contamination
with respect to the proposed development;
5) based on the HRA or as set forth in the FS,
develop remedial options to address the
identified risks based upon the proposed
development, which remedial option may
include engineering or institutional controls,
and tentatively select the most appropriate
remedial option to ensure that the proposed
development will not present an
Require as a
condition of
project approval.
Project applicant
coordinates with
Oversight Agency
to determine that
proposed land use
does not present
unacceptable risk.
City Council and
Planning Division
Planning Division
Draft and incorporate
condition as part of
project approval.
Prior to issuance of
building permits,
confirm that
determination has
been made.
Deny project
approval.
Deny issuance of
building permits.
19 FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
June 2022
unacceptable risk to human health or the
environment as required by applicable
environmental laws, as well as procedures
for proper management of contaminated
soil and groundwater that may be
encountered during development; and 6)
submit a report to the Oversight Agency for
review and regulatory approval of the
proposed remedial plan, including
engineering and/or institutional controls,
under applicable environmental laws.
4.7-1b - Prior to grading permit issuance,
areas to be graded shall be cleared of debris,
significant vegetation, pre-existing
abandoned utilities, buried structures, and
asphalt concrete.
Require as a
condition of
project approval.
Project applicant
clears areas to be
graded.
City Council and
Planning Division
Building/Engineering
Divisions
Draft and incorporate
condition as part of
project approval.
Prior to issuance of
grading permits,
confirm that areas to
be graded have been
cleared.
Deny project
approval.
Deny issuance of
grading permits.
4.7-1c - Prior to the import of a soil to a
particular property within the Specific Plan
area as part of that property’s site
development, such soils shall be sampled for
toxic or hazardous materials exceeding
applicable Environmental Screening Levels
for the proposed land use at such a property
as required by the Oversight Agency prior to
importing to such a property.
Require as a
condition of
project approval.
Project applicant
has import soil
sampled for toxic
or hazardous
materials.
City Council and
Planning Division
Building/Engineering
Divisions
Draft and incorporate
condition as part of
project approval.
Prior to import of soil,
confirm that soil has
been sampled.
Deny project
approval.
Delay import of
soil.
20 FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
June 2022
Hydrology and Water Quality
4.8-4a - Plans submitted for grading permits
shall include a detailed hydrology reports.
The reports shall include calculations
regarding the anticipated volume of
stormwater runoff generated by the
proposed development, and shall
demonstrate that adequate stormwater
conveyance and capacity is available in the
existing facilities selected depending on the
location of the proposed development (i.e.,
the Line F-1 channel, the City’s existing
outfall into the Line F-1 channel, the existing
human-created tidal channel that is
tributary to Newark Slough, and existing City
facilities in Willow Street). The hydrology
reports shall be subject to review and
approval by the City Engineer.
If the hydrology reports determine that the
existing facilities do not have adequate
stormwater conveyance and capacity to
serve the proposed development, then the
project applicant shall develop a detailed
stormwater detention plan for the
retention/detention of stormwater runoff
on the project site. The stormwater
detention facilities shall be designed with
adequate capacity to ensure that that
stormwater generated on the project site
during a peak storm event is retained at a
rate that would ensure that discharges from
the site do not exceed pre-construction
levels. All detention facilities shall be
developed in conformance with the City’s
standards and the standards of the Alameda
County Flood Control and Water
Require as a
condition of
project approval.
Project applicant
submits detailed
hydrology reports
and submits a
detailed retention/
detention plan if
adequate
conveyance and
capacity is
unavailable.
City Council and
Planning Division
Building/Engineering
Divisions
Draft and incorporate
condition as part of
project approval.
Review hydrology
reports prior to
issuance of grading
permits to ensure that
requirements of
Mitigation Measure
4.8-4a have been met.
Deny project
approval.
Deny issuance of
grading permits.
21 FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
June 2022
Conservation District. The plans and
specifications of the proposed detention
facilities shall meet the standards of the City
Engineering Department as an adequate
engineering product. The construction of
stormwater detention facilities may be
phased to correspond with development of
the project site over time, provided that
adequate detention is provided at all times
to ensure that runoff from the site does not
exceed pre-construction levels.
Noise
4.10-1a - To reduce noise impacts due to
construction, project applicants shall require
construction contractors to implement a
site-specific noise reduction program,
subject to City review and approval, which
includes that following measures, ongoing
through demolition, grading and/or
construction:
• Restrict noise-generating activities at the
construction site or in areas adjacent to
the construction site to the hours of 7:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. on Saturdays.
• Equipment and trucks used for project
construction shall utilize the best
available noise control techniques (e.g.,
improved mufflers, equipment redesign,
use of intake silencers, ducts, engine
enclosures, and acoustically-attenuating
shields or shrouds, wherever feasible).
Require as a
condition
of project approval.
Project applicant
submits noise
reduction program.
City Council and
Planning Department
Planning/Building
Divisions
Draft and incorporate
condition as part of
project approval.
Review noise reduction
program prior to
issuance of demolition,
grading and/or building
permits.
Deny project
approval.
Deny issuance of
demolition,
grading
and/or building
permits.
22 FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
June 2022
• Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers,
pavement breakers, and rock drills) used
for project construction shall be
hydraulically or electronically powered
wherever possible to avoid noise
associated with compressed air exhaust
from pneumatically powered tools.
However, where use of pneumatic tools
is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler shall
be used; this muffler can lower noise
levels from the exhaust by up to about
10 dBA. External jackets on the tools
themselves shall be used where feasible,
and this could achieve a reduction of 5
dBA. Quieter procedures shall be used,
such as drills rather than impact
equipment, whenever feasible.
• Stationary noise sources shall be located
as far from adjacent receptors as
possible, and they shall be muffled and
enclosed within temporary sheds,
incorporated insulation barriers, or
other measures to the extent feasible.
• If feasible, the noisiest phases of
construction shall be limited to less than
10 days at a time.
4.10-1b - Prior to the issuance of each
grading permit, project applicants shall
submit to the City Building Inspection
Division a list of measures to respond to and
track complaints pertaining to construction
noise, ongoing throughout demolition,
grading, and/or construction. These
measures shall include the following:
Require as a
condition
of project approval.
Project applicant
submits list of
measures.
City Council and
Planning Department
Building Division
Draft and incorporate
condition as part of
project approval.
Review list prior to
issuance of grading
permits to ensure that
requirements of
Mitigation Measure
Deny project
approval.
Deny issuance of
grading permit.
23 FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
June 2022
• A procedure and phone numbers for
notifying the City Building Inspection
Division staff and Newark Police
Department (during regular construction
hours and off-hours).
• A sign posted onsite pertaining the
permitted construction days and hours
and complaint procedures and who to
notify in the event of a problem. The
sign shall also include a listing of both
the City and construction contractor’s
telephone numbers (during regular
construction hours and off-hours).
• The designation of an onsite
construction complaint and
enforcement manager for the project.
The manager shall act as a liaison
between the project and its neighbors
(including onsite residents). The
manager’s responsibilities and authority
shall include the following:
- An active role in monitoring project
compliance with respect to noise;
- Ability to reschedule noisy construction
activities to reduce effects on
surrounding noise sensitive receivers;
- Site supervision of all potential sources
of noise (e.g., material delivery,
shouting, debris box pick-up and
delivery) for all trades; and,
4.10-1b have been
met.
24 FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
June 2022
- Intervening or discussing mitigation
options with contractors.
• Notification of neighbors and occupants
within 300 feet of the project
construction area at least 30 days in
advance of construction activities
regarding the details and estimated
duration of the activity; and,
• A preconstruction meeting shall be held
with the job inspectors and the general
contractor/onsite project manager to
confirm that noise measures and
practices (including construction hours,
neighborhood notification, posted signs,
etc.) are completed.
4.10-2 - If pile driving is required for building
construction, construction contractors shall
incorporate the following additional
requirements:
• Wherever possible, sonic or vibratory
pole drivers shall be used instead of
impact pile drivers (sonic pile drivers are
only effective in certain soils).
• Engine and pneumatic exhaust controls
on pile drivers shall be required as
necessary to ensure that exhaust noise
from pile driver engines are minimized
to the extent feasible.
• Where feasible, pile holes will be predrilled to reduced potential noise and vibration impacts.
Require as a
condition of
project approval.
Construction
contractors
incorporate
additional noise
reduction
requirements, as
described in
Mitigation
Measure 4.10-2.
City Council and
Planning Department
Building Division
Draft and incorporate
condition as part of
project approval.
Review plans prior to
issuance of grading
permits to ensure that
additional
requirements are
incorporated.
Deny project
approval.
Deny issuance of
grading permits.
25 FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
June 2022
• Occupied residences within 300 feet of
pile driving activities shall be notified of
pile-driving activities at least two weeks
prior to the commencement of pile
driving.
• Should pile driving activities take place
within 25 feet of an occupied structure,
a site-specific vibration impact analysis
shall be conducted to ensure vibration
levels do not exceed 0.2 inches per
second PPV.
Public Services
4.12-2 - Prior to approval of a tentative map
within the Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan
area, additional necessary improvements, if
any, beyond those already included in the
USD Master Plan and updated fee program,
shall be determined regarding proposed
new connections (from such tentative map
development) and then-existing or proposed
wastewater facilities. Such improvements
shall be installed prior to issuance of a
building permit and shall be consistent with
requirements in the Sewer Master Plan
(anticipated to be available in the summer
of 2012). The City and USD shall verify that
any necessary improvements will be
available prior to occupation of those new
residential dwelling units for which such
improvements are necessary.
Require as a
condition of
project approval.
Project applicant
determines if any
additional
improvements are
necessary.
Project applicant
installs any
necessary
improvements
prior to issuance of
building permits.
City Council and
Planning Department
Engineering/Building
Divisions
Engineering/Building
Divisions
Draft and incorporate
condition as part of
project approval.
Prior to approval of
Tentative Maps,
confirm the
determination has
been made.
Prior to issuance of
building permits,
confirm that
improvements have
been installed.
Deny project
approval.
Deny Tentative
Map approval.
Deny issuance of
building permits.
Transportation and Traffic
4.14-2 - The City shall coordinate with AC
Transit to improve bus service to the Specific
Plan area to lessen the impact of vehicular
Require as a
condition of
project approval.
City Council and
Planning Division
Draft and incorporate
condition as part of
project approval.
Deny project
approval.
26 FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
June 2022
traffic on the local and regional roadways.
Potential transit accommodations may
include:
• Implementation of shuttle service to the
Ardenwood Park and Ride lot to provide
a connection to the Dumbarton Express
bus line and the Fremont and/or Union
City BART stations;
• Rerouting existing bus lines through the
Specific Plan area to provide convenient
stop(s) with bus shelters and benches;
• Addition of a new bus line to serve the
Specific Plan area.
City coordinates
with AC Transit.
Planning Division Prior to occupancy of
any project within
Specific Plan area.
Not Applicable
4.14-8 - Prior to issuance of building permits
for a Specific Plan use, the applicant shall
pay all applicable transportation-related
fees in accordance with the latest adopted
fee schedule at the time permits are sought.
Such fees shall include, but not be limited
to, the City of Newark Capital Facilities Fee
for Transportation, and the ACTC Regional
Transportation Impact Fee.
Require as a
condition of
project approval.
Project applicant
pays fees.
City Council and
Planning Division
Building Division
Draft and incorporate
condition as part of
project approval.
Prior to issuance of
building permits,
collect required fees.
Deny project
approval.
Deny issuance of
building permits.
Appendix B
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
FMC Willow and Grand Park
Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Technical Report
Prepared for:
City of Newark
Community Development Department
37101 Newark Boulevard
Newark, CA 94560
Prepared by:
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
11 Natoma Street, Suite 155
Folsom, CA 95360
December 2021 | 00357.00037.001
This page intentionally left blank
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. ES-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Purpose of the Report......................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Project Description ............................................................................................................. 1
1.4 Project Design Features...................................................................................................... 2
1.5 Construction Activities and Phasing ................................................................................... 4
2.0 AIR QUALITY..................................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Air Quality Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................ 4
2.1.1 Air Pollutant Descriptors and Terminology ........................................................... 4
2.1.2 Federal Air Quality Regulations............................................................................. 6
2.1.3 State Air Quality Regulations................................................................................. 8
2.1.4 Local Regulations................................................................................................. 10
2.2 Air Quality Existing Conditions.......................................................................................... 11
2.2.1 Climate/Meteorology .......................................................................................... 11
2.2.2 Monitored Air Quality.......................................................................................... 12
2.2.3 Sensitive Receptors.............................................................................................. 12
2.3 Air Quality Methodology .................................................................................................. 13
2.3.1 Construction Emissions........................................................................................ 14
2.3.2 Operational Emissions......................................................................................... 16
2.3.3 Impacts to New Sensitive Receptors ................................................................... 17
2.4 Air Quality Significance Criteria ........................................................................................ 19
2.4.1 Impacts to Sensitive Receptors............................................................................ 20
2.4.2 Odors.................................................................................................................... 21
2.5 Air Quality Impact Analysis............................................................................................... 21
2.5.1 PEIR Impact 4.2-1................................................................................................. 21
2.5.2 PEIR Impact 4.2-2................................................................................................. 26
2.5.3 PEIR Impact 4.2-3................................................................................................. 31
2.5.4 PEIR Impact 4.2-4................................................................................................. 32
3.0 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ...................................................................................................... 33
3.1 GHG Setting....................................................................................................................... 33
3.1.1 Climate Change Overview.................................................................................... 33
3.1.2 Greenhouse Gases............................................................................................... 33
3.2 GHG Regulatory Framework ............................................................................................. 35
3.2.1 Federal GHG Regulations..................................................................................... 35
3.2.2 California GHG Regulations.................................................................................. 36
3.2.3 Regional GHG Policies and Plans ......................................................................... 39
3.2.4 Local Greenhouse Gas Plans................................................................................ 40 ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Section Page
3.3 GHG Existing Conditions ................................................................................................... 40
3.3.1 Worldwide and National GHG Inventory............................................................. 40
3.3.2 State GHG Inventories ......................................................................................... 40
3.3.3 Regional GHG Inventory ...................................................................................... 41
3.4 GHG Methodology ............................................................................................................ 41
3.4.1 Construction Emissions........................................................................................ 41
3.4.2 Operational Emissions......................................................................................... 42
3.5 GHG Significance Criteria.................................................................................................. 43
3.6 GHG Impact Analysis......................................................................................................... 44
3.6.1 PEIR Impact 4.6-1................................................................................................. 44
3.6.2 PEIR Impact 4.6-2................................................................................................. 47
4.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................................................................................................ 48
5.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................................... 49
LIST OF APPENDICES
A CalEEMod Output
B HRA Calculations and Model Output
LIST OF FIGURES
No. Title Follows Page
1 Vicinity Map ..................................................................................................................................... 2 2 Aerial Map........................................................................................................................................ 2 3 Site Design........................................................................................................................................ 2 4 Modeled Receptor Locations......................................................................................................... 18 iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
LIST OF TABLES
No. Title Page
1 Summary of Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants ......................................................................6 2 Ambient Air Quality Standards ........................................................................................................7 3 San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin Attainment Status.......................................................................8 4 Air Quality Monitoring Data...........................................................................................................12 5 Construction Equipment Assumptions..........................................................................................15 6 Anticipated Construction Schedule ...............................................................................................16 7 BAAQMD Significance Thresholds .................................................................................................20 8 Unmitigated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (Pounds Per Day)......................................22 9 Mitigated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (Pounds Per Day) ..........................................23 10 Maximum Daily Operational Emissions (Pounds Per Day) ............................................................27 11 Annual Operational Emissions (Tons Per Year)..............................................................................27 12 2024 Concurrent Daily Emissions (Pounds Per Day)......................................................................28 13 Project Residential Increased Incremental Cancer Risk from Train DPM......................................30 14 Global Warming Potentials and Atmospheric Lifetimes................................................................35 15 California Greenhouse Gas Emissions By Sector............................................................................41 16 San Francisco Bay Area GHG Emissions By Sector.........................................................................41 17 Construction GHG Emissions .........................................................................................................45 18 Total Operational GHG Emissions..................................................................................................46 iv
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AAM Annual Arithmetic Mean
AB Assembly Bill
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BCMM basic construction mitigation measure
C2F6 hexafluoroethane
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
CAP Climate Action Plan
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CEUS California Commercial End Use Survey
CF4 tetraflouromethane
CFC chlorofluorocarbon
CH4 methane
City City of Newark
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
County County of Alameda
DPM diesel particulate matter
DRC Dumbarton Rail Corridor
DRS Dumbarton Rail Service
DTCS Dumbarton Transportation Corridor Study
DU dwelling unit
EO Executive Order
GHG greenhouse gas
GWP global warming potential
HFC hydrofluorocarbon
HRA health risk assessment
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
v
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (cont.)
kW kilowatt
kWhr kilowatt hour
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter
MMT million metric tons
MT metric tons
mph miles per hour
MPOs Metropolitan Planning Organizations
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NO nitrogen oxide
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOX nitrogen oxides
O3 ozone
Pb lead
PEIR Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Program Environmental Impact Report PFC perfluorocarbon
PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns
PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns
ppm parts per million
RASS Residential Appliance Saturation Survey
ROG reactive organic gas
RPS Renewables Portfolio Standard
SamTrans San Mateo County Transit District
SB Senate Bill
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SF square feet
SF6 hexafluoride
SIP State Implementation Plan
Specific Plan Bayside Newark Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan SO2 sulfur dioxide
SOX sulfur oxides
SRA source receptor area
vi
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (cont.)
TAC toxic air contaminant
TOD Transit Oriented Development
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 ES-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents an assessment of potential air quality impacts and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the construction and operation of the proposed FMC Willow and Grand Park Project (project) located in the City of Newark (City). This report also compares the project-specific impact conclusions with those evaluated in the Bayside Newark Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Specific Plan Program EIR (PEIR), formerly known as the Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan. The project would develop the 22.1-acre site within the Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan Area with 370 townhomes and affordable housing units and 4,000 square feet of local-serving commercial space. The project would also develop the 5-acre Grand Park in the western portion of the project site. The project would dedicate 1.8 acres of land for a transit station for potential future passenger rail service on the Dumbarton Corridor.
The project would comply with the applicable mitigation measures pertaining to air quality and GHG emissions included in the Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan PEIR, which this project analysis is tiered from. With implementation of the measure to require USEPA certified Tier 4 engines for off-road equipment to reduce NOX and exhaust PM emissions that would be part of implementation of PEIR measure 4.2-1b, criteria pollutant and precursor pollutant emissions generated during project construction activities would not exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD’s) thresholds. Long-term operational emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors would not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds, and the impacts would be less than significant.
Construction and operation of the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs), including diesel particulate matter (DPM) from potential future train service on the Dumbarton Corridor or buses from the proposed transit station. The project’s contribution to area traffic would not result in carbon monoxide (CO) hotspots. Impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than significant.
Neither construction activities nor long-term operation of the project would be a source of objectionable odors that would adversely affect a significant number of persons, and odor impacts would be less than significant.
Implementation of the project would result in GHG emissions per service population (e.g., per project residents and employees) of 1.90 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) per year, below the adjusted threshold of 3.56 MT CO2e per capita (the BAAQMD 2020 project level threshold, adjusted for the Senate Bill 32 GHG reduction mandates for the year 2025).
With future implementation of the Dumbarton Corridor passenger rail project, the project would be considered transit-oriented development and would result in reduced vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita compared to the regional average. The project would not conflict with the City’s Climate Action Plan Initial Framework, General Plan, or the regional Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), Plan Bay Area 2040, adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs and regional VMT, and the impact would be less than significant.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 ES-2
This page intentionally left blank
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
This report analyzes potential air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts associated with the proposed FMC Willow and Grand Park Project (project).
The proposed project site is within the Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan area (formerly known as the Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan), and the Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the Specific Plan (State Clearinghouse No. 2010042012) serves as the foundation document for subsequent projects proposed under the program. The Specific Plan area encompasses approximately 205 acres in the vicinity of the Dumbarton Rail Corridor (DRC). The purpose of the Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan is to facilitate the development of a new neighborhood around a train station planned separately as part of the Dumbarton Rail Service (DRS) Project. The DRS is still under development and will undergo separate environmental analysis in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project is being analyzed in light of the prior certified Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan PEIR as the next step in the City’s CEQA process for implementation of projects within the approved Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan.
1.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed project site is located within the City of Newark (City) in southwestern Alameda County, northwest of the intersection of Willow Street and Enterprise Drive (see Figure 1, Vicinity Map, and Figure 2, Aerial Map).
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The approximately 22.1-acre project site would be developed with high- and medium-density residential units and commercial retail space in four Planning Areas (PAs), a community park (Grand Park), and a future transit station site. PA1, in the eastern portion of the project site, would contain one 6-story mixed-use building with 90 multi-family affordable housing units plus 1 manager unit in five floors over approximately 4,000 square feet (SF) of ground-floor commercial retail space and ground-level parking.
The mixed-use building would also contain community spaces for residents (e.g., clubroom, fitness room). PA2, in the northern portion of the project site, would contain 64 three-story single-family townhomes in 12 buildings in the northern portion of the project site. PA3 would contain 123 singlefamily townhomes in 16 buildings located in the southern portion of the project site. Forty-five of the units in PA3 along the frontage of Enterprise Drive would be four-story, and the remaining 78 units would be three-story buildings. PA4 would contain 92 three-story single-family townhomes in 14 buildings in the central/southern portion of the project site. PA4 would also include a 1,485-sf community building located on the eastern edge of the Grand Park. The total project dwelling units (DU) would be 370. The proposed project would dedicate 1.8 acres of land for a Transit Station with a potential future commuter rail platform north of PA1 and PA2. The project would include the construction of a four-lane entrance road to the transit station and other interim improvements to the transit station site. The approximately 5-acre Grand Park would be located in the western portion of the project site. Other project improvements would include internal streets, driveways, and surface parking areas; underground utilities and storm drains; internal public area landscaping; a pedestrian trail along the northern project site boundary; sidewalks and landscaping along Enterprise Drive and Willow Street; Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 2 and provide a 20-foot-wide trail corridor, containing a 12-foot-wide multi-purpose trail, that would transect the Grand Park and run along Enterprise Drive to Willow Street. It is anticipated that the proposed trail would be eligible to be part of the regional San Francisco Bay Trail (see Figure 3, Site Design).
1.4 PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES
The project proposes to incorporate several features consistent with the intent of PEIR Mitigation Measure 4.6-1 to reduce GHG emission impacts, in compliance with requirements of the 2019 California Title 24 Part 6 building energy efficiency standards, the 2019 California Green Building Code (CALGreen) and City General Plan Policies. These features would increase energy efficiency, reduce area source pollutants, and reduce the operational GHG emissions. The following design features would be included as part of the project.
These features include, but are not limited to, the following:
• On-site solar electricity generation in accordance with 2019 Title 24. • Sustainably designed plumbing systems and low-flow water fixtures. • Efficient mechanical and electrical equipment, appliances, and lighting fixtures. • Low-water landscape irrigation system.
• Low-water landscape practices such as use of soil amendments and top dressing for moisture retention, and placing trees to reduce heat gain on hard surfaces. • Weather-based irrigation controllers.
• Drought-tolerant landscaping.
• Low-VOC flooring, paint, and construction adhesives.
• Low-VOC insulation.
• Shade trees in parking areas and throughout Project site. • Residences would be within walking distance (0.25-mile) from a proposed future transit station. • Bicycle parking provided throughout the project site. • 10 percent of all open, uncovered parking spaces would be electrical vehicle charging stations. • All private garages would be pre-wired for vehicle charging capability.
