LOS D B A A D A
Approach Delay 18.6 6.3 2.8
Approach LOS B A A
Queue Length 50th (ft) 7 1 116 0 7 26
Queue Length 95th (ft) 20 52 405 6 20 42
Internal Link Dist (ft) 732 817 810
Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 200
Base Capacity (vph) 287 284 3061 1203 255 3247
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.09 0.46 0.67 0.02 0.11 0.24
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 90
Actuated Cycle Length: 94.1
Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.67
Intersection Signal Delay: 6.0 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 88: Lafayette St & Access Rd
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
89: Lafayette St & Calle Del Mundo 12/06/2024
Cumulative + Project Scheme C (With Lick Mill Connection) - AM Synchro 11 Report Lane Group WBL WBR NBU NBT NBR SBL SBT Ø7
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 268 109 0 1888 50 216 515
Future Volume (vph) 268 109 0 1888 50 216 515
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1879 2100 1785 1995 1900 1879 2040
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 60 0 120
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 85 70
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95
Frt 0.850 0.996
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1750 1750 1750 3701 0 1750 3800
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1750 1750 1750 3701 0 1750 3800
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 8 5
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 1341 479 897
Travel Time (s) 30.5 10.9 20.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 291 118 0 2106 0 235 560
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 3 1 5 2 1 6 7
Permitted Phases 7
Detector Phase 3 1 5 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 20.0 11.0 20.0 11.0
Total Split (s) 17.0 14.0 11.0 49.0 14.0 52.0 17.0
Total Split (%) 21.3% 17.5% 13.8% 61.3% 17.5% 65.0% 21% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None Max None Max None
Act Effct Green (s) 14.0 11.0 46.0 11.0 60.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.14 0.58 0.14 0.75
v/c Ratio 0.95 0.48 0.99 0.98 0.20
Control Delay 75.9 36.8 35.1 90.8 3.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 39.7 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 75.9 36.8 74.7 90.8 3.1
LOS E D E F A
Approach Delay 64.6 74.7 29.0
Approach LOS E E C
Queue Length 50th (ft) 145 51 499 119 33
Queue Length 95th (ft) #294 102 #717 #257 47
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1261 399 817
Turn Bay Length (ft) 120
Base Capacity (vph) 306 247 2130 240 2850
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 307 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
89: Lafayette St & Calle Del Mundo 12/06/2024
Cumulative + Project Scheme C (With Lick Mill Connection) - AM Synchro 11 Report Lane Group WBL WBR NBU NBT NBR SBL SBT Ø7
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.95 0.48 1.16 0.98 0.20
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 80
Actuated Cycle Length: 80
Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.99
Intersection Signal Delay: 62.5 Intersection LOS: E
Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Splits and Phases: 89: Lafayette St & Calle Del Mundo
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
90: Lafayette St & Calle De Luna 11/05/2024
Cumulative + Project Scheme C (With Lick Mill Connection) - AM Synchro 11 Report Lane Group WBL WBR NBU NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 486 138 0 1807 447 153 733
Future Volume (vph) 486 138 0 1807 447 153 733
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1744 2100 1836 2040 2100 1879 2040
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 60 130 180
Storage Lanes 2 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 85 100
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 3151 1750 1800 3800 1750 1750 3800
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 3151 1750 1800 3800 1750 1750 3800
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 7 375
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 834 760 479
Travel Time (s) 19.0 17.3 10.9
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Parking (#/hr)
Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 528 150 0 1964 486 166 797
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 1 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 7 2
Detector Phase 7 1 5 2 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 20.0 20.0 11.0 20.0
Total Split (s) 14.0 11.0 11.0 35.0 35.0 11.0 35.0
Total Split (%) 23.3% 18.3% 18.3% 58.3% 58.3% 18.3% 58.3% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode Max Max Max Max Max Max Max
Act Effct Green (s) 11.0 22.0 32.0 32.0 8.0 32.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.37 0.53 0.53 0.13 0.53
v/c Ratio 0.92 0.23 0.97 0.44 0.71 0.39
Control Delay 48.4 13.7 29.4 3.4 44.7 9.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 48.4 13.7 29.4 3.4 44.7 9.0
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
90: Lafayette St & Calle De Luna 11/05/2024
Cumulative + Project Scheme C (With Lick Mill Connection) - AM Synchro 11 Report Lane Group WBL WBR NBU NBT NBR SBL SBT
LOS D B C A D A
Approach Delay 40.7 24.2 15.2
Approach LOS D C B
Queue Length 50th (ft) 97 35 326 18 59 81
Queue Length 95th (ft) #180 70 #517 59 #140 115
Internal Link Dist (ft) 754 680 399
Turn Bay Length (ft) 130 180
Base Capacity (vph) 577 646 2026 1108 233 2026
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.92 0.23 0.97 0.44 0.71 0.39
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 70
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.97
Intersection Signal Delay: 24.8 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Splits and Phases: 90: Lafayette St & Calle De Luna
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
114: Calle Del Sol & Calle De Luna 12/06/2024
Cumulative + Project Scheme C (With Lick Mill Connection) - AM Synchro 11 Report Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1 270 379 2 237 94 205 141 269 88 95 1 Future Volume (vph) 1 270 379 2 237 94 205 141 269 88 95 1 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1836 2100 1900 2018 1900 1879 2035 1900 1879 1838 1900 Storage Length (ft) 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.957 0.902 0.999
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1800 1750 1770 1893 0 1750 1800 0 1750 1800 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1800 1750 1770 1893 0 1750 1800 0 1750 1800 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 412 30 153 1
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 834 429 532 240
Travel Time (s) 19.0 9.8 12.1 5.5
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1 293 412 2 360 0 223 445 0 96 104 0 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4
Detector Phase 7 4 5 3 8 5 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.0 20.0 11.0 11.0 20.0 11.0 20.0 11.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 11.0 20.0 14.0 11.0 20.0 14.0 23.0 11.0 20.0 Total Split (%) 16.9% 30.8% 21.5% 16.9% 30.8% 21.5% 35.4% 16.9% 30.8% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None Min None Min
Act Effct Green (s) 6.9 14.0 28.1 6.9 14.1 10.9 19.5 8.0 11.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.30 0.60 0.15 0.30 0.23 0.41 0.17 0.24 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.55 0.34 0.01 0.62 0.55 0.53 0.33 0.24
Control Delay 24.0 20.2 1.9 23.5 20.1 27.1 12.2 24.7 17.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 24.0 20.2 1.9 23.5 20.1 27.1 12.2 24.7 17.3
LOS C C A C C C B C B
Approach Delay 9.6 20.1 17.2 20.9
Approach LOS A C B C
Queue Length 50th (ft) 0 62 0 1 71 52 63 23 22
Queue Length 95th (ft) 4 173 39 6 #201 #180 187 76 66
Internal Link Dist (ft) 754 349 452 160
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100
Base Capacity (vph) 314 680 1227 314 736 428 900 311 681 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
114: Calle Del Sol & Calle De Luna 12/06/2024
Cumulative + Project Scheme C (With Lick Mill Connection) - AM Synchro 11 Report Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.00 0.43 0.34 0.01 0.49 0.52 0.49 0.31 0.15 Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 65
Actuated Cycle Length: 47.2
Natural Cycle: 65
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.62
Intersection Signal Delay: 15.3 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Splits and Phases: 114: Calle Del Sol & Calle De Luna
Cumulative + Project Scheme C (With Lick Mill Connection) PM Peak Hour
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
8: Great America Pkwy & Tasman Dr 09/04/2024
Cumulative + Project Scheme C (With Lick Mill Connection) - PM Synchro 11 Report Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 910 1106 52 1233 852 172 84 1992 878 347 1336 459 Future Volume (vph) 910 1106 52 1233 852 172 84 1992 878 347 1336 459 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1744 2040 2100 1733 2040 2100 1744 2130 2100 1744 2130 2100 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 270 110 245 100 170 0 250 250
Storage Lanes 2 1 3 1 2 1 2 1
Taper Length (ft) 115 140 100 65
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.94 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 3151 3800 1750 4552 3800 1750 3151 5701 1750 3151 5701 1750 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 3151 3800 1750 4552 3800 1750 3151 5701 1750 3151 5701 1750 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 82 82 456 478
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 768 695 1240 859
Travel Time (s) 17.5 15.8 28.2 19.5
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Bus Blockages (#/hr) 000000000000
Parking (#/hr)
Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 989 1202 57 1340 926 187 91 2165 954 377 1452 499 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4826
Detector Phase 744388522166
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.0 20.0 20.0 11.0 20.0 20.0 11.0 20.0 20.0 11.0 20.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 31.0 34.0 34.0 29.0 32.0 32.0 11.0 42.0 42.0 15.0 46.0 46.0 Total Split (%) 25.8% 28.3% 28.3% 24.2% 26.7% 26.7% 9.2% 35.0% 35.0% 12.5% 38.3% 38.3% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Min Min None Min Min None C-Max C-Max None C-Max C-Max Act Effct Green (s) 28.0 31.0 31.0 26.0 29.0 29.0 7.9 39.0 39.0 12.0 43.1 43.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.26 0.26 0.22 0.24 0.24 0.07 0.32 0.32 0.10 0.36 0.36 Lanes, Volumes, Timings
8: Great America Pkwy & Tasman Dr 09/04/2024
Cumulative + Project Scheme C (With Lick Mill Connection) - PM Synchro 11 Report Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR v/c Ratio 1.35 1.23 0.11 1.36 1.01 0.39 0.44 1.17 1.09 1.20 0.71 0.53 Control Delay 201.4 149.2 3.7 198.4 61.2 16.9 63.3 117.2 79.6 162.3 35.5 10.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.6 65.2 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 201.4 149.3 3.7 198.4 61.2 16.9 63.3 117.2 90.2 227.5 35.5 10.4
L O S FFAFEBEFFFDB
Approach Delay 168.5 132.8 107.6 61.2
Approach LOS F F F E
Queue Length 50th (ft) ~516 ~603 0 ~482 ~395 73 37 ~703 ~539 ~187 245 86 Queue Length 95th (ft) #645 #740 18 m#573 m#487 m76 m50 m#724 m#673 m#239 m293 m125 Internal Link Dist (ft) 688 615 1160 779
Turn Bay Length (ft) 270 110 245 100 170 250 250
Base Capacity (vph) 735 981 512 986 918 485 210 1852 876 315 2049 935 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 22 000000 4 9 2 2 8 800
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.35 1.25 0.11 1.36 1.01 0.39 0.43 1.17 2.48 13.96 0.71 0.53 Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green, Master Intersection Natural Cycle: 140
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.36
Intersection Signal Delay: 116.5 Intersection LOS: F
Intersection Capacity Utilization 112.6% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Splits and Phases: 8: Great America Pkwy & Tasman Dr
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
11: Tasman Dr & Centennial Blvd 11/05/2024
Cumulative + Project Scheme C (With Lick Mill Connection) - PM Synchro 11 Report Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 373 2082 33 21 1024 95 22 10 26 934 1 100 Future Volume (vph) 373 2082 33 21 1024 95 22 10 26 934 1 100 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1744 1991 1900 1879 2040 2100 1900 1936 1900 1978 2030 2100 Storage Length (ft) 185 0 195 175 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 115 75 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 0.998 0.850 0.940 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.981 0.950 0.952
Satd. Flow (prot) 3151 3701 0 1750 3800 1750 0 1750 0 1750 1800 1750 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.981 0.950 0.952
Satd. Flow (perm) 3151 3701 0 1750 3800 1750 0 1750 0 1750 1800 1750 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 1 95 22 95
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 835 681 315 406
Travel Time (s) 19.0 15.5 7.2 9.2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) 50%
Lane Group Flow (vph) 405 2299 0 23 1113 103 0 63 0 507 509 109 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Split NA Split NA Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6
Permitted Phases 8 6
Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 8 2 2 6 6 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.0 22.0 11.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 Total Split (s) 29.0 77.0 11.0 59.0 59.0 23.0 23.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 Total Split (%) 19.3% 51.3% 7.3% 39.3% 39.3% 15.3% 15.3% 26.0% 26.0% 26.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None Min None Min Min None None None None None Act Effct Green (s) 22.3 74.5 7.5 55.5 55.5 9.8 36.2 36.2 36.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.56 0.06 0.42 0.42 0.07 0.27 0.27 0.27 v/c Ratio 0.77 1.11 0.23 0.71 0.13 0.43 1.07 1.04 0.20
Control Delay 64.6 88.3 69.7 36.5 6.6 51.6 107.6 100.0 11.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 64.6 88.5 69.7 37.3 6.6 51.6 107.6 100.0 11.4
LOS E F E D A D F F B
Approach Delay 84.9 35.4 51.6 94.9
Approach LOS F D D F
Queue Length 50th (ft) 182 ~1313 20 434 4 36 ~558 ~549 10 Queue Length 95th (ft) 245 #1514 52 556 43 85 #826 #820 60 Internal Link Dist (ft) 755 601 235 326
Turn Bay Length (ft) 185 195 175
Base Capacity (vph) 617 2064 105 1615 798 282 474 488 544 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 143 0 223 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
11: Tasman Dr & Centennial Blvd 11/05/2024
Cumulative + Project Scheme C (With Lick Mill Connection) - PM Synchro 11 Report Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.66 1.20 0.22 0.80 0.13 0.22 1.07 1.04 0.20 Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 150
Actuated Cycle Length: 133.6
Natural Cycle: 150
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.11
Intersection Signal Delay: 74.7 Intersection LOS: E
Intersection Capacity Utilization 100.8% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Splits and Phases: 11: Tasman Dr & Centennial Blvd
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
13: Tasman Dr & Calle Del Sol 09/04/2024
Cumulative + Project Scheme C (With Lick Mill Connection) - PM Synchro 11 Report Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 270 2460 1125 513 166 301
Future Volume (vph) 270 2460 1125 513 166 301
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1744 2040 2040 2100 1744 2100
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 170 120 0 0
Storage Lanes 2 1 2 1
Taper Length (ft) 75 25
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 3151 3800 3800 1750 3151 1750
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 3151 3800 3800 1750 3151 1750
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 81 61
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 1177 775 490
Travel Time (s) 26.8 17.6 11.1
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Bus Blockages (#/hr) 000000
Parking (#/hr)
Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 293 2674 1223 558 180 327
Turn Type Prot NA NA pm+ov Prot pm+ov
Protected Phases 748117
Permitted Phases 8 1
Detector Phase 748117
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 20.0 20.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Total Split (s) 12.0 49.0 37.0 11.0 11.0 12.0
Total Split (%) 20.0% 81.7% 61.7% 18.3% 18.3% 20.0%
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None
Act Effct Green (s) 8.9 46.0 34.1 45.0 7.9 19.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.77 0.57 0.75 0.13 0.33
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
13: Tasman Dr & Calle Del Sol 09/04/2024
Cumulative + Project Scheme C (With Lick Mill Connection) - PM Synchro 11 Report Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
v/c Ratio 0.62 0.92 0.57 0.42 0.44 0.53
Control Delay 30.5 12.5 9.5 3.3 27.6 16.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 30.5 12.5 9.5 3.3 27.6 16.7
LOS C B A A C B
Approach Delay 14.3 7.6 20.6
Approach LOS B A C
Queue Length 50th (ft) 52 266 132 41 31 74
Queue Length 95th (ft) 87 #483 182 72 57 142
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1097 695 410
Turn Bay Length (ft) 170 120
Base Capacity (vph) 473 2920 2163 1337 421 621
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.62 0.92 0.57 0.42 0.43 0.53
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 59.9
Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.92
Intersection Signal Delay: 12.6 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Splits and Phases: 13: Tasman Dr & Calle Del Sol
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
14: Lick Mill Blvd & Tasman Dr 09/04/2024
Cumulative + Project Scheme C (With Lick Mill Connection) - PM Synchro 11 Report Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 63 1581 1056 258 816 324 583 147 171 507 263 313 Future Volume (vph) 63 1581 1056 258 816 324 583 147 171 507 263 313 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1879 2040 2100 1744 2040 2100 1744 1938 2100 1744 1938 2100 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 145 345 160 110 0 100 0 25