Consistent with Mitigation Measures 4.2-1a and 4.2-1b from the Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan PEIR, control measures during project construction would include, but not be limited, to the following:
Un
Project
ion City
Sunol
Willow Street
ALAMEDA
CONTRA COSTA
MARIN
MERCED
NAPA
SAN
FRANCISCO
SAN JOAQUIN
SAN
MATEO
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CRUZ
SOLANO
SONOMA
STANISLAUS
?E 238
§¨¦880
Hayward
\PROJECTS\I\IntegralCommunities_00357\IPQ-37 Willow\GIS\MXD\AQ_GHG\Fig1_Vicinity.mxd IPQ-28.29.30.31 6/4/2021 - CamilleL FMC Willow and Grand Park
ALAMEDA
COUNTY
SAN MATEO
COUNTY
SANTA CLARA
COUNTY
Palo Alto San Jose
East Palo Alto
Menlo Park
Sunnyvale
Mountain View
Los Altos
Santa Clara
Redwood City
Newark
Fremont
Stanford
PROJECT SITE
S:
£¤ ?E 82
101
?E 237
Miles K 0 2
§¨¦
PROJECT SITE
680
?E 84
Source: Base Map Layers (Esri, USGS, NGA, NASA)
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
SamTrans Tracks
Willow Street
Hetch Hetchy Right-of-Way
Enterprise Drive
Hickory Street
FMC Willow and Grand Park
Parcel Boundaries
Project Site
APN 092-100-14
APN 092-100-13
S:\PROJECTS\I\IntegralCommunities_00357\IPQ-37 Willow\GIS\MXD\AQ_GHG\Fig2_Aerial.mxd APN 537-852-30
APN 537-0852-28
APN 537-852-29 APN 537-852-31
: Document Path
Source: Base Map Layers (DigitalGlobe 2019); Data (Alameda County 2021) 0 250 Feet K Aerial Map
Figure 2
FMC Willow and Grand Park
\\folsomdc2\vol4\PROJECTS\I\IntegralCommunities_00357\IPQ-37 Willow\GIS\InDesign\Fig4_20210531.indd Site Design
Figure 3
Source: Urban Arena 2022
-
-
-
-
-- -• ,_, -- -----
-
----
.. "::<
-c
�
c
-,_.,-.f -----
---
FUTURE
T.O.D.
•
PARCEL F '
TRANSIT STATION) '
1111 II 1111
1 ,-
7 I
I
I
I
.,.,., �-�
'
I-w
w '
O::'. IU1
t5 i '"""1'"""1 1-Is
I
�
I ... ...�
I
llllll
�lll
r . !J1 ·�
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 3 • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day in order to maintain a minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off site shall be covered. • 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. • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph). • Roadways, driveways, and sidewalks will be paved early in construction phasing to minimize fugitive dust.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time of diesel-powered construction equipment to 2 minutes. Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • 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. • All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.
• 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. • Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas and watered appropriately until vegetation is established. • 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.
• All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site. • 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.
• 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. • The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50 horsepower [HP]) to be used in the construction project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) will achieve a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Tier 4 or better engine standards for off-road engines.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 4 • Use low VOC (i.e., reactive organic gases [ROG]) coatings beyond the local requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings).
• Require all off-road construction equipment, and generators with more than 50 HP be equipped with diesel particulate filter for emission reductions of particulate matter (PM) meeting the USEPA Tier 4 emissions requirements.
1.5 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND PHASING
The project would be constructed in two phases. Phase 1 would consist of the construction of PA1, PA2, PA3, 66 DU in PA4, and the community building (4,000 SF of retail, 344 residential DU, and 1,485 SF community building). Construction of Phase 1 would commence in April 2022 and be completed in approximately 30 months (September 2024). Phase 2 would consist of the remaining 26 DU in PA4 and the Grand Park. Construction of Phase 2 would commence with grading as early as August 2022 and is anticipated to be complete by December 2024 but could be completed as early as October 2024 (27 months). Phase 2 construction activities would overlap the Phase 1 construction activities.
Approximately 12,680 tons of old asphalt and concrete (338,000 sf) would be exported during site preparation and approximately 77,700 cubic yards of soil would be imported during grading (total grading approximately 22,100 cubic yards of cut and 99,800 cubic yards of fill) to raise the building pad elevations.
2.0 AIR QUALITY
2.1 AIR QUALITY REGULATORY SETTING
The project site is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). Air quality in the SFBAAB is regulated by the USEPA at the federal level, by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) at the state level, and by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) at the regional level.
2.1.1 Air Pollutant Descriptors and Terminology
2.1.1.1 Criteria Air Pollutants
Criteria pollutants are defined by state and federal law as a risk to the health and welfare of the general public. In general, criteria air pollutants include the following compounds:
• Ozone (O3)
• Carbon monoxide (CO)
• Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
• Particulate matter (PM), which is further subdivided:
o Coarse PM, 10 micrometers or less in diameter (PM10)
o Fine PM, 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter (PM2.5)
• Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
• Lead (Pb)
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 5 Criteria pollutants can be emitted directly from sources (primary pollutants; e.g., CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead), or they may be formed through chemical and photochemical reactions of precursor pollutants in the atmosphere (secondary pollutants; e.g., ozone, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5). Note that PM10 and PM2.5 can be both primary and secondary pollutants. The principal precursor pollutants of concern are reactive organic gases ([ROGs] also known as volatile organic compounds [VOCs])1 and nitrogen oxides (NOX).
The descriptions of sources and general health effects for each of the criteria air pollutants are shown in Table 1, Summary of Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants, based on information provided by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA 2018). Specific adverse health effects to individuals or population groups induced by criteria pollutant emissions are highly dependent on a multitude of interconnected variables such as cumulative concentrations, local meteorology and atmospheric conditions, and the number and character of exposed individuals (e.g., age, gender).
Criteria pollutant precursors (ROG and NOX) affect air quality on a regional scale, typically after significant delay and distance from the pollutant source emissions. Health effects related to ozone and NO2 are, therefore, the product of emissions generated by numerous sources throughout a region.
Emissions of criteria pollutants from vehicles traveling to or from the project site (mobile emissions) are distributed nonuniformly in location and time throughout the region, wherever the vehicles may travel.
As such, specific health effects from these criteria pollutant emissions cannot be directly correlated to the incremental contribution from the project.
2.1.1.2 Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are a diverse group of air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in deaths or in serious illness, or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.
TACs can cause long-term health effects such as cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, asthma, bronchitis, or genetic damage, or short-term acute effects such as eye watering, respiratory irritation (a cough), runny nose, throat pain, and headaches. TACs are considered either carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic based on the nature of the health effects associated with exposure to the pollutant. For carcinogenic TACs, there is no level of exposure that is considered safe and impacts are evaluated in terms of overall relative risk expressed as excess cancer cases per one million exposed individuals.
Noncarcinogenic TACs differ in that there is generally assumed to be a safe level of exposure below which no negative health impact is believed to occur. These levels are determined on a pollutant-bypollutant basis.
Diesel engines emit a complex mixture of air pollutants, including both gaseous and solid material. The solid material in diesel exhaust is known as diesel particulate matter (DPM). Almost all DPM is 10 microns or less in diameter, and 90 percent of DPM is less than 2.5 microns in diameter (CARB 2018a). Because of their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung. In 1998, CARB identified DPM as a TAC based on published evidence of a relationship between diesel exhaust exposure and lung cancer and other adverse health effects. DPM has a significant impact on California’s population—it is estimated that about 70 percent of total known cancer risk related to air toxics in California is attributable to DPM (CARB 2018a).
1 CARB defines and uses the term ROGs while the USEPA defines and uses the term VOCs. The compounds included in the lists of ROGs and VOCs and the methods of calculation are slightly different. However, for the purposes of estimating criteria pollutant precursor emissions, the two terms are often used interchangeably.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 6 Table 1
SUMMARY OF HEALTH EFFECTS OF CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS
Pollutant Major Man-Made Sources Human Health Effects
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
An odorless, colorless gas formed when
carbon in fuel is not burned completely; a
component of motor vehicle exhaust.
Reduces the ability of blood to deliver
oxygen to vital tissues, affecting the
cardiovascular and nervous system. Impairs
vision, causes dizziness, and can lead to
unconsciousness or death.
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
A reddish-brown gas formed during fuel
combustion for motor vehicles and
industrial sources. Sources include motor
vehicles, electric utilities, and other sources
that burn fuel.
Respiratory irritant; aggravates lung and
heart problems. Precursor to ozone and acid
rain. Contributes to climate change and
nutrient overloading which deteriorates
water quality. Causes brown discoloration
of the atmosphere.
Ozone (O3)
Formed by a chemical reaction between
reactive organic gases (ROGs) and nitrogen
oxides (NOx) in the presence of sunlight.
Common sources of these precursor
pollutants include motor vehicle exhaust,
industrial emissions, gasoline storage and
transport, solvents, paints, and landfills.
Irritates and causes inflammation of the
mucous membranes and lung airways;
causes wheezing, coughing, and pain when
inhaling deeply; decreases lung capacity;
aggravates lung and heart problems.
Damages plants; reduces crop yield.
Damages rubber, some textiles, and dyes.
Particulate Matter
(PM10 & PM2.5)
Produced by power plants, steel mills,
chemical plants, unpaved roads and
parking lots, wood-burning stoves and
fireplaces, automobiles, and other sources.
Increased respiratory symptoms, such as
irritation of the airways, coughing, or
difficulty breathing; aggravated asthma;
development of chronic bronchitis; irregular
heartbeat; nonfatal heart attacks; and
premature death in people with heart or
lung disease. Impairs visibility (haze).
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
A colorless, nonflammable gas formed
when fuel containing sulfur is burned,
when gasoline is extracted from oil, or
when metal is extracted from ore.
Examples are petroleum refineries, cement
manufacturing, metal processing facilities,
locomotives, and ships.
Respiratory irritant. Aggravates lung and
heart problems. In the presence of moisture
and oxygen, sulfur dioxide converts to
sulfuric acid which can damage marble,
iron, and steel. Damages crops and natural
vegetation. Impairs visibility. Precursor to
acid rain.
Lead
Metallic element emitted from metal
refineries, smelters, battery manufacturers,
iron and steel producers, use of leaded
fuels by racing and aircraft industries.
Anemia, high blood pressure, brain and
kidney damage, neurological disorders,
cancer, lowered IQ. Affects animals, plants,
and aquatic ecosystems.
Source: CAPCOA 2018
2.1.2 Federal Air Quality Regulations
2.1.2.1 Clean Air Act
Air quality is defined by ambient air concentrations of specific pollutants identified by the USEPA to be of concern with respect to the health and welfare of the general public. The USEPA is responsible for enforcing the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 and its 1977 and 1990 Amendments. The CAA required the USEPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which identify concentrations of pollutants in the ambient air below which no adverse effects on the public health and welfare are Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 7 anticipated. In response, the USEPA established both primary and secondary standards for several criteria pollutants, which are introduced above. Table 2, Ambient Air Quality Standards, shows the federal and state ambient air quality standards (AAQS) for these pollutants.
Table 2
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Pollutant Averaging
Time
California
Standards
Federal Standards Federal Standards
Primary1 Secondary2
O3 1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3) – –
8 Hour 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3) 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3) Same as Primary PM10 24 Hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 Same as Primary
AAM 20 µg/m3 – Same as Primary
PM2.5 24 Hour – 35 µg/m3 Same as Primary
AAM 12 µg/m3 12.0 µg/m3 15.0 µg/m3
1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) –
CO 8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) –
8 Hour
(Lake Tahoe) 6 ppm (7 mg/m3
) – –
NO2 1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m3) 100 ppb (188 µg/m3) –
AAM 0.030 ppm (57 µg/m3) 0.053 ppm (100 µg/m3) Same as Primary 1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3) 75 ppb (196 µg/m3) –
SO2 3 Hour – – 0.5 ppm
(1,300 µg/m3)
24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m3) – –
30-day Avg. 1.5 µg/m3 – –
Lead Calendar
Quarter – 1.5 µg/m3 Same as Primary
Rolling
3-month Avg. – 0.15 µg/m3 Same as Primary
Visibility
Reducing
Particles
8 Hour
Extinction coefficient of 0.23
per km – visibility ≥ 10 miles
(0.07 per km – ≥30 miles for
Lake Tahoe)
No Federal Standards No Federal Standards
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 No Federal Standards No Federal Standards Hydrogen
Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m3
) No Federal Standards No Federal Standards
Vinyl Chloride 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 µg/m3) No Federal Standards No Federal Standards Source: CARB 2016
1 National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, within an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health. 2 National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
O3: ozone; ppm: parts per million; µg/m3
: micrograms per cubic meter; PM10: large particulate matter; AAM: Annual Arithmetic Mean; PM2.5: fine particulate matter; CO: carbon monoxide; mg/m3: milligrams per cubic meter; NO2 nitrogen dioxide; SO2:
sulfur dioxide; km: kilometer; –: No Standard.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 8 The CAA allows states to adopt ambient air quality standards and other regulations provided they are at least as stringent as federal standards. Areas that do not meet the NAAQS for a particular pollutant are considered to be “nonattainment areas” for that pollutant. The area air quality attainment status of the SFBAAB, including Alameda County and the City of Newark, is shown in Table 3, San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin Attainment Status. The SFBAAB is currently in nonattainment for federal and state ozone and PM2.5 standards. The SFBAAB is in state nonattainment for PM10 standards. Concentrations of all other pollutants meet state and federal standards.
Table 3
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN ATTAINMENT STATUS
Pollutant State of California
Attainment Status Federal Attainment Status
Ozone (1-hour) Nonattainment No Federal Standard
Ozone (8-hour) Nonattainment Nonattainment (marginal)
Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10) Nonattainment Attainment/Unclassified Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Nonattainment Nonattainment (moderate) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment Attainment/Unclassified Nitrogen Dioxide (N02) Attainment Attainment/Unclassified Lead Attainment Attainment/Unclassified
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Attainment Attainment/Unclassified Sulfates Attainment No Federal Standard
Hydrogen Sulfide Unclassified No Federal Standard
Visibility Reducing Particles Unclassified No Federal Standard Sources: BAAQMD 2017a; CARB 2018b.
2.1.3 State Air Quality Regulations
2.1.3.1 California Clean Air Act
CARB has established the more stringent California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for the seven criteria air pollutants listed above through the California Clean Air Act of 1988 (CCAA), and has also established CAAQS for additional pollutants, including sulfates, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), vinyl chloride and visibility-reducing particles (see Table 1). Areas that do not meet the CAAQS for a particular pollutant are considered to be “nonattainment areas” for that pollutant. The SFBAAB is currently classified as a nonattainment area under the CAAQS for ozone (1-hour and 8-hour), PM10, and PM2.5 (BAAQMD 2017a).
The current state attainment status for the SFBAAB is provided in Table 3.
CARB is the state regulatory agency with the authority to enforce regulations to both achieve and maintain the NAAQS and CAAQS. The BAAQMD is responsible for developing and implementing the rules and regulations designed to attain the NAAQS and CAAQS, as well as the permitting of new or modified sources, developing of air quality management plans, and adopting and enforcing air pollution regulations within the SFBAAB.
2.1.3.2 State Implementation Plan
The CAA requires areas with unhealthy levels of ozone, inhalable particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide to develop plans, known as State Implementation Plans (SIPs). SIPs Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 9 are comprehensive plans that describe how an area will attain the NAAQS. The 1990 amendments to the CAA set deadlines for attainment based on the severity of an area's air pollution problem.
SIPs are not single documents—they are a compilation of new and previously submitted plans, programs (e.g., monitoring, modeling, permitting), district rules, state regulations and federal controls. Many of California's SIPs rely on a core set of control strategies, including emission standards for cars and heavy trucks, fuel regulations and limits on emissions from consumer products. State law makes CARB the lead agency for all purposes related to the SIP. Local air districts and other agencies prepare SIP elements and submit them to CARB for review and approval. CARB forwards the SIP revisions to the USEPA for approval and publication in the Federal Register. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40, Chapter I, Part 52, Subpart F, Section 52.220 lists all of the items which are included in the California SIP (CARB 2009). At any one time, several California submittals are pending USEPA approval.
2.1.3.3 California Energy Code
California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 Part 6, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, were first established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. Energy-efficient buildings require less electricity, natural gas, and other fuels. Electricity production from fossil fuels and on-site fuel combustion (typically for water heating) results in GHG emissions.
The Title 24 standards are updated approximately every three years to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The 2019 Title 24 standards went into effect on January 1, 2020. The 2019 update to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards focuses on several key areas to improve the energy efficiency of newly constructed buildings and additions and alterations to existing buildings. The most significant efficiency improvements to the residential standards is a requirement for onsite photovoltaic electricity generation (e.g., solar panels) for most new or modified residential building up to three stories high.
The standards are divided into three basic sets. First, there is a basic set of mandatory requirements that apply to all buildings. Second, there is a set of performance standards – the energy budgets – that vary by climate zone (of which there are 16 in California) and building type; thus, the standards are tailored to local conditions. Finally, the third set constitutes an alternative to the performance standards, which is a set of prescriptive packages that are basically a recipe or a checklist compliance approach. Future development per the proposed project would be required to be designed to meet the current Title 24 energy efficiency standards.
2.1.3.4 Toxic Air Contaminants
The Health and Safety Code (§39655, subd. (a)) defines a TAC as “an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.” A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant pursuant to subsection (b) of Section 112 of the CAA (42 United States Code Sec. 7412[b]) is a TAC. Under State law, the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), acting through CARB, is authorized to identify a substance as a TAC if it determines the substance is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 10 2.1.4 Local Regulations
2.1.4.1 Bay Area Air Quality Management District
2017 Clean Air Plan
The BAAQMD is responsible for preparing plans to attain ambient air quality standards in the SFAAB. The BAAQMD prepares ozone attainment plans for the national ozone standard and clean air plans for the California standard, both in coordination with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).
The BAAQMD adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan in April 2017. The plan addresses nonattainment of the federal 1-hour ozone standard and sate 1-hour and 8-hour standards in the SFBAAB, as well as nonattainment of federal and state PM standards. The 2017 Clean Air Plan establishes a program of rules and regulations directed at reducing air pollutant emissions and achieving California and national air quality standards. The plan’s pollutant control strategies are based on the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories, and the latest population growth projections and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) projections for the region. The 2017 Clean Air Plan defines a control strategy that the BAAQMD and its partners will implement to (1) reduce emissions and decrease ambient concentrations of harmful pollutants; (2) safeguard public health by reducing exposure to air pollutants that pose the greatest health risk, with an emphasis on protecting the communities most heavily impacted by air pollution; and (3) reduce greenhouse gas emissions to protect the climate. It is important to note that in addition to updating the previously prepared ozone plan, the 2017 Clean Air Plan also serves as a multipollutant plan to protect public health and the climate. In its dual role as an update to the state ozone plan and a multipollutant plan, the 2017 Clean Air Plan addresses four categories of pollutants (BAAQMD 2017c):
• Ground-level ozone and its key precursors, ROG, and NOX • Particulate matter: primary PM2.5, as well as precursors to secondary PM2.5 • Air toxics
• GHGs
The 2017 Clean Air Plan includes local guidance for the State Implementation Plan, which includes the framework for air quality basins to achieve attainment of the state and federal ambient air quality standards.
Regulations and Rules
The following BAAQMD regulations and rules would be applicable to the project:
Regulation 6, Rule 3, Wood-burning Devices: Prohibits the installation of wood-burning devices (e.g., fireplace and woodstoves) in new residential construction.
Regulation 6, Rule 6, Prohibition of Trackout: limits the quantity of fugitive dust in the atmosphere through control of trackout of solid materials onto paved public roads outside the boundaries of large construction sites (more than 1 acre).
Regulation 8, Rule 3, Architectural Coatings: limits the VOC content of architectural coatings (e.g., paint) manufactured, sold, supplied, or applied in the SFAAB.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 11 2.2 AIR QUALITY EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project site is vacant following soil remediation that removed industrial contaminants that were remnants of prior uses. The project site is bordered by Enterprise Drive to the south, Willow Street to the east, and a 100-foot-wide right-of-way for the Dumbarton Rail Corridor (owned by SamTrans) to the north. Although there are old train tracks within the right-of-way, the Dumbarton Rail Corridor is not currently active and has no train traffic. Surrounding land uses include a residential development project under construction at the time of this analysis across Enterprise Drive to the south, a single-family residential neighborhood across Willow Street to the southeast, industrial/warehouse buildings across the train tracks to the north, and vacant land to the west and across Willow Street to the east. Terrain in the area surrounding the project site is primarily flat. Elevations on the project site are between approximately 9 feet and 12 feet (NGVD29) from west to east.
2.2.1 Climate/Meteorology
The project site is located within the SFBAAB in the western portion of Alameda County. The SFBAAB comprises all of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties, the southern portion of Sonoma County, and the southwestern portion of Solano County.
Temperature inversion layers (inversions; layers of warmer air over colder air) affect air quality conditions because they influence the mixing depth (i.e., the vertical depth in the atmosphere available for diluting air contaminants near the ground). The highest air pollutant concentrations in the SFBAAB generally occur during inversions. There are two types of inversions that occur regularly in the SFBAAB.
The frequent occurrence of elevated inversions in summer and fall months acts to cap the mixing depth, limiting the depth of air available for dilution. Elevated inversions are caused by subsiding air from the subtropical high-pressure zone, and from the cool marine air layer that is drawn into the SFBAAB by the heated low-pressure region in the Central Valley. The inversions typical of winter, called radiation inversions, are formed as heat quickly radiates from the earth's surface after sunset, causing the air in contact with it to rapidly cool. Radiation inversions are strongest on clear, low-wind, cold winter nights, allowing the build-up of such pollutants as carbon monoxide and particulate matter. Mixing depths under these conditions can be as shallow as 50 to 100 meters, particularly in rural areas.
There are 11 climatological subregions within the SFBAAB. The project site is in the Southwestern Alameda County climatological subregion of the air basin. This subregion encompasses the southeast side of San Francisco Bay, from Dublin Canyon to north of Milpitas. The subregion is bordered on the east by the East Bay hills and on the west by the bay. This climate of this subregion is affected by its proximity to San Francisco Bay and, to a lesser extent, by marine air entering through the Golden Gate.
The bay cools the air during warm weather and during cold weather the bay warms the air. The normal northwest wind pattern carries this air onshore. Bay breezes push cool air onshore during the daytime and draw air from the land offshore at night. Winds are predominantly out of the northwest during the summer months. In the winter, winds are equally likely to be from the east. Wind speeds are moderate in this subregion, with annual average wind speeds close to the bay at about 7 miles per hour. During the summer months, average maximum temperatures are in the mid-70s degrees Fahrenheit (°F).
Average maximum winter temperatures are in the high 50s to low 60s °F. Average minimum temperatures are in the low 40s °F in the winter and the mid-50s °F in the summer. Pollution potential is relatively high in this subregion during the summer and fall, and moderate during the winter. Air pollution sources include light and heavy industry, and motor vehicles (BAAQMD 2017b).
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 12 2.2.2 Monitored Air Quality
The BAAQMD operates a network of ambient air monitoring stations throughout the SFBAAB. The air quality monitoring station most representative of conditions at the project site is the Hayward-La Mesa Monitoring Station, approximately 18 miles north of the project site. The Hayward-La Mesa Station only monitors ozone. Data for the other criteria pollutants were obtained from the San Jose-Jackson Street Monitoring Station, approximately 15 miles southeast of the project site. The are no monitoring stations in the SFBAAB for SO2 or Lead. The ambient pollutant concentrations collected at the stations during the last 3 available years (2018 through 2020) are shown in Table 4, Air Quality Monitoring Data. The data indicates exceedance of the state 1-hour ozone standard on 2 days in 2019 and 3 days in 2020, exceedance of the state and federal 8-hour ozone standard on multiple days in 2018 through 2020; exceedance of the PM10 standards on multiple days in 2018 through 2020; and exceedance of the federal PM2.5 standard on multiple days in 2018 and 2020, but none in 2019. Data for NO2 showed no exceedances from 2018 through 2020.
Table 4
AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA
Source: CARB 2021.
ppb = parts per billion; ppm = parts per million; μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter.
2.2.3 Sensitive Receptors
CARB and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) have identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, infants (including in utero in the third trimester of pregnancy), and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis (CARB 2005, OEHHA 2015). Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved and are referred to as sensitive receptors. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers.