Storage Lanes 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
Taper Length (ft) 80 65 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1750 3800 1750 3151 3800 1750 3151 1900 1750 3151 1900 1750 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1750 3800 1750 3151 3800 1750 3151 1900 1750 3151 1900 1750 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 107 352 141 117
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 775 593 379 432
Travel Time (s) 17.6 13.5 8.6 9.8
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Bus Blockages (#/hr) 000000000000
Parking (#/hr)
Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 68 1718 1148 280 887 352 634 160 186 551 286 340 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 74538152 16
Permitted Phases 4826
Detector Phase 745381522166
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.0 20.0 11.0 11.0 20.0 11.0 11.0 20.0 20.0 11.0 20.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 12.0 39.0 20.0 11.0 38.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Total Split (%) 13.3% 43.3% 22.2% 12.2% 42.2% 22.2% 22.2% 22.2% 22.2% 22.2% 22.2% 22.2% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green (s) 8.4 36.0 56.0 8.0 37.5 57.5 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.40 0.62 0.09 0.42 0.64 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 Lanes, Volumes, Timings
14: Lick Mill Blvd & Tasman Dr 09/04/2024
Cumulative + Project Scheme C (With Lick Mill Connection) - PM Synchro 11 Report Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR v/c Ratio 0.42 1.13 1.02 1.00 0.56 0.28 1.07 0.45 0.42 0.93 0.80 0.80 Control Delay 46.3 95.0 48.5 97.0 22.4 1.5 92.3 36.9 12.9 59.8 53.1 38.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 46.3 95.0 49.3 97.0 22.4 1.5 92.3 36.9 12.9 59.8 53.1 38.4
L O S DFDFCAFDBEDD
Approach Delay 76.0 31.3 68.2 52.0
Approach LOS E C E D
Queue Length 50th (ft) 37 ~602 ~611 83 207 0 ~207 81 22 160 157 123 Queue Length 95th (ft) 79 #738 #921 #165 269 31 #313 142 79 #257 #283 #260 Internal Link Dist (ft) 695 513 299 352
Turn Bay Length (ft) 145 345 160 110 100 25
Base Capacity (vph) 175 1520 1129 280 1583 1245 595 358 444 595 358 425 Starvation Cap Reductn 003000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.39 1.13 1.02 1.00 0.56 0.28 1.07 0.45 0.42 0.93 0.80 0.80 Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 90
Actuated Cycle Length: 90
Natural Cycle: 100
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.13
Intersection Signal Delay: 60.3 Intersection LOS: E
Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.7% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Splits and Phases: 14: Lick Mill Blvd & Tasman Dr
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
59: Great America Pkwy & Driveway/Great America Way 12/06/2024 Cumulative + Project Scheme C (With Lick Mill Connection) - PM Synchro 11 Report Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 60 82 23 141 9 305 21 3427 1301 287 1205 7 Future Volume (vph) 60 82 23 141 9 305 21 3427 1301 287 1205 7 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1879 1938 2100 1967 2485 2148 1879 2182 1900 1744 2095 1900 Storage Length (ft) 60 60 115 100 50 0 150 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 65 115 95
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.91 0.91 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.959 0.999
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1750 1900 1750 1832 2436 3150 1750 5601 0 3151 5602 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1750 1900 1750 1832 2436 3150 1750 5601 0 3151 5602 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 82 47 149 1
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 343 1927 1191 553
Travel Time (s) 7.8 43.8 27.1 12.6
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 65 89 25 153 10 332 23 5139 0 312 1318 0 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 3 4 7 8 1 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8
Detector Phase 3 4 4 7 8 1 5 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.0 20.0 20.0 11.0 20.0 11.0 11.0 20.0 11.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 11.0 20.0 20.0 11.0 20.0 12.0 11.0 77.0 12.0 78.0 Total Split (%) 9.2% 16.7% 16.7% 9.2% 16.7% 10.0% 9.2% 64.2% 10.0% 65.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None C-Min None C-Min Act Effct Green (s) 16.8 11.9 11.9 8.0 11.1 22.2 7.9 74.0 14.1 84.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.09 0.18 0.07 0.62 0.12 0.70 v/c Ratio 0.27 0.47 0.10 1.25 0.04 0.53 0.20 1.46 0.85 0.34 Control Delay 49.4 58.6 0.8 210.2 49.8 42.5 49.9 229.0 94.6 3.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
Total Delay 49.4 58.6 0.8 210.2 49.8 42.5 49.9 229.0 94.6 3.0
LOS D E A F D D D F F A
Approach Delay 47.2 94.5 228.2 20.6
Approach LOS D F F C
Queue Length 50th (ft) 43 66 0 ~148 8 124 18 ~2000 131 45 Queue Length 95th (ft) #106 117 0 #285 23 154 m0 m#590 #249 60 Internal Link Dist (ft) 263 1847 1111 473
Turn Bay Length (ft) 60 60 115 100 50 150
Base Capacity (vph) 247 269 318 122 353 621 122 3511 369 3925 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 813
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 0 0
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
59: Great America Pkwy & Driveway/Great America Way 12/06/2024 Cumulative + Project Scheme C (With Lick Mill Connection) - PM Synchro 11 Report Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.26 0.33 0.08 1.25 0.03 0.53 0.19 1.49 0.85 0.42 Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 150
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.46
Intersection Signal Delay: 169.7 Intersection LOS: F
Intersection Capacity Utilization 116.1% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Splits and Phases: 59: Great America Pkwy & Driveway/Great America Way
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
60: Great America Pkwy & Old Mountain View-Alviso Rd 09/04/2024 Cumulative + Project Scheme C (With Lick Mill Connection) - PM Synchro 11 Report Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 794 77 166 67 10 49 83 3916 45 11 1299 139 Future Volume (vph) 794 77 166 67 10 49 83 3916 45 11 1299 139 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1744 2045 1900 1879 2096 2148 1879 2097 2242 1879 2122 2100 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 130 0 80 0 150 0 110 0
Storage Lanes 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 65 25 90
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.898 0.876 0.998 0.986
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 3151 1800 0 1750 1800 0 1750 5601 0 1750 5600 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 3151 1800 0 1750 1800 0 1750 5601 0 1750 5600 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 85 53 2 20
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 764 389 446 1191
Travel Time (s) 17.4 8.8 10.1 27.1
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Bus Blockages (#/hr) 000000000000
Parking (#/hr)
Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 863 264 0 73 64 0 90 4306 0 12 1563 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 20.0 11.0 20.0 11.0 20.0 11.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 25.0 32.0 13.0 20.0 15.0 64.0 11.0 60.0 Total Split (%) 20.8% 26.7% 10.8% 16.7% 12.5% 53.3% 9.2% 50.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None C-Min None C-Min
Act Effct Green (s) 22.0 21.7 9.4 9.0 12.0 77.4 7.4 67.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.64 0.06 0.56 Lanes, Volumes, Timings
60: Great America Pkwy & Old Mountain View-Alviso Rd 09/04/2024 Cumulative + Project Scheme C (With Lick Mill Connection) - PM Synchro 11 Report Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR v/c Ratio 1.50 0.67 0.54 0.35 0.52 1.19 0.11 0.50
Control Delay 267.3 39.4 67.7 22.6 53.7 107.6 52.5 11.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 267.3 39.4 67.7 22.6 53.7 107.8 52.5 11.6
LOS F D E C D F D B
Approach Delay 213.9 46.6 106.7 11.9
Approach LOS F D F B
Queue Length 50th (ft) ~476 134 55 8 68 ~1409 9 138
Queue Length 95th (ft) #603 213 106 50 m64 m#1538 m28 190 Internal Link Dist (ft) 684 309 366 1111
Turn Bay Length (ft) 130 80 150 110
Base Capacity (vph) 577 499 145 300 190 3612 119 3133
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 367 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.50 0.53 0.50 0.21 0.47 1.33 0.10 0.50 Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 150
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.50
Intersection Signal Delay: 101.6 Intersection LOS: F
Intersection Capacity Utilization 107.8% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Splits and Phases: 60: Great America Pkwy & Old Mountain View-Alviso Rd
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
61: Great America Pkwy & Driveway/Cityplace Pkwy 09/04/2024 Cumulative + Project Scheme C (With Lick Mill Connection) - PM Synchro 11 Report Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 164 0 1217 0 2760 296 451 1219 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 164 0 1217 0 2760 296 451 1219 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1785 1900 1785 1744 1900 2148 1900 2124 1900 1744 2093 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 250 150 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 2 2 0 0 2 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.91 0.91 Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.850 0.985
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1750 0 1750 3151 0 3150 0 5600 0 3151 5602 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1750 0 1750 3151 0 3150 0 5600 0 3151 5602 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 9 24
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 261 2574 838 446
Travel Time (s) 5.9 58.5 19.0 10.1
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Bus Blockages (#/hr) 000000000000
Parking (#/hr)
Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 178 0 1323 0 3322 0 490 1325 0 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot pm+ov NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 3121 6
Permitted Phases 7 3
Detector Phase 7 7 3121 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 20.0 11.0 20.0
Total Split (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 39.0 70.0 39.0 109.0
Total Split (%) 9.2% 9.2% 9.2% 32.5% 58.3% 32.5% 90.8%
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None C-Max None C-Max
Act Effct Green (s) 8.0 47.0 67.0 36.0 106.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.39 0.56 0.30 0.88
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
61: Great America Pkwy & Driveway/Cityplace Pkwy 09/04/2024 Cumulative + Project Scheme C (With Lick Mill Connection) - PM Synchro 11 Report Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR v/c Ratio 0.85 1.07 1.06 0.52 0.27
Control Delay 88.1 81.2 50.1 39.9 0.6
Queue Delay 0.0 20.6 17.6 0.0 0.1
Total Delay 88.1 101.8 67.7 39.9 0.7
LOS F F E D A
Approach Delay 100.2 67.7 11.3
Approach LOS F E B
Queue Length 50th (ft) 71 ~643 ~1019 191 3
Queue Length 95th (ft) #135 #794 m#577 243 4
Internal Link Dist (ft) 181 2494 758 366
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150
Base Capacity (vph) 210 1239 3137 945 4948
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 78 0 2110
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 844 183 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0000 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.85 3.35 1.12 0.52 0.47
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 100
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.07
Intersection Signal Delay: 59.6 Intersection LOS: E
Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.9% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Splits and Phases: 61: Great America Pkwy & Driveway/Cityplace Pkwy
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
62: Great America Pkwy & Second St 09/04/2024
Cumulative + Project Scheme C (With Lick Mill Connection) - PM Synchro 11 Report Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 637 236 2821 646 269 1114
Future Volume (vph) 637 236 2821 646 269 1114
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1744 2100 2153 1900 1744 2130
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 300 300
Storage Lanes 2 1 0 2
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.91
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.850 0.972
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 3151 1750 5601 0 3151 5701
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 3151 1750 5601 0 3151 5701
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 1 83
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 989 472 838
Travel Time (s) 22.5 10.7 19.0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Bus Blockages (#/hr) 000000
Parking (#/hr)
Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 692 257 3768 0 292 1211
Turn Type Prot pm+ov NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 1 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8
Detector Phase 8 1 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 11.0 20.0 11.0 20.0
Total Split (s) 28.0 14.0 78.0 14.0 92.0
Total Split (%) 23.3% 11.7% 65.0% 11.7% 76.7%
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None C-Max None C-Max
Act Effct Green (s) 25.0 39.0 75.0 11.0 89.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.32 0.62 0.09 0.74
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
62: Great America Pkwy & Second St 09/04/2024
Cumulative + Project Scheme C (With Lick Mill Connection) - PM Synchro 11 Report Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
v/c Ratio 1.05 0.45 1.07 1.01 0.29
Control Delay 96.3 35.1 49.8 115.6 3.1
Queue Delay 17.9 0.0 14.6 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 114.1 35.1 64.5 115.6 3.1
LOS F D E F A
Approach Delay 92.7 64.5 25.0
Approach LOS F E C
Queue Length 50th (ft) ~302 156 ~1187 ~125 45
Queue Length 95th (ft) #421 236 m989 m#212 57
Internal Link Dist (ft) 909 392 758
Turn Bay Length (ft) 300
Base Capacity (vph) 656 569 3531 288 4228
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 835 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 70 0 393 0 680
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.18 0.45 1.40 1.01 0.34
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 120
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.07
Intersection Signal Delay: 59.2 Intersection LOS: E
Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.0% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Splits and Phases: 62: Great America Pkwy & Second St
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
85: Lafayette St & Great America Way 11/05/2024
Cumulative + Project Scheme C (With Lick Mill Connection) - PM Synchro 11 Report Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 226 1 1444 0 0 0 291 818 0 1 618 15 Future Volume (vph) 226 1 1444 0 0 0 291 818 0 1 618 15 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1879 1900 2148 1900 1900 1900 1879 2040 1900 1900 1995 1900 Storage Length (ft) 110 0 0 0 210 0 90 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 35 25 85 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1750 1863 1790 0 0 0 1750 3800 0 1770 1956 1583 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.320
Satd. Flow (perm) 1750 1863 1790 0 0 0 1750 3800 0 596 1956 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 54 36
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 1927 114 397 584
Travel Time (s) 43.8 2.6 9.0 13.3
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 246 1 1570 0 0 0 316 889 0 1 672 16 Turn Type Perm NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 5 5 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 4 6 6
Detector Phase 4 4 5 5 2 6 6 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 11.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 21.0 21.0 81.0 81.0 129.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 Total Split (%) 14.0% 14.0% 54.0% 54.0% 86.0% 32.0% 32.0% 32.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode Min Min None None C-Max None None None
Act Effct Green (s) 18.0 18.0 99.0 78.0 126.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.66 0.52 0.84 0.30 0.30 0.30 v/c Ratio 1.17 0.00 1.31 0.35 0.28 0.01 1.15 0.03
Control Delay 171.1 58.0 170.3 22.5 2.7 37.0 131.1 2.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 171.1 58.0 170.3 26.1 3.8 37.0 131.1 2.2
LOS F E F C A D F A
Approach Delay 170.4 9.7 128.0
Approach LOS F A F
Queue Length 50th (ft) ~286 1 ~1959 177 76 1 ~768 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) #467 7 #2226 248 91 6 #1013 5
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1847 34 317 504
Turn Bay Length (ft) 110 210 90
Base Capacity (vph) 210 223 1199 910 3192 178 586 500
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 495 1961 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
85: Lafayette St & Great America Way 11/05/2024
Cumulative + Project Scheme C (With Lick Mill Connection) - PM Synchro 11 Report Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.17 0.00 1.31 0.76 0.72 0.01 1.15 0.03 Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 150
Actuated Cycle Length: 150
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 150
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.31
Intersection Signal Delay: 110.3 Intersection LOS: F
Intersection Capacity Utilization 116.7% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Splits and Phases: 85: Lafayette St & Great America Way
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
86: Lafayette St & Future Driveway to NE Parcel North 09/04/2024 Cumulative + Project Scheme C (With Lick Mill Connection) - PM Synchro 11 Report Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 166 277 894 248 939 1124
Future Volume (vph) 166 277 894 248 939 1124
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 2012 2308 2040 2100 1879 2040
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 200 400 75