Pollutant Standard 2018 2019 2020
Ozone (O3) Hayward Monitoring Station
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.075 0.106 0.116
Days above 1-hour state standard (0.09 ppm) 0 2 3
Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 0.066 0.085 0.092
Days above 8-hour state standard (0.070 ppm) 0 2 5
Days above 8-hour federal standard (0.070 ppm) 0 2 4
Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10) San Jose Monitoring
Maximum 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 121.8 77.1 137.1
Estimated Days above state standard (50 µg/m3) 12.2 11.8 29.9 Estimated Days above federal standard (150 µg/m3) 0 0 0 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) San Jose Monitoring Station Maximum 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 133.9 27.6 120.5
Estimated Days above federal standard (35 µg/m3) 15.5 0 12.0 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) San Jose Monitoring Station
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppb) 86.1 59.8 51.9
Days above state 1-hour standard (180 ppb) 0 0 0
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 13 The closest existing sensitive receptors to the project site are single-family homes approximately 190 feet southeast, across Willow Street and Enterprise Drive. In addition, a residential development, under construction at the time of this analysis, is located approximately 100 feet south of the project site, across Enterprise Drive. The closest school to the project site is the August Schilling Elementary School, approximately 1,450 feet northeast.
2.3 AIR QUALITY METHODOLOGY
Air emissions from mobile, area, and energy sources were calculated using CalEEMod, version 2020.4.0.
CalEEMod is a computer model used to estimate air emissions resulting from land development projects throughout the state of California. CalEEMod was developed by CAPCOA in collaboration with the California air quality management and pollution control districts, primarily the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The calculation methodology, source of emission factors used, and default data is described in the CalEEMod User’s Guide, and Appendices A, D, and E (CAPCOA 2021).
In brief, CalEEMod is a computer model that estimates criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions from mobile (i.e., vehicular) sources, area sources (fireplaces, woodstoves, and landscape maintenance equipment), energy use (electricity and natural gas used in space heating, ventilation, and cooling; lighting; and plug-in appliances), water use and wastewater generation, and solid waste disposal. Emissions are estimated based on land use information input to the model by the user.
In the first module, the user defines the specific land uses that will occur at the project site. The user also selects the appropriate land use setting (urban or rural), operational year, location, climate zone, and utility provider. The input land uses, size features, and population are used throughout CalEEMod in determining default variables and calculations in each of the subsequent modules. The input land use information consists of land use subtypes (such as the residential subtypes of single-family residential and multi-family medium-rise residential) and their unit or square footage quantities.
Subsequent modules include construction (including off-road vehicle emissions), mobile (on-road vehicle emissions), area sources (woodstoves, fireplaces, consumer products [cleansers, aerosols, solvents], landscape maintenance equipment, architectural coatings), water and wastewater, and solid waste.
Each module comprises multiple components including an associated mitigation module to account for further reductions in the reported baseline calculations. Other inputs include trip generation rates, trip lengths, vehicle fleet mix (percentage autos, medium truck, etc.), trip distribution (i.e., percent work to home, etc.), duration of construction phases, construction equipment usage, grading areas, season, and ambient temperature, as well as other parameters.
In various places the user can input additional information and/or override the default assumptions to account for project- or location-specific parameters. For this assessment, the default parameters were not changed unless otherwise noted. The CalEEMod output files are included in Appendix A to this report.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 14 2.3.1 Construction Emissions
Based on a conservative estimate (earliest and highest intensity of construction activities) of the project construction timeline provided by the project applicant, Phase 1 construction would begin in April 2022 and be completed in September 2024 for a total construction period of 30 months, and Phase 2 construction would begin in August 2022 and could be completed as early as October 2024 for a total construction period of 27 months. Phase 2 construction would overlap the Phase 1 construction period.
However, each work crew and their equipment would start Phase 2 construction at the conclusion of their respective Phase 1 activity (there would be no duplication of construction equipment or work crews between Phase 1 and Phase 2). For construction modeling purposes, all Phase 2 construction activities which occur concurrently with Phase 1 construction are included in the Phase 1 construction model, including grading for the Grand Park. Phase 2 construction modeling only includes the unfinished portion of building construction and architectural coatings. The quantity, duration, and intensity of construction activity influence the amount of construction emissions and related pollutant concentrations that occur at any one time. As such, the emission forecasts provided herein reflect a specific set of conservative assumptions based on the expected construction scenario wherein a relatively large amount of construction activity is occurring in a relatively intensive manner. Because of this conservative assumption, actual emissions could be less than those forecasted. If construction is delayed or occurs over a longer time period, emissions could be reduced because of (1) a more modern and cleaner-burning construction equipment fleet mix than assumed in CalEEMod, and/or (2) a less intensive buildout schedule (i.e., fewer daily emissions occurring over a longer time interval).
Construction activities would include demolition, grading and installation of underground utilities, paving, construction of structures, and architectural coating (e.g., painting). Grading includes site preparation (e.g., grubbing and clearing) using the same equipment. During demolition, an export of approximately 12,680 tons of old concrete/asphalt is anticipated. During grading, an import of approximately 77,700 cubic yards of soil is anticipated.
Construction would require heavy equipment during demolition, grading, underground utilities, paving and building construction. Construction equipment estimates are based on information provided by the project applicant/engineer and on default values in CalEEMod. Table 5, Construction Equipment Assumptions, presents a summary of the assumed equipment that would be involved in each stage of construction.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 15 Table 5
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ASSUMPTIONS
Construction Activity Equipment Number
Phase 1
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 2
Excavators 2
Rubber Tired Dozers 1
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2
Dump Trucks 2
Water Trucks 1
Grading Excavators 2
Graders 2
Rubber Tired Dozers 2
Scrapers 4
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2
Dump Trucks 1
Water Trucks 1
Underground Utilities Cement and Mortar Mixers 1
Excavators 2
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2
Dump Trucks 2
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 2
Pavers 2
Paving Equipment 2
Rollers 2
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2
Dump Trucks 1
Building Construction Aerial Lifts 4
Air Compressors 8
Cranes 4
Forklifts 4
Generator Sets 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2
Welders 4
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1
Phase 2
Building Construction Aerial Lifts 4
Air Compressors 8
Cranes 4
Forklifts 4
Generator Sets 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2
Welders 4
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1
Source: CalEEMod (output data, including equipment hp, is provided in Appendix A).
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 16 The construction schedule was determined from estimates provided by the project applicant/engineer and using CalEEMod defaults and standard assumptions for similarly sized projects, taking into consideration the features of the project and the overall estimated construction schedule. Architectural coating is assumed to occur concurrently with the last seven months of building construction. The construction schedule assumed in the modeling is shown in Table 6, Anticipated Construction Schedule.
Table 6
ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Construction Activity Start End Number of
Working Days
Phase 1 and 2 Demolition 4/1/2022 4/21/2021 15
Phase 1 and 2 Grading 4/22/2022 9/19/2022 107
Phase 1 and 2 Underground Utilities 9/20/2022 9/19/2023 261 Phase 1 and 2 Paving 9/20/2023 10/10/2023 15
Phase 1 and 2 Building Construction 3/1/20223 9/26/2024 412 Phase 1 and 2 Architectural Coating 3/29/2024 9/26/2024 130 Phase 2 Building Construction 10/1/2024 10/31/2024 23
Phase 2 Architectural Coating 10/1/2024 10/31/2024 23
Source: CalEEMod (output data is provided in Appendix A).
The modeled mitigated construction emissions assume implementation of the BAAQMD basic construction measures, specifically watering exposed areas twice per day and limiting vehicle speeds on unpaved surfaces to 15 mph, as required by the PEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-1a and 4.2-1b, as described further in Section 2.5.2.2, listed below. The modeled construction emissions also assume the use of USEPA Tier 4 diesel engine standards for off-road construction equipment with more than 50 horsepower (hp), as listed below.
2.3.2 Operational Emissions
2.3.2.1 Area Sources
Area sources include emissions from landscaping equipment, the use of consumer products, the reapplication of architectural coatings for maintenance, and hearths. Per project information supplied by the project applicant, no wood burning or natural gas hearths (i.e., woodstoves or fireplaces) would be installed in the project residences.
2.3.2.2 Energy Sources
The project would use electricity and natural gas for lighting, heating, and cooling. Electricity generation typically entails the combustion of fossil fuels, including natural gas and coal, which are then stored and transported to end users. Electricity and natural gas would be supplied by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). Energy source emissions were estimated assuming implementation of energy-reducing project design features to comply with the 2019 Title 24 standards which include a requirement for on-site generation of electricity through photovoltaic (solar) panels. The project’s Title 24 solar energy generation requirements are discussed in Section 3.4, below.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 17 2.3.2.3 Vehicular (Mobile) Sources
Operational emissions from mobile source emissions are associated with vehicle trip generation and trip length. Based on the trip generation rate from the project trip generation analysis, the project would generate 1,824 average daily trips (Fehr & Peers 2021). However, the trip generation analysis used older project data that assumed more residential units (377) and retail space (12,100 SF) than the proposed project. Trip generation rates used in the modeling were calculated from the trip generation data. The trip generation rates include trip reductions for internalization. Therefore, no pass-by or linked trip reductions were included in the modeling. The option to include the CARB off-model SAFE rule adjustments to emissions factors for light duty gasoline powered vehicles in CalEEMod was selected (available in CalEEMod version 2020.4.0).
2.3.3 Impacts to New Sensitive Receptors
The project would site new sensitive receptors near the proposed transit station and train tracks. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that the Dumbarton Rail Corridor passenger rail will be constructed in the future and include a transit stop near the project site as planned. Therefore, a health risk assessment (HRA) was completed to estimate the potential risks to future residents for exposure to DPM from potential future trains traveling on the tracks and idling at the transit station platform. The Dumbarton Rail Corridor was acquired by SamTrans in 1988 and several plans for the restoration of the tracks and bridges have been proposed. No plans, schedules, or funding for implementation of rail service in the Dumbarton Rail Corridor have been approved. The PEIR assumed six commuter rail trains per day would eventually use the corridor and stop at the transit station platform. Since the PEIR was certified, the Dumbarton Transportation Corridor Study (DTCS) was released in August 2017. This study analyzed 10 transportation alternatives ranging from improvements to existing highways and highway bridges to new tracks and rail bridges that would connect to the Caltrain commuter rail system in Redwood City and continue to San Francisco (San Mateo County Transit District 2017). Environmental review of the DTCS is in progress at the time of this analysis, and no preferred alternative from the DTCS has been publicly identified.
The HRA was completed for two scenarios. The first scenario analyzed is the 6 trains per day assumed in the PEIR, assuming diesel locomotives pulling passenger cars similar to existing diesel trains in use by Caltrain. The second scenario analyzed is the maximum anticipated rail traffic scenario in the DTCS, which would use diesel or electric multiple-unit trains (self-propelled trains, no locomotives). The earliest anticipated train service in the DTCS would start in 2028. The HRA was completed following OEHHA’s Air Toxics Hot Spots Program – Risk Assessment Guidelines – Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (2015).
2.3.3.1 Estimation of Emissions
Almost all DPM is 10 microns or less in diameter, and 90 percent of DPM is 1 micron or less in diameter (CARB 2018a). Therefore, it was conservatively assumed that all PM10 emissions from diesel-powered vehicle exhaust emissions are DPM. Emissions factors were estimated using the USEPA fact sheet Emission Factors for Locomotives (USEPA 2009). Emission factors per train traveling past the project site were modeled assuming the train would approach the platform at idle (approximately 4 percent load factor; braking from 50 mph), idle at the platform for 60 seconds, then accelerate away from the platform at throttle notch 7 of 8 (approximately 84 percent load factor) to 50 mph. For Scenario 1, 6 trains per day were modeled assuming a configuration typical for current local service Caltrain Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 18 commuter trains in operation from San Jose to San Francisco: a 3,200 hp diesel locomotive pulling 5 or 6 passenger cars. The locomotives were modeled assuming the average USEPA emissions for locomotives in 2028 (a mix of Tier 0 through Tier 4 engines). For Scenario 2, 25 trains per day (sufficient to carry the maximum anticipated ridership in the DTCS) were modeled assuming a diesel multiple-unit (DMU) train similar to those in service for Sonoma–Marin Area Rail Transit: one powered passenger car with a total of 1,200 hp USEPA Tier 4 diesel engines pulling one or two unpowered passenger cars. The complete calculation sheets are included in Appendix B, HRA Calculations and Model Output, to this report.
2.3.3.2 Dispersion Modeling
Localized concentrations of pollutants were modeled using the Lakes AERMOD View version 10.0.1. The Lakes program utilizes the USEPA’s AERMOD gaussian air dispersion model. Emissions from moving trains on the tracks in the project vicinity were modeled as a volume line sources from approximately 250 meters (820 feet) before the platform to approximately 250 meters after the platform. Initial plume dispersion parameters were set using the USEPA haul road modeling parameter recommendations (USEPA 2011) and the typical locomotive height and width. Trains idling at the platform were modeled as a volume line source the approximate length of the platform.
CARB provides pre-processed meteorological data suitable for use with AERMOD (CARB 2015). The available data set most representative of conditions in the project vicinity was from the Oakland International Airport station, approximately 16 miles northwest of the project site. The Oakland International Airport data set includes five years of data collected from 2009 to 2013. Urban dispersion coefficients were selected in the model to reflect the future developed nature of the project site and the region downwind (southeast).
United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Elevation Dataset (NED) files with a 10-meter resolution covering an area approximately one mile around the project site were used in the model to cover the analysis area. Terrain data was imported to the model using AERMAP (a terrain preprocessing program for AERMOD).
The DPM emissions were modeled as variable emissions by hour-of-day and weekday/weekend with each hour set as a fraction of the peak hour emissions based on the 2019 Caltrain Redwood City train schedule (Caltrain 2019). The schedule for Redwood City shows trains operating from 5:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. with the peak hour on weekdays from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. The complete table of variable emissions fractions are included in Appendix B to this report.
The Lakes AERMOD View output reports (which include all modeling parameters selected) are included in Appendix B to this report.
2.3.3.3 Risk Determination
Discrete receptors were placed in the model at estimated representative locations of ground level outdoor spaces for the eleven closest townhome residential units to the train tracks, as shown in Figure 4, Modeled Receptor Locations. The height of the receptors (flagpole height) was set to four feet above the ground level, representing the average breathing height for a standing individual.
Health risks resulting from localized concentration of DPM were estimated using the CARB Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP), Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Tool (ADMRT) version 21081.
FMC Willow and Grand Park
S:\PROJECTS\I\IntegralCommunities_00357\IPQ-37 Willow\GIS\MXD\AQ_GHG\Fig4_Receptors.indd 00357.00003.001 - CL Modeled Receptor Locations
Figure 4
Source: Urban Arena 2021
R11 R9 R8 R3
R4
R7 R6 R5
Residential Receptor ID
R2
R10 R1
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 19 The plot files of localized concentrations from AERMOD were imported into the ADMRT model to determine health risks. The model conservatively assumes that residents would be standing and breathing on the apartment balconies every day between 17 and 21 hours per day (depending on the age group, starting with fetuses in utero in the third trimester of pregnancy) for 30 years. The OEHHA derived intake rate percentile method was selected. The output of the dispersion modeling provides unitized ground level concentrations of the modeled constituent in micrograms per cubic meter for the maximum one-hour and the average over the five-year period of the meteorological data. An inventory of maximum hourly and average annual emissions for each source of TACs was entered in the ADMRT program. The ADMRT combines the emissions inventory, the ground level concentration plots from AERMOD, and pollutant-specific risk factors to determine the health risks at each receptor point identified in the model. The ADMRT output files are included in Appendix B to this report.
2.4 AIR QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Consistent with the significance thresholds included in the PEIR, the project would have a significant impact to air quality if it would result in any of the following:
(1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; (2) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation;
(3) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard;
(4) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or (5) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
The final determination of whether or not a project has a significant effect is within the purview of the lead agency pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b). The BAAQMD has adopted thresholds which lead agencies can use to determine the significance of a development project’s short-term construction and long-term operational pollutant emissions. The BAAQMD’s 2017 thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant and precursors are shown in Table 7, BAAQMD Significance Thresholds (BAAQMD 2017b). Refer to Section 3.0, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, for a discussion of GHG emissions thresholds.
For construction fugitive dust, rather than a numeric threshold BAAQMD recommends that lead agencies consider projects which implement the Basic Construction Mitigation Measures (BCMMs) to have a less than significant impact related to fugitive dust (BAAQMD 2017b). The PEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-1a requires implementation of the BCMMs.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 20 Table 7
BAAQMD SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
Construction Operation Operation
Pollutant Average Daily
Emissions
(pounds/day)
Average Daily
Emissions
(pounds/day)
Maximum Annual
Emissions
(tons/year)
Reactive Organic Gasses (ROG) 54 54 10
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 54 54 10
Particulate Matter Exhaust (PM10) 82 82 15
Fine Particulate Matter Exhaust (PM2.5) 54 54 10
PM10 and PM2.5 Fugitive Dust BCMMs1 none none
Local Carbon Monoxide (CO) none
9.0 ppm (8-hour
average), 20.0 ppm
(1-hour average)
9.0 ppm (8-hour
average), 20.0 ppm
(1-hour average)
Sulfur Oxides (SOX) none none none
Source: BAAQMD 2017b.
ppm = part per million; BCMMs = Basic Construction Mitigation Measures 1 For construction fugitive dust, rather than a numeric threshold BAAQMD recommends that lead agencies consider projects which implement the Basic Construction Mitigation Measures to have a less than significant impact related to fugitive dust.
2.4.1 Impacts to Sensitive Receptors
In addition to impacts from criteria pollutants, project impacts may include emissions of pollutants identified by the state and federal government as TACs or Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs).
With regard to evaluating whether a project would have a significant impact on sensitive receptors, air quality regulators typically define sensitive receptors as schools (preschool through 12th grade), hospitals, resident care facilities, day-care centers, or other facilities that may house individuals with health conditions that would be adversely impacted by changes in air quality. Recreational land uses are considered moderately sensitive to air pollution. Although exposure periods are generally short, exercise places a high demand on respiratory functions, which can be impaired by air pollution. In addition, noticeable air pollution can detract from the enjoyment of recreation. Industrial, commercial, retail, and office areas are considered the least sensitive to air pollution. Exposure periods are relatively short and intermittent because the majority of the workers tend to stay indoors most of the time. In addition, the working population is generally the healthiest segment of the public. Any project that has the potential to directly impact a sensitive receptor located within one-quarter mile and results in an increased cancer risk greater than 10 in 1 million would have a potentially significant impact.
The BAAQMD’s significance thresholds for local community risk and hazard impacts apply to both the siting of a new source and to the siting of a new receptor. Local community risk and hazard impacts are associated with TACs and PM2.5 because emissions of these pollutants can have significant health impacts at the local level. The City of Newark is not in one of the six affected communities identified in BAAQMD’s CARE program. The City of Newark and Alameda County do not have a qualified risk reduction plan for this area. For assessing community risk and hazards, TAC sources within a 1,000-foot radius are considered. Sources are defined as freeways, high volume urban roadways (with volume of 100,000 vehicles or more per day), distribution centers, and permitted sources of TACs.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 21 2.4.2 Odors
BAAQMD’s thresholds for odors are qualitative. The BAAQMD has established odor screening thresholds for land uses that have the potential to generate substantial odor complaints, including wastewater treatment plants, landfills or transfer stations, composting facilities, confined animal facilities, food manufacturing, and chemical plants.
2.5 AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS
Air quality is discussed in Chapter 4.2 of the PEIR prepared for the Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan (City 2011).
2.5.1 PEIR Impact 4.2-1
Short-term construction activities associated with the proposed project could result in significant air pollutant emissions (significance thresholds 2 and 4).
2.5.1.1 Construction Emissions Conclusions in the PEIR
The PEIR concluded that, due to the extent of the development allowed under the Specific Plan and the amount of earthwork that would be involved, construction emissions have the potential to violate Federal and State ambient air quality standards. Implementation of the Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan PEIR Mitigation Measures 4.2-1a and 4.2-1b would require implementation of BAAQMD’s BCMMS and BAAQMD’s “additional construction mitigation measures.” Implementation of Mitigation Measures
4.2-1a and 4.2-1b would reduce short-term construction emissions of criteria pollutants to a less than significant level.
2.5.1.2 Project-Specific Construction Emissions Analysis Construction Criteria Pollutant and Precursor Emissions The project’s temporary construction emissions were estimated using CalEEMod as described in Section 2.3 above. The results of the modeling of the project’s construction emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors for Phases 1 and 2, and for the combined Phase 1 building construction, Phase 2 architectural coatings, and Phase 2 building construction (which would overlap) are shown in Table 8, Unmitigated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions. For informational purposes, the analysis provides the project-specific emissions without incorporation of required mitigation measures from the PEIR. The data are presented as the maximum anticipated daily emissions for comparison with the BAAQMD thresholds. The complete CalEEMod output is provided in Appendix A to this report.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 22 Table 8
UNMITIGATED MAXIMUM DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (POUNDS PER DAY) Construction Activity ROG NOX CO SOX
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
Phase 1 and 2 Demolition 5.2 56.4 39.2 0.1 19.8 2.1 3.2 1.9 Phase 1 and 2 Grading 8.1 94.3 57.8 0.2 20.4 3.4 7.8 3.1 Phase 1 and 2 Underground
Utilities 1.9 15.9 18.6 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.6
Phase 1 and 2 Paving 3.4 20.9 24.3 0.1 0.7 0.8 0.2 0.8
Phase 1 Building Construction 8.7 68.092 84.8 0.2 3.8 3.0 1.0 2.9 Phase 1 Architectural Coating 28.1 1.4 3.5 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.1 Phase 2 Building Construction 7.4 61.4 77.4 0.1 1.2 2.6 0.3 2.5 Phase 2 Architectural Coatings 14.5 1.3 2.3 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 Concurrent Activities
2022 Building Construction +
Underground Utilities 10.7 84.0 103.4 0.2 4.0 3.7 1.1 3.5 2023 Building Construction +
Paving 17.7 138.2 169.9 0.4 7.5 6.1 2.0 5.9
2024 Phase 1 Building
Construction + Phase 1
Architectural Coating
31.5 22.3 27.8 0.1 1.3 0.9 0.3 0.8
2024 Phase 2 Building
Construction + Phase 2
Architectural Coating
21.9 62.6 79.7 0.2 1.4 2.7 0.4 2.6
Maximum Daily Emissions 31.5 132.8 169.9 0.4 7.5 6.1 2.0 5.9 BAAQMD Thresholds 54 54 none none BMPs 84 BMPs 54
Exceed Thresholds? No Yes No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod (output data is provided in Appendix A).
As shown in Table 8, maximum daily emissions of ROG concurrent Phase 1 building construction and architectural coating. Maximum daily emissions of NOX would occur during grading, and maximum daily emissions of constructional other pollutants would occur during concurrent 2022 building construction and underground utilities. Emissions of NOX during Phase 1 grading would be 138.2 pounds per day and would exceed the BAAQMD threshold of 54 pounds per day. All other emissions would be below the BAAQMD thresholds. Mitigation Measure 4.2-1b (see below) from the PEIR requires implementation of the BAAQMD’s “additional construction mitigation measures” which includes requirements for reductions of NOX and exhaust PM and implementation of best available control technology for reduction of heavy-duty diesel engine emissions.
To meet the requirements of the PEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-1b, modeling assumptions included use of off-road equipment on the project site with diesel engines with 50 or more HP to be USEPA Tier 4 certified or be retrofitted with equivalent CARB approved emissions reduction systems. Table 9, Mitigated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions, shows the mitigated construction emissions for Phase 1 and Phase 2 with implementation of Tier 4 equipment, as well as fugitive dust reduction required by the PEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-1a, specifically watering all exposed areas a minimum of twice per day and enforcing a 15-mph speed limit on all unpaved surfaces.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 23 Table 9
MITIGATED MAXIMUM DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (POUNDS PER DAY) Construction Activity ROG NOX CO SOX
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
Phase 1 and 2 Demolition 1.5 18.7 49.3 0.1 9.8 0.3 1.7 0.3 Phase 1 and 2 Grading 2.2 22.7 69.4 0.2 10.2 0.4 3.8 0.4 Phase 1 and 2 Underground
Utilities 0.7 3.2 25.3 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1
Phase 1 and 2 Paving 2.1 6.3 29.9 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.1
Phase 1 Building Construction 3.6 19.5 91.7 0.2 3.7 0.4 1.0 0.4 Phase 1 Architectural Coating 28.0 0.3 3.5 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 Phase 2 Building Construction 2.7 16.7 84.6 0.1 1.2 0.4 0.3 0.4 Phase 2 Architectural Coatings 14.3 0.2 2.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 Concurrent Activities
2022 Building Construction +
Underground Utilities 4.3 22.8 117.0 0.2 4.0 0.5 1.1 0.5 2023 Building Construction +
Paving 7.3 40.2 183.8 0.4 7.5 0.9 2.0 0.9
2024 Phase 1 Building
Construction + Phase 1
Architectural Coating
30.0 6.6 33.4 0.1 1.3 0.1 0.3 0.1
2024 Phase 2 Building
Construction + Phase 2
Architectural Coating
17.0 16.9 87.0 0.2 1.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
Maximum Daily Emissions 30.0 40.2 183.8 0.4 7.5 0.9 2.0 0.9 BAAQMD Thresholds 54 54 none none BMPs 84 BMPs 54
Exceed Thresholds? No No No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod (output data is provided in Appendix A).
As shown in Table 9, with implementation of the PEIR Mitigation Measures 4.2-1a and 4.2-1b, the project’s construction period emissions of criteria pollutant and precursors would not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds. The impact related to emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors during project construction activities would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated and would not exceed the significance determination in the PEIR.
Construction Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions
Implementation of the project would result in the use of heavy-duty construction equipment, haul trucks, on-site generators, and construction worker vehicles. These vehicles and equipment could generate the TAC DPM. Generation of DPM from construction projects typically occurs in a localized area (e.g., at the project site) for a short period of time. Because construction activities and subsequent emissions vary depending on the phase of construction (e.g., grading, building construction), the construction-related emissions to which nearby receptors are exposed to would also vary throughout the construction period. Concentrations of mobile-source DPM emissions are typically reduced by 70 percent at approximately 500 feet (CARB 2005).
The dose (of TAC) to which receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk.
Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance in the environment and the extent of exposure a person has with the substance; a longer exposure period to a fixed amount of emissions would result in Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 24 higher health risks. Current models and methodologies for conducting cancer health risk assessments are associated with longer-term exposure periods (typically 30 years for individual residents based on guidance from OEHHA) and are best suited for evaluation of long duration TAC emissions with predictable schedules and locations. These assessment models and methodologies do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities. Cancer potency factors are based on animal lifetime studies or worker studies where there is long-term exposure to the carcinogenic agent. There is considerable uncertainty in trying to evaluate the cancer risk from projects that will only last a small fraction of a lifetime (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment [OEHHA] 2015).
In addition, with implementation of Bayside Newark TOD PEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-1b, the project would be required to use USEPA certified Tier 4 (or equivalent) off road construction equipment. Tier 4 engines are required to have systems which reduce DPM emissions by approximately 90 percent compared to non-certified engines (40 CFR Part 1039). Considering this information, the highly dispersive nature of DPM, and the fact that construction activities would occur at various locations throughout the project site, it is not anticipated that construction of the project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial DPM concentrations. The impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated and would not exceed the significance determination in the PEIR.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures 4.2-1a and 4.2-1b from the PEIR would be required for the project.
Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan PEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-1a Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the Public Works Director and the Building Official shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and specifications stipulate that, in compliance with the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, the following basic construction mitigation measures shall be implemented for all construction projects:
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. • 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.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne 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.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 25 • 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. • A publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints shall be posted. 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.
Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan PEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-1b Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the Public Works Director and the Building Official shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and specifications stipulate that, in compliance with the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, the following additional construction mitigation measures shall be implemented for all construction projects:
• All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe.
• All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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 surface at any one time. • All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.
• 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. • 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. • Minimizing the idling time of diesel-powered construction equipment to two minutes. • The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50 hp) to be used in the construction project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project wide fleet-average 20 percent NOX reduction and Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 26 45 percent PM reduction compared to the most recent CARB fleet average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other options as such become available.
• Use low VOC (i.e., ROG) coatings beyond the local requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings).
• Requiring that all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOX and PM.2 • Requiring all contractors use equipment that meets CARB’s most recent certification standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines.3
2.5.2 PEIR Impact 4.2-2
Long-term operation of the proposed project would not result in significant air pollutant emissions (significance thresholds 2, 4, and 5).
2.5.2.1 Long-Term Operational Emissions Conclusions in the PEIR The PEIR concluded that the BAAQMD criteria for the significance of a plan’s operational direct and indirect emissions impacts are based on the plan’s consistency with the current air quality plan control measures and whether the plan’s rate of increase in vehicle miles traveled (or vehicle trips) is equal to or lower than the rate of increase in projected population. Consistency with the current air quality plan is discussed in Impact 4.2-3, and the impact was determined to be less than significant.
2.5.2.2 Project-Specific Long-Term Operational Emissions Analysis The project’s long-term operational emissions were estimated using CalEEMod as described in Section 2.3. The results of the modeling of the project’s operational emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors for Phases 1 and 2 are shown in Table 10, Maximum Daily Operational Emissions, and Table 11, Annual Operational Emissions. The data are presented as the maximum anticipated daily emissions and annual operational emissions for the first full year of operation (2025) for comparison with the BAAQMD thresholds. The complete CalEEMod output is provided in Appendix A to this report. 2 To meet the requirements of Mitigation Measure 4.2-1b for reduced diesel engine emissions, Best Available Control Technology, and CARB certification standards for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines, all off-road diesel-powered equipment with 50 or more hp shall be USEPA Tier 4 certified or be retrofitted with CARB approved equivalent diesel exhaust emissions reduction devices. 3 See footnote above.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 27 Table 10
MAXIMUM DAILY OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (POUNDS PER DAY)
Source Category ROG NOX CO SOX
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
Phase 1
Area 14.0 0.3 29.0 <0.1 - 0.2 - 0.2
Energy 0.2 1.5 0.7 <0.1 - 0.1 - 0.1
Mobile 3.6 4.5 37.4 <0.1 8.9 <0.1 2.4 <0.1
Phase 1 Subtotal1 17.9 6.8 66.5 <0.1 8.9 0.3 2.4 0.3
Phase 2
Area 1.3 <0.1 2.1 <0.1 - <0.1 - <0.1
Energy <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 - <0.1
Mobile 0.3 0.4 2.7 <0.1 0.6 <0.1 0.2 <0.1
Phase 2 Subtotal1 1.6 0.5 4.9 <0.1 0.6 <0.1 0.2 <0.1
Operational Total1 19.4 7.4 71.4 <0.1 9.5 0.4 2.5 0.4
BAAQMD Thresholds 54 54 none none none 84 none 54
Exceed Thresholds? No No No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod (output data is provided in Appendix A). 1 Total may not sum due to rounding.
Table 11
ANNUAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (TONS PER YEAR)
Source Category ROG NOX CO SOX
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
Phase 1
Area 2.5 <0.1 2.6 <0.1 - <0.1 - <0.1
Energy <0.1 0.3 0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 - <0.1
Mobile 0.7 0.9 6.4 <0.1 1.6 <0.1 0.4 <0.1
Phase 1 Subtotal1 3.2 1.2 9.0 <0.1 1.6 <0.1 0.4 <0.1
Phase 2
Area 0.2 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 - <0.1 - <0.1
Energy <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 - <0.1
Mobile <0.1 <0.1 0.5 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Phase 2 Subtotal1 0.3 <0.1 0.7 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Operational Total1 3.4 1.3 9.7 <0.1 1.7 <0.1 0.4 <0.1
BAAQMD Thresholds 10 10 none none none 15 none 10
Exceed Thresholds? No No No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod (output data is provided in Appendix A). 1 Total may not sum due to rounding.
Because Phase 1 could become operational during building construction for Phase 2, the concurrent maximum daily emissions from Phase 2 building construction and architectural coating and Phase 1 operation are presented in Table 12, Concurrent Daily Emissions, and compared to the BAAQMD thresholds.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 28 Table 12
2024 CONCURRENT DAILY EMISSIONS (POUNDS PER DAY)
Source Category ROG NOX CO SOX
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
Phase 2 Mitigated
Building Construction
2.7 16.7 84.6 <0.1 1.2 0.4 0.3 0.4
Phase 2 Mitigated
Architectural Coating
14.3 0.2 2.3 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 0.1 <0.1
Phase 1 Operational 17.9 6.8 66.5 <0.1 8.9 0.3 2.4 0.3
Total1 34.9 23.5 151.3 <0.1 10.3 0.7 2.8 0.7
BAAQMD Thresholds 54 54 none none none 84 none 54
Exceed Thresholds? No No No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod (output data is provided in Appendix A). 1 Total may not sum due to rounding.
As shown in Tables 10, 11, and 12, the maximum daily and annual operational criteria pollutant and precursors emissions, and the concurrent daily emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds.
The impact related to emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors during long term operation of the project would be less than significant and would not exceed the significance determination in the PEIR.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
2.5.2.3 Localized Carbon Monoxide Impact Conclusions in the PEIR The PEIR concluded that the project would not cause traffic volumes at local intersections to increase beyond 6,000 vehicles per hour, below the BAAQMD CO hotspot screening guideline of 44,000 vehicles per hour, or 24,000 vehicles per hour for intersections with limited mixing zones.
2.5.2.4 Project-Specific Localized Carbon Monoxide Impact Analysis Vehicle exhaust is the primary source of CO. In an urban setting, the highest CO concentrations are generally found in close proximity to congested intersections. Under typical meteorological conditions, CO concentrations tend to decrease as distance from the emissions source (i.e., congested intersection) increase. Project-generated traffic has the potential of contributing to localized “hot spots” of CO offsite. Because CO is a byproduct of incomplete combustion, exhaust emissions are worse when fossilfueled vehicles are operated inefficiently, such as in stop-and-go traffic or through heavily congested intersections. Because CO disperses rapidly, hotpots are most likely to occur in areas with limited vertical mixing such as tunnels, long underpasses, or below-grade roadways. The BAAQMD CEQA guidelines provide that, if a project is consistent with the applicable congestion management plan and would not increase traffic volumes at intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour for regular intersections, or would not increase traffic volumes at intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour for intersections with limited vertical mixing zones, the impacts from CO hotpots would be less than significant (BAAQMD 2017a).
The project trip generation analysis concluded that the project would generate approximately 1,824 daily trips external to the Specific Plan area (Fehr & Peers 2021). These project-related trips would not result in hourly intersection traffic volumes above the 6,000 vehicles per hour analyzed in the PEIR Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 29 and would not result in intersections with more than 44,000 vehicles per hour, or 24,000 vehicles per hour for intersections with limited mixing zones. Impacts related to CO hotspots would be less than significant and would not exceed the significance determination in the PEIR.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
2.5.2.5 Exposure of Project Residents to TACs Conclusions in the PEIR The PEIR concluded that impacts on new sensitive receptors sited by the project from existing permitted TAC sources would be less than significant. However, the PEIR concluded that sensitive receptors within the plan area in proximity to the future Dumbarton Rail Corridor and Transit Station could be exposed to significant levels of DPM from trains. Mitigation Measure 4.2-2 requires a health risk analysis for new residences located with 1,000 feet of the proposed Transit Station, and appropriate filtered air supply systems for any new residences determined to have health risks above the BAAQMD thresholds.
2.5.2.6 Project-Specific Exposure of Project Residents to TACs Analysis In accordance with the PEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-2, a project specific HRA was completed as described in Section 2.3.3. The incremental excess cancer risk is an estimate of the chance a person exposed to a specific source of a TAC may have of developing cancer from that exposure beyond the individual’s risk of developing cancer from existing background levels of TACs in the ambient air. For context, the average cancer risk from TACs in the ambient air for an individual living in an urban area of California is 830 in 1 million (CARB 2015). Cancer risk estimates do not mean, and should not be interpreted to mean, that a person will develop cancer from estimated exposures to toxic air pollutants.
The potential health risks to future project residents from exposure to DPM emissions from potential future trains on the Dumbarton Corridor right-of-way in Section 2.3, above. The resulting highest predicted incremental increased cancer risk for the residential building closest to the proposed Transit Station and railroad tracks buildings is shown in Table 13, Project Residential Increased Incremental Cancer Risk from Train DPM, see Figure 4 for receptor locations. As shown in Table 13, the highest estimated incremental increase in cancer risk to future project residents from train DPM emissions would be 1.3 in 1 million for Scenario 1 (six daily commuter trains per day). The highest estimated incremental increase in cancer risk for Scenario 2 (25 DMU trains per day) would be 0.6 in 1 million.
These estimated increases in risk would be below the BAAQMD threshold of 10 in 1 million. The estimated risk assumes an individual standing and breathing outside the residential building every day between 17 and 21 hours per day for 30 years. The risk estimate does not account for future reductions of DPM emissions from commuter trains as more stringent USEPA diesel locomotive engine emissions standards take effect and older locomotives are retired. The risk estimate also does not account for the likelihood that any future passenger rail service on the Dumbarton Rail Corridor would utilize electric powered trains, consistent with the electrification program in progress on the Caltrain lines from San Jose to San Francisco. Therefore, new sensitive receptors sited by the project would not be exposed to substantial concentrations of DPM from trains, and no mitigation would be required for future project residences. The impact would be less than significant and would not exceed the significance determination in the PEIR.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 30 Table 13
PROJECT RESIDENTIAL INCREASED INCREMENTAL CANCER RISK FROM TRAIN DPM Receptor ID Increased Cancer Risk Increased Cancer Risk 6 Commuter Trains 25 DMU Trains
R1 1.2 in 1 million 0.6 in 1 million
R2 1.3 in 1 million 0.6 in 1 million
R3 1.2 in 1 million 0.6 in 1 million
R4 1.1 in 1 million 0.6 in 1 million
R5 1.1 in 1 million 0.6 in 1 million
R6 1.1 in 1 million 0.6 in 1 million
R7 1.1 in 1 million 0.6 in 1 million
R8 1.0 in 1 million 0.6 in 1 million
R9 1.0 in 1 million 0.6 in 1 million
R10 1.1 in 1 million 0.6 in 1 million
R11 0.6 in 1 million 0.3 in 1 million
BAAQMD Risk Threshold 10 in 1 million 10 in 1 million
Exceed Threshold? No No
Source: AERMOD and HARP ADMRT, modeling data is provided in Appendix B.
Notes: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
MT = metric ton; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent.
A bus stop would be located in the transit station north of the PA1 mixed-use building (see Figure 3).
The closest project residence to the proposed bus stop would be approximately 50 feet south on floors 2 through 6 of the PA1 mixed use building. The details of future bus service and schedules serving the transit station were not known at the time of this analysis. Future bus service would be provided by Alameda County Transit (AC Transit), which primarily operates diesel-powered buses. All on-road diesel engines sold in the US since 2015 are required to be USPEA Tier 4 certified. Tier 4 certified engines are required to have DPM emissions 90 percent lower than non-certified engines (40 CFR Part 1039).
According to AC Transit, all of their older diesel-powered buses have been retrofitted with filter systems which reduce DPM by 85 percent (AC Transit 2020a). Future bus service to the transit station would likely comprise the closest two existing bus routes (lines 200 and 251) which provide a combined 48 buses per day and up to 3 buses per hour (AC Transit 2020b). Each bus would only be in the project vicinity (driving on Hickory Street or idling at the bus stop) for a few minutes. The dose (of TAC) to which receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk. Considering the limited number of buses per hour, the short duration buses would be in the project vicinity and the reduced DPM emissions of the AC Transit bus fleet, new sensitive receptors sited by the project would not be exposed to substantial concentrations of DPM from buses, and no mitigation would be required for future project residences. The impact would be less than significant and would not exceed the significance determination in the PEIR.
Mitigation Measures
An HRA was completed in accordance with the PEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-2. Because the health risks to future project residents from train emissions would be less than significant, residential air filtration systems specified in the mitigation measure would not be necessary.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 31 2.5.2.7 Objectional Odors Conclusions in the PEIR
The PEIR concluded that the proposed project would not be located in proximity to any facilities that are typically associated with odor complaints, as identified by the BAAQMD, and the impacts would be less than significant.
2.5.2.8 Project-Specific Objectional Odors Analysis
Construction (Short-Term) Emissions
Construction of the project would require the use of diesel-powered equipment, and the application of asphalt and paint, all of which can be a temporary source of odors. Due to the temporary and intermittent nature of construction activities, and due to the distance to the nearest sensitive receptors (single-family homes approximately 190 feet southeast), construction of the project would not result in emissions leading to odors that would adversely affect substantial numbers of people. The impact would be less than significant and would not exceed the significance of the impact in the PEIR.
Operation (Long-Term) Emissions
Long-term operation of the project would not be a substantial source of odors, nor would the project exacerbate existing odors from tidal wetlands. Therefore, long-term operation of the project would not result in emissions leading to odors that would adversely affect substantial number of people, and the impact would be less than significant and would not exceed the significance of the impact in the PEIR.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
2.5.3 PEIR Impact 4.2-3
Development associated with the proposed project would be consistent with regional plans (significance threshold 1).
2.5.3.1 Consistency with Air Quality Plans Conclusions in the PEIR The PEIR concluded that the Specific Plan would be consistent with the control measures in the BAAQMD 2010 Clean Air Plan, and the impact would be less than significant. No mitigation measures were required.
2.5.3.2 Project-Specific Consistency with Air Quality Plans Analysis Consistency with the air quality plan is determined by whether the project would hinder implementation of control measures identified in the air quality plan or would result in growth of population or employment that is not accounted for in local and regional planning. The BAAQMD’s Clean Air Plan is the applicable air quality plan for the SFBAAB and the City. Since the PEIR was certified in 2010, the BAAQMD’s 2010 Clean Air Plan was superseded by the 2017 Clean Air Plan, adopted on April 19, 2017 (BAAQMD 2017c).
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 32 Implementation of the project would result in the construction of 370 residential units, approximately 4,000 SF of retail space, and the Grand Park. The City of Newark zoning designation is BTP for the project site, which is inconsistent with the proposed land uses for the project. Therefore, an amendment to the zoning map is required to rezone the project site to allow for medium density residential-form based code (MDR-FBC), commercial mixed use-form based code (CMU-FBC), transit station (TS), Public Facilities (PF), and Park (PK).
The Specific Plan allows for an adjustment of land uses within the Specific Plan area without necessitating a Specific Plan Amendment as long as the net increase does not exceed the total dwelling units permitted by the Specific Plan (2,500 units). As of November 2021, a total of 2,171 dwelling units have been approved or are pending approval in the Specific Plan area, including the proposed FMC Willow and Grand Park project. The project’s mixed-use development and location is consistent with the Specific Plan’s intent for TOD and the project site’s regional designation as a Priority Development Area.
Therefore, the project would be consistent with the local and regional growth assumptions used in developing the 2017 Clean Air Plan.
As described in the 2017 Clean Air Plan, the 2010 TCMs were carried forward into the 2017 Clean Air Plan, although the measure descriptions and numbering were updated. In addition, 8 of the 10 Mobile Source Measures (MSMs), all 6 of the Land Use Measures (LUMs), and all 4 Energy and Climate Measures (ECMS) from 2010 were carried forward into the 2017 plan (BAAQMD 2017c). The MSMs primarily address vehicles and their components as they relate to emissions and are not directly applicable to the project. The project would be required to comply with the building energy efficiency standards of 2019 Title 24 part 6, including the requirement for new residential building to install on-site photovoltaic (solar) electricity generation systems, and Title 24 part 11 (CALGreen). The Title 24, part 6 residential solar requirement is discussed further in Section 3.0, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, below.
Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2017 Clean Air Plan and the impact would be less than significant and would not exceed the significance of the impact in the PEIR.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
2.5.4 PEIR Impact 4.2-4
Implementation of the proposed project and related cumulative projects would not result in significant air quality impacts (significance threshold 2).
2.5.4.1 Cumulative Air Quality Impact Conclusions in the PEIR The PEIR concluded that consistency with the 2010 Clean Air Plan control measures would ensure that the Specific Plan would not cumulatively contribute to air quality impacts in the SFBAAB, and the impacts would be less than significant.
2.5.4.2 Project-Specific Cumulative Air Quality Impact Analysis In developing project-level thresholds of significance for air pollutants, BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 33 resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions.
Therefore, additional analysis to assess cumulative impacts is unnecessary (BAAQMD 2017b). As discussed in Impact 4.2-1 and 4.2-2, the project’s short-term construction emissions and long-term operational emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD threshold with mitigation incorporated.
Therefore, the project’s emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors would be less than cumulatively considerable. The impact would be less than significant and would not exceed the significance of the impact in the PEIR.
3.0 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
3.1 GHG SETTING
3.1.1 Climate Change Overview
Global climate change refers to changes in average climatic conditions over the entire Earth including temperature, wind patterns, precipitation, and storms. Global temperatures are moderated by naturally occurring atmospheric gases. These gases are commonly referred to as GHGs because they function like a greenhouse by letting light in but preventing heat from escaping, thus warming the Earth’s atmosphere. These gases allow solar radiation (sunlight) into the Earth’s atmosphere but prevent radiative heat from escaping, thus warming the Earth’s atmosphere.
GHGs are emitted by natural processes and human (anthropogenic) activities. Anthropogenic GHG emissions are primarily associated with (1) the burning of fossil fuels during motorized transport, electricity generation, natural gas consumption, industrial activity, manufacturing, and other activities; (2) deforestation; (3) agricultural activity; and (4) solid waste decomposition.
The temperature record shows a decades-long trend of warming, with 2016 global surface temperatures ranking as the warmest year on record since 1880. The newest release in long-term warming trends announced 2020 ranked as tied with 2016 for the warmest year on record with an increase of
1.84 degrees Fahrenheit compared to the 1951-1980 average (National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA] 2021). GHG emissions from human activities are the most significant driver of observed climate change since the mid-20th century (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2013). The IPCC constructed several emission trajectories of GHGs needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts. The statistical models show a “high confidence” that temperature increase caused by anthropogenic GHG emissions could be kept to less than two degrees Celsius relative to pre-industrial levels if atmospheric concentrations are stabilized at about 450 parts per million (ppm) carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) by the year 2100 (IPCC 2014).
3.1.2 Greenhouse Gases
The GHGs defined under California’s Assembly Bill (AB) 32 include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).
Carbon Dioxide. CO2 is the most important and common anthropogenic GHG. CO2 is an odorless, colorless GHG. Natural sources include the decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungi; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic outgassing. Anthropogenic sources of CO2 include burning fuels, such as coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. Data from ice cores Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 34 indicate that CO2 concentrations remained steady prior to the current period for approximately 10,000 years. The atmospheric CO2 concentration in 2010 was 390 ppm, 39 percent above the concentration at the start of the Industrial Revolution (about 280 ppm in 1750). In February 2021, the CO2 concentration was 416 ppm, a 48 percent increase since 1750 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] 2021).
Methane. CH4 is the main component of natural gas used in homes. A natural source of methane is from the decay of organic matter. Geological deposits known as natural gas fields contain methane, which is extracted for fuel. Other sources are from decay of organic material in landfills, fermentation of manure, and cattle digestion.
Nitrous Oxide. N2O is produced by both natural and human-related sources. N2O is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during the combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste.
Primary human-related sources of N2O are agricultural soil management, animal manure management, sewage treatment, mobile and stationary combustion of fossil fuel, adipic (fatty) acid production, and nitric acid production.
Hydrofluorocarbons. Fluorocarbons are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in methane or ethane with chlorine and/or fluorine atoms. Chlorofluorocarbons are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and chemically nonreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at Earth’s surface). Chlorofluorocarbons were first synthesized in 1928 for use as refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and cleaning solvents. They destroy stratospheric ozone; therefore, their production was stopped as required by the 1989 Montreal Protocol.