Storage Lanes 2 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.933 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.973 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 3474 1750 3800 1750 1750 3800
Flt Permitted 0.973 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 3474 1750 3800 1750 1750 3800
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 147 154 270
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 674 1025 397
Travel Time (s) 15.3 23.3 9.0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Bus Blockages (#/hr) 000000
Parking (#/hr)
Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0%
Shared Lane Traffic (%) 49%
Lane Group Flow (vph) 327 154 972 270 1021 1222
Turn Type Prot Perm NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8 2
Detector Phase 882216
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 11.0 20.0 20.0 11.0 20.0
Total Split (s) 11.0 11.0 20.0 20.0 24.0 44.0
Total Split (%) 20.0% 20.0% 36.4% 36.4% 43.6% 80.0%
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode Max Max Max Max Max Max
Act Effct Green (s) 8.0 8.0 17.0 17.0 21.0 41.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.31 0.31 0.38 0.75
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
86: Lafayette St & Future Driveway to NE Parcel North 09/04/2024 Cumulative + Project Scheme C (With Lick Mill Connection) - PM Synchro 11 Report Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
v/c Ratio 0.52 0.40 0.83 0.37 1.53 0.43
Control Delay 15.2 8.1 25.6 4.0 266.2 3.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3
Total Delay 15.2 8.1 25.6 4.0 266.2 3.4
LOS B A C A F A
Approach Delay 12.9 20.9 123.0
Approach LOS B C F
Queue Length 50th (ft) 27 0 153 0 ~487 53
Queue Length 95th (ft) 59 45 #246 42 #686 74
Internal Link Dist (ft) 594 945 317
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 400 75
Base Capacity (vph) 630 386 1174 727 668 2832
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000 8 1 7
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.52 0.40 0.83 0.37 1.53 0.61
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 55
Actuated Cycle Length: 55
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 100
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.53
Intersection Signal Delay: 77.7 Intersection LOS: E
Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.8% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Splits and Phases: 86: Lafayette St & Future Driveway to NE Parcel North
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
87: Lafayette St & Jug Handle 09/04/2024
Cumulative + Project Scheme C (With Lick Mill Connection) - PM Synchro 11 Report Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1013 310 832 450 330 958
Future Volume (vph) 1013 310 832 450 330 958
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1744 2100 2040 2148 1744 2040
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 400 400
Storage Lanes 2 1 2 2
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.95 0.88 0.97 0.95
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 3151 1750 3800 3150 3151 3800
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 3151 1750 3800 3150 3151 3800
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 337 489
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 767 890 1025
Travel Time (s) 17.4 20.2 23.3
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Bus Blockages (#/hr) 000000
Parking (#/hr)
Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1101 337 904 489 359 1041
Turn Type Prot Perm NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8 2
Detector Phase 882216
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 11.0 20.0 20.0 11.0 20.0
Total Split (s) 27.0 27.0 21.0 21.0 12.0 33.0
Total Split (%) 45.0% 45.0% 35.0% 35.0% 20.0% 55.0%
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None Min Min None Min
Act Effct Green (s) 23.5 23.5 18.0 18.0 9.0 30.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.39 0.39 0.30 0.30 0.15 0.50
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
87: Lafayette St & Jug Handle 09/04/2024
Cumulative + Project Scheme C (With Lick Mill Connection) - PM Synchro 11 Report Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
v/c Ratio 0.89 0.38 0.79 0.38 0.75 0.54
Control Delay 27.5 3.1 25.4 2.8 36.5 11.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 27.5 3.1 25.4 2.8 36.5 11.5
L O S CACADB
Approach Delay 21.8 17.5 17.9
Approach LOS C B B
Queue Length 50th (ft) 181 0 156 0 65 126
Queue Length 95th (ft) #297 41 #224 31 #121 175
Internal Link Dist (ft) 687 810 945
Turn Bay Length (ft) 400 400
Base Capacity (vph) 1271 907 1150 1294 476 1917
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.87 0.37 0.79 0.38 0.75 0.54
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 59.5
Natural Cycle: 55
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.89
Intersection Signal Delay: 19.1 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Splits and Phases: 87: Lafayette St & Jug Handle
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
88: Lafayette St & Access Rd 11/07/2024
Cumulative + Project Scheme C (With Lick Mill Connection) - PM Synchro 11 Report Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 20 25 1257 25 220 1751
Future Volume (vph) 20 25 1257 25 220 1751
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1656 1785 2040 1785 1744 2040
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 300 200
Storage Lanes 2 1 1 2
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 2992 1488 3800 1488 3151 3800
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 2992 1488 3800 1488 3151 3800
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 27 27
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 641 870 890
Travel Time (s) 14.6 19.8 20.2
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Bus Blockages (#/hr) 000000
Parking (#/hr)
Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 27 1366 27 239 1903
Turn Type Prot Perm NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8 2
Detector Phase 882216
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 11.0 20.0 20.0 11.0 20.0
Total Split (s) 11.0 11.0 37.0 37.0 12.0 49.0
Total Split (%) 18.3% 18.3% 61.7% 61.7% 20.0% 81.7%
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode Max Max Max Max Max Max
Act Effct Green (s) 8.0 8.0 34.0 34.0 9.0 46.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.13 0.57 0.57 0.15 0.77
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
88: Lafayette St & Access Rd 11/07/2024
Cumulative + Project Scheme C (With Lick Mill Connection) - PM Synchro 11 Report Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
v/c Ratio 0.06 0.12 0.63 0.03 0.51 0.65
Control Delay 23.2 11.7 10.5 2.7 27.7 4.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 23.2 11.7 10.5 2.7 27.7 4.6
LOS C B B A C A
Approach Delay 16.9 10.3 7.2
Approach LOS B B A
Queue Length 50th (ft) 3 0 155 0 41 112
Queue Length 95th (ft) 12 19 214 8 72 155
Internal Link Dist (ft) 561 790 810
Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 200
Base Capacity (vph) 398 221 2153 854 472 2913
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.06 0.12 0.63 0.03 0.51 0.65
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 45
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.65
Intersection Signal Delay: 8.5 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 88: Lafayette St & Access Rd
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
89: Lafayette St & Calle Del Mundo 12/06/2024
Cumulative + Project Scheme C (With Lick Mill Connection) - PM Synchro 11 Report Lane Group WBL WBR NBU NBT NBR SBL SBT Ø7
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 343 296 0 975 272 8 1925
Future Volume (vph) 343 296 0 975 272 8 1925
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1879 2100 1785 2054 1900 1879 2040
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 60 0 120
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 85 70
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95
Frt 0.850 0.967
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1750 1750 1750 3700 0 1750 3800
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1750 1750 1750 3700 0 1750 3800
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 86 64
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 1338 471 870
Travel Time (s) 30.4 10.7 19.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 373 322 0 1356 0 9 2092
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 3 1 5 2 1 6 7
Permitted Phases 7
Detector Phase 3 1 5 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 20.0 11.0 20.0 11.0
Total Split (s) 24.0 13.0 11.0 53.0 13.0 55.0 24.0
Total Split (%) 26.7% 14.4% 12.2% 58.9% 14.4% 61.1% 27% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None Min None Min None
Act Effct Green (s) 20.5 30.7 44.2 7.1 54.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.38 0.55 0.09 0.67
v/c Ratio 0.84 0.45 0.66 0.06 0.82
Control Delay 48.1 16.2 14.3 36.4 13.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 48.1 16.2 14.7 36.4 13.2
LOS D B B D B
Approach Delay 33.3 14.7 13.3
Approach LOS C B B
Queue Length 50th (ft) 171 80 227 4 357
Queue Length 95th (ft) #362 172 304 19 455
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1258 391 790
Turn Bay Length (ft) 120
Base Capacity (vph) 455 776 2317 216 2553
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 416 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
89: Lafayette St & Calle Del Mundo 12/06/2024
Cumulative + Project Scheme C (With Lick Mill Connection) - PM Synchro 11 Report Lane Group WBL WBR NBU NBT NBR SBL SBT Ø7
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.82 0.41 0.71 0.04 0.82
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 90
Actuated Cycle Length: 80.9
Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.84
Intersection Signal Delay: 17.1 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Splits and Phases: 89: Lafayette St & Calle Del Mundo
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
90: Lafayette St & Calle De Luna 11/05/2024
Cumulative + Project Scheme C (With Lick Mill Connection) - PM Synchro 11 Report Lane Group WBL WBR NBU NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 658 305 0 957 532 17 2266
Future Volume (vph) 658 305 0 957 532 17 2266
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1744 2100 1785 2040 2100 1879 2040
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 60 0 180
Storage Lanes 2 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 85 100
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95
Frt 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 3151 1750 1750 3800 1750 1750 3800
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 3151 1750 1750 3800 1750 1750 3800
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 103 578
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 852 1090 471
Travel Time (s) 19.4 24.8 10.7
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 715 332 0 1040 578 18 2463
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 1 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8 2
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 20.0 20.0 11.0 20.0
Total Split (s) 30.0 17.0 11.0 73.0 73.0 17.0 79.0
Total Split (%) 25.0% 14.2% 9.2% 60.8% 60.8% 14.2% 65.8% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Act Effct Green (s) 27.0 44.0 70.0 70.0 14.0 76.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.37 0.58 0.58 0.12 0.63
v/c Ratio 1.01 0.47 0.47 0.46 0.09 1.02
Control Delay 82.7 22.0 15.2 2.2 48.6 47.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.1
Total Delay 82.7 22.0 15.2 2.2 48.6 78.3
LOS F C B A D E
Approach Delay 63.4 10.6 78.1
Approach LOS E B E
Queue Length 50th (ft) ~291 132 230 0 13 ~1068
Queue Length 95th (ft) #420 218 281 46 36 #1201
Internal Link Dist (ft) 772 1010 391
Turn Bay Length (ft) 180
Base Capacity (vph) 708 706 2216 1261 204 2406
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 484
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.01 0.47 0.47 0.46 0.09 1.28
Intersection Summary
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
90: Lafayette St & Calle De Luna 11/05/2024
Cumulative + Project Scheme C (With Lick Mill Connection) - PM Synchro 11 Report Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 120
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.02
Intersection Signal Delay: 53.9 Intersection LOS: D
Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.5% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Splits and Phases: 90: Lafayette St & Calle De Luna
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
114: Calle Del Sol & Calle De Luna 12/06/2024
Cumulative + Project Scheme C (With Lick Mill Connection) - PM Synchro 11 Report Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 3 56 332 150 187 83 707 119 159 146 126 3 Future Volume (vph) 3 56 332 150 187 83 707 119 159 146 126 3 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1840 2100 1900 2029 1900 1879 1953 1900 1879 1842 1900 Storage Length (ft) 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.954 0.914 0.997
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1804 1750 1770 1898 0 1750 1750 0 1750 1800 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1804 1750 1770 1898 0 1750 1750 0 1750 1800 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 327 22 93 1
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 852 497 490 246
Travel Time (s) 19.4 11.3 11.1 5.6
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 3 61 361 163 293 0 768 302 0 159 140 0 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4
Detector Phase 7 4 5 3 8 5 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.0 20.0 11.0 11.0 20.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 11.0 20.0 39.0 11.0 20.0 39.0 41.0 18.0 20.0 Total Split (%) 12.2% 22.2% 43.3% 12.2% 22.2% 43.3% 45.6% 20.0% 22.2% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None Max None Min
Act Effct Green (s) 6.8 9.8 47.0 9.0 17.7 36.3 38.4 12.6 14.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.12 0.59 0.11 0.22 0.46 0.48 0.16 0.18 v/c Ratio 0.02 0.27 0.31 0.82 0.67 0.96 0.34 0.58 0.42
Control Delay 37.0 35.6 2.0 70.9 35.8 48.6 11.2 41.0 33.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 37.0 35.6 2.0 70.9 35.8 56.9 11.2 41.0 33.9
LOS D D A E D E B D C
Approach Delay 7.1 48.4 44.0 37.7
Approach LOS A D D D
Queue Length 50th (ft) 1 29 6 83 120 367 60 74 62
Queue Length 95th (ft) 10 65 38 #221 #269 #709 138 146 126 Internal Link Dist (ft) 772 417 410 166
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100
Base Capacity (vph) 179 388 1166 198 469 799 891 332 388 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
114: Calle Del Sol & Calle De Luna 12/06/2024
Cumulative + Project Scheme C (With Lick Mill Connection) - PM Synchro 11 Report Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.02 0.16 0.31 0.82 0.62 1.00 0.34 0.48 0.36 Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 90
Actuated Cycle Length: 79.6
Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.96
Intersection Signal Delay: 37.1 Intersection LOS: D
Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Splits and Phases: 114: Calle Del Sol & Calle De Luna
Appendix E: Swept Path Analysis
560 Mission Street Suite 700 San Francisco CA
94105 Tel +1 (415)957 9445
www.arup.com
Great America Way
Great America Parkway
560 Mission Street Suite 700 San Francisco CA
94105 Tel +1 (415)957 9445
www.arup.com
Great America Way
Lafayette Street
North Access Road
560 Mission Street Suite 700 San Francisco CA
94105 Tel +1 (415)957 9445
www.arup.com
Tasman Drive
Great America Parkway
Appendix F: Game Day (Sunday) Trip Generation
Parcel 1&2
Land Use Size Unit Sunday (Daily) Sunday (Peak Hour of Generator) Initial Trip Generation Estimates Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total Warehousing (Vehicles) 1,600 1,000 sqft 0.1 80 80 160 0.04 33 31 64 Warehousing (trucks) 1,600 1,000 sqft 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Manufacturing (for trucks)
1,600
1,000 sqft
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 1,600 1,000 sqft 80 80 160 33 31 64
Total Trip Generation
Parcel 1&2 80 80 160 33 31 64
Parcel 4 A
Land Use Size Unit Sunday (Daily) Sunday (Peak Hour of Generator) Initial Trip Generation Estimates Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total General Office 10,638 Employees 0.22 1,170 1,170 2,340 0.03 185 134 319 Hotel 220 Rooms 5.95 655 654 1,309 0.66 67 78 145
Shopping Center 550 1,000 sqft 19.53 5,371 5,371 10,742 3.12 841 875 1,716 Apartment 1,480 Rooms 5.86 4,337 4,336 8,673 0.51 378 377 755 High Turnover Sit Down
Restaurant 100
1,000 sqft 142.6
4 7,132 7,132 14,264 25.83 1,421 1,162 2,583
Entertainment 50
1,000 sqft 81.9 2,048 2,047 4,095 10.75 323 215 538
Supermarket 50
1,000 sqft 166.4
4 4,161 4,161 8,322 18.93 483 464 947
Subtotal 1 24,874 24,871 49,745 3,698 3,305 7,003
Trip Generation with Game Day Trip Reduction
Applied Sunday (Daily) Sunday (Peak Hour of Generator)
Reduction to account for
drivers electing to avoid
area due to game day
traffic congestion and for
shared-use with Levi's
Stadium (i.e. restaurants).
50%
General
Office 585 585 1,170 93 67 160
65% Hotel 229 229 458 23 27 51
50% Shopping
Center 2,686 2,686 5,371 421 438 858
50% Apartment 2,169 2,168 4,337 189 189 378
65% High
Turnover Sit
2,496 2,496 4,992 497 407 904
Down
Restaurant
65% Entertainm
ent 717 716 1,433 113 75 188
100% Supermarke
t - - - - - - Subtotal 2 8,881 8,880 17,761 1,336 1,202 2,538
Trip Generation Reduction from VTA TIA
Guidelines Applied Sunday (Daily) Sunday (Peak Hour of Generator) Trip Reduction 2A
Mixed Use Development
Project (10%) with hotel
and retail components.
Hotel to
Retail.
10%
23 23 46 2 3 5
Retail to Hotel 10% 23 23 46 2 3 5
Subtotal 2A 46 46 92 5 5 10
Trip Reduction 2B
Mixed Use Development
Project (10%) with hotel
and retail components.
Hotel to
Retail.
10%
217 217 434 19 19 38
Retail to Housing 10% 217 217 434 19 19 38
Subtotal 2B 434 434 867 38 38 76
Trip Reduction 2C
Mixed Use Development
Project (3%) with housing
and employment
components. Housing to
Employment.
3%
65 65 130 6 6 11
Employment to Housing 3% 65 65 130 6 6 11
Subtotal 2C 130 130 260 11 11 23
Trip Reduction 3A
Housing Subtotal 1,887 1,886 3,773 164 164 328
Housing Location within
2,000-foot walk of LRT or
Caltrain Station (5%) (take
from subtotal)
5%
94 94 189 8 8 16
Subtotal 3A 94 94 189 8 8 16
Trip Reduction 4B
Housing Location within
2,000-foot walk of LRT or
Caltrain Station (5%) (take
from subtotal)
5%
29 29 59 5 3 8
Subtotal 4B 29 29 59 5 3 8
Total VTA Trip Reductions
Subtotal 5 733 733 1,466 67 66 133
Total Trip Generation
Parcel 4A 8,148 8,147 16,295 - 1,269 1,136 2,405
Parcel 4 B
Land Use Size Unit Sunday (Daily) Sunday (Peak Hour of Generator) Initial Trip Generation
Estimates Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total
General Office 4,556 Employees 0.22 501 501 1002 0.03 79 58 137 Reduction to account for
drivers electing to avoid
area due to game day
traffic congestion and for
shared-use with Levi's
Stadium (i.e. restaurants).
50% 251 251 501 40 29 69
Total Trip Generation
Parcel 4B 251 251 501 40 29 69
Parcel 5
Land Use Size Unit Sunday (Daily) Sunday (Peak Hour of Generator) Initial Trip Generation Estimates Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total General Office 1,538 Employees 0.22 169 169 338 0.03 27 19 46 Hotel 480 Rooms 5.95 1,428 1,428 2,856 0.66 146 171 317 Shopping Center 25 1,000 sqft 19.53 244 244 488 3.12 38 40 78 Apartment 200 Rooms 5.86 586 586 1,172 0.51 51 51 102
High Turnover Sit Down
Restaurant 25 1,000 sqft
142.6
4 1,783 1,783 3,566 25.83 291 355 646
Subtotal 1 4,210 4,210 8,420 553 636 1,189
Trip Generation with Game Day Trip Reduction
Applied Sunday (Daily) Sunday (Peak Hour of Generator)
Reduction to account for
drivers electing to avoid
area due to game day
traffic congestion and for
shared-use with Levi's
Stadium (i.e. restaurants).
50%
General
Office 85 85 169 14 10 23
65% Hotel 928 928 1,856 95 111 206
50% Shopping
Center 122 122 244 19 20 39
50% Apartment 293 293 586 26 26 51
65%
High
Turnover Sit
Down
Restaurant 1,159 1,159 2,318 189 231 420
65% Entertainm
ent - - - - - - 100% Supermarke
t - - - - - - Subtotal 2 2,587 2,587 5,173 342 397 739
Trip Generation Reduction from VTA TIA
Guidelines Applied Sunday (Daily) Sunday (Peak Hour of Generator) Trip Reduction 2A
Mixed Use Development
Project (10%) with hotel
and retail components.
Hotel to
Retail.
10%
93 93 186 9 11 21
Retail to Hotel 10% 93 93 186 9 11 21
Subtotal 2A 186 186 371 19 22 41
Trip Reduction 2B
Mixed Use Development
Project (10%) with hotel
and retail components.
Hotel to
Retail.
10%
29 29 59 3 3 5
Retail to Housing 10% 29 29 59 3 3 5
Subtotal 2B 59 59 117 5 5 10
Trip Reduction 2C
Mixed Use Development
Project (3%) with housing
and employment
components. Housing to
Employment.
3%
9 9 18 1 1 2
Employment to Housing 3% 9 9 18 1 1 2
Subtotal 2C 18 18 35 2 2 3
Trip Reduction 3A
Housing Subtotal 255 255 510 22 22 44
Housing Location within
2,000-foot walk of LRT or
Caltrain Station (5%) (take
from subtotal)
5%
13 13 25 1 1 2
Subtotal 3A 13 13 25 1 1 2
Trip Reduction 4B
Housing Location within
2,000-foot walk of LRT or
Caltrain Station (5%) (take
from subtotal)
5%
4 4 8 1 0 1
Subtotal 4B 4 4 8 1 0 1
Total VTA Trip Reductions
Subtotal 5 279 279 558 27 30 58
Total Trip Generation
Parcel 5 2,308 2,308 4,616 - 315 366 681
Total Trip Generation All
Parcels 10,786 10,785 21,572 - 1,656 1,563 3,219
Appendix G: Traffic volume reassignment differences Without Lick Mill Connection Without Lick Mill No Project Traffic Reassignment based on CSC Model Difference Plots AM Peak (Numbers represent vehicles for each turning movement that has been adjusted)
SBR SBT SBL SBR SBT
-50
EBL -100 WBR EBL
EBT 59 WBT Total check 0 Total EB check 0 85
EBR -300 WBL EBR
30 -400 -31
NBL NBT NBR NBL NBT
SBR SBT SBL total SB check 0
-100 -200 total NB check 0
EBL -70 WBR
EBT 60 WBT SBT SBL
EBR 15 -15 WBL -50
100 -811 WBR
NBL NBT NBR 86 WBT
WBL
380 90
SBR SBT SBL NBT NBR
-80 -120
EBL WBR
EBT 61 WBT SBR SBT SBL
EBR WBL -50
100 WBR
NBL NBT NBR 87 WBT
WBL
510
SBR SBT SBL NBL NBT NBR
-80
EBL WBR SBR SBT SBL
EBT 62 WBT -25 -25
EBR WBL -120 WBR
100 88 WBT
NBL NBT NBR -25 WBL
640 -20
NBL NBT NBR
SBR SBT SBL
-50
350 WBR
89 WBT
-100 WBL
270
NBL NBT NBR
SBR SBT SBL SBR SBT SBL
-50 -100
320 WBR EBL WBR
90 WBT EBT 114 45 WBT
WBL EBR -100 -100 WBL
-50 200 -50 -150
NBL NBT NBR NBL NBT NBR
SBR SBT SBL SBR SBT SBL SBR SBT SBL SBR SBT SBL
80 -200 50
EBL WBR EBL 50 WBR EBL WBR EBL -49 -148 WBR
EBT 8 -100 WBT EBT -49 11 -100 WBT EBT -49 13 50 WBT EBT 14 WBT EBR WBL EBR WBL EBR 120 WBL
50 -202 70
NBL NBT NBR NBL NBT NBR NBL NBT NBR
additional intersections (omitted from this sketch)
additional intersections (omitted from this sketch)
Without Lick Mill No Project Traffic Reassignment based on CSC Model Difference Plots PM Peak (Numbers represent vehicles for each turning movement that has been adjusted)
SBR SBT SBL SBR SBT
50 -90 -90
EBL 100 WBR EBL 50
EBT 59 WBT Total check 0 Total EB check 0 85
EBR WBL EBR -390
50 -250 100 -300
NBL NBT NBR NBL NBT
SBR SBT SBL total SB check 0
50 total NB check 0
EBL -50 WBR
EBT 60 WBT SBT SBL
EBR WBL 350 -830
-150 -50 WBR
NBL NBT NBR 86 WBT
WBL
-150
SBR SBT SBL NBT NBR
50 EBL -50 WBR
EBT 61 WBT SBR SBT SBL
EBR WBL 500 -150
-100 WBR
NBL NBT NBR 87 WBT
WBL
-150
SBR SBT SBL NBL NBT NBR
50 EBL WBR SBR SBT SBL
EBT 62 WBT 720 -220
EBR WBL -25 WBR
-100 -50 88 WBT
NBL NBT NBR -20 WBL
-125 -25
NBL NBT NBR
SBR SBT SBL
350 350
WBR
89 WBT
-100 WBL
-150 -100
NBL NBT NBR
SBR SBT SBL SBR SBT SBL
50 200
-250 WBR EBL WBR
90 WBT EBT 250 114 WBT
WBL EBR 60 -150 WBL
60 -250 -150
NBL NBT NBR NBL NBT NBR
SBR SBT SBL SBR SBT SBL SBR SBT SBL SBR SBT SBL
50 50 -90 -74 -44 -49
EBL WBR EBL WBR EBL -50 -225 WBR EBL WBR
EBT 8 WBT EBT -50 11 WBT EBT 13 WBT EBT 14 WBT
EBR WBL EBR WBL EBR 50 WBL
-100
-50 -150 250
NBL NBT NBR NBL NBT NBR NBL NBT NBR
additional intersections (omitted from this sketch)
additional intersections (omitted from this sketch)
Appendix H: Trip Generation Calculation Sheets
NE Parcel ‐ ITE 150
ITE
Code ITE Land Use Units In Out Total In Out Total
150 Warehousing Trip Rates and Directional 52% 48% 0.02 52% 48% 0.03 0.6 1,600,000 Square Feet Truck Trips 15 15 30 25 25 50 960 NE Parcel ‐ ITE 140
140 Manufacturing Trip Rates and Directional 76% 24% 0.68 31% 69% 0.74 4.75 1,600,000 Square Feet Vehicle Trips 830 260 1090 365 820 1185 7600 140 Manufacturing Trip Rates and Directional 56% 44% 0.03 41% 59% 0.03 0.45 1,600,000 Square Feet Truck Trips 30 20 50 20 30 50 720 NE Parcel ‐ Total Trips (ITE 140/150 blended)
Total Trips (Total Vehicles ITE140 ‐ Trucks ITE 140 + Trucks ITE 150) 815 255 1070 370 815 1185 7840 Parcel 4
ITE
Code ITE Land Use Units In Out Total In Out Total
General Office Trip Rates and Directional 89% 11% 0.31 20% 80% 0.3 2.95 1,230,000 Square Feet Vehicle Trips 1255 155 1410 275 1090 1365 1344 0 General Office Trip Rates and Directional 89% 11% 0.31 20% 80% 0.3 2.95 2,872,181 Square Feet Vehicle Trips 2935 365 3300 640 2550 3190 3138 0 850 Supermarket (Anchors) Trip Rates and Directional 62% 38% 3.40 51% 49% 9.3 94.8 Square Feet Vehicle Trips 105 65 170 235 230 465 4740
Mixed-Use Reduction ‐35 ‐20 ‐55 ‐90 ‐80 ‐170 ‐1625
Sub‐total 70 45 115 145 150 295 3115 AM PM
Restaurant (F&B) Trip Rates and Directional 56% 44% 7.29 59% 41% 10.69 170.0 4 Note: Directional is based on DAP2 in out tot in out tot Square Feet Vehicle Trips 410 320 730 630 440 1070 17005 Restaurant (F&B) 730 580 1310 1120 790 1910 Mixed-Use Reduction ‐130 ‐105 ‐235 ‐235 ‐160 ‐395 ‐5865 56% 44% 59% 41% Sub‐total 280 215 495 395 280 675 11140
445 Entertainment Trip Rates and Directional 0% 0% 0.00 40% 60% 4.91 27.27 Internal Reduction (DAP2‐Traffic Analysis 05‐20‐2020 summarized below); Residential based on blended MDX /ITE Approach Square Feet Vehicle Trips 0 0 0 100 145 245 1365 AM PM Average (for daily) Mixed-Use Reduction 000 ‐40 ‐45 ‐85 ‐480 in out tot in out tot in out tot Sub‐total 0 0 0 60 100 160 885 230 150 380 760 820 1580 820 Shopping Center Trip Rates and Directional 62% 38% 0.80 48% 52% 3.4 37.4 75 45 120 285 300 585 Square Feet Vehicle Trips 275 165 440 900 975 1875 20565 33% 30% 32% 38% 37% 37% 35% 33% 34% Mixed-Use Reduction ‐90 ‐50 ‐140 ‐340 ‐355 ‐695 ‐7055
Sub‐total 185 115 300 560 620 1180 13510 730 580 1310 1120 790 1910 220 Apartment Trip Rates and Directional 20% 80% 0.49 65% 35% 0.56 6.14 235 185 420 415 290 705 Units Vehicle Trips 145 585 730 540 290 830 9090 32% 32% 32% 37% 37% 37% 35% 34% 34% Mixed-Use Reduction ‐25 ‐95 ‐120 ‐175 ‐55 ‐230 ‐2025
Sub‐total 120 490 610 365 235 600 7065 220 150 370 210 210 420 310 Hotel Trip Rates and Directional 59% 41% 0.53 50% 50% 0.60 8.17 70 50 120 80 75 155 Units Vehicle Trips 70 45 115 65 65 130 1795 32% 33% 32% 38% 36% 37% 35% 35% 35% Mixed-Use Reduction ‐20 ‐15 ‐35 ‐25 ‐25 ‐50 ‐620
Sub‐total 50 30 80 40 40 80 1175 Residential (MXD / ITE Total Trips Transit Redution 5% Parcel 4 (transit red) 3458 1197 4655 2095 3776 5871 64857 Parcel 4 (no transit red) 1255 155 1410 275 1090 1365 13440 16% 17% 17% 32% 24% 28% 24% 21% 22% Phase 4 Total 4713 1352 6065 2370 4866 7236 78297
Parcel 5 0 0 0 40 60 100
ITE 0 0 0 15 20 35
Code ITE Land Use Units In Out Total In Out Total 38% 33% 35% 38% 33% 35% General Office Trip Rates and Directional 89% 11% 0.31 20% 80% 0.3 2.95 415,219 Square Feet Vehicle Trips 425 50 475 90 370 460 4535 Restaurant (F&B) Trip Rates and Directional 56% 44% 7.29 59% 41% 10.69 170.04 Note: Directional is based on DAP2 Square Feet Vehicle Trips 100 80 180 155 110 265 4250
Mixed-Use Reduction ‐30 ‐30 ‐60 ‐55 ‐45 ‐100 ‐1465
Sub‐total 70 50 120 100 65 165 2785
820 Shopping Center Trip Rates and Directional 62% 38% 2.60 48% 52% 9.40 110.40 Square Feet Vehicle Trips 40 25 65 115 120 235 2760
Mixed-Use Reduction ‐15 ‐5 ‐20 ‐45 ‐40 ‐85 ‐945
Sub‐total 25 20 45 70 80 150 1815
220 Apartment Trip Rates and Directional 20% 80% 0.50 65% 35% 0.65 6.7 Units Vehicle Trips 20 80 100 85 45 130 1335
Mixed-Use Reduction ‐5 ‐10 ‐15 ‐25 ‐25 ‐50 ‐295
Sub‐total 15 70 85 60 20 80 1040
310 Hotel Trip Rates and Directional 59% 41% 0.53 50% 50% 0.60 8.17 Units Vehicle Trips 150 105 255 145 145 290 3920
Mixed-Use Reduction ‐50 ‐35 ‐85 ‐55 ‐50 ‐105 ‐1360
Sub‐total 100 70 170 90 95 185 2560
Total Trips Transit Redution 5% Parcel 5 (transit red) 603 247 850 390 599 988 1209 8 Directional distribution based on Table 2 in DAP2‐Traffic Analysis 05‐20‐2020 summarized below:
AM Peak PM Peak Daily
Note: ITE 9th edition does not include daily rate; hence rate is based on ratio of PM and Daily (11th Ed)
DailyAM Peak PM Peak
25,000
200
480
Retail
Restaurants
Hotel
Entertainment
25,000
AM Peak PM Peak
220
Daily
50,000
100,000
50,000
550,000
1,480
Trip Generation Calculation - Rates
Data Sources, Assumptions and Trip Generation Rates - Related Santa Clara Scheme C Analysis Period
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Daily
Trip Generation Rates
NE Parcel Trip Generation
AM Rate (per 1000 sqft) PM Rate (per 1000 sqft) Daily Rate (per 1000 sqft) Citycenter Trip Generation
Silicon Valley
Average Rate1
ITE (LUC 850)
Fitted Curve2
ITE (LUC 820)
Fitted Curve
Other3
Average Rate
ITE (LUC 445)
Average Rate
ITE (LUC 220)
Fitted Curve
ITE (LUC 310)
Average Rate
Internalization Reduction
In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
Retail EIR 2015 33% 30% 32% 38% 37% 37% 35% 33% 34%
Restaurants EIR 2015 32% 32% 32% 37% 37% 37% 35% 34% 34% Entertainment EIR 2015 -- -- -- 38% 33% 35% 38% 33% 35% Residential Blended Rate (MXD Tool , ITE) 16% 17% 17% 32% 24% 28% 25% 22% 23% Hotel EIR 2015 32% 33% 32% 38% 36% 37% 35% 35% 35%
Transit Reduction Applied
4.75 Warehouse
(used for Trucks)
150 1,600,000 sqft 0.02 0.03 0.6
Land-Use
Type
ITE
Code
NE
Parcel
ITE 11th Edition
Manufacturing
(used for Vehicles)
140 1,600,000 sqft 0.68 0.74
Supermarket 50,000 sqft 3.4 9.3 94.8
Daily (per 1000 sqft)4
Office 4,102,181 sqft 415,219 sqft 0.31 0.3 2.95
Land-Use Type Methodology Parcel 4 Parcel 5 AM Rate (per 1000 sqft)4 PM Rate (per 1000 sqft)4 Restaurant (F&B) 100,000 sqft 25,000 sqft 7.29 10.69 170.04 Shopping Center / Retail 550,000 sqft 25,000 sqft 0.8 / 2.6 3.41 / 9.4 37.4 / 110.4 Residential 1,480 keys 200 keys 0.49 / 0.5 0.56 / 0.65 6.14 / 6.7 Entertainment 50,000 sqft NA 4.91 27.27 5
Daily Internalization Reduction 1
Land-Use Type Methodology
Land-Use Type 1 Parcel 4 Parcel 5
AM Internalization Reduction PM Internalization Reduction Hotel 220 keys 480 keys 0.53 0.6 8.17
200 keys
Shopping Center / Retail 550,000 sqft 25,000 sqft
Restaurant (F&B) 100,000 sqft 25,000 sqft
Office 2,872,181 sqft 2 415,219 sqft
Supermarket 50,000 sqft
2 – Part of Parcel 4 (1,230,000 sqft of office) excludes public transportation reduction 1 – No Public Transportation reduction was applied to the NE Parcel and part of Parcel 4 was also excluded from transit reduction 5%