Sulfur Hexafluoride. SF6 is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. SF6 is used for insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semi-conductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas for leak detection.
GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes that range from one year to several thousand years. Long atmospheric lifetimes allow for GHG emissions to disperse around the globe. Because GHG emissions vary widely in the power of their climatic effects, climate scientists have established a unit called global warming potential (GWP). The GWP of a gas is a measure of both potency and lifespan in the atmosphere as compared to CO2. For example, because methane and N2O are approximately 25 and 298 times more powerful than CO2, respectively, in their ability to trap heat in the atmosphere, they have GWPs of 25 and 298, respectively (CO2 has a GWP of 1). CO2e is a quantity that enables all GHG emissions to be considered as a group despite their varying GWP. The GWP of each GHG is multiplied by the prevalence of that gas to produce CO2e.
Historically, GHG emission inventories have been calculated using the GWPs from the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report (SAR). In 2007, IPCC updated the GWP values based on the latest science at the time in its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). The updated GWPs in the IPCC AR4 have begun to be used in recent GHG emissions inventories. In 2013, IPCC again updated the GWP values based on the latest science in its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) (IPCC 2013). However, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) reporting guidelines for national inventories require the use of GWP values from the AR4. To comply with international reporting standards under the UNFCCC, official emission estimates for California and the U.S. are reported using AR4 GWP values. Therefore, statewide and national GHG inventories have not yet updated their GWP values to the AR5 values. By applying the GWP ratios, project related CO2e emissions can be tabulated in metric tons per year. Typically, the GWP Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 35 ratio corresponding to the warming potential of CO2 over a 100-year period is used as a baseline. The atmospheric lifetime and GWP of selected GHGs are summarized in Table 14, Global Warming Potentials and Atmospheric Lifetimes.
Table 14
GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIALS AND ATMOSPHERIC LIFETIMES
Greenhouse Gas Atmospheric Lifetime
(years)
Global Warming Potential
(100-year time horizon)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 50-200 1
Methane (CH4) 12 25
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 114 298
HFC-324a 14 1,430
PFC: Tetrafluoromethane (CF4) 50,000 7,390
PFC: Hexafluoroethane (C2F6) 10,000 12,200
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 3,200 22,800
Source: IPCC 2007
HFC: hydrofluorocarbon; PFC: perfluorocarbon
3.2 GHG REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
All levels of government have some responsibility for the protection of air quality, and each level (federal, State, and regional/local) has specific responsibilities relating to air quality regulation. GHG emissions and the regulation of GHGs is a relatively new component of air quality.
3.2.1 Federal GHG Regulations
3.2.1.1 Federal Clean Air Act
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) that CO2 is an air pollutant, as defined under the CAA, and that the USEPA has the authority to regulate emissions of GHGs. The USEPA announced that GHGs (including CO2, CH4, N2O, HFC, PFC, and SF6) threaten the public health and welfare of the American people. This action was a prerequisite to finalizing the USEPA’s GHG emissions standards for light-duty vehicles, which were jointly proposed by the USEPA and the United States Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The standards were established on April 1, 2010 for 2012 through 2016 model year vehicles and on October 15, 2012 for 2017 through 2025 model year vehicles (USEPA 2017; USEPA and NHTSA 2012).
3.2.1.2 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards
The USEPA and the NHTSA worked together on developing a national program of regulations to reduce GHG emissions and to improve fuel economy of light-duty vehicles. The USEPA established the first-ever national GHG emissions standards under the CAA, and the NHTSA established CAFE standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. On April 1, 2010, the USEPA and NHTSA announced a joint Final Rulemaking that established standards for 2012 through 2016 model year vehicles. This was followed up on October 15, 2012, when the agencies issued a Final Rulemaking with standards for model years 2017 through 2025. On August 2, 2018, the agencies released a notice of proposed rulemaking—the Safer Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 36 Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks (SAFE Vehicles Rule). The purpose of the SAFE Vehicles Rule is “to correct the national automobile fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards to give the American people greater access to safer, more affordable vehicles that are cleaner for the environment.” The direct effect of the rule is to eliminate the standards that were put in place to gradually raise average fuel economy for passenger cars and light trucks under test conditions from 37 miles per gallon (mpg) in 2020 to 50 mpg in 2025.
The new SAFE Vehicles Rule freezes the average fuel economy level standards indefinitely at the 2020 levels. The new SAFE Vehicles Rule also results in the withdraw of the waiver previously provided to California for that State’s GHG and zero emissions vehicle (ZEV) programs under Section 209 of the CAA.
3.2.2 California GHG Regulations
There are numerous State plans, policies, regulations, and laws related to GHG emissions and global climate change. Following is a discussion of some of these plans, policies, and regulations that (1) establish overall State policies and GHG emission reduction targets; (2) require State or local actions that result in direct or indirect GHG emission reductions for the proposed project; and (3) require CEQA analysis of GHG emissions.
3.2.2.1 California Energy Code
The CCR Title 24 Part 6, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings are described in Section 2.1, above.
3.2.2.2 California Green Building Standards Code
The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen; CCR Title 24, Part 11) is a code with mandatory requirements for new residential and nonresidential buildings (including industrial buildings) throughout California. The code is Part 11 of the California Building Standards Code in Title 24 of the CCR (CBSC 2017). The current 2019 Standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings went into effect on January 1, 2020.
The development of CALGreen is intended to (1) cause a reduction in GHG emissions from buildings; (2) promote environmentally responsible, cost-effective, healthier places to live and work; (3) reduce energy and water consumption; and (4) respond to the directives by the Governor. In short, the code is established to reduce construction waste; make buildings more efficient in the use of materials and energy; and reduce environmental impact during and after construction.
CALGreen contains requirements for storm water control during construction; construction waste reduction; indoor water use reduction; material selection; natural resource conservation; site irrigation conservation; and more. The code provides for design options allowing the designer to determine how best to achieve compliance for a given site or building condition. The code also requires building commissioning, which is a process for the verification that all building systems, like heating and cooling equipment and lighting systems, are functioning at their maximum efficiency.
3.2.2.3 Executive Order S-3-05
On June 1, 2005, Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 proclaimed that California is vulnerable to climate change impacts. It declared that increased temperatures could reduce snowpack in the Sierra Nevada, further exacerbate California’s air quality problems, and potentially cause a rise in sea levels. To avoid or reduce Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 37 climate change impacts, EO S-3-05 calls for a reduction in GHG emissions to the year 2000 level by 2010, to year 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
3.2.2.4 Assembly Bill 32 – Global Warming Solution Act of 2006 The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, widely known as AB 32, requires that the CARB develop and enforce regulations for the reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. CARB is directed to set a GHG emission limit, based on 1990 levels, to be achieved by 2020. The bill requires CARB to adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission reductions.
3.2.2.5 Senate Bill 375
Senate Bill (SB) 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, supports the State's climate action goals to reduce GHG emissions through coordinated transportation and land use planning with the goal of more sustainable communities.
Under the Sustainable Communities Act, CARB sets regional targets for GHG emissions reductions from passenger vehicle use. In 2010, CARB established these targets for 2020 and 2035 for each region covered by one of the State’s metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). CARB periodically reviews and updates the targets, as needed.
Each of California's MPOs must prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as an integral part of its regional transportation plan (RTP). The SCS contains land use, housing, and transportation strategies that, if implemented, would allow the region to meet its GHG emission reduction targets. Once adopted by the MPO, the RTP/SCS guides the transportation policies and investments for the region. CARB must review the adopted SCS to confirm and accept the MPO’s determination that the SCS, if implemented, would meet the regional GHG targets. If the combination of measures in the SCS would not meet the regional targets, the MPO must prepare a separate alternative planning strategy (APS) to meet the targets. The APS is not a part of the RTP. Qualified projects consistent with an approved SCS or Alternative Planning Strategy categorized as “transit priority projects” would receive incentives to streamline CEQA processing.
3.2.2.6 Senate Bill 743
On September 27, 2013, California Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 743 into law and started a process that changes transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA compliance. These changes include the elimination of auto delay, level of service (LOS), and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant impacts for land use projects and plans in California. Further, parking impacts will not be considered significant impacts on the environment for select development projects within infill areas with nearby frequent transit service. According to the legislative intent contained in SB 743, these changes to current practice were necessary to appropriately balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of GHG emissions.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 38 3.2.2.7 Senate Bill 97
SB 97 required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to develop recommended amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines for addressing GHG emissions, including the effects associated with transportation and energy consumption. The amendments became effective on March 18, 2010.
3.2.2.8 Executive Order B-30-15
On April 29, 2015, EO B-30-15 established a California GHG emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The EO aligns California’s GHG emission reduction targets with those of leading international governments, including the 28 nation European Union. California is on track to meet or exceed the target of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, as established in AB 32.
California’s new emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 will make it possible to reach the goal established by EO S-3-05 of reducing emissions 80 percent under 1990 levels by 2050.
3.2.2.9 Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197
As a follow-up to AB 32 and in response to EO-B-30-15, SB 32 was passed by the California legislature in August 2016 to codify the EO’s California GHG emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and requires the State to invest in the communities most affected by climate change. AB 197 establishes a legislative committee on climate change policies to help continue the State’s activities to reduce GHG emissions.
3.2.2.10 Assembly Bill 1493 – Vehicular Emissions of Greenhouse Gases AB 1493 (Pavley) requires that CARB develop and adopt regulations that achieve “the maximum feasible reduction of GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light-duty truck and other vehicles determined by CARB to be vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation in the State.” On September 24, 2009, CARB adopted amendments to the Pavley regulations that intend to reduce GHG emissions in new passenger vehicles from 2009 through 2016. The amendments bind California’s enforcement of AB 1493 (starting in 2009), while providing vehicle manufacturers with new compliance flexibility. The amendments also prepare California to merge its rules with the federal CAFE rules for passenger vehicles (CARB 2017a). In January 2012, CARB approved a new emissions-control program for model years 2017 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog, soot, and global warming gases and requirements for greater numbers of zero-emission vehicles into a single packet of standards called Advanced Clean Cars (CARB 2017a).
3.2.2.11 Assembly Bill 341
The State legislature enacted AB 341 (California Public Resource Code Section 42649.2), increasing the diversion target to 75 percent statewide. AB 341 requires all businesses and public entities that generate 4 cubic yards or more of waste per week to have a recycling program in place. The final regulation was approved by the Office of Administrative Law on May 7, 2012 and went into effect on July 1, 2012.
3.2.2.12 Executive Order S-01-07 – Low Carbon Fuel Standard This EO, signed by Governor Schwarzenegger on January 18, 2007, directs that a statewide goal be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by the year 2020. It orders that a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) for transportation fuels be established Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 39 for California and directs CARB to determine whether a LCFS can be adopted as a discrete early action measure pursuant to AB 32. CARB approved the LCFS as a discrete early action item with a regulation adopted and implemented in April 2010. Although challenged in 2011, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court’s opinion and rejected arguments that implementing LCFS violates the interstate commerce clause in September 2013. CARB is therefore continuing to implement the LCFS statewide.
3.2.2.13 Senate Bill 350
Approved by Governor Brown on October 7, 2015, SB 350 increases California’s renewable electricity procurement goal from 33 percent by 2020 to 50 percent by 2030. This will increase the use of Renewables Portfolio Standard eligible resources, including solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal. In addition, large utilities are required to develop and submit Integrated Resource Plans to detail how each entity will meet their customers resource needs, reduce GHG emissions, and increase the use of clean energy.
3.2.2.14 Senate Bill 100
Approved by Governor Brown on September 10, 2018, SB 100 extends the renewable electricity procurement goals and requirements of SB 350. SB 100 requires that all retail sale of electricity to California end-use customers be procured from 100 percent eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources by the end of 2045.
3.2.2.15 California Air Resources Board: Climate Change Scoping Plan On December 11, 2008, CARB adopted the Scoping Plan (CARB 2008) as directed by AB 32. The Scoping Plan proposes a set of actions designed to reduce overall GHG emissions in California to the levels required by AB 32. Measures applicable to development projects include those related to energyefficiency building and appliance standards, the use of renewable sources for electricity generation, regional transportation targets, and green building strategy. Relative to transportation, the Scoping Plan includes nine measures or recommended actions related to reducing VMT and vehicle GHG emissions through fuel and efficiency measures. These measures would be implemented statewide rather than on a project-by-project basis.
In response to EO B-30-15 and SB 32, all state agencies with jurisdiction over sources of GHG emissions were directed to implement measures to achieve reductions of GHG emissions to meet the 2030 and 2050 targets. CARB was directed to update the Scoping Plan to reflect the 2030 target (CARB 2014). The mid-term target is critical to help frame the suite of policy measures, regulations, planning efforts, and investments in clean technologies and infrastructure needed to continue driving down emissions. In December 2017, CARB adopted the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update, the Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target, to reflect the 2030 target set by EO B-30-15 and codified by SB 32 (CARB 2017b).
3.2.3 Regional GHG Policies and Plans
3.2.3.1 Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The BAAQMD provides direction and recommendations for the analysis of GHG impacts of a project and approach to mitigation measures in its CEQA Guidelines (BAAQMD 2017b). The guidance provided in the handbook was used to prepare this analysis.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 40 3.2.3.2 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission
As required by the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375), ABAG and the MTC have developed a Regional Transportation Plan and SCS as a component of Plan Bay Area 2040 (MTC and ABAG 2017). This plan seeks to reduce GHG and other mobile source emissions through coordinated transportation and land use planning to reduce VMT.
3.2.4 Local Greenhouse Gas Plans
3.2.4.1 City of Newark
The City adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) Initial Framework in 2010. The CAP Initial Framework presents a summary of actions the City has already taken towards the reduction of GHG emissions; summarizes the 2005 emissions inventory; presents actions the City, residents and businesses can take to further reduce emissions; sets reduction goals; and describes a monitoring plan (City 2010).
The City General Plan Conservation and Sustainability element supports the CAP with goals, policies, and actions to reduce the City’s contribution to climate change by encouraging TOD, increasing transportation options, and planning for rising sea levels. The General Plans goals and policies for building energy and water efficiency, and for conservation and management of the City’s tree resources and urban forest also support the CAP and statewide GHG reduction goals (City 2013).
3.3 GHG EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.3.1 Worldwide and National GHG Inventory
In 2014, total GHG emissions worldwide were estimated at 48,892 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2e emissions (World Resource Institute [WRI] 2020). The U.S. contributed the second largest portion (13 percent) of global GHG emissions in 2014. The total U.S. GHG emissions was 6,319 MMT CO2e in 2019, of which 82 percent was CO2 emission (WRI 2020). On a national level, approximately 27 percent of GHG emissions were associated with transportation and about 38 percent were associated with electricity generation (WRI 2020).
3.3.2 State GHG Inventories
The CARB performed statewide inventories for the years 1990 to 2017, as shown in Table 15, California State Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector. The inventory is divided into six broad sectors of economic activity: agriculture, commercial, electricity generation, industrial, residential, and transportation.
Emissions are quantified in MMT CO2e.
As shown in Table 15, statewide GHG source emissions totaled 431 MMT CO2e in 1990, 471 MMT CO2e in 2000, 449 MMT CO2e in 2010, and 424 MMT CO2e in 2017. Transportation-related emissions consistently contribute the most GHG emissions, followed by electricity generation and industrial emissions.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 41 Table 15
CALIFORNIA GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY SECTOR
Sector Emissions (MMT CO2e)
1990 2000 2010 2017
Agriculture and Forestry 18.9 (4%) 31.0 (7%) 33.7 (8%) 32.4 (8%) Commercial 14.4 (3%) 14.1 (3%) 20.1 (4%) 23.3 (5%)
Electricity Generation 110.5 (26%) 105.4 (22%) 90.6 (20%) 62.6 (15%) Industrial 105.3 (24%) 105.8 (22%) 101.8 (23%) 101.1 (24%) Residential 29.7 (7%) 31.7 (7%) 32.1 (7%) 30.4 (7%)
Transportation 150.6 (35%) 183.2 (39%) 170.2 (38%) 174.3 (41%) Unspecified Remaining 1.3 (<1%) 0.0 (0%) 0.0 (0%) 0.0 (0%) TOTAL 430.7 471.1 448.5 424.1
Source: CARB 2007 and CARB 2019
MMT = million metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
3.3.3 Regional GHG Inventory
A San Francisco Bay Area regional emissions inventory for the year 2015 prepared by BAAQMD for the 2017 Clean Air Plan is presented in Table 16, San Francisco Bay Area GHG Emissions by Sector (BAAQMD 2017c). The sectors included in this inventory are somewhat different from those in the statewide inventory. Similar to the statewide emissions, transportation related GHG emissions contributed the most regionally.
Table 16
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA GHG EMISSIONS BY SECTOR
Sector 2015 Emissions
MMT CO2e (% total)1
Transportation 34.6 (41%)
Electricity 12.1 (14%)
Buildings 8.9 (11%)
Stationary Sources 22.0 (26%)
Waste Management 2.3 (3%)
Fluorinated Gases 3.6 (4%)
Agriculture 1.2 (1%)
TOTAL 84.7
Source: BAAQMD 2017c. 1 Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.
MMT = million metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
3.4 GHG METHODOLOGY
The project’s GHG emissions were calculated using the CalEEMod, Version 2020.4.0, as described in Section 2.3, above.
3.4.1 Construction Emissions
Construction of the project would result in emissions of GHG from the use of diesel-powered equipment, from worker and vendor vehicles traveling to and from the project site, and from trucks Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 42 hauling debris and soil. The anticipated construction equipment required is described in Section 2.3, above. The number of worker and vendor trips is based on CalEEMod defaults for each constructing activity. During demolition, an export of approximately 12,680 tons of old concrete/asphalt is anticipated. During grading, an import of approximately 77,700 cubic yards of soil is anticipated.
3.4.2 Operational Emissions
3.4.2.1 Area Source Emissions
This CalEEMod module estimates the GHG emissions that would occur from the use of hearths (e.g., wood or gas fireplaces and wood stoves), and landscaping equipment. This module also estimates emissions due to use of consumer products and architectural coatings that have volatile organic compounds (VOCs); however, these sources do not emit GHGs. The project would not include wood burning fireplaces, woodstoves, or natural gas fireplaces.
The use of landscape equipment emits GHGs associated with the equipment’s fuel combustion.
CalEEMod estimates the number and type of equipment needed based on the number of summer days given the project’s location as entered in the project characteristics module. The model defaults for landscaping equipment were assumed.
3.4.2.2 Vehicular (Mobile) Sources
Operational emissions from mobile source emissions are associated with vehicle trip generation and trip length. Based on the trip generation analysis, the project would generate 1,824 average daily trips (Fehr & Peers 2021). However, the trip generation analysis used older project data that assumed more residential units (377) and retail space (12,100 SF) than the proposed project. Trip generation rates used in the modeling were calculated from the trip generation data. The trip generation rates include trip reductions for internalization. Therefore, no pass-by or linked trip reductions were included in the modeling.
3.4.2.3 Energy Sources
GHGs are emitted as a result of activities in buildings for which electricity and natural gas are used as energy sources. GHGs are generated during the generation of electricity from fossil fuels off-site in power plants. These emissions are considered indirect and are calculated in CalEEMod as associated with a building’s operation.
Energy source emissions were estimated assuming implementation of energy-reducing project design features to comply with the 2019 Title 24 standards which include a requirement for new residential buildings with three or fewer residential floors to have on-site generation of electricity through photovoltaic (solar) panels. The project’s mixed-use affordable housing/commercial building and some of the townhome buildings have four or more residential floors and would not require solar panels. The project’s remaining residential buildings (234 DU) total approximately 365,038 SF of conditioned space (total floor area minus garage area, as listed in the project floor plans) and would require solar panels producing a minimum of 436 kilowatts (kW).4 The annual electricity generated by a rooftop mounted 4 Per the 2019 Title 24 residential building energy efficiency requirements, the minimum solar electrical generation required is calculated by kW = (CFA x A)/1000 + (DU * B), where CFA is the conditioned floor area, A is 0.628 (climate zone 3 [Alameda County] adjustment factor), DU is the total number of dwelling units, and B is 1.12 (climate zone 3 dwelling unit factor).
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 43 solar power system varies by the climate, amount of sunlight available per day, the pitch and orientation of the roof, and the efficiency of the electrical transmission. Assuming a capacity factor (CF) of 20 percent, which accounts for climate, daylight hours, roof pitch and orientation, and transmission loss, the power produced by the project’s solar panels would be approximately 860,799 kilowatt-hours (kWhr) per year.5 The complete solar power requirement calculations are included with the CalEEMod output files in Appendix A to this report.
3.4.2.4 Solid Waste Sources
The disposal of solid waste produces GHG emissions from anaerobic decomposition in landfills, incineration, and transportation of waste. CalEEMod determines the GHG emissions associated with disposal of solid waste into landfills. Portions of these emissions are biogenic. CalEEMod methods for quantifying GHG emissions from solid waste are based on the IPCC method using the degradable organic content of waste. Existing land use GHG emissions associated with waste disposal were all calculated using CalEEMod’s default parameters. A conservative 25 percent solid waste diversion rate was applied in CalEEMod to the new construction and redevelopment that would occur to account for mandatory compliance with AB 341 that is not included in the model defaults.
3.4.2.5 Water and Wastewater Sources
The amount of water used, and wastewater generated, by a project has indirect GHG emissions associated with it. These emissions are a result of the energy used to supply, distribute, and treat the water and wastewater. In addition to the indirect GHG emissions associated with energy use, wastewater treatment can directly emit both methane and nitrous oxide.
CalEEMod uses default electricity intensity values for various phases of supplying and treating water from CEC’s Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California. The model estimates water/wastewater emissions by multiplying the total projected water/wastewater demand by the applicable water electricity intensities and by the utility intensity GHG factors.
The default CalEEMod water use assumptions were used for the GHG emissions estimates for existing land uses and operation of the project. For the project’s water and wastewater GHG emissions, an overall 20 percent reduction in water use was applied in the CalEEMod mitigation section to account for recent requirements of CALGreen.
3.5 GHG SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Given the relatively small levels of emissions generated by a typical project in relationship to the total amount of GHG emissions generated on a national or global basis, individual development projects are not expected to result in significant, direct impacts with respect to climate change. However, given the magnitude of the impact of GHG emissions on the global climate, GHG emissions from new development could result in significant, cumulative impacts with respect to climate change. Thus, the potential for a significant GHG impact is limited to cumulative impacts. 5 Solar kWhr per year can be calculated by: kWhr/year = Power Output (kW) x 24 hours/day x 365 days/year x CF, where CF is a capacity factor which accounts for climate, daylight hours, roof pitch and orientation, and transmission loss. For typical California residential systems, the CF can range between 17% and 22.5%. A CF of 20% was used in the project calculations.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 44 Consistent with the significance thresholds included in the PEIR, a project would have a significant environmental impact if it would:
(1) Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or
(2) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
The BAAQMD has adopted GHG thresholds of significance that a lead agency may use for determining the significance of a land use development project’s GHG impacts. For development project, the BAAQMD recommends an efficiency threshold of 4.6 metric ton (MT) or carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) per service population year for a project’s long-term operational GHG emissions (BAAQMD 2017a).6 The BAAQMD’s GHG thresholds were developed to meet the year 2020 statewide GHG emissions targets as mandated by AB 32 and implemented by the CARB Scoping Plan. The BAAQMD has not adopted guidance or revised thresholds to account for GHG reduction target beyond 2020.
Therefore, this analysis compares the project’s emissions to a reduced threshold corresponding to the SB 32 reduction target of emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Accordingly, a threshold reduced by 4.98 percent for each year between 2020 and 2030 would meet the mandates of SB 32. The first full year of operation for the project is anticipated to be 2025. Therefore, a threshold 22.6 percent below the BAAQMD threshold of 4.6 MT CO2e per service population per year (or 3.56 MT) is used in this analysis.
The BAAQMD has not adopted a threshold for determining the significance of a project’s construction GHG emissions. However, the BAAQMD recommends quantification and disclosure of GHG emissions that would occur during construction.