4 – Trip rates based on fitted curve vary by area, hence two rates are provided for Parcel 4 and Parcel 5 LUC 220 AM Peak: T=0.49(X)+3.73; PM Peak: T= 0.55(X)+17.65; Daily: T = 6.06(X)+123.56 LUC 820 AM Peak: LN(T)=0.61Ln(X)+2.24; PM Peak: LN(T)=0.67Ln(X)+3.31; Daily: LN(T)=0.65Ln(X)+5.83 LUC 850 AM Peak: 3.4; PM Peak: T= 0.74*Ln(X)+3.25; Daily: T=66.95(X)+1391.56 1 – Silicon Valley rate: AM / PM – 0.31/0.3 per employee with 270 sqft to be considered for each employee 2 – Fitted Curve for Supermarket (LUC 950) is available for PM Peak Hour and daily only 3 – Based on trip rate from DAP 2 and various restaurant types from ITE 9 th Edition and ITE 10 th Edition 5 – ITE 9th edition does not include a daily rate for LUC 445. To derive a daily rate, the peak hour rate is inflated based on the difference of daily to peak hour rates in the latest 11th edition of ITE 1 – Daily Internalization Reduction is the average of AM and PM Internalization Reductions Hotel 220 keys 480 keys
Transit Reduction
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
Entertainment 50,000 sqft
Residential 1,480 keys
Trip Generation Calculation - Data Sources, Assumptions and Trip Generation Rates Trip Generation - Related Santa Clara Scheme C (dated 04/18/2024) TAZ Area AM Inbound AM Outbound Total AM PM Inbound PM Outbound Total PM Daily Inbound Daily Outbound Total Daily 1230 Parcel 5 603 247 850 390 599 989 6,049 6,049 12,098 1231 NE Parcel 408 128 535 185 408 593 1,960 1,960 3,920 2992 Parcel 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2993 Parcel 4 1,255 155 1,410 275 1,090 1,365 6,720 6,720 13,440 2994 Parcel 4 3,458 1,197 4,655 2,095 3,776 5,871 32,429 32,429 64,858 2995 NE Parcel 408 128 535 185 408 593 1,960 1,960 3,920 Total Total 6,131 1,854 7,985 3,130 6,280 9,410 49,118 49,118 98,236 AM PM Daily
Trip Generation Calculation - Final Results
Employment - Related Santa Clara Scheme C (dated 04/15/2024) TAZ Parcel Households Total Employment Office Employment 1 Hotel Employment 2 Retail Employment 3 Restaurants Employment 4 Residential Employment 5 Entertainment Employment 6 Industrial Employment 7 1230 Parcel 5 200 2,146 1,536 494 55 55 6 0 0
1231 NE Parcel 0 1,910 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,910
2992 Parcel 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2993 Parcel 4 0 4,551 4,551 0 0 0 0 0 0
2994 Parcel 4 1,480 12,550 10,627 227 1,320 220 46 110 0 2995 NE Parcel 0 1,910 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,910
1,680 23,067 16,714 721 1,375 275 52 110 3,820
1 - Office: 3.7 employees per 1,000 sqft based on 2015 EIR 2 - Hotel: 1.03 employees per room based on 2015 EIR
3 - Retail : 2.2 employees per 1,000 sqft based on 2015 EIR 4 - Restaurant : 2.2 employees per 1,000 sqft based on 2015 EIR 5 - Residential : 1 employee per 32 dwelling units based on 2015 EIR 6 -Entertainment : 2.2 employees per 1,000 sqft based on 2015 EIR 7 - Industrial based on ITE Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition. The split between TAZs 1231 and 2995 is 50/50 since the masterplan layout specifying plots and areas is not completed yet Total
Trip Generation Calculation - Employment
Project Name: Organization:
Project Location: Performed By:
Scenario Description: Date:
Analysis Year: Checked By:
Analysis Period: Date:
ITE LUCs1 Quantity Units Total Entering Exiting
Office 5,185 4,615 570
Retail 675 420 255
Restaurant 910 510 400
Cinema/Entertainment 00 0
Residential 830 165 665
Hotel 370 220 150
All Other Land Uses2 0
7,970 5,930 2,040
Veh. Occ.4 % Transit % Non-Motorized Veh. Occ.4 % Transit % Non-Motorized Office 1.00 5% 0% 1.00 5% 0%
Retail 1.00 5% 0% 1.00 5% 0%
Restaurant 1.00 5% 0% 1.00 5% 0%
Cinema/Entertainment 1.00 5% 0% 1.00 5% 0%
Residential 1.00 5% 0% 1.00 5% 0%
Hotel 1.00 5% 0% 1.00 5% 0%
All Other Land Uses
2 1.00 5% 0% 1.00 5% 0%
Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel
Office
Retail
Restaurant
Cinema/Entertainment
Residential
Hotel
Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel
Office 134 117 0 0
Retail 74 33 3 0
Restaurant 124 34 8 9
Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0
Residential 13 7 102 0
Hotel 113 17 14 0
Total Entering Exiting Land Use Entering Trips Exiting Trips All Person-Trips 7,970 5,930 2,040 Office 7% 44%
Internal Capture Percentage 20% 14% 39% Retail 46% 43%
Restaurant 52% 44%
External Vehicle-Trips
5 6,048 4,871 1,177 Cinema/Entertainment N/A N/A
External Transit-Trips6 318 257 61 Residential 7% 18%
External Non-Motorized Trips6 0 0 0 Hotel 4% 96%
Santa Clara
AM Street Peak Hour
Arup
Elise Purguette
2024
4/5/2024Scheme C - AM
Estimation Tool Developed by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute - Version 2013.1 Table 5-A: Computations Summary Table 6-A: Internal Trip Capture Percentages by Land Use 2Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator. 5Vehicle-trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-A. 1Land Use Codes (LUCs) from Trip Generation Manual , published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 6Person-Trips
*Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number. 3Enter trips assuming no transit or non-motorized trips (as assumed in ITE Trip Generation Manual ). 4Enter vehicle occupancy assumed in Table 1-A vehicle trips. If vehicle occupancy changes for proposed mixed-use project, manual adjustments must be made to Tables 5-A, 9-A (O and D). Enter transit, non-motorized percentages that will result with proposed mixed-use project complete.
Table 2-A: Mode Split and Vehicle Occupancy Estimates
Table 4-A: Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix* Destination (To)Origin (From)
Origin (From) Destination (To)
Cinema/Entertainment
Land Use Entering Trips Exiting Trips
Table 3-A: Average Land Use Interchange Distances (Feet Walking Distance) NCHRP 684 Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool
Table 1-A: Base Vehicle-Trip Generation Estimates (Single-Use Site Estimate) 0 0
Cinema/Entertainment
Development Data (For Information Only )
0 0
0 Estimated Vehicle-Trips
3 Land Use
City Place
NCHRP 684 Internal Trip Capture - AM Peak Hour
Project Name:
Analysis Period:
Veh. Occ. Vehicle-Trips Person-Trips* Veh. Occ. Vehicle-Trips Person-Trips* Office 1.00 4615 4615 1.00 570 570
Retail 1.00 420 420 1.00 255 255
Restaurant 1.00 510 510 1.00 400 400
Cinema/Entertainment 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0
Residential 1.00 165 165 1.00 665 665
Hotel 1.00 220 220 1.00 150 150
Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel
Office 160 359 6 0
Retail 74 33 36 0
Restaurant 124 56 16 12
Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0
Residential 13 7 133 0
Hotel 113 21 14 0
Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel
Office 134 117 0 0
Retail 185 255 3 0
Restaurant 646 34 8 9
Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0
Residential 138 71 102 0
Hotel 138 17 31 0
Internal External Total Vehicles
1 Transit2 Non-Motorized2
Office 324 4291 4615 4076 215 0
Retail 192 228 420 217 11 0
Restaurant 266 244 510 232 12 0
Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0
Residential 11 154 165 146 8 0
Hotel 9 211 220 200 11 0
All Other Land Uses3 00 0 0 0 0
Internal External Total Vehicles1 Transit2 Non-Motorized2 Office 251 319 570 303 16 0
Retail 110 145 255 138 7 0
Restaurant 175 225 400 214 11 0
Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0
Residential 122 543 665 516 27 0
Hotel 144 6 150 6 0 0
All Other Land Uses
3 00 0 0 0 0
Land Use Table 7-A (D): Entering Trips
2Person-Trips
Person-Trip Estimates
City Place
AM Street Peak Hour
Table 9-A (D): Internal and External Trips Summary (Entering Trips) Table 8-A (O): Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix (Computed at Origin) Origin (From) Destination (To)
Cinema/Entertainment
Table 7-A: Conversion of Vehicle-Trip Ends to Person-Trip Ends Table 7-A (O): Exiting Trips
0 0
0 Table 8-A (D): Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix (Computed at Destination) Origin (From)
Origin Land Use Person-Trip Estimates External Trips by Mode* External Trips by Mode*
1Vehicle-trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-A 0 *Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number. 0 0
0 0
0 Destination (To)
Cinema/Entertainment
0 3Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator Destination Land Use
Table 9-A (O): Internal and External Trips Summary (Exiting Trips) NCHRP 684 Internal Trip Capture - AM Peak Hour
Project Name: Organization:
Project Location: Performed By:
Scenario Description: Date:
Analysis Year: Checked By:
Analysis Period: Date:
ITE LUCs1 Quantity Units Total Entering Exiting
Office 5,015 1,005 4,010
Retail 2,575 1,250 1,325
Restaurant 1,335 785 550
Cinema/Entertainment 245 100 145
Residential 960 625 335
Hotel 420 210 210
All Other Land Uses2 0
10,550 3,975 6,575
Veh. Occ.4 % Transit % Non-Motorized Veh. Occ.4 % Transit % Non-Motorized Office 1.00 5% 0% 1.00 5% 0%
Retail 1.00 5% 0% 1.00 5% 0%
Restaurant 1.00 5% 0% 1.00 5% 0%
Cinema/Entertainment 1.00 5% 0% 1.00 5% 0%
Residential 1.00 5% 0% 1.00 5% 0%
Hotel 1.00 5% 0% 1.00 5% 0%
All Other Land Uses2 1.00 5% 0% 1.00 5% 0%
Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel
Office 1600 1600 1600
Retail 1600
Restaurant 1600
Cinema/Entertainment 1600
Residential 1600 1600
Hotel 1600
Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel
Office 56 9 25 0
Retail 27 228 258 36
Restaurant 17 226 74 39
Cinema/Entertainment 3 30 24 9 2
Residential 13 70 39 10
Hotel 0 25 39 0
Total Entering Exiting Land Use Entering Trips Exiting Trips All Person-Trips 10,550 3,975 6,575 Office 6% 2%
Internal Capture Percentage 25% 33% 20% Retail 33% 43%
Restaurant 43% 71%
External Vehicle-Trips5 7,521 2,526 4,995 Cinema/Entertainment 58% 47% External Transit-Trips6 395 132 263 Residential 59% 39% External Non-Motorized Trips6 0 0 0 Hotel 41% 30%
1Land Use Codes (LUCs) from Trip Generation Manual, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator. 3Enter trips assuming no transit or non-motorized trips (as assumed in ITE Trip Generation Manual). 5Vehicle-trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-P.
Table 5-P: Computations Summary Table 6-P: Internal Trip Capture Percentages by Land Use 4Enter vehicle occupancy assumed in Table 1-P vehicle trips. If vehicle occupancy changes for proposed mixed-use project, manual adjustments must be 6Person-Trips
26 32
0 0
Table 4-P: Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix* Origin (From) Destination (To)
Cinema/Entertainment
0 Table 3-P: Average Land Use Interchange Distances (Feet Walking Distance) Origin (From) Destination (To)
Cinema/Entertainment
NCHRP 684 Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool
City Place Arup
Santa Clara Elise Purguette
*Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number.
Estimation Tool Developed by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute - Version 2013.1 Scheme C - PM 4/5/2024
2023
PM Street Peak Hour
Table 1-P: Base Vehicle-Trip Generation Estimates (Single-Use Site Estimate) Land Use Development Data (For Information Only ) Estimated Vehicle-Trips 3 Table 2-P: Mode Split and Vehicle Occupancy Estimates Land Use Entering Trips Exiting Trips
NCHRP 684 Internal Trip Capture - PM Peak Hour
Project Name:
Analysis Period:
Veh. Occ. Vehicle-Trips Person-Trips* Veh. Occ. Vehicle-Trips Person-Trips* Office 1.00 1005 1005 1.00 4010 4010
Retail 1.00 1250 1250 1.00 1325 1325
Restaurant 1.00 785 785 1.00 550 550
Cinema/Entertainment 1.00 100 100 1.00 145 145
Residential 1.00 625 625 1.00 335 335
Hotel 1.00 210 210 1.00 210 210
Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel
Office 449 90 60 0
Retail 27 384 258 66
Restaurant 17 226 74 39
Cinema/Entertainment 3 30 45 9 3
Residential 13 79 39 10
Hotel 0 34 143 3
Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel
Office 56 9 25 0
Retail 312 228 288 36
Restaurant 302 625 100 149
Cinema/Entertainment 60 50 24 25 2
Residential 573 70 62 25
Hotel 0 25 39 0
Internal External Total Vehicles1 Transit2 Non-Motorized2 Office 60 945 1005 898 47 0
Retail 407 843 1250 801 42 0
Restaurant 339 446 785 424 22 0
Cinema/Entertainment 58 42 100 40 2 0
Residential 366 259 625 246 13 0
Hotel 87 123 210 117 6 0
All Other Land Uses3 000 0 0 0
Internal External Total Vehicles1 Transit2 Non-Motorized2 Office 90 3920 4010 3724 196 0
Retail 575 750 1325 712 38 0
Restaurant 388 162 550 154 8 0
Cinema/Entertainment 68 77 145 73 4 0
Residential 132 203 335 193 10 0
Hotel 64 146 210 139 7 0
All Other Land Uses3 000 0 0 0
26 0
44 32
0 3Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in th is estimator Table 9-P (O): Internal and External Trips Summary (Exiting Trips) Origin Land Use Person-Trip Estimates External Trips by Mode* Person-Trip Estimates External Trips by Mode*
1 Table 8-P (D): Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix (Computed at Destination) Origin (From)
2Person-Trips
0 0
Table 9-P (D): Internal and External Trips Summary (Entering Trips) Destination Land Use
*Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number.
City Place
PM Street Peak Hour
Table 7-P: Conversion of Vehicle-Trip Ends to Person-Trip Ends Land Use Table 7-P (D): Entering Trips Table 7-P (O): Exiting Trips Table 8-P (O): Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix (Computed at Origin) Origin (From) Destination (To)
Destination (To)
Cinema/Entertainment
Cinema/Entertainment
0 53
1Vehicle-trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-P NCHRP 684 Internal Trip Capture - PM Peak Hour
MIXED USE TRIP GENERATION MODEL v 4.0
MODEL UPDATES
As is the case with all scientific and engineering methods, this MXD tool will continue to undergo enhancement and updates in the future, and the current version may become out-of-date or supersede It is the user's responsibility to verify that the version in use is suitably up to date for his/her purpose October 2020 Update: Peak Hour Factoring values have been updated in this version to match the values inStill Getting Trip Generation Right: Revalidating MXD+ (November/December 2020 PAS Memo). All other aspects are unchanged
USAGE STATEMENT AND DISCLAIMER
The MXD spreadsheet tool is a functional implementation of the research and mathematical equaitons for the MXD method described in the accompanying documentation [1]. Fehr & Peers offers the spreadsheet as a public service, for use by professional transportation planners and traffic engineers, experienced in the use of the Institute of Transportation EngineTrip Generation report and Trip Generation Handbook.
We make no representation or warranty concerning the tool's use by inexperienced individuals, nor concerning the tool's functionality or accuracy beyond the scope of the underlying research. We also b no responsibility for the conclusions or opinions inexperienced users may draw from the results produce While the research underlying the spreadsheet has been reviewed for general usefulness, it is the responsibility of the user to assess whether the research is relevant to and credible for his/her intended applicat It is also the user's responsibility to exercise professional judgment on appropriateness to the specific details of their subject case. In cases where this is in doubt, the user is advised to either apply alternate methods or to validate the MXD me with respect to local data and to test the method's sensitivities to the particular combination of factors under stud In cases that vary significantly from those used to develop and validate the method (as described in the accompanying documentation) [2], the user is advised to consult with an expert in the transportation planning/engineering f as to the method's relevance and performance
Although the method has been validated with respect to its ability to predict daily traffic generation for a variety of mixed-use development projects, the following qualifiers ap
1. The accuracies of the model's predictions of travel by transit, walking, and bicycle modes have not been mathematically validated, and the model does not predict the amount of automobile travel occurring entirely within the MXD s
2. The accuracy of prediction of proportions of daily travel occurring during specific times of day has not been fully validate
3. The method was developed primarily to address the effects of mixed-use development and, though it does account for some effects of transit availability and regional accessibility, special care should be used when applying the me to transit-oriented developments (particularly adjacent to premium bus or rail service) and to development within the regional core (downtow
4. The method does not account for the effects of changing the spatial separation among uses within the development site, nor with changing the mix of specific types of retail and services uses such as entertainment, restaurant, and h
5. The spreadsheet has not been tested for all possible project descriptions, and the user assumes responsibility for checking and judging the reasonableness of the spreadsheet results for the specific case under study both agains results expected based on the documented equations and against the professional judgment of an expert in the transportation planning or engineer To ensure fully-informed use of the results produced by this method, the user is advised to present them alongside the results produced by the conventional methods (such as those in the Institute of Transportaiton EngineTrip Generation report and Trip Generation Handbook) and to explain the professional judgment that leads to a conclusion that the MXD results as reasonable. Ideally, traffic counts at sites comparable to the proposed project should be perform As is the case with all scientific and engineering methods, MXD will continue to undergo enhancement and updates in the future, and the current version may become out-of-date or superseded. It is the user's responsibility to verify the version in use is suitably up to date for his/her purposesFor updates to the MXD spreadsheet, including versions that account for transit and peak hour validation please visit www.coolconnections.org
1. "Traffic Generation by Mixed-Use Developments - A Six-Region Study Using Consistent Built Environment Measures", Ewing et alASCE Journal of Urban Planning and Development, September 2011.
2. Ibid.
INSTRUCTIONS
This spreadsheet allows one to input data from a project site and estimate vehicle trip reductio by determining:
1. The percent of trips internally captured
2. The percent of external trips which are made by walking
3. The percent of external trips which are made by transi All user inputs are on the "Input" tab and the results are on the "Results" ta The spreadsheet uses regression model cofficients to calculate trip reduction percentages by trip purpose. ITE Trip Generation and NCHRP 365 factors are used to calculate "Baseline" project site trips by purpo The results are combined to produce "adjusted" external vehicle trips Most Input cells are shaded this color of yellow. All other cells are protected and should not be change Always check your results for reasonability and compare them to sites of similar nature with actual counts availab Off-site variables
The spreadsheet takes some off-site variables into account. So the results may be different for different planning years, because the surrounding a could change. Please keep this in mind if doing an analysis that involves "existing plus project" and "cumulative plus project" scenario AM and PM peak hour models
The AM and PM peak hour results are not based on a validated peak hour model. The site trip reduction data was only captured on a daily basis, and th the "predicted probabilities" (internal capture, walk, and transit) are the same in the peak hours as for daily for a given trip purpos The overall trip reduction percentages will differ in the peak hours only to the extent that the trip purpose distribution differs. The user is given the option use NCHRP factors to account for this or to input trip purpose splits manually Site-Specific Internalization
In some cases one may wish to manually define site specific internalization due to unique situations. These include project sites that are isolated from surrounding communit or contain schools that mostly serve local residents. An experienced traffic engineer or planner will need to be consulted to determine the appropriate assumptions and calculatio Project Site Size Limitations
Please be aware that the site ought to fall within the range of the data used to develop the model, namel
1. The site should be between 5 and 2000 acres
2. There should be less than 5000 dwelling units and less than 3 million square feet of commercial us If the site does not meet the above criteria, please use an alternate method, as described in the ITE Handbook write- Employment within a 30 minute transit trip input variabl e
Note: the 30 minutes is door-to-door, so should include estimations for home-to-transit and transit-to-work travel time as well as average waiting time for the transit vehicle If local data is unavailable
1. Estimate the geographic area accessible by a 30-minute transit trip
2. Compare that geographic area to the Census' Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics data.
The Census LEHD program's "On the Map" allows users draw a geographic area within which the map will then calculate employment. See http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/ MXD Tool Model - Description
Acronym Definition
ACS American Community Survey
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
DU dwelling uni
t
HBO home-based other trips
HBW home-based work trips
HH household
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
ksf thousand square feet
MXD mixed use development
MXD tool EPA's Mixed-Use Development Trip Generation Tool NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NHB non-home-based trips
ROW right-of-wa
y
TOD transit-oriented development
VMT vehicle-miles traveled
MXD Tool Model - Acronyms
MIXED USE TRIP GENERATION MODEL V4 - INPUT
All shaded cells are inputs
Project / Scenario Specific Inputs
Default National Factors - Can be changed for project based on site specific data, or regional values from census data, travel demand model, etc… Section 1 - General Site Information
Site Name Cityplace
Geographic Notes / Instructions
Developed Area (in acres) 94.6 Include streets, ROW, parking lots, pocket parks. Do not include open space, vacant lots.
Number of Intersections 23 Count intersections either within or on the perimeter of the MXD. Do not count most unsignalized driveways or alleys, but DO count major entrances to shopping areas or residential developments.
Is Transit (bus or rail) present within the site or across the street? Yes Note: This is only used as a way to zero out the probability of external trips if no transit is present.
Land Use - Surrounding Area
Is the site in a Central Business District or TOD? Yes
Employment within one mile of the MXD 42,970 Do not include employment within the MXD itself Employment within a 30 minute Transit Trip (Door-to-door) 100,000 Include employment within the MXD itself This can be a difficult number to get - some suggestions are in the instructions tab in "Instructions." Site Demographics
Enter Population Directly? Yes If "No", will apply average HH size factors (in section 2) to dwelling units below Population 4032 Enter Population Here. You still need to enter dwelling units below.
Average Vehicles Owned per Dwelling Unit 1.60
Conversion Factors
Source: What does this input affect?
Average Household Size
Single Family 3.2 NA
Multi-Family 2.4 2015 EIR
High Rise Condo 2.4 2015 EIR
Jobs per ksf
Retail 2.2 2015 EIR
Office 3.7 2015 EIR
Light Industrial 1.0 NA
Manufacturing 0.5 NA
Warehousing 2.0 NA
Misc. Uses 2.0 NA
Jobs from ITE rates per other unit
Source
Jobs per Hotel Room 1.03 2015 EIR
Jobs per Movie Screen 14.30 2015 EIR
Grade School Jobs per student 0.10 NA
High School / Middle School Jobs per Student 0.10 NA
College Jobs per student 0.25 NA
Trip Purpose Splits by Land Use Type
This will affect the final results significantly. Keep "Use NCHRP" on "Yes" unless you have reliable splits which have been QA/QCd For each land use type, choose whether to use NCHRP 365 splits as outlined on the Mode Parameters tab.
If "Yes" is chosen, the percentages will not affect the results. If "No," then enter the splits.
NOTE: For residences, the NHB Attractions are automatically calculated as the remainder to ensure the total is 100% NOTE: For all other purposes, the NHB attractions are automatically set equal to the NHB productions, and the HBO attractions are automatically calculated as the remainder to ensure the total is 100%
NOTE: There is no NCHRP split defined for schools, so the split has to be entered below.
DAILY
Use NCHRP? HBW HBO NHB HBW HBO NHB Source (if not using NCHRP):
Residences Yes 15% 50% 10% 7% 8% 10%
Retail Yes 0% 0% 15% 10% 60% 15%
Office Yes 0% 0% 15% 35% 35% 15%
Other non-residential (excluding schools) Yes 0% 0% 10% 60% 20% 10% Schools No 0% 0% 2.5% 35% 60% 3%
AM PEAK HOUR
Residences Yes 15% 50% 10% 7% 8% 10%
Retail Yes 0% 0% 15% 10% 60% 15%
Office Yes 0% 0% 15% 35% 35% 15%
Other non-residential (excluding schools) Yes 0% 0% 10% 60% 20% 10% Schools No 0% 0% 2.5% 35% 60% 3%
PM PEAK HOUR
Residences Yes 15% 50% 10% 7% 8% 10%
Retail Yes 0% 0% 15% 10% 60% 15%
Office Yes 0% 0% 15% 35% 35% 15%
Other non-residential (excluding schools) Yes 0% 0% 10% 60% 20% 10% Schools No 0% 0% 2.5% 35% 60% 3%
NON-HOME BASED TRIPS GENERATED BY PROJECT HOUSEHOLDS
Enter the percent of these that occur… Source for this information:
Completely Within the Project Site 25%
With one trip end external to the Project Site 15%
Completely outside the Project Site 60% Calculated from other two percentages
SITE-SPECIFIC INTERNALIZATION
This should only be used in unique situations such as if the project is isolated from surrounding communities or contains a school that primarily serves local residents This section of input is for when you have specific trips you want to EXCLUDE from the MXD process. These trips will be counted as internal, and subtracted from the "baseline" trips before applying the model. The overall trip reduction percentage will still take these trips into account, and thus be a higher reduction than if you were just letting the model work on all the "baseline" trips. An experienced transportation engineer or planner should be consulted to determine the appropriate assumptions and calculations.
Section 3 - Land Use Inputs
Trips ITE Daily Parameters AM PEAK HOUR TRIP RATES PM PEAK HOUR TRIP RATES Valid Trip Gen Calc Choice? Quantity Units Daily AM Peak Hour
PM Peak
Hour Daily
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour Code
Average
Rate
Linear
Multiplier
Linear
Constant
Log
Multipler
Log
Constant
Average
Rate
Linear
Multiplier
Linear
Constant
Log
Multipler
Log
Constant
Average
Rate
Linear
Multiplier
Linear
Constant
Log
Multipler
Log
Constant
Jobs Per
Input Unit
(if
Applicable) Daily
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Number of Dwelling Units
Single Family 0 DU Log Equation Linear Equatio
nLog Equation 0 0 0 210 9.57 0.92 2.71 0.75 0.7 9.74 1.01 0.9 0.51 Yes Yes Yes Multi-Family 1680 DU Linear EquationLinear EquationLinear Equatio 10,304 827 942 220 6.65 6.06 123.56 0.51 0.49 3.73 0.62 0.55 17.65 Yes Yes Yes High Rise Condo 0 DU Linear EquationLinear EquationLinear Equatio 0 0 0 232 4.18 3.77 223.66 0.34 0.29 28.86 0.38 0.34 15.47 Yes Yes Yes General Retail other than those listed below 575 ksf Log Equation Log Equation Log Equation 21,170 432 2,054 820 42.94 0.65 5.83 1 0.59 2.32 3.73 0.67 3.37 2.2 Yes Yes Yes Supermarket 50 ksf Average Rate Average Rate Average Rate 5,112 180 525 850 102.24 66.95 1391.56 3.59 10.5 0.61 3.95 2.2 Yes Yes Yes Bank 0 ksf Average Rate Average Rate Average Rate 000 912 148.15 12.35 25.82 2.2 Yes Yes Yes Health Club 0 ksf Average Rate Average Rate Average Rate 000 492 32.93 1.38 3.53 0.95 1.43 2.2 Yes Yes Yes Restaurant (non-fast food) 125 ksf Average Rate Average Rate Average Rate 15,894 1,440 1,394 932 127.15 11.52 11.15 2.2 Yes Yes Yes Fast-Food Restaurant 0 ksf Average Rate Average Rate Average Rate 000 934 496.12 49.35 33.84 2.2 Yes Yes Yes Gas Station 0 ksf Average Rate Average Rate Average Rate 000 945 1181.07 79.3 97.08 2.2 Yes Yes Yes Auto Repair 0 ksf Average Rate Average Rate Average Rate 000 942 31.6 2.94 3.38 0.94 1.33 2.2 Yes Yes Yes Office
Non-Medical 4517 ksf Log Equation Log Equation Linear Equati o 25,086 3,954 5,138 710 11.01 0.77 3.65 1.55 0.8 1.55 1.49 1.12 78.81 3.7 Yes Yes Yes Medical 0 jobs Average Rate Average Rate Average Rate 0 0 0 720 8.91 0.67 3.76 0.53 1.06 1.06 -0.32 1.0 Yes Yes Yes Industrial
Light Industrial 0 jobs Average Rate Average Rate Average Rate 0 0 0 110 3.02 2.95 30.57 0.44 0.27 70.47 0.42 0.29 58.03 1.0 Yes Yes Yes Manufacturing 0 ksf Average Rate Average Rate Average Rate 0 0 0 140 3.82 3.88 -20.7 0.73 0.83 -29.52 0.73 0.78 -15.97 0.5 Yes Yes Yes Warehousing / Self-Storage 0 ksf Average Rate Average Rate Average Rate 0 0 0 151 2.5 1.01 0.82 0.15 0.26 1.02 1.49 2.0 Yes Yes Yes Hotel (including restaurant, facilities, etc…) 700 Rooms Average Rate Average Rate Average Rate 5,719 392 413 310 8.17 8.95 -373.16 0.56 1.24 -2 0.59 1.03 Yes Yes Yes Motel 0 Rooms Average Rate Average Rate Average Rate 0 0 0 320 5.63 0.92 2.11 0.45 0.92 -0.46 0.47 0.94 -0.51 1.03 Yes Yes Yes Movie Theater 2 Screens Average Rate Average Rate Average Rate 351 0 27 445 175.29 0 13.64 14.30 Yes Yes Yes School
University 0 Students Average Rate Average Rate Average Rate 0 0 0 550 2.38 2.23 440 0.21 0.21 -69.14 0.21 0.19 118.58 0.25 Yes Yes Yes High School 0 Students Average Rate Average Rate Average Rate 0 0 0 530 1.71 0.81 1.86 0.42 0.13 0.10 Yes Yes Yes Middle School 0 Students Average Rate Average Rate Average Rate 0 0 0 522 1.62 0.54 0.16 0.10 Yes Yes Yes Elementary 0 Students Average Rate Average Rate Average Rate 0 0 0 520 1.29 0.45 1.14 -1.86 0.15 0.10 Yes Yes Yes Daily
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Trips from Land uses not covered above ==> 00 0
Jobs in those Land Uses 0
Daily
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Total "Baseline" ITE Trips 83,636 7,225 10,493
Section 4 - VMT Inputs
HBW HBO NHB Source:
Average Trip Length in the Region 00 0
Average Trip Length in the Traffic Analysis Zone 0 0 0 region's Metropolitan Planning Organization Answering "Yes" will reduce the HBO and NHB purpose splits for retail use to those found in smaller stores. The nature of the stores (large vs. small) should be the primary factor in the selection here.