Given the relatively small levels of emissions generated by a project in relationship to the total amount of GHG emissions generated on a national or global basis, individual projects are not expected to result in significant, direct impacts with respect to climate change. However, given the magnitude of the impact of GHG emissions on the global climate, GHG emissions from new development could result in significant, cumulative impacts with respect to climate change. Therefore, the significance of the project’s GHG emission impacts are only evaluated cumulatively.
3.6 GHG IMPACT ANALYSIS
GHG emissions are discussed in Chapter 4.6 of the PEIR prepared for the Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan (City 2011).
3.6.1 PEIR Impact 4.6-1
Greenhouse gas emissions generated by the project would not have a significant impact on the environment.
6 Service population is the total number of residents living in an area plus the employees working in the same area.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 45 3.6.1.1 GHG Emissions Conclusions in the PEIR
The PEIR concluded that the Specific Plan’s contribution to regional GHG emissions would be potentially significant. PEIR Mitigation Measure 4.6-1 requires implementation of project design features to reduce building energy and transportation related GHG emissions and would reduce the impact to less than significant.
3.6.1.2 Project-Specific GHG Emissions Analysis
Construction Emissions
Project construction GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod as described in Section 2.3.
Emissions of GHGs related to the construction of the project would be temporary. As shown in Table 17, Construction GHG Emissions, the total estimated GHG emissions associated with construction of the project would be approximately 5,065 MT CO2e. Construction period emissions are typically amortized (i.e., averaged) over the anticipated 30-year lifespan of the project buildings. Averaged over 30 years, the proposed construction activities would contribute approximately 168.8 MT CO2e emissions per year.
Table 17
CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS
Project Phase and Year Emissions
(MT CO2e)
Phase 1 2022 1,519.0
Phase 1 2023 2,333.2
Phase 1 2024 1,059.3
Phase 2 2024 153.4
TOTAL 5,064.9
Amortized Emissions (Total Emission/30 Years) 168.8
Source: CalEEMod, output data is provided in Appendix A.
Notes: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
MT = metric ton; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
As noted above, BAAQMD has not adopted a threshold for determining the significance of a project’s temporary construction GHG emissions. However, anticipated construction emissions for the project are provided below for informational purposes. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
Operational Emissions
The project’s operational GHG emissions and the existing land use GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod as described in Section 3.4. The complete modeling output is included as Appendix A to this report. The project’s net annual operational emissions would be the total project annual emissions for the first year of full buildout, after completion of both Phase 1 and Phase 2 in 2024. As shown in Table 18, Total Operational GHG Emissions, the project would result in approximately 2,024 MT CO2e per year.
For comparison with the BAAQMD efficiency threshold, adjusted for the year 2025, the project’s total operational emissions were divided by the project’s estimated future service population. Based on the emissions modeling, the CalEEMod default population density for condos/townhomes for Alameda Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 46 County would be 2.86 persons per DU, and the project’s future residential population would be approximately 1,058 residents. From information provided by the project applicant, the project commercial retail space would result in approximately 7 employees. Therefore, the project’s estimated service population would be 1,065. As shown in Table 18, the project’s per capita emissions would be approximately 1.90 MT CO2e per year, below the adjusted threshold of MT CO2e per service population per year. Therefore, the project would not generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment, and the impact would be less than significant and would not exceed the significance determination in the PEIR.
Table 18
TOTAL OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS
Project Phase and Source Emissions
(MT CO2e/year)
Phase 1 Area 4.2
Phase 1 Energy 410.6
Phase 1 Vehicular (Mobile) 1,371.9
Phase 1 Solid Waste 61.8
Phase 1 Water and Wastewater 38.1
Phase 1 Subtotal1 1,886.5
Phase 2 Area 0.3
Phase 2 Energy 31.8
Phase 2 Vehicular (Mobile) 96.5
Phase 2 Solid Waste 4.7
Phase 2 Water and Wastewater 4.4
Phase 2 Subtotal1 137.7
Total Emissions
(Phase 1 Subtotal + Phase 2 Subtotal)1 2,024.2
Service Population 1,065
Emissions Per Service Population2 1.90
Threshold (MT CO2e per service population per year) 3.56 Exceed Threshold? No
Source: CalEEMod, output data is provided in Appendix A. 1 Totals may not sum due to rounding. 2 Net emissions per service population = total emissions divided by the estimated future service population of 1,098.
MT = metric ton; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
Mitigation Measures
The PEIR included Mitigation Measure 4.6-1, which included a list of project design features that were intended to reduce the Specific Plan’s GHG emissions to below the 4.6 MT/SP threshold. The proposed project includes mandated project-specific design features, including solar electricity generation, low water use plumbing fixtures, water efficient landscaping and irrigations, and solid waste diversion, as described in Section 3.4. In addition, the project trip generation analysis accounts for trip reductions resulting from the project’s mixed land use (residential and local serving commercial/retail; Fehr & Peers 2021.
As shown in Table 18 above, incorporation of these project design features would achieve the same goal as PEIR Mitigation Measure 4.6-1, and the project’s emissions would be below the threshold. Therefore, no further mitigation is required.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 47 3.6.2 PEIR Impact 4.6-2
Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable GHG reduction plan, policy, or regulation.
3.6.2.1 GHG Reduction Plans Consistency Conclusions in the PEIR This issue was analyzed in the PEIR which concluded that the Specific Plan would not conflict with the City’s CAP and the impact would be less than significant.
3.6.2.2 Project-Specific GHG Reduction Plans Consistency Analysis There have been no updates to the City’s CAP Initial Framework or GHG reduction-related policies in the General Plan since the PEIR was certified in 2011. Since the project would be consistent with the Specific Plan’s intent for mixed-use TOD, the project would be consistent with the CAP Initial Framework and General Plan. In addition, because the growth in the City’s housing and population as a result of the project would be consistent with the Specific Plan, the project would be consistent with the growth assumptions used to develop the Plan Bay Area 2040 RTP/SCS.
The project design features listed in Section 1.4 would support the policies included in the 2013 General Plan (2013). These General Plan policies include:
Action CS-3.E Water Efficient Landscaping. Continue to implement the City’s Bay Friendly Landscaping Guidelines for water-efficient landscaping, including low water use plants and more efficient irrigation systems. Adopt more stringent outdoor water use policies for individual development proposals where feasible.
Policy CS-3.2. Water Conservation Standards. Promote conservation through development standards, building requirements, irrigation requirements, landscape design guidelines, and other applicable City policies and programs.
Policy CS-5.1 Linking Land Use and Transportation. Encourage land use and transportation patterns that reduce dependence on automobiles. This includes siting well-designed higher-density, mixed-use development near the proposed Dumbarton Rail station and in other areas with frequent transit service.
Policy CS-5.2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Friendly Design. Ensure that new development is planned and designed to facilitate walking and bicycling as well as driving. This can potentially reduce the number of vehicle trips and related GHG emissions.
Policy CS-6.2 Encouraging Greener Construction. Encourage greener construction methods and greater use of recycled-content materials in new residential, commercial, and industrial construction projects in accordance to the latest CalGreen building standards.
Policy CS-7.1 Reducing Energy Use. Support measures to reduce energy consumption and increase energy efficiency in residential, commercial, industrial, and public buildings.
Policy CS-7.3 Designing for Energy Efficiency. Support building design, site planning, and subdivision design methods that reduce heating and cooling costs and achieve greater energy efficiency.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 48 As discussed in Issue 1, above, the project would not exceed the BAAQMD’s project level thresholds developed to meet the reduction mandates of AB 32 or the adjusted 2025 threshold to meet the reduction mandates of SB 32. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the CARB Climate Change Scoping Plan developed to implement the mandates of AB 32 and SB 32.
In addition, if a future transit project is approved and constructed using the Dumbarton Rail Corridor, all of the project’s future residents would be within ½ mile of the future train station and the project would be considered TOD. As discussed in Section 3.3, the transportation sector is the largest source of GHG emissions in the state and in the San Francisco Bay Area region. A project’s GHG emissions from cars and light trucks are directly correlated to the project’s VMT. A reduction of VMT through implementation of TOD projects is a key component of regional transportation and SCS plans, such as Plan Bay Area 2040, to mitigate the adverse effects of traffic congestion and reduce GHGs (MTC and ABAG 2017).
Therefore, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases, and impacts would be less than significant and would not exceed the conclusions in the PEIR.
3.6.2.3 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
4.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
Martin Rolph Air Quality Specialist
Victor Ortiz Senior Air Quality Specialist
Joanne M. Dramko, AICP Principal Air Quality Specialist, QAQC Lesley Owning Project Manager
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 49 5.0 REFERENCES
Alameda County Transit (AC Transit). 2020a. Reducing Emissions. Available at:
http://www.actransit.org/environment/reducingemissions/#:~:text=Cleaner%20Engines&text=AC%20Transit%20has%20installed%20exhaust,mo noxide%20by%20up%20to%2090%25. Accessed June 5, 2020.
2020b. Maps and Schedules. Available at:
http://www.actransit.org/maps/index.php?line=200&Go=Go#. Accessed June 9, 2020.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017a. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status. Last updated January 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/research-and-data/air-qualitystandards-and-attainment-status#eleven. 2017b. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May. Available at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. 2017c. Final Clean Air Plan – Spare the Air Cool the Climate. April 19. Available at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-airplan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2021. User's Guide for CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0. Available at: http://www.caleemod.com/.
2018. Health Effects. Available at: http://www.capcoa.org/health-effects/.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2021. Top 4 Measurements and Days Above the Standard.
Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/welcome.html. Accessed December 2021. 2019. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2017 – By Sector and Activity. August 12.
Available at:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/tables/ghg_inventory_sector_sum_2000-17.pdf. 2018a. Overview: Diesel Exhaust and Health. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health. 2018b. Federal Standard Area Designations. Available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/feddesig.htm.
2017a. Clean Car Standards – Pavley, Assembly Bill 1493. Accessed December. Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccms/ccms.htm.
2017b. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards. May 4. Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 50 2015. HARP AERMOD Meteorological Files, Individual Station Files 5-Year Data Set from 1/1/2009 to 1/2/2014. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/harpaermod-meteorological-files. 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework. Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climate_change_scoping_pla n.pdf.
2009. State Implementation Plan Background. April 13. Available at:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/background.htm.
2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan – A Framework for Change. December. 2007. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory – By Sector and Activity. November 19. Available at:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/archive/tables/ghg_inventory_sector_sum_90-04_ar4.pdf. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April.
California Building Standards Commission (CBSC). 2019. CALGreen (CCR Title 24, Part 11). Available at:
http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx.
Caltrain 2019. Schedules. Available at: https://www.caltrain.com/schedules.html.
Fehr & Peers. 2021. Trip Generation and Intersection Operations Analysis – FMC Willow and Grand Park Project. November 19.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Summary for Policymakers. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. February.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments (MTC and ABAG). 2017. Plan Bay Area 2040. Adopted July 26. Available at: https://www.planbayarea.org/planbay-area-2040.
Newark, City of (City). 2013. Newark California General Plan. Adopted December 12. Available at:
https://www.n ewark.org/home/showpublisheddocument/76/636502245500200000. 2011. Dumbarton Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2010042012). May.
2010. Climate Action Plan, January 2010 Initial Framework. Available at:
https://www.newark.org/home/showpublisheddocument/328/636502463456000000.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 51 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA). 2021. NASA News & Features Releases. 2020 Tied for Warmest Year on Record, NASA Analysis Show.
January 14. https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20210114/.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2021. Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.
Available at: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends. Accessed March 2021.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. February. Available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf.
San Mateo County Transit District. 2017. Dumbarton Transportation Corridor Study. November.
Available at: http://www.samtrans.com/Assets/Dumbarton+Rail+Corridor/PDFs/171120+DTCS+- +Full+Report.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009. Fact Sheet Emission Factors for Locomotives.
Available at:
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/P100500B.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Ind ex=2006+Thru+2010&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc =&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp =0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C06thru10%5CTxt%5C00000010%5C P100500B.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C- &MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Dis play=hpfr&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page &MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL.
2017. Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act. Last updated July 7. Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/endangerment-and-cause-or-contribute-findingsgreenhouse-gases-under-section-202a-clean. 2011. Haul Road Workgroup Recommendations. November. Available at:
https://www3.epa.gov/scram001/reports/Haul_Road_Workgroup-Final_Report_Package20120302.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (USEPA and NHTSA). 2012. 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards. October 15.
World Resources Institute (WRI). 2020. CAIT Climate Data Explorer. Available:
http://cait.wri.org/historical. Accessed April 2020.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 52 This page intentionally left blank
Appendix A
CalEEMod Output
This page intentionally left blank
FMC Willow Solar Panel Requirements
A 0.628
B 1.12
CF 20%
DU SF/Unit Total SF Garage Sf Garage Tot. Conditioned Space kW kWhr/year PA2 (UA Stack) 64.0 2,088.3 133,652.4 400.0 25,600.0 108,052.4 139.5 244,468.7 PA3 (UA Split less than 4 story) 78.0 1,837.2 143,302.0 400.0 31,200.0 112,102.0 157.8 276,395.6 PA4 (UA Towns) 66.0 1,973.9 130,274.6 400.0 26,400.0 103,874.6 139.2 243,796.5 Subtotal 208.0 407,229.0 83,200.0 324,029.0 436.5 764,660.7 PA4 (UA Towns) 26.0 51,409.0 10,400.0 41,009.0 54.9 96,138.6 Total 234.0 458,638.0 93,600.0 365,038.0 491.3 860,799.4 Factors for Climate Zone 3
Phase 1
Phase 2
Notes:
1. Calculations based on 2019 Title 24 Residential Compliance Manual for new residential buildings with 3 or fewer residential floors. The project's 91 DU affordable housing and 45 of the PA3 DU have 4 residential floors and are not included in these calculations.
2. The CEC California Building Climate Zone (zone 3) used in these calculations is not the same as the CEC Forecasting Climate Zone (zone 5) used in CalEEMod.
3. Factors are for Alameda County where A is the climate zone 3 adjustment factor, B is the climate zone 3 dwelling unit factor, and CF is the capacity factor which accounts for climate, daylight hours, roof pitch and orientation, and transmission loss.
4. Solar power output requirement is calculated by 2019 Title 24 Residential Compliance Manual Equation 7‐1:
kW = (CFA X A) / 1000 + (DU X B).
5. Annual solar energy generated is calculated by:
IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1
Alameda County, Winter
Project Characteristics - Run 5 - Revised site plan: 344 DU Phase 1, add transit station improvements.
Land Use - Condo/townhouse high rise = affordable housing units.
Retail = ground floor mixed use.
General office building = residential common areas in mixed use building.
Parking includes parking lots streets, sidewalks, transit station improvements.
Construction Phase - Construction schedule per project applicant/engineer.
Site Preparation included in grading.
Underground utilites and paving concurrent with building construction.
Architectural coating concurrent with the last 6 months of building construction.
Off-road Equipment -
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 1.61 1000sqft 0.00 1,610.00 0
Other Asphalt Surfaces 321.70 1000sqft 7.39 321,700.00 0 Condo/Townhouse 253.00 Dwelling Unit 8.65 479,306.00 724 Condo/Townhouse High Rise 91.00 Dwelling Unit 0.38 78,975.00 260 Strip Mall 4.00 1000sqft 0.00 4,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
5 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 63
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Operational Year 2025
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
203.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:24 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Off-road Equipment - Equipment per project applicant/engineer Off-road Equipment - Equipment per project applicant/engineer.
Off-highway Trucks = 2 dump trucks and 1 water truck.
Off-road Equipment - Equipment per project applicant/engineer.
Off-highway Trucks = 1 dump truck and 1 water truck.
Off-road Equipment - Equipment per project applicant/engineer.
Off-highway Trucks = 1 water truck.
Off-road Equipment - Equipment per project applicant/engineer.
Off-highway Trucks = 1 dump truck and 1 water truck.
Trips and VMT - Vendor trips during Underground Utilites for delivery of supplies and materials. 370 round trips for import of asphalt, aggreagte, and/or concrete during paving.
Demolition - 12,680 tons concrete/ashpalt exported during demolition.
Grading - 77,700 CY soil imported during grading.
Architectural Coating - VOC limits per BAAQMD Regulation 8 Rule 3: 50 g/L for flat interiior and exterior and 100 g/L for pavement marking.
Vehicle Trips - Trip generation rates per traffic study (Fehr & Peers 2021).
Future transit station trips applied to parking.
Trip generation acounts for "internalization," all trip purposes set to 100% primary.
Woodstoves - No hearths per project applicant.
Area Coating - VOC limits per BAAQMD Regulation 8 Rule 3: 50 g/L for flat interiior and exterior and 100 g/L for pavement marking.
Water And Wastewater -
Solid Waste -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Dust mitigation per BAAQMD BCMMs.
Tier 4 engine mitigation per Mitigation Measure AQ-1.
Energy Mitigation - Per 2019 Title 24 Residential Complinace Manual Eq. 7-1: kW = (CFA X A)/1000 + (DU X B) kW = (324029 X 0.628)/1000 + (208 X 1.12) = 436.5 kW
kWhr/year = kW X 24 hours X 365 days X 20% = 764,661 kWhr/year Water Mitigation - Water Mitigation - 20% water conservation per 2019 CalGreen not accounted for in model defaults.
Waste Mitigation - 25% solid waste diversion per AB 341 not accounted for in model defaults.