Productions Attractions
Note the
formulas
are
slightly
different
in this
section
<====
Section 2 - Variable Modeling Parameters
The U.S. Census American Community Survey is likely a good source. Go to the link at right, and search "Community Facts" for your community. The vehicles per household data is within the housing statistics of the ACS. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml Retail (note: if you use job units for retail, the spreadsheet will convert before applying trip rates, using the rate in section 2 which you can change) Trip Equation Method
This only affects VMT
calculations
Directly affects trip internalization and mode
splits. Also used to compute site population if
population isn't entered directly.
Used to compute site employment for any land
uses which are entered in ksf rather than jobs.
For retail, if land uses are entered in jobs, it's
used to convert back to ksf for trip generation
calculations.
Used to compute site employment for these
land uses which are typically expressed in
other units
MXD Tool Model - Inputs
MIXED USE TRIP GENERATION MODEL V4 - RESULTS
HBW HBO NHB Total HBW HBO NHB Total HBW HBO NHB Total
Baseline # of External Trips (ITE Model) 26682 35133 21821 83636 4592 2220 413 7225 4199 3485 2809 10493 % External Trip Reduction
(predicted by MXD Model)
Internal Capture 1.89% 3.51% 17.99% 6.77% 2.08% 6.32% 17.99% 4.29% 1.89% 3.51% 17.99% 6.74% Walking External 2.87% 14.79% 9.75% 9.63% 3.44% 19.23% 9.75% 8.50% 2.87% 14.79% 9.75% 8.58% Transit External 4.20% 1.88% 2.68% 2.84% 5.88% 2.07% 2.68% 4.58% 5.88% 1.88% 2.68% 3.75% # of Trips Reduced (predicted by MXD Model)
Internal Capture 505 1233 3926 5664 96 140 74 310 80 122 505 707 Walking External 750 5014 1744 7508 155 400 33 587 118 497 225 840 Transit External 1099 639 479 2218 264 43 9 317 242 63 62 367 MXD Model # of Vehicle Trips 2432 7 28248 15672 6824 6 4078 1637 297 6011 3759 2802 2018 8578 Results
Baseline Adjusted Reduction % HBW HBO NHB Total
Daily 83,636 68,246 18% 2355 6885 6149 15390
AM Peak Hour 7,225 6,011 17% 515 583 116 1214
PM Peak Hour 10,493 8,578 18% 440 683 792 1914
Blending:
ITE - Internal Reduction
7% 18% 59% 39%
0.899 0.635
Blended Reduction for EIR Addendm 16% 17% 32% 24%
HBW HBO NHB Total HBW HBO NHB Total HBW HBO NHB Total
Baseline # of External Trips (ITE Model) 2118 6699 1488 10304 371 427 29 827 264 528 149 942 % External Trip Reduction
(predicted by MXD Model)
Internal Captur
e 1.89% 3.51% 17.99% 5.27% 2.08% 6.32% 17.99% 4.82% 1.89% 3.51% 17.99% 5.34% Walking External 2.87% 14.79% 9.75% 11.62% 3.44% 19.23% 9.75% 11.65% 2.87% 14.79% 9.75% 10.63% Transit External 4.20% 1.88% 2.68% 2.48% 5.88% 2.07% 2.68% 3.85% 5.88% 1.88% 2.68% 3.16% # of Trips Reduced (predicted by MXD Model)
Internal Capture 40 235 268 543 8 27 5 40 5 19 27 50
Walking External 60 956 119 1134 13 77 2 92 7 75 12 95
Transit External 87 122 33 242 21 8 1 30 15 10 3 28
Adjusted # (MXD Model) of Vehicle Trips
generated by Project Residences 1931 5386 1068 8385 330 315 21 665 237 425 107 768 Results Baselin
e Adjusted Reduction %
Daily 10,304 8,385 19%
AM Peak Hour 827 665 20%
PM Peak Hour 942 768 18%
MODEL APPLICATION - ALL TRIPS
PM Peak Hour
Daily
External Vehicle Trips
External Vehicle Trips
Daily AM Peak Hour
MODEL APPLICATION - TRIP ENDS ASSOCIATED
WITH HOUSES IN THE PROJECT ONLY
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Total Trips Reduced
AM PM
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
MXD Tool Model - Outputs
Comparison of MXD forecasted daily trips to ITE forecasted daily trips 0 10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
ITE Trips
MXD Trips
0 0.1
0.2 0.3
0.4 0.5
0.6 0.7
0.8 0.9
1 ITE Daily VMT MXD Daily Adjusted
VMT
MXD Reduction in
Daily VMT
(VMT Reduction from
Trip Capture)
MXD Tool Model - Comparison
Appendix C
Related Santa Clara Scheme C
Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas
Report
1/22
Ramboll
250 Montgomery Street
Suite 1200
San Francisco, CA 94104
USA
T +1 510 655 7400
F +1 510 655 9517
www.ramboll.com
MEMO
Date: January 24, 2025
To: Tom Boshaw, Vice President, Related Urban
From: Michael Keinath
Sarah Manzano
Brandon Yee
Subject: CEQA AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS ANALYSIS FOR THE
MODIFICATION OF THE RELATED SANTA CLARA PROJECT
Ramboll Americas Engineering Solutions, Inc. (“Ramboll”) evaluated the air quality and greenhouse gas (“GHG”) impacts of a modification to the Related Santa Clara project (the “Project”) in Santa Clara, California compared to the impacts evaluated in the City Place Santa Clara Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”), State Clearinghouse Number 2014072078. The methods used in this analysis are consistent with the recommended analyses for environmental review of projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and compares the impacts of the Project as modified to the Project’s EIR impact conclusions. The Project’s EIR was certified by the City of Santa Clara (the “City”) in 2016.
PROJECT INTRODUCTION
Related Santa Clara (“Related”) is overseeing the Project buildout of a total of 9.16 million gross square feet (“gsf”) of mixed-used development. The Project area is split across various land uses among Parcels 4 & 5 (“City Center parcels”) and Parcels 1 & 2 (“northeast parcels”). The 2016 EIR analyzed two schemes, Scheme A and Scheme B, with different land use distributions, both with 5.13 million square feet of development in the City Center parcels and 4.03 million square feet of development in the northeast parcels. The Project that has been approved by the City, as analyzed in the 2016 EIR and its subsequent three addenda, is referred to collectively herein as the Approved Project.
Related is proposing a modification to the Project to shift some office and retail land uses in the northeast parcels to the City Center parcels, thereby increasing the square footage in the City Center parcels, and to build warehouse and/or advanced manufacturing land uses in the northeast parcels, with the adjusted the land use distribution collectively referred to herein as the modified Project, or Scheme C.
Scheme C would have the same total buildout and include 7.56 million square feet of mixed-use development (e.g., office, retail, residential, and hotel) in the City Center parcels and 1.6 million square feet of warehouse and/or advanced manufacturing in the northeast parcels.
Ramboll evaluated the potential change in impacts to determine if the changes in land use proposed under Scheme C and the increased density of the City Center parcels would change impacts evaluated in the 2016 EIR.
2/22
The proposed Scheme C land uses at the Project site along with the land use categories used in the California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”) are listed in Table A.1 Table A. Land Use Summary
Land Use Category from
Related
Specific Land Use Category
for CalEEMod
Scheme C Area (square feet)
Residential Condo/Townhouse 1,680,000 (1,680 units)
Retail General 800,000
Supermarket Supermarket 50,000
Retail uses Regional Shopping Center 575,000
Restaurant High Turnover (Sit Down)
Restaurant
125,000
Entertainment Movie Theater (No matinee) 2 50,000
Office General Office Building 4,517,400
Hotel Hotel 567,000 (700 rooms)
Industrial/Manufacturing Warehouse-No Rail/
Manufacturing3
1,600,000
The 1.6 million square feet land use for industrial/manufacturing could be built out for either warehouse or advanced manufacturing uses. Therefore, emissions were estimated for both buildout scenarios to bound maximum possible emissions from Scheme C. The full warehouse buildout assumes at most half of the warehouse would be refrigerated. All CalEEMod outputs can be reviewed in Appendix A. Additional project features incorporated into the emission calculations include the following:
• A maximum of 50% of the square footage of the northeast parcel is expected to be refrigerated warehouse. The other portion could include non-refrigerated warehouse, manufacturing, or both.
• Electricity and natural gas consumption would meet Related’s Recommended Energy Use Intensity (“EUI”) targets. The EUI target is the standard to which Related will design its buildings against.
• Buildings meet Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification or equivalent measures.
• Incorporating renewable energy requirements and using only electric landscaping equipment, both of which are required by Mitigation Measure GHG-1.2 These project descriptions are further elaborated under the Operational Emissions Estimation Methodologies section of this report. This analysis compares impacts of Scheme C to the impact conclusions for the Approved Project. Based on the analysis from the 2016 EIR, Ramboll evaluated and compared the differences in Project impacts due to the proposed land use changes and relied on thresholds of significance from the 2016 EIR, which were based on Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“BAAQMD”) thresholds.
1 Numbered tables can be found in the attached tables, while lettered tables are embedded in the main text. 2 The only option for movie theater in CalEEMod is Movie Theater (No matinee), which is the same land use category used in the 2016 EIR.
3 For the warehouse land use scenario, half of the warehouse land use is assumed to be refrigerated and the other half is assumed to be unrefrigerated.
3/22
IMPACT COMPARISON
Below is a compilation of each air quality and GHG impact statement from the 2016 EIR. Each impact contains a summary of the impact in the 2016 EIR and determines if Scheme C would change the impacts of the Approved Project as evaluated in the 2016 EIR. Details on the associated technical analysis are described after this section.
Impact AQ-1: Conflict with Air Quality Plan. The Project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. (SU)
The 2016 EIR evaluated the Approved Project against the BAAQMD’s 2010 Clean Air Plan, the applicable air quality plan available at the time. The 2016 EIR evaluated the Approved Project’s consistency with the 2010 Clean Air Plan based on whether the Approved Project would result in population and/or employment growth that exceeds the estimates used to develop the 2010 Clean Air Plan. Based on this criterion, the 2016 EIR concluded that the Approved Project would contribute unplanned regional growth and would therefore conflict with the implementation of the 2010 Clean Air Plan. 2016 EIR also concluded that the Approved Project’s exceedance of BAAQMD’s emission thresholds of significance would also conflict with the implementation of the 2010 Clean Air Plan.
Consequently, even though the Approved Project supports several land use, transportation, and energy strategies in the 2010 Clean Air Plan, the Approved Project conflicted with the implementation of the applicable air quality plan, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact.
The consistency of Scheme C with the 2010 Clean Air Plan is evaluated based on the same criterion of population and/or employment growth, discussed above. The number of dwelling units, population, and jobs created by Scheme C are similar to those in the Approved Project. Therefore, the general trend for increased population growth and housing demand would be similar. Scheme C would generate approximately 4,030 new residents, as shown in Table 10, which is the same as the Approved Project evaluated in the 2016 EIR. Scheme C would introduce 23,560 net new employees, as shown in Table 10. The Approved Project evaluated in the 2016 EIR would introduce 23,610 net new employees. Therefore, the increase in residents and net new employees for Scheme C would be similar to the increase in residents and net new employees for the Approved Project. Therefore, Scheme C would contribute similar regional growth to the Approved Project and would result in a similar conclusion to the comparison to the growth assumed in the 2010 Clean Air Plan. Furthermore, while criteria air pollutants and GHG emissions for Scheme C would be lower than the emissions reported for the Approved Project, Scheme C would generate operational emissions that would exceed the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds for criteria air pollutants (Impact AQ-3 and GHG-1 below).
Therefore, Scheme C would conflict with the 2010 Clean Air Plan, similar to the Approved Project.
Therefore, Scheme C would conflict with the implementation of the 2010 Clean Air Plan and result in a significant and unavoidable impact. This impact conclusion is identical to that of the 2016 EIR.
This impact is no more severe than what was disclosed for the Approved Project because the unplanned growth is similar to that of the Approved Project and criteria air pollutant emissions are lower for Scheme C compared to the Approved Project.
Since the publication of the 2016 EIR, the 2017 Clean Air Plan has been adopted by BAAQMD. The 2017 Clean Air Plan is a comprehensive plan to improve air quality, protect public health and protect the climate in the BAAQMD’s jurisdiction. The 2017 Clean Air Plan, similar to the 2010 Clean Air Plan, serves as an update to the region’s State ozone plan pursuant to the requirements of the California Health and Safety Code. The 2017 Clean Air Plan is designed to accomplish three complementary goals: attain air quality standards, protect public health in the Bay Area by reducing the population’s exposure to air pollutants, and protect the climate by meeting the State’s GHG reduction targets in 2030 and 2050. The 2017 Clean Air Plan defines an integrated, multi-pollutant control strategy that encompasses 85 individual control measures across the following sectors: Stationary (Industrial)
4/22
Sources, Transportation, Energy, Buildings, Agriculture, Natural Working Lands, Waste Management, Water, and Super-GHG Pollutants.
The following analysis addresses the consistency of Scheme C with the 2017 Clean Air Plan. It should be noted that these conclusions only provide additional information and are not used to compare the severity of the impact with what was analyzed for the Approved Project. For this analysis, a project is considered to be consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan when it 1) supports the goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan, 2) includes applicable control measures from the 2017 Clean Air Plan, and 3) would not disrupt or hinder implementation of any control measures included in the 2017 Clean Air Plan. As discussed below for individual sectors described in the 2017 Clean Air Plan, Scheme C will include applicable control measures from the 2017 Clean Air Plan.
Stationary sources. Alth
ough Scheme C does not propose large stationary sources such as oil refineries and cement plants, Scheme C would introduce new emergency generators to the site, similar to the Approved Project. The proposed emergency generators are subject to BAAQMD’s Rule 2- 5 for New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants, which is addressed in SS21 in 2017 Clean Air Plan. In addition, the proposed emergency generators would all be equipped with Best Available Control Technology (BACT), in order to minimize health risks to impacted individuals, consistent with SS32 in 2017 Clean Air Plan. Any fugitive dust emissions generated by construction activities of Scheme C would also be reduced by best management practices for fugitive dust as required in Mitigation Measure AQ-2.3, which would support the control measure SS38 in the 2017 Clean Air Plan to limit fugitive dust emissions.
Transportation. As with
the Approved Project, Scheme C would create a dense mixture of uses that supports alternative modes of travel (bicycles, pedestrians, transit) in proximity to transit (Amtrak, ACE rail, VTA light rail). Scheme C is consistent with the overarching goal of the control measures for the Transportation sector. Through the Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM) required under Mitigation Measure TRA-1.1, the control measures that would be incorporated may include, but are not limited to, the following 2017 Clean Air Plan control measures: Clean Air Teleworking Initiative (TR1), Trip Reduction Programs (TR2), Ridesharing and Last-Mile Connection (TR8), Bicycle and Pedestrian Access and Facilities (TR9), Value Pricing (TR11), Cars and Light Trucks (TR14), and Medium and Heavy Duty Trucks (TR19).