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 150.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 100.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Parking 150.00 100.00
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Exterior 150.00 50.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:24 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Interior 100.00 50.00 tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 150 50
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Nonresidential_Interior 100 50
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Parking 150 100
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Residential_Exterior 150 50
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Residential_Interior 100 50
tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 9.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 6.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 8.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 8.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 10.00 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:24 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 15.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 30.00 107.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 300.00 412.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 15.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 130.00
tblFireplaces NumberGas 37.95 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberGas 13.65 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 43.01 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 15.47 0.00
tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 77,700.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 253,000.00 479,306.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 91,000.00 78,975.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.04 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 15.81 8.65
tblLandUse LotAcreage 1.42 0.38
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.09 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 8.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:24 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 4.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 370.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 10.00
tblVehicleTrips CC_TTP 0.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 11.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 11.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 40.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 3.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 3.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 15.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 86.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 86.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 0.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 45.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.14 4.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 4.91 4.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.21 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 0.00 0.63
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 42.04 8.60
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.28 4.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 4.09 4.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.70 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.00 0.63
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 20.43 8.60
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 7.32 4.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:24 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 5.44 4.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.74 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 0.00 0.63
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 44.32 8.60
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 5.06 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.82 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 5.06 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.82 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:24 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2022 8.0894 94.3419 57.8396 0.1933 20.3667 3.3514 23.7181 7.8322 3.0884 10.9206 0.0000 19,351.11 25 19,351.11
25 4.3382 0.9755 19,750.25
28 2023 12.1055 89.0242 109.0953 0.2370 4.4347 3.8544 8.2891 1.1940 3.7104 4.9044 0.0000 23,059.27 04 23,059.27
04 3.1764 0.6220 23,324.02
53 2024 36.3296 65.3847 87.2965 0.1835 4.4052 2.6957 7.1009 1.1823 2.6239 3.8062 0.0000 17,791.06 50 17,791.06
50 1.7928 0.3708 17,946.38
27 Maximum 36.3296 94.3419 109.0953 0.2370 20.3667 3.8544 23.7181 7.8322 3.7104 10.9206 0.0000 23,059.27 04 23,059.27
04 4.3382 0.9755 23,324.02
53 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2022 2.1605 22.6541 69.3580 0.1933 10.1976 0.3609 10.5585 3.8062 0.3547 4.1609 0.0000 19,351.11 25 19,351.11
25 4.3382 0.9755 19,750.25
27 2023 5.6479 25.9204 121.6581 0.2370 4.4347 0.5621 4.9968 1.1940 0.5585 1.7525 0.0000 23,059.27 04 23,059.27
04 3.1764 0.6220 23,324.02
53 2024 31.4403 19.6177 94.5845 0.1835 4.4052 0.4114 4.8166 1.1823 0.4089 1.5912 0.0000 17,791.06 50 17,791.06
50 1.7928 0.3708 17,946.38
27 Maximum 31.4403 25.9204 121.6581 0.2370 10.1976 0.5621 10.5585 3.8062 0.5585 4.1609 0.0000 23,059.27 04 23,059.27
04 4.3382 0.9755 23,324.02
53 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:24 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
30.56 72.59 -12.34 0.00 34.82 86.52 47.91 39.44 85.97 61.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:24 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 14.0243 0.3269 28.3869 1.5000e0030.1574 0.1574 0.1574 0.1574 0.0000 51.1736 51.1736 0.0491 0.0000 52.4017 Energy 0.1799 1.5377 0.6598 9.8100e0030.1243 0.1243 0.1243 0.1243 1,962.038 2 1,962.038
2 0.0376 0.0360 1,973.697
6 Mobile 3.6489 4.9809 37.4807 0.0781 8.8730 0.0586 8.9316 2.3632 0.0546 2.4178 8,145.313 2 8,145.313
2 0.5108 0.4219 8,283.815
7 Total 17.8530 6.8455 66.5274 0.0894 8.8730 0.3403 9.2133 2.3632 0.3363 2.6995 0.0000 10,158.52 50 10,158.52
50 0.5975 0.4579 10,309.91
50 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 14.0243 0.3269 28.3869 1.5000e0030.1574 0.1574 0.1574 0.1574 0.0000 51.1736 51.1736 0.0491 0.0000 52.4017 Energy 0.1799 1.5377 0.6598 9.8100e0030.1243 0.1243 0.1243 0.1243 1,962.038 2 1,962.038
2 0.0376 0.0360 1,973.697
6 Mobile 3.6489 4.9809 37.4807 0.0781 8.8730 0.0586 8.9316 2.3632 0.0546 2.4178 8,145.313 2 8,145.313
2 0.5108 0.4219 8,283.815
7 Total 17.8530 6.8455 66.5274 0.0894 8.8730 0.3403 9.2133 2.3632 0.3363 2.6995 0.0000 10,158.52 50 10,158.52
50 0.5975 0.4579 10,309.91
50 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:24 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 4/1/2022 4/21/2022 5 15
2 Grading Grading 4/22/2022 9/19/2022 5 107
3 Underground Utilities Trenching 9/20/2022 9/19/2023 5 261 4 Building Construction Building Construction 3/1/2023 9/26/2024 5 412 5 Paving Paving 9/20/2023 10/10/2023 5 15
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 3/29/2024 9/26/2024 5 130 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 2 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Off-Highway Trucks 3 8.00 402 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 1,130,519; Residential Outdoor: 376,840; Non-Residential Indoor: 8,415; Non-Residential Outdoor: 2,805; Striped Parking Area: 19,302 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 642
Acres of Paving: 7.39
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:24 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 2 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Off-Highway Trucks 2 8.00 402 0.38
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 4 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Underground Utilities Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56 Underground Utilities Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Underground Utilities Off-Highway Trucks 2 8.00 402 0.38 Underground Utilities Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Aerial Lifts 4 8.00 63 0.31
Building Construction Air Compressors 8 8.00 78 0.48
Building Construction Cranes 4 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 4 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 8 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 4 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 8.00 9 0.56
Paving Off-Highway Trucks 1 8.00 402 0.38
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:24 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0893 0.0000 18.0893 2.7389 0.0000 2.7389 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.7091 42.1360 35.5557 0.0858 1.9250 1.9250 1.7950 1.7950 8,278.864 3 8,278.864
3 2.3589 8,337.835
6 Total 4.7091 42.1360 35.5557 0.0858 18.0893 1.9250 20.0143 2.7389 1.7950 4.5339 8,278.864 3 8,278.864
3 2.3589 8,337.835
6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 11 28.00 0.00 1,254.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 14 35.00 0.00 9,713.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Underground Utilities 7 18.00 10.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 34 385.00 90.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 11 28.00 0.00 370.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 77.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:24 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.3785 14.2335 2.9055 0.0524 1.4642 0.1291 1.5934 0.4015 0.1236 0.5251 5,643.337 3 5,643.337
3 0.1220 0.8913 5,911.993
2 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0849 0.0621 0.6964 1.9300e0030.2300 1.2200e0030.2312 0.0610 1.1200e0030.0621 196.0826 196.0826 6.6600e0036.1200e003198.0735 Total 0.4634 14.2955 3.6019 0.0543 1.6942 0.1304 1.8246 0.4625 0.1247 0.5872 5,839.419 9 5,839.419
9 0.1287 0.8974 6,110.066
7 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.1402 0.0000 8.1402 1.2325 0.0000 1.2325 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.0222 4.4297 45.6865 0.0858 0.1363 0.1363 0.1363 0.1363 0.0000 8,278.864 3 8,278.864
3 2.3589 8,337.835
6 Total 1.0222 4.4297 45.6865 0.0858 8.1402 0.1363 8.2765 1.2325 0.1363 1.3688 0.0000 8,278.864 3 8,278.864
3 2.3589 8,337.835
6 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:24 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.3785 14.2335 2.9055 0.0524 1.4642 0.1291 1.5934 0.4015 0.1236 0.5251 5,643.337 3 5,643.337
3 0.1220 0.8913 5,911.993
2 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0849 0.0621 0.6964 1.9300e0030.2300 1.2200e0030.2312 0.0610 1.1200e0030.0621 196.0826 196.0826 6.6600e0036.1200e003198.0735 Total 0.4634 14.2955 3.6019 0.0543 1.6942 0.1304 1.8246 0.4625 0.1247 0.5872 5,839.419 9 5,839.419
9 0.1287 0.8974 6,110.066
7 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.4893 0.0000 18.4893 7.3200 0.0000 7.3200 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 7.5722 78.8091 53.8143 0.1340 3.2096 3.2096 2.9528 2.9528 12,978.28 32 12,978.28
32 4.1974 13,083.21
92 Total 7.5722 78.8091 53.8143 0.1340 18.4893 3.2096 21.6989 7.3200 2.9528 10.2728 12,978.28 32 12,978.28
32 4.1974 13,083.21
92 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:24 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.3 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.4110 15.4552 3.1549 0.0569 1.5899 0.1402 1.7301 0.4360 0.1342 0.5701 6,127.726 1 6,127.726
1 0.1325 0.9678 6,419.441
7 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1062 0.0776 0.8705 2.4100e0030.2875 1.5200e0030.2890 0.0763 1.4000e0030.0777 245.1032 245.1032 8.3200e0037.6500e003247.5919 Total 0.5171 15.5328 4.0253 0.0593 1.8774 0.1417 2.0192 0.5123 0.1356 0.6478 6,372.829 3 6,372.829
3 0.1408 0.9755 6,667.033
5 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.3202 0.0000 8.3202 3.2940 0.0000 3.2940 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.6434 7.1213 65.3327 0.1340 0.2191 0.2191 0.2191 0.2191 0.0000 12,978.28 32 12,978.28
32 4.1974 13,083.21
92 Total 1.6434 7.1213 65.3327 0.1340 8.3202 0.2191 8.5393 3.2940 0.2191 3.5131 0.0000 12,978.28 32 12,978.28
32 4.1974 13,083.21
92 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:24 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.3 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.4110 15.4552 3.1549 0.0569 1.5899 0.1402 1.7301 0.4360 0.1342 0.5701 6,127.726 1 6,127.726
1 0.1325 0.9678 6,419.441
7 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1062 0.0776 0.8705 2.4100e0030.2875 1.5200e0030.2890 0.0763 1.4000e0030.0777 245.1032 245.1032 8.3200e0037.6500e003247.5919 Total 0.5171 15.5328 4.0253 0.0593 1.8774 0.1417 2.0192 0.5123 0.1356 0.6478 6,372.829 3 6,372.829
3 0.1408 0.9755 6,667.033
5 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Underground Utilities - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.8498 15.3008 18.0121 0.0437 0.6583 0.6583 0.6068 0.6068 4,210.995 3 4,210.995
3 1.3508 4,244.766
0 Total 1.8498 15.3008 18.0121 0.0437 0.6583 0.6583 0.6068 0.6068 4,210.995 3 4,210.995
3 1.3508 4,244.766
0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:24 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.4 Underground Utilities - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0202 0.5582 0.1566 2.0900e0030.0678 5.5700e0030.0733 0.0195 5.3300e0030.0248 222.6351 222.6351 3.3500e0030.0334 232.6667 Worker 0.0546 0.0399 0.4477 1.2400e0030.1479 7.8000e0040.1487 0.0392 7.2000e0040.0399 126.0531 126.0531 4.2800e0033.9400e003127.3330 Total 0.0748 0.5981 0.6043 3.3300e0030.2156 6.3500e0030.2220 0.0587 6.0500e0030.0648 348.6882 348.6882 7.6300e0030.0373 359.9996 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.5851 2.6490 24.6832 0.0437 0.0845 0.0845 0.0845 0.0845 0.0000 4,210.995 3 4,210.995
3 1.3508 4,244.766
0 Total 0.5851 2.6490 24.6832 0.0437 0.0845 0.0845 0.0845 0.0845 0.0000 4,210.995 3 4,210.995
3 1.3508 4,244.766
0 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:24 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.4 Underground Utilities - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0202 0.5582 0.1566 2.0900e0030.0678 5.5700e0030.0733 0.0195 5.3300e0030.0248 222.6351 222.6351 3.3500e0030.0334 232.6667 Worker 0.0546 0.0399 0.4477 1.2400e0030.1479 7.8000e0040.1487 0.0392 7.2000e0040.0399 126.0531 126.0531 4.2800e0033.9400e003127.3330 Total 0.0748 0.5981 0.6043 3.3300e0030.2156 6.3500e0030.2220 0.0587 6.0500e0030.0648 348.6882 348.6882 7.6300e0030.0373 359.9996 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Underground Utilities - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7466 13.6726 17.8635 0.0437 0.5756 0.5756 0.5307 0.5307 4,213.657 6 4,213.657
6 1.3517 4,247.449
8 Total 1.7466 13.6726 17.8635 0.0437 0.5756 0.5756 0.5307 0.5307 4,213.657 6 4,213.657
6 1.3517 4,247.449
8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:24 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.4 Underground Utilities - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 9.8700e0030.4468 0.1346 2.0000e0030.0678 2.6400e0030.0704 0.0195 2.5300e0030.0220 213.4422 213.4422 2.8900e0030.0320 223.0419 Worker 0.0509 0.0354 0.4155 1.2000e0030.1479 7.4000e0040.1486 0.0392 6.8000e0040.0399 122.8501 122.8501 3.8800e0033.6500e003124.0345 Total 0.0608 0.4822 0.5500 3.2000e0030.2156 3.3800e0030.2190 0.0587 3.2100e0030.0619 336.2923 336.2923 6.7700e0030.0356 347.0765 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.5851 2.6490 24.6831 0.0437 0.0845 0.0845 0.0845 0.0845 0.0000 4,213.657 6 4,213.657
6 1.3517 4,247.449
8 Total 0.5851 2.6490 24.6831 0.0437 0.0845 0.0845 0.0845 0.0845 0.0000 4,213.657 6 4,213.657
6 1.3517 4,247.449
8 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:24 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.4 Underground Utilities - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 9.8700e0030.4468 0.1346 2.0000e0030.0678 2.6400e0030.0704 0.0195 2.5300e0030.0220 213.4422 213.4422 2.8900e0030.0320 223.0419 Worker 0.0509 0.0354 0.4155 1.2000e0030.1479 7.4000e0040.1486 0.0392 6.8000e0040.0399 122.8501 122.8501 3.8800e0033.6500e003124.0345 Total 0.0608 0.4822 0.5500 3.2000e0030.2156 3.3800e0030.2190 0.0587 3.2100e0030.0619 336.2923 336.2923 6.7700e0030.0356 347.0765 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 7.5527 63.3188 74.6577 0.1330 2.9665 2.9665 2.8893 2.8893 12,542.52 89 12,542.52
89 1.6946 12,584.89
27 Total 7.5527 63.3188 74.6577 0.1330 2.9665 2.9665 2.8893 2.8893 12,542.52 89 12,542.52
89 1.6946 12,584.89
27 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:24 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0889 4.0211 1.2112 0.0180 0.6100 0.0238 0.6338 0.1756 0.0228 0.1984 1,920.979 6 1,920.979
6 0.0260 0.2878 2,007.377
5 Worker 1.0883 0.7565 8.8863 0.0257 3.1627 0.0159 3.1786 0.8389 0.0146 0.8535 2,627.627 3 2,627.627
3 0.0829 0.0781 2,652.960
5 Total 1.1772 4.7776 10.0975 0.0437 3.7726 0.0397 3.8123 1.0145 0.0374 1.0519 4,548.606 9 4,548.606
9 0.1089 0.3658 4,660.337
9 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.4163 14.8009 81.6487 0.1330 0.3960 0.3960 0.3960 0.3960 0.0000 12,542.52 89 12,542.52
89 1.6946 12,584.89
27 Total 2.4163 14.8009 81.6487 0.1330 0.3960 0.3960 0.3960 0.3960 0.0000 12,542.52 89 12,542.52
89 1.6946 12,584.89
27 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:24 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0889 4.0211 1.2112 0.0180 0.6100 0.0238 0.6338 0.1756 0.0228 0.1984 1,920.979 6 1,920.979
6 0.0260 0.2878 2,007.377
5 Worker 1.0883 0.7565 8.8863 0.0257 3.1627 0.0159 3.1786 0.8389 0.0146 0.8535 2,627.627 3 2,627.627
3 0.0829 0.0781 2,652.960
5 Total 1.1772 4.7776 10.0975 0.0437 3.7726 0.0397 3.8123 1.0145 0.0374 1.0519 4,548.606 9 4,548.606
9 0.1089 0.3658 4,660.337
9 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 7.0801 59.3186 74.3260 0.1330 2.5927 2.5927 2.5233 2.5233 12,542.82 02 12,542.82
02 1.6607 12,584.33
76 Total 7.0801 59.3186 74.3260 0.1330 2.5927 2.5927 2.5233 2.5233 12,542.82 02 12,542.82
02 1.6607 12,584.33
76 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:24 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0866 4.0365 1.1885 0.0177 0.6100 0.0240 0.6340 0.1756 0.0230 0.1986 1,891.363 9 1,891.363
9 0.0260 0.2835 1,976.488
0 Worker 1.0186 0.6756 8.3099 0.0248 3.1627 0.0151 3.1778 0.8389 0.0139 0.8528 2,562.860 7 2,562.860
7 0.0753 0.0728 2,586.427
4 Total 1.1052 4.7121 9.4984 0.0426 3.7727 0.0391 3.8118 1.0145 0.0369 1.0514 4,454.224 7 4,454.224
7 0.1012 0.3562 4,562.915
3 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.3418 14.6417 81.5918 0.1330 0.3653 0.3653 0.3653 0.3653 0.0000 12,542.82 02 12,542.82
02 1.6607 12,584.33
76 Total 2.3418 14.6417 81.5918 0.1330 0.3653 0.3653 0.3653 0.3653 0.0000 12,542.82 02 12,542.82
02 1.6607 12,584.33
76 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:24 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0866 4.0365 1.1885 0.0177 0.6100 0.0240 0.6340 0.1756 0.0230 0.1986 1,891.363 9 1,891.363
9 0.0260 0.2835 1,976.488
0 Worker 1.0186 0.6756 8.3099 0.0248 3.1627 0.0151 3.1778 0.8389 0.0139 0.8528 2,562.860 7 2,562.860
7 0.0753 0.0728 2,586.427
4 Total 1.1052 4.7121 9.4984 0.0426 3.7727 0.0391 3.8118 1.0145 0.0369 1.0514 4,454.224 7 4,454.224
7 0.1012 0.3562 4,562.915
3 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.9568 17.5673 22.9521 0.0437 0.8195 0.8195 0.7562 0.7562 4,191.658 3 4,191.658
3 1.3335 4,224.995
3 Paving 1.2908 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 3.2476 17.5673 22.9521 0.0437 0.8195 0.8195 0.7562 0.7562 4,191.658 3 4,191.658
3 1.3335 4,224.995
3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:24 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0489 3.3055 0.7418 0.0147 0.4321 0.0277 0.4597 0.1185 0.0265 0.1449 1,585.376 1 1,585.376
1 0.0335 0.2505 1,660.856
8 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0792 0.0550 0.6463 1.8700e0030.2300 1.1500e0030.2312 0.0610 1.0600e0030.0621 191.1002 191.1002 6.0300e0035.6800e003192.9426 Total 0.1281 3.3605 1.3881 0.0166 0.6621 0.0288 0.6909 0.1795 0.0275 0.2070 1,776.476 3 1,776.476
3 0.0395 0.2562 1,853.799
4 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.6356 2.9814 28.5238 0.0437 0.0977 0.0977 0.0977 0.0977 0.0000 4,191.658 3 4,191.658
3 1.3335 4,224.995
3 Paving 1.2908 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.9264 2.9814 28.5238 0.0437 0.0977 0.0977 0.0977 0.0977 0.0000 4,191.658 3 4,191.658
3 1.3335 4,224.995
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:24 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0489 3.3055 0.7418 0.0147 0.4321 0.0277 0.4597 0.1185 0.0265 0.1449 1,585.376 1 1,585.376
1 0.0335 0.2505 1,660.856
8 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0792 0.0550 0.6463 1.8700e0030.2300 1.1500e0030.2312 0.0610 1.0600e0030.0621 191.1002 191.1002 6.0300e0035.6800e003192.9426 Total 0.1281 3.3605 1.3881 0.0166 0.6621 0.0288 0.6909 0.1795 0.0275 0.2070 1,776.476 3 1,776.476
3 0.0395 0.2562 1,853.799
4 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 27.7598 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e0030.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 27.9405 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e0030.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:24 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.2037 0.1351 1.6620 4.9700e0030.6325 3.0200e0030.6356 0.1678 2.7800e0030.1706 512.5722 512.5722 0.0151 0.0146 517.2855 Total 0.2037 0.1351 1.6620 4.9700e0030.6325 3.0200e0030.6356 0.1678 2.7800e0030.1706 512.5722 512.5722 0.0151 0.0146 517.2855 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 27.7598 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0297 0.1288 1.8324 2.9700e0033.9600e0033.9600e0033.9600e0033.9600e0030.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 27.7895 0.1288 1.8324 2.9700e0033.9600e0033.9600e0033.9600e0033.9600e0030.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:24 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.2037 0.1351 1.6620 4.9700e0030.6325 3.0200e0030.6356 0.1678 2.7800e0030.1706 512.5722 512.5722 0.0151 0.0146 517.2855 Total 0.2037 0.1351 1.6620 4.9700e0030.6325 3.0200e0030.6356 0.1678 2.7800e0030.1706 512.5722 512.5722 0.0151 0.0146 517.2855 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:24 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 3.6489 4.9809 37.4807 0.0781 8.8730 0.0586 8.9316 2.3632 0.0546 2.4178 8,145.313 2 8,145.313
2 0.5108 0.4219 8,283.815
7 Unmitigated 3.6489 4.9809 37.4807 0.0781 8.8730 0.0586 8.9316 2.3632 0.0546 2.4178 8,145.313 2 8,145.313
2 0.5108 0.4219 8,283.815
7 4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Condo/Townhouse 1,012.00 1,012.00 1012.00 2,632,358 2,632,358 Condo/Townhouse High Rise 364.00 364.00 364.00 946,816 946,816 General Office Building 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 202.67 202.67 202.67 538,537 538,537 Strip Mall 34.40 34.40 34.40 95,981 95,981
Total 1,613.07 1,613.07 1,613.07 4,213,692 4,213,692
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Condo/Townhouse 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 100 0 0 Condo/Townhouse High Rise 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 100 0 0 General Office Building 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 Other Asphalt Surfaces 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 100.00 0.00 100 0 0 Strip Mall 9.50 7.30 7.30 16.60 64.40 19.00 100 0 0
4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:24 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Condo/Townhouse 0.570753 0.056481 0.179220 0.111941 0.020784 0.005211 0.013984 0.013033 0.000790 0.000560 0.024477 0.000343 0.002423 Condo/Townhouse High Rise 0.570753 0.056481 0.179220 0.111941 0.020784 0.005211 0.013984 0.013033 0.000790 0.000560 0.024477 0.000343 0.002423 General Office Building 0.570753 0.056481 0.179220 0.111941 0.020784 0.005211 0.013984 0.013033 0.000790 0.000560 0.024477 0.000343 0.002423 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.570753 0.056481 0.179220 0.111941 0.020784 0.005211 0.013984 0.013033 0.000790 0.000560 0.024477 0.000343 0.002423 Strip Mall 0.570753 0.056481 0.179220 0.111941 0.020784 0.005211 0.013984 0.013033 0.000790 0.000560 0.024477 0.000343 0.002423
5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.1799 1.5377 0.6598 9.8100e0030.1243 0.1243 0.1243 0.1243 1,962.038 2 1,962.038
2 0.0376 0.0360 1,973.697
6 NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.1799 1.5377 0.6598 9.8100e0030.1243 0.1243 0.1243 0.1243 1,962.038 2 1,962.038
2 0.0376 0.0360 1,973.697
6 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Kilowatt Hours of Renewable Electricity Generated
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 30 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:24 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Condo/Townhous
e
14437.9 0.1557 1.3306 0.5662 8.4900e0030.1076 0.1076 0.1076 0.1076 1,698.578 0 1,698.578
0 0.0326 0.0311 1,708.671
8 Condo/Townhous
e High Rise
2104.97 0.0227 0.1940 0.0826 1.2400e0030.0157 0.0157 0.0157 0.0157 247.6435 247.6435 4.7500e0034.5400e003249.1151 General Office
Building
84.4699 9.1000e0048.2800e0036.9600e0035.0000e0056.3000e0046.3000e0046.3000e0046.3000e0049.9376 9.9376 1.9000e0041.8000e0049.9967 Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Strip Mall 49.9726 5.4000e0044.9000e0034.1200e0033.0000e0053.7000e0043.7000e0043.7000e0043.7000e0045.8791 5.8791 1.1000e0041.1000e0045.9141 Total 0.1799 1.5377 0.6598 9.8100e0030.1243 0.1243 0.1243 0.1243 1,962.038 2 1,962.038
2 0.0376 0.0360 1,973.697
7 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 31 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:24 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Condo/Townhous
e
14.4379 0.1557 1.3306 0.5662 8.4900e0030.1076 0.1076 0.1076 0.1076 1,698.578 0 1,698.578
0 0.0326 0.0311 1,708.671
8 Condo/Townhous
e High Rise
2.10497 0.0227 0.1940 0.0826 1.2400e0030.0157 0.0157 0.0157 0.0157 247.6435 247.6435 4.7500e0034.5400e003249.1151 General Office
Building
0.0844699 9.1000e0048.2800e0036.9600e0035.0000e0056.3000e0046.3000e0046.3000e0046.3000e0049.9376 9.9376 1.9000e0041.8000e0049.9967 Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Strip Mall 0.0499726 5.4000e0044.9000e0034.1200e0033.0000e0053.7000e0043.7000e0043.7000e0043.7000e0045.8791 5.8791 1.1000e0041.1000e0045.9141 Total 0.1799 1.5377 0.6598 9.8100e0030.1243 0.1243 0.1243 0.1243 1,962.038 2 1,962.038
2 0.0376 0.0360 1,973.697
7 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 32 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:24 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 14.0243 0.3269 28.3869 1.5000e0030.1574 0.1574 0.1574 0.1574 0.0000 51.1736 51.1736 0.0491 0.0000 52.4017 Unmitigated 14.0243 0.3269 28.3869 1.5000e0030.1574 0.1574 0.1574 0.1574 0.0000 51.1736 51.1736 0.0491 0.0000 52.4017
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.9887 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
12.1812 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.8544 0.3269 28.3869 1.5000e0030.1574 0.1574 0.1574 0.1574 51.1736 51.1736 0.0491 52.4017 Total 14.0243 0.3269 28.3869 1.5000e0030.1574 0.1574 0.1574 0.1574 0.0000 51.1736 51.1736 0.0491 0.0000 52.4017 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 33 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:24 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Apply Water Conservation Strategy
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.9887 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
12.1812 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.8544 0.3269 28.3869 1.5000e0030.1574 0.1574 0.1574 0.1574 51.1736 51.1736 0.0491 52.4017 Total 14.0243 0.3269 28.3869 1.5000e0030.1574 0.1574 0.1574 0.1574 0.0000 51.1736 51.1736 0.0491 0.0000 52.4017 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 34 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:24 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.0 Vegetation
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Institute Recycling and Composting Services
8.0 Waste Detail
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 35 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:24 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1
Alameda County, Summer
Project Characteristics - Run 5 - Revised site plan: 344 DU Phase 1, add transit station improvements.
Land Use - Condo/townhouse high rise = affordable housing units.
Retail = ground floor mixed use.
General office building = residential common areas in mixed use building.
Parking includes parking lots streets, sidewalks, transit station improvements.
Construction Phase - Construction schedule per project applicant/engineer.
Site Preparation included in grading.
Underground utilites and paving concurrent with building construction.
Architectural coating concurrent with the last 6 months of building construction.
Off-road Equipment -
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 1.61 1000sqft 0.00 1,610.00 0
Other Asphalt Surfaces 321.70 1000sqft 7.39 321,700.00 0 Condo/Townhouse 253.00 Dwelling Unit 8.65 479,306.00 724 Condo/Townhouse High Rise 91.00 Dwelling Unit 0.38 78,975.00 260 Strip Mall 4.00 1000sqft 0.00 4,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
5 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 63
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Operational Year 2025
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
203.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:25 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Off-road Equipment - Equipment per project applicant/engineer Off-road Equipment - Equipment per project applicant/engineer.
Off-highway Trucks = 2 dump trucks and 1 water truck.
Off-road Equipment - Equipment per project applicant/engineer.
Off-highway Trucks = 1 dump truck and 1 water truck.
Off-road Equipment - Equipment per project applicant/engineer.
Off-highway Trucks = 1 water truck.
Off-road Equipment - Equipment per project applicant/engineer.
Off-highway Trucks = 1 dump truck and 1 water truck.
Trips and VMT - Vendor trips during Underground Utilites for delivery of supplies and materials. 370 round trips for import of asphalt, aggreagte, and/or concrete during paving.
Demolition - 12,680 tons concrete/ashpalt exported during demolition.
Grading - 77,700 CY soil imported during grading.
Architectural Coating - VOC limits per BAAQMD Regulation 8 Rule 3: 50 g/L for flat interiior and exterior and 100 g/L for pavement marking.
Vehicle Trips - Trip generation rates per traffic study (Fehr & Peers 2021).
Future transit station trips applied to parking.
Trip generation acounts for "internalization," all trip purposes set to 100% primary.
Woodstoves - No hearths per project applicant.
Area Coating - VOC limits per BAAQMD Regulation 8 Rule 3: 50 g/L for flat interiior and exterior and 100 g/L for pavement marking.
Water And Wastewater -
Solid Waste -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Dust mitigation per BAAQMD BCMMs.
Tier 4 engine mitigation per Mitigation Measure AQ-1.
Energy Mitigation - Per 2019 Title 24 Residential Complinace Manual Eq. 7-1: kW = (CFA X A)/1000 + (DU X B) kW = (324029 X 0.628)/1000 + (208 X 1.12) = 436.5 kW
kWhr/year = kW X 24 hours X 365 days X 20% = 764,661 kWhr/year Water Mitigation - Water Mitigation - 20% water conservation per 2019 CalGreen not accounted for in model defaults.
Waste Mitigation - 25% solid waste diversion per AB 341 not accounted for in model defaults.
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 150.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 100.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Parking 150.00 100.00
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Exterior 150.00 50.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:25 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Interior 100.00 50.00 tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 150 50
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Nonresidential_Interior 100 50
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Parking 150 100
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Residential_Exterior 150 50
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Residential_Interior 100 50
tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 9.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 6.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 8.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 8.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 10.00 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:25 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 15.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 30.00 107.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 300.00 412.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 15.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 130.00
tblFireplaces NumberGas 37.95 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberGas 13.65 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 43.01 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 15.47 0.00
tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 77,700.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 253,000.00 479,306.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 91,000.00 78,975.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.04 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 15.81 8.65
tblLandUse LotAcreage 1.42 0.38
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.09 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 8.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:25 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 4.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 370.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 10.00
tblVehicleTrips CC_TTP 0.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 11.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 11.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 40.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 3.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 3.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 15.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 86.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 86.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 0.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 45.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.14 4.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 4.91 4.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.21 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 0.00 0.63
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 42.04 8.60
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.28 4.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 4.09 4.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.70 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.00 0.63
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 20.43 8.60
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 7.32 4.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:25 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 5.44 4.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.74 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 0.00 0.63
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 44.32 8.60
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 5.06 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.82 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 5.06 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.82 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:25 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2022 8.0984 93.5071 57.8231 0.1935 20.3667 3.3512 23.7179 7.8322 3.0882 10.9204 0.0000 19,367.46 10 19,367.46
10 4.3378 0.9740 19,766.14
51 2023 12.0944 88.4566 109.4340 0.2390 4.4347 3.8543 8.2890 1.1940 3.7103 4.9043 0.0000 23,272.04 38 23,272.04
38 3.1658 0.6096 23,532.85
30 2024 36.3104 65.0005 87.6263 0.1858 4.4052 2.6956 7.1008 1.1823 2.6238 3.8061 0.0000 18,024.87 32 18,024.87
32 1.7816 0.3583 18,176.18
74 Maximum 36.3104 93.5071 109.4340 0.2390 20.3667 3.8543 23.7179 7.8322 3.7103 10.9204 0.0000 23,272.04 38 23,272.04
38 4.3378 0.9740 23,532.85
30 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2022 2.1696 21.8193 69.3415 0.1935 10.1976 0.3607 10.5583 3.8062 0.3545 4.1607 0.0000 19,367.46 10 19,367.46
10 4.3378 0.9740 19,766.14
51 2023 5.6368 25.3528 121.9968 0.2390 4.4347 0.5620 4.9967 1.1940 0.5584 1.7524 0.0000 23,272.04 38 23,272.04
38 3.1658 0.6096 23,532.85
30 2024 31.4211 19.2335 94.9144 0.1858 4.4052 0.4113 4.8165 1.1823 0.4088 1.5911 0.0000 18,024.87 32 18,024.87
32 1.7816 0.3583 18,176.18
74 Maximum 31.4211 25.3528 121.9968 0.2390 10.1976 0.5620 10.5583 3.8062 0.5584 4.1607 0.0000 23,272.04 38 23,272.04
38 4.3378 0.9740 23,532.85
30 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:25 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
30.57 73.11 -12.31 0.00 34.82 86.53 47.91 39.44 85.97 61.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:25 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 14.0243 0.3269 28.3869 1.5000e0030.1574 0.1574 0.1574 0.1574 0.0000 51.1736 51.1736 0.0491 0.0000 52.4017 Energy 0.1799 1.5377 0.6598 9.8100e0030.1243 0.1243 0.1243 0.1243 1,962.038 2 1,962.038
2 0.0376 0.0360 1,973.697
6 Mobile 4.0634 4.3582 35.0823 0.0826 8.8730 0.0585 8.9316 2.3632 0.0546 2.4178 8,622.307 6 8,622.307
6 0.4519 0.3881 8,749.246
9 Total 18.2675 6.2229 64.1290 0.0940 8.8730 0.3402 9.2133 2.3632 0.3363 2.6995 0.0000 10,635.51 95 10,635.51
95 0.5386 0.4240 10,775.34
62 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 14.0243 0.3269 28.3869 1.5000e0030.1574 0.1574 0.1574 0.1574 0.0000 51.1736 51.1736 0.0491 0.0000 52.4017 Energy 0.1799 1.5377 0.6598 9.8100e0030.1243 0.1243 0.1243 0.1243 1,962.038 2 1,962.038
2 0.0376 0.0360 1,973.697
6 Mobile 4.0634 4.3582 35.0823 0.0826 8.8730 0.0585 8.9316 2.3632 0.0546 2.4178 8,622.307 6 8,622.307
6 0.4519 0.3881 8,749.246
9 Total 18.2675 6.2229 64.1290 0.0940 8.8730 0.3402 9.2133 2.3632 0.3363 2.6995 0.0000 10,635.51 95 10,635.51
95 0.5386 0.4240 10,775.34
62 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:25 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 4/1/2022 4/21/2022 5 15
2 Grading Grading 4/22/2022 9/19/2022 5 107
3 Underground Utilities Trenching 9/20/2022 9/19/2023 5 261 4 Building Construction Building Construction 3/1/2023 9/26/2024 5 412 5 Paving Paving 9/20/2023 10/10/2023 5 15
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 3/29/2024 9/26/2024 5 130 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 2 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Off-Highway Trucks 3 8.00 402 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 1,130,519; Residential Outdoor: 376,840; Non-Residential Indoor: 8,415; Non-Residential Outdoor: 2,805; Striped Parking Area: 19,302 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 642
Acres of Paving: 7.39
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:25 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 2 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Off-Highway Trucks 2 8.00 402 0.38
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 4 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Underground Utilities Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56 Underground Utilities Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Underground Utilities Off-Highway Trucks 2 8.00 402 0.38 Underground Utilities Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Aerial Lifts 4 8.00 63 0.31
Building Construction Air Compressors 8 8.00 78 0.48
Building Construction Cranes 4 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 4 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 8 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 4 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 8.00 9 0.56
Paving Off-Highway Trucks 1 8.00 402 0.38
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:25 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0893 0.0000 18.0893 2.7389 0.0000 2.7389 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.7091 42.1360 35.5557 0.0858 1.9250 1.9250 1.7950 1.7950 8,278.864 3 8,278.864
3 2.3589 8,337.835
6 Total 4.7091 42.1360 35.5557 0.0858 18.0893 1.9250 20.0143 2.7389 1.7950 4.5339 8,278.864 3 8,278.864
3 2.3589 8,337.835
6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 11 28.00 0.00 1,254.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 14 35.00 0.00 9,713.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Underground Utilities 7 18.00 10.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 34 385.00 90.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 11 28.00 0.00 370.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 77.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:25 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.3881 13.4786 2.8541 0.0524 1.4642 0.1290 1.5932 0.4015 0.1234 0.5249 5,640.907 7 5,640.907
7 0.1225 0.8909 5,909.451
7 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0838 0.0500 0.7278 2.0800e0030.2300 1.2200e0030.2312 0.0610 1.1200e0030.0621 211.2719 211.2719 5.8500e0035.2900e003212.9951 Total 0.4719 13.5286 3.5819 0.0544 1.6942 0.1302 1.8244 0.4625 0.1245 0.5871 5,852.179 6 5,852.179
6 0.1284 0.8962 6,122.446
7 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.1402 0.0000 8.1402 1.2325 0.0000 1.2325 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.0222 4.4297 45.6865 0.0858 0.1363 0.1363 0.1363 0.1363 0.0000 8,278.864 3 8,278.864
3 2.3589 8,337.835
6 Total 1.0222 4.4297 45.6865 0.0858 8.1402 0.1363 8.2765 1.2325 0.1363 1.3688 0.0000 8,278.864 3 8,278.864
3 2.3589 8,337.835
6 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:25 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.3881 13.4786 2.8541 0.0524 1.4642 0.1290 1.5932 0.4015 0.1234 0.5249 5,640.907 7 5,640.907
7 0.1225 0.8909 5,909.451
7 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0838 0.0500 0.7278 2.0800e0030.2300 1.2200e0030.2312 0.0610 1.1200e0030.0621 211.2719 211.2719 5.8500e0035.2900e003212.9951 Total 0.4719 13.5286 3.5819 0.0544 1.6942 0.1302 1.8244 0.4625 0.1245 0.5871 5,852.179 6 5,852.179
6 0.1284 0.8962 6,122.446
7 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.4893 0.0000 18.4893 7.3200 0.0000 7.3200 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 7.5722 78.8091 53.8143 0.1340 3.2096 3.2096 2.9528 2.9528 12,978.28 32 12,978.28
32 4.1974 13,083.21
92 Total 7.5722 78.8091 53.8143 0.1340 18.4893 3.2096 21.6989 7.3200 2.9528 10.2728 12,978.28 32 12,978.28
32 4.1974 13,083.21
92 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:25 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.3 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.4214 14.6355 3.0990 0.0569 1.5899 0.1401 1.7300 0.4360 0.1340 0.5700 6,125.088 0 6,125.088
0 0.1330 0.9673 6,416.682
0 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1048 0.0625 0.9098 2.6000e0030.2875 1.5200e0030.2890 0.0763 1.4000e0030.0777 264.0898 264.0898 7.3200e0036.6100e003266.2438 Total 0.5262 14.6980 4.0088 0.0595 1.8774 0.1416 2.0190 0.5123 0.1354 0.6476 6,389.177 8 6,389.177
8 0.1404 0.9740 6,682.925
8 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.3202 0.0000 8.3202 3.2940 0.0000 3.2940 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.6434 7.1213 65.3327 0.1340 0.2191 0.2191 0.2191 0.2191 0.0000 12,978.28 32 12,978.28
32 4.1974 13,083.21
92 Total 1.6434 7.1213 65.3327 0.1340 8.3202 0.2191 8.5393 3.2940 0.2191 3.5131 0.0000 12,978.28 32 12,978.28
32 4.1974 13,083.21
92 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:25 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.3 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.4214 14.6355 3.0990 0.0569 1.5899 0.1401 1.7300 0.4360 0.1340 0.5700 6,125.088 0 6,125.088
0 0.1330 0.9673 6,416.682
0 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1048 0.0625 0.9098 2.6000e0030.2875 1.5200e0030.2890 0.0763 1.4000e0030.0777 264.0898 264.0898 7.3200e0036.6100e003266.2438 Total 0.5262 14.6980 4.0088 0.0595 1.8774 0.1416 2.0190 0.5123 0.1354 0.6476 6,389.177 8 6,389.177
8 0.1404 0.9740 6,682.925
8 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Underground Utilities - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.8498 15.3008 18.0121 0.0437 0.6583 0.6583 0.6068 0.6068 4,210.995 3 4,210.995
3 1.3508 4,244.766
0 Total 1.8498 15.3008 18.0121 0.0437 0.6583 0.6583 0.6068 0.6068 4,210.995 3 4,210.995
3 1.3508 4,244.766
0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:25 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.4 Underground Utilities - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0206 0.5287 0.1513 2.0900e0030.0678 5.5600e0030.0733 0.0195 5.3100e0030.0248 222.5049 222.5049 3.3700e0030.0333 232.5223 Worker 0.0539 0.0321 0.4679 1.3400e0030.1479 7.8000e0040.1487 0.0392 7.2000e0040.0399 135.8176 135.8176 3.7600e0033.4000e003136.9254 Total 0.0744 0.5609 0.6192 3.4300e0030.2156 6.3400e0030.2220 0.0587 6.0300e0030.0648 358.3226 358.3226 7.1300e0030.0367 369.4477 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.5851 2.6490 24.6832 0.0437 0.0845 0.0845 0.0845 0.0845 0.0000 4,210.995 3 4,210.995
3 1.3508 4,244.766
0 Total 0.5851 2.6490 24.6832 0.0437 0.0845 0.0845 0.0845 0.0845 0.0000 4,210.995 3 4,210.995
3 1.3508 4,244.766
0 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:25 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.4 Underground Utilities - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0206 0.5287 0.1513 2.0900e0030.0678 5.5600e0030.0733 0.0195 5.3100e0030.0248 222.5049 222.5049 3.3700e0030.0333 232.5223 Worker 0.0539 0.0321 0.4679 1.3400e0030.1479 7.8000e0040.1487 0.0392 7.2000e0040.0399 135.8176 135.8176 3.7600e0033.4000e003136.9254 Total 0.0744 0.5609 0.6192 3.4300e0030.2156 6.3400e0030.2220 0.0587 6.0300e0030.0648 358.3226 358.3226 7.1300e0030.0367 369.4477 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Underground Utilities - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7466 13.6726 17.8635 0.0437 0.5756 0.5756 0.5307 0.5307 4,213.657 6 4,213.657
6 1.3517 4,247.449
8 Total 1.7466 13.6726 17.8635 0.0437 0.5756 0.5756 0.5307 0.5307 4,213.657 6 4,213.657
6 1.3517 4,247.449
8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:25 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.4 Underground Utilities - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0104 0.4217 0.1302 2.0000e0030.0678 2.6300e0030.0704 0.0195 2.5200e0030.0220 213.0837 213.0837 2.9200e0030.0319 222.6596 Worker 0.0501 0.0285 0.4324 1.2900e0030.1479 7.4000e0040.1486 0.0392 6.8000e0040.0399 132.3399 132.3399 3.3900e0033.1600e003133.3652 Total 0.0604 0.4502 0.5626 3.2900e0030.2156 3.3700e0030.2190 0.0587 3.2000e0030.0619 345.4236 345.4236 6.3100e0030.0351 356.0248 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.5851 2.6490 24.6831 0.0437 0.0845 0.0845 0.0845 0.0845 0.0000 4,213.657 6 4,213.657
6 1.3517 4,247.449
8 Total 0.5851 2.6490 24.6831 0.0437 0.0845 0.0845 0.0845 0.0845 0.0000 4,213.657 6 4,213.657
6 1.3517 4,247.449
8 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:25 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.4 Underground Utilities - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0104 0.4217 0.1302 2.0000e0030.0678 2.6300e0030.0704 0.0195 2.5200e0030.0220 213.0837 213.0837 2.9200e0030.0319 222.6596 Worker 0.0501 0.0285 0.4324 1.2900e0030.1479 7.4000e0040.1486 0.0392 6.8000e0040.0399 132.3399 132.3399 3.3900e0033.1600e003133.3652 Total 0.0604 0.4502 0.5626 3.2900e0030.2156 3.3700e0030.2190 0.0587 3.2000e0030.0619 345.4236 345.4236 6.3100e0030.0351 356.0248 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 7.5527 63.3188 74.6577 0.1330 2.9665 2.9665 2.8893 2.8893 12,542.52 89 12,542.52
89 1.6946 12,584.89
27 Total 7.5527 63.3188 74.6577 0.1330 2.9665 2.9665 2.8893 2.8893 12,542.52 89 12,542.52
89 1.6946 12,584.89
27 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:25 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0932 3.7951 1.1721 0.0180 0.6100 0.0237 0.6337 0.1756 0.0227 0.1983 1,917.753 1 1,917.753
1 0.0263 0.2870 2,003.936
7 Worker 1.0707 0.6092 9.2485 0.0277 3.1627 0.0159 3.1786 0.8389 0.0146 0.8535 2,830.603 9 2,830.603
9 0.0726 0.0675 2,852.533
2 Total 1.1639 4.4043 10.4205 0.0456 3.7726 0.0396 3.8122 1.0145 0.0373 1.0518 4,748.357 0 4,748.357
0 0.0989 0.3545 4,856.469
9 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.4163 14.8009 81.6487 0.1330 0.3960 0.3960 0.3960 0.3960 0.0000 12,542.52 89 12,542.52
89 1.6946 12,584.89
27 Total 2.4163 14.8009 81.6487 0.1330 0.3960 0.3960 0.3960 0.3960 0.0000 12,542.52 89 12,542.52
89 1.6946 12,584.89
27 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:25 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0932 3.7951 1.1721 0.0180 0.6100 0.0237 0.6337 0.1756 0.0227 0.1983 1,917.753 1 1,917.753
1 0.0263 0.2870 2,003.936
7 Worker 1.0707 0.6092 9.2485 0.0277 3.1627 0.0159 3.1786 0.8389 0.0146 0.8535 2,830.603 9 2,830.603
9 0.0726 0.0675 2,852.533
2 Total 1.1639 4.4043 10.4205 0.0456 3.7726 0.0396 3.8122 1.0145 0.0373 1.0518 4,748.357 0 4,748.357
0 0.0989 0.3545 4,856.469
9 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 7.0801 59.3186 74.3260 0.1330 2.5927 2.5927 2.5233 2.5233 12,542.82 02 12,542.82
02 1.6607 12,584.33
76 Total 7.0801 59.3186 74.3260 0.1330 2.5927 2.5927 2.5233 2.5233 12,542.82 02 12,542.82
02 1.6607 12,584.33
76 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:25 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0910 3.8101 1.1500 0.0177 0.6100 0.0239 0.6339 0.1756 0.0229 0.1985 1,888.153 3 1,888.153
3 0.0262 0.2828 1,973.071
1 Worker 0.9990 0.5442 8.6168 0.0268 3.1627 0.0151 3.1778 0.8389 0.0139 0.8528 2,760.376 4 2,760.376
4 0.0657 0.0630 2,780.778
8 Total 1.0900 4.3542 9.7668 0.0445 3.7727 0.0390 3.8117 1.0145 0.0368 1.0513 4,648.529 7 4,648.529
7 0.0919 0.3457 4,753.849
8 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.3418 14.6417 81.5918 0.1330 0.3653 0.3653 0.3653 0.3653 0.0000 12,542.82 02 12,542.82
02 1.6607 12,584.33
76 Total 2.3418 14.6417 81.5918 0.1330 0.3653 0.3653 0.3653 0.3653 0.0000 12,542.82 02 12,542.82
02 1.6607 12,584.33
76 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:25 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0910 3.8101 1.1500 0.0177 0.6100 0.0239 0.6339 0.1756 0.0229 0.1985 1,888.153 3 1,888.153
3 0.0262 0.2828 1,973.071
1 Worker 0.9990 0.5442 8.6168 0.0268 3.1627 0.0151 3.1778 0.8389 0.0139 0.8528 2,760.376 4 2,760.376
4 0.0657 0.0630 2,780.778
8 Total 1.0900 4.3542 9.7668 0.0445 3.7727 0.0390 3.8117 1.0145 0.0368 1.0513 4,648.529 7 4,648.529
7 0.0919 0.3457 4,753.849
8 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.9568 17.5673 22.9521 0.0437 0.8195 0.8195 0.7562 0.7562 4,191.658 3 4,191.658
3 1.3335 4,224.995
3 Paving 1.2908 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 3.2476 17.5673 22.9521 0.0437 0.8195 0.8195 0.7562 0.7562 4,191.658 3 4,191.658
3 1.3335 4,224.995
3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:25 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0523 3.1219 0.7311 0.0147 0.4321 0.0276 0.4597 0.1185 0.0264 0.1449 1,583.637 5 1,583.637
5 0.0337 0.2502 1,659.038
2 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0779 0.0443 0.6726 2.0100e0030.2300 1.1500e0030.2312 0.0610 1.0600e0030.0621 205.8621 205.8621 5.2800e0034.9100e003207.4570 Total 0.1302 3.1662 1.4037 0.0167 0.6621 0.0288 0.6908 0.1795 0.0275 0.2070 1,789.499 6 1,789.499
6 0.0390 0.2551 1,866.495
2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.6356 2.9814 28.5238 0.0437 0.0977 0.0977 0.0977 0.0977 0.0000 4,191.658 3 4,191.658
3 1.3335 4,224.995
3 Paving 1.2908 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.9264 2.9814 28.5238 0.0437 0.0977 0.0977 0.0977 0.0977 0.0000 4,191.658 3 4,191.658
3 1.3335 4,224.995
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:25 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0523 3.1219 0.7311 0.0147 0.4321 0.0276 0.4597 0.1185 0.0264 0.1449 1,583.637 5 1,583.637
5 0.0337 0.2502 1,659.038
2 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0779 0.0443 0.6726 2.0100e0030.2300 1.1500e0030.2312 0.0610 1.0600e0030.0621 205.8621 205.8621 5.2800e0034.9100e003207.4570 Total 0.1302 3.1662 1.4037 0.0167 0.6621 0.0288 0.6908 0.1795 0.0275 0.2070 1,789.499 6 1,789.499
6 0.0390 0.2551 1,866.495
2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 27.7598 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e0030.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 27.9405 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e0030.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:25 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1998 0.1088 1.7234 5.3500e0030.6325 3.0200e0030.6356 0.1678 2.7800e0030.1706 552.0753 552.0753 0.0131 0.0126 556.1558 Total 0.1998 0.1088 1.7234 5.3500e0030.6325 3.0200e0030.6356 0.1678 2.7800e0030.1706 552.0753 552.0753 0.0131 0.0126 556.1558 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 27.7598 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0297 0.1288 1.8324 2.9700e0033.9600e0033.9600e0033.9600e0033.9600e0030.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 27.7895 0.1288 1.8324 2.9700e0033.9600e0033.9600e0033.9600e0033.9600e0030.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:25 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1998 0.1088 1.7234 5.3500e0030.6325 3.0200e0030.6356 0.1678 2.7800e0030.1706 552.0753 552.0753 0.0131 0.0126 556.1558 Total 0.1998 0.1088 1.7234 5.3500e0030.6325 3.0200e0030.6356 0.1678 2.7800e0030.1706 552.0753 552.0753 0.0131 0.0126 556.1558 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:25 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 4.0634 4.3582 35.0823 0.0826 8.8730 0.0585 8.9316 2.3632 0.0546 2.4178 8,622.307 6 8,622.307
6 0.4519 0.3881 8,749.246
9 Unmitigated 4.0634 4.3582 35.0823 0.0826 8.8730 0.0585 8.9316 2.3632 0.0546 2.4178 8,622.307 6 8,622.307
6 0.4519 0.3881 8,749.246
9 4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Condo/Townhouse 1,012.00 1,012.00 1012.00 2,632,358 2,632,358 Condo/Townhouse High Rise 364.00 364.00 364.00 946,816 946,816 General Office Building 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 202.67 202.67 202.67 538,537 538,537 Strip Mall 34.40 34.40 34.40 95,981 95,981
Total 1,613.07 1,613.07 1,613.07 4,213,692 4,213,692
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Condo/Townhouse 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 100 0 0 Condo/Townhouse High Rise 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 100 0 0 General Office Building 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 Other Asphalt Surfaces 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 100.00 0.00 100 0 0 Strip Mall 9.50 7.30 7.30 16.60 64.40 19.00 100 0 0
4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:25 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Condo/Townhouse 0.570753 0.056481 0.179220 0.111941 0.020784 0.005211 0.013984 0.013033 0.000790 0.000560 0.024477 0.000343 0.002423 Condo/Townhouse High Rise 0.570753 0.056481 0.179220 0.111941 0.020784 0.005211 0.013984 0.013033 0.000790 0.000560 0.024477 0.000343 0.002423 General Office Building 0.570753 0.056481 0.179220 0.111941 0.020784 0.005211 0.013984 0.013033 0.000790 0.000560 0.024477 0.000343 0.002423 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.570753 0.056481 0.179220 0.111941 0.020784 0.005211 0.013984 0.013033 0.000790 0.000560 0.024477 0.000343 0.002423 Strip Mall 0.570753 0.056481 0.179220 0.111941 0.020784 0.005211 0.013984 0.013033 0.000790 0.000560 0.024477 0.000343 0.002423
5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.1799 1.5377 0.6598 9.8100e0030.1243 0.1243 0.1243 0.1243 1,962.038 2 1,962.038
2 0.0376 0.0360 1,973.697
6 NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.1799 1.5377 0.6598 9.8100e0030.1243 0.1243 0.1243 0.1243 1,962.038 2 1,962.038
2 0.0376 0.0360 1,973.697
6 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Kilowatt Hours of Renewable Electricity Generated
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 30 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:25 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Condo/Townhous
e
14437.9 0.1557 1.3306 0.5662 8.4900e0030.1076 0.1076 0.1076 0.1076 1,698.578 0 1,698.578
0 0.0326 0.0311 1,708.671
8 Condo/Townhous
e High Rise
2104.97 0.0227 0.1940 0.0826 1.2400e0030.0157 0.0157 0.0157 0.0157 247.6435 247.6435 4.7500e0034.5400e003249.1151 General Office
Building