Energy. Scheme C would source at least 50% of its energy use from renewable energy, consistent with Mitigation Measure GHG-1.2, and would therefore help to decarbonize electricity production (EN1) and decrease electricity demand (EN2). Scheme C would also reduce energy consumption in office space with the EUI targets included in Scheme C through building design. EUI targets are Related’s energy consumption targets per gross square footage of a building, which combine electricity and natural gas use.
Buildings. The proposed buildings under Scheme C will adhere to the Title 24 requirements applicable at the time of issuance of the building permits, satisfying buildings control measures that would reduce Project-related area emissions, relative to traditional commercial, office, and residential uses.
In addition, Proposed buildings under Scheme C will also pursue LEED certification or equivalent measures. Scheme C will incorporate the following building control measures, as feasible: Green Buildings (BL1), Decarbonize Buildings (BL2), and Urban Heat Island Mitigation (BL4).
Waste Management. Similar to Scheme B, Scheme C will achieve a 50% reduction in solid waste generation compared to typical use. Mitigation Measure GHG-1.2 requires all retail restaurants to participate 100 percent in any extant City food waste programs and any that may be developed in the future. Future projects in the City are also subject to Senate Bill 1383 that requires the diversion of
5/22
75% organics by 2025. Therefore, Scheme C is consistent with Green Waste Diversion (WA3) and Recycling and Waste Reduction (WA4).
Water. Similar to Scheme B, Scheme C will reduce indoor water use by 10% and outdoor water use by 20% compared to the CalEEMod default parameters. Therefore, it is consistent with the control measure of supporting water conservation (WR2).
The other sectors analyzed in the 2017 Clean Air Plan are not applicable to Scheme C’s proposed land uses. These sectors are: Agriculture, Natural and Working Lands, and Super GHG.
Even though Scheme C would include the applicable 2017 Clean Air Plan control measures, Scheme C would generate operational emissions that would exceed the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds for criteria air pollutants (Impact AQ-3 and GHG-1 below) and could conflict with the goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan and its implementation of the control measures.
Conclusion: No change from the Approved Project as evaluated in the 2016 EIR. Even though Scheme C would support the goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan and include applicable control measures from the 2017 Clean Air Plan, Scheme C would contribute to unplanned regional growth compared to growth assumed in the 2010 Clean Air Plan and would therefore conflict with the implementation of the 2010 Clean Air Plan. Furthermore, Scheme C would result in criteria air pollutant emissions that would exceed the applicable thresholds. Therefore, Scheme C’s impact related to consistency with the 2010 Clean Air Plan remains significant and unavoidable.
Impact AQ-2: Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions. Construction activities at the Project site would result in the generation of regional criteria pollutant emissions during construction in excess of Bay Area Air Quality Management District thresholds. (LTS/M) The 2016 EIR evaluated the construction emissions of the entire project based on an equipment list for each year and phase of construction and compared the emissions to thresholds, as outlined on page 3.4-23. As shown in Table 3.4-7 of the 2016 EIR, mitigated nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions in 2017 would still exceed the BAAQMD 54 pounds per day threshold for NOX even after implementing Mitigation Measures AQ-2.1 through AQ-2.3. Meanwhile, reactive organic gases (“ROG”), particulate matter less 10 microns (“PM10”), and particulate matter less 2.5 microns (“PM2.5”) would remain under their respective thresholds of 54, 82 and 54 pounds per day. Pursuant to AQ-2.4, the Project Developer will pay an offsite mitigation fee for NOX emissions in excess of BAAQMD thresholds. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2.4, NOX emissions as analyzed in the 2016 EIR were deemed to be reduced to a less than significant with mitigation level.
Construction of Scheme C as a whole is not expected to be materially different compared to construction of the Approved Project. While the land uses within each parcel may change, Scheme C would require a construction schedule similar to the schedule analyzed in the 2016 EIR for the Approved Project, and would not result in intensified construction emissions, as described below.
Scheme C may result in denser development in the City Center parcels than was analyzed in the 2016 EIR for the Approved Project, which could be accommodated through the construction of taller buildings, but would overall maintain similar building footprints as was analyzed for the Approved Project. Furthermore, Scheme C does not anticipate any additional excavation or grading beyond the amount that was considered for the Approved Project. In addition, according to Related, Scheme C’s denser development in the City Center parcels may result in less heavy-duty diesel construction activity than was analyzed in the 2016 EIR for the Approved Project. This is because the increase in density could result in taller buildings, which would require electric tower cranes in lieu of hoisting with diesel forklifts or mobile cranes that are required for low-rise or mid-rise construction, resulting in a
6/22
reduction of use of diesel-powered equipment and lower emissions. Less heavy-duty diesel construction activity would result in fewer emissions. Finally, while the increased density in City Center may also result in an increased duration of the construction timeline for City Center, construction of Scheme C as a whole is not expected to be materially different compared to construction of the Approved Project evaluated in the 2016 EIR.
Furthermore, light industrial has an overall shorter construction time than general office on a square- foot basis due to the reduction in tenant buildouts and amenities for offices, resulting in an additional overall reduction of construction time and emissions for the northeast parcels. In addition, converting land use from mixed use in the Approved Project to industrial in Scheme C results in a reduction in the required parking by 5,000 parking spots. This results in a reduction of about 1.75 million square feet of parking structures, which would further reduce construction activity and emissions.
Although activity and emissions previously assumed in the northeast parcels may move to the City Center parcels relative to the Approved Project due to the redistribution of square footage, the overall activity would remain similar or less than the Approved Project. Moving emissions from one part of the site to another would not result in a change to this impact, which evaluates overall construction emissions across the site. Localized emissions are evaluated in Impact AQ-6 for health risk analyses.
Furthermore, Scheme C proposes the similar square footage over the same site area as the Approved Project and would reduce the square footage of parking. CalEEMod default construction schedules are based on lot acreage and square footage of commercial, residential, and parking land uses. The lot acreage and square footage of commercial and residential land uses are not proposed to change between Scheme C and the Approved Project and parking land uses would be reduced. This further supports that construction activity for Scheme C would be similar or less than that for the Approved Project.
In addition, emissions analyzed today for the same activity analyzed for the Approved Project would likely be lower at this time due to fleet turnover and increased emissions standards for equipment.
Construction emissions for Scheme C are not expected to increase in comparison with the level of construction emissions analyzed in the 2016 EIR. Furthermore, Mitigation Measure AQ-2.1 through 2.4 would continue to apply and mitigate construction emissions. Mitigation Measure AQ-2.4 would require fees to be submitted to BAAQMD if NO
X emissions exceed the average daily NOX threshold.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2.4 requires monitoring construction activity for Scheme C and submittal of actual emissions estimates to BAAQMD to determine if payment is due per the mitigation measure. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2.1 through 2.4, construction NOX emissions from Scheme C would continue to be reduced to a less than significant with mitigation level.
Conclusion: No change from the Approved Project as evaluated in the 2016 EIR. The impact of ROG, NOX, and PM emissions on air quality during Project construction would be less than significant with mitigation.
Impact AQ-3: Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions. The Project would result in the generation of regional criteria pollutant emissions during operation in excess of Bay Area Air Quality Management District thresholds. (SU)
The 2016 EIR evaluated the Approved Project operational criteria air pollutant (“CAP”) emissions from standard CalEEMod emissions categories, as outlined on page 3.4-29 of the 2016 EIR. As shown in Table 3.4-9 of the 2016 EIR, although Project design features, LEED and operational mitigation (GHG-
1.2 and TRA-1.1) would contribute to criteria pollutant reductions, ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions would still exceed BAAQMD’s mass emissions thresholds of 54 pounds per day for ROG and
7/22
NOX and 82 pounds per day for PM10 and PM2.5. Purchasing offsets in this magnitude and duration would place an undue financial burden on the Approved Project that was not considered economically feasible. Consequently, the impact of ROG, NOX, and PM emissions on air quality during Approved Project operations was deemed significant and unavoidable.
Mitigated operational CAP emissions from Scheme C were calculated, as discussed in detail below. For Scheme C, the Project’s design features, LEED certification, and operational mitigation efforts (GHG-
1.2 and TRA-1.1) from the 2016 EIR will continue to apply. Operational CAP emissions for Scheme C and their comparison against Scheme B evaluated in the 2016 EIR are presented in Table 1.4 Table B below is a summarized comparison of the results as shown in Table 1.
Table B. Summarized Comparison of Approved Project and Scheme C Mitigated CAP Emissions
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
(pounds per day)
Scheme B in 2016 EIR (Table 3.4-9)
Total 534 511 2,801 629 177
Scheme C (with Manufacturing)
Total 476 335 2,179 534 143
Percentage Changes -11% -34% -22% -15% -19%
Scheme C (with Warehouse)
Total 498 360 2,081 533 142
Percentage Changes -7% -30% -26% -15% -20%
Source: Table 1, attached
Scheme B was chosen as the comparison point due to its higher overall mass emissions compared to Scheme A. As discussed in more detail in the Operational Emissions Estimation Methodologies below, emissions for Scheme C were estimated for a full warehouse build out and a full manufacturing build out to determine maximum emissions. Actual buildout is expected to be a mix of both land uses. CAP emissions for Scheme C operations would be below the level of Scheme B emissions projected in the 2016 EIR; however, they still would be above the BAAQMD thresholds of 54 pounds per day for ROG and NOx and 82 pounds per day for PM10 and PM2.5. Consequently, the impact of ROG, NOX, and PM emissions on air quality during Scheme C operations would be significant and unavoidable.
Conclusion: Reduction in operational CAP emissions from the Approved Project as evaluated in the 2016 EIR. However, they remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact AQ-4: Generation of Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions During Combined Project Construction and Operation. The Project would generate regional criteria pollutant emissions during combined Project construction and operation in excess of Bay Area Air Quality Management District thresholds. (SU)
The 2016 EIR, on page 3.4-33, indicated that implementing mitigation measures AQ-2.1 through AQ-
2.4 would ensure the construction would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds on their own. However, based on the magnitude and operational emissions as shown in Table 3.4-8, the combined
4 Numbered tables can be found in the attached tables, while lettered tables are embedded in the main text.
8/22
construction and operation emissions would result in exceedance of the BAAQMD’s ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 thresholds. This impact was deemed significant and unavoidable.
Construction CAP emissions from Scheme C are not expected to deviate substantially from those evaluated in the 2016 EIR, as discussed in Impact AQ-2. Operational CAP emissions for Scheme C as discussed in Impact AQ-3 are below the emissions from the 2016 EIR but continue to be above BAAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, the combination of construction and operation would also likely be above thresholds for Scheme C and will also be deemed significant and unavoidable.
Conclusion: Reduction in emissions from the 2016 EIR due to the reduction in operational CAP emissions. The impact of ROG, NOX, and PM emissions on air quality during Scheme C construction and operations would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact AQ-5: Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Carbon Monoxide Hot Spots. The Project would not result in a significant exposure of sensitive receptors to potential carbon monoxide hot spots. (LTS) As indicated on page 3.4-33 of the 2016 EIR, under each project and cumulative condition, the highest traffic levels during peak hours (14,350 vehicles per hour) would be well below the congested volumes modeled by BAAQMD—44,000 vehicles per hour for a general localized CO hotspot and 24,000 vehicles per hour for a CO hotspot at intersections with limited vertical and/or horizontal mixing.
Accordingly, CO concentrations would not exceed the CAAQS according to BAAQMD’s screening criteria. In the 2016 EIR, this impact was less than significant.
According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, the Project would result in less-than-significant localized CO concentrations if it meets the following criteria:
1. The Project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans.
2. The Project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour.
3. The Project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway). 5 According to the traffic analysis provided by the Project Developer for Scheme C (see Appendix B), the highest cumulative traffic volume during peak hours will be around 8,741 vehicles per hour at the intersection of Great America Parkway and Tasman Drive, which is well below the latest BAAQMD threshold, which is the same as was evaluated in the 2016 EIR.6 Additionally, similar to the project as analyzed in the 2016 EIR, Scheme C is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, the regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans. Therefore, the updated traffic volumes for Scheme C would result in a less than significant impact related to CO.
5 BAAQMD, 2023. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Available at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and- climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines. April 2023. 6 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2023. 2022 CEQA Guidelines Chapter 4 – Screening for Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors. Available at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and- research/ceqa/ceqa-guidelines-2022/ceqa-guidelines-chapter-4-screening_final- pdf.pdf?rev=ac551d35a52d479dad475e7d4c57afa6&sc_lang=en. April.
9/22
Conclusion: No change from the Approved Project as evaluated in the 2016 EIR. Scheme C would result in a less than significant impact related to CO.
Impact AQ-6: Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions during Construction. Project construction emissions would result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to localized TAC. (LTS/M)
The 2016 EIR included a construction health risk assessment of the phased construction on offsite sensitive receptors and onsite sensitive receptors, such as residents and daycare facilities. As shown in Table 3.4-10 of the 2016 EIR, both unmitigated and mitigated PM2.5 levels were lower than the BAAQMD threshold of 0.3 microgram per meter cubed (ug/m3). Similarly, Table 3.4-11 of the 2016 EIR showed that both unmitigated and mitigated chronic hazard index (HI) levels were also below the BAAQMD threshold of 1. However, cancer risk without mitigation exceeded the BAAQMD threshold of 10 per million, but with mitigation, it would be below this threshold. Therefore, with the implementation of mitigation measures AQ-2.1, AQ-2.2, AQ-2.3, and AQ-6.1, all health risks in the 2016 EIR were considered to have a less than significant impact with mitigation.
Scheme C would increase density in the City Center portion of the Project, which may result in more construction in this area of the site compared to the northeast parcel. To evaluate if the additional construction at City Center would create a new significant impact that was not previously disclosed, a screening analysis was performed on Scheme C incorporating approved mitigation measures. As discussed in the Construction Health Risk Assessment section in this report, Ramboll conservatively scaled the construction health risk impacts in the 2016 EIR based on expected increased floor square footage in the City Center, and determined that the risks would not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of 1 for chronic HI, 10 per million for cancer risk, and 0.3 ug/m3 for PM2.5. These scaled health risk impacts are detailed in Table F of this report but are summarized below in Table C.
Table C: Scaled Project-Level Chronic HI, Cancer Risks, and PM2.5 Concentration during Construction
Phase
Scaled Mitigated Scheme C
Non-Cancer HI Cancer Risk (per
million)
Annual PM2.5
Concentration
(µg/m3)
On-site MEIR 0.015 2.2 0.015
Off-site MEIR 0.015 1.2 0.015
BAAQMD Threshold 1 10 0.3
Source: Table F, in report
As stated in the 2016 EIR, the phasing schedule is hypothetical and the actual sequence of construction would occur in response to market demands. The phasing schedule of Scheme C may differ than what was analysed for the Approved Project. However, for reasons discussed above, this is not expected to change impacts as analysed in the 2016 EIR. If the northeast parcels are built before occupancy of the first project residential unit, impacts from construction of the northeast parcels would not impact the onsite residents in the City Center parcels, while impacts on off-site receptors would not change as analysed in the 2016 EIR. Conversely, if the northeast parcels are built after occupancy of the on-site residential units, Mitigation Measure AQ-6.1 would be implemented and impacts would be the same as or less than the impact identified in the 2016 EIR.
10/22
This analysis was conservative because it assumes construction activity in this area would increase linearly with square footage, which is likely an overestimate, and scales all of construction emissions instead of just the City Center emissions. This scaling assessment would also take into account the mitigation analysed for the Approved Project. The construction health risks impact for Scheme C would be less than significant with mitigation.
Conclusion: No change from the Approved Project as evaluated in the EIR. Scheme C would result in a less than significant with mitigation impact related to health risks during construction.
Impact AQ-7:
Exposure of Existing or New Sensitive Receptors to Operational Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions. The Project would result in the exposure of existing or new sensitive receptors to TAC emissions during operation. (LTS/M)
For the Approved Project, the health impact of mobile emissions and truck loading areas on both offsite and onsite sensitive receptors was evaluated. As shown in Table 3.4-12 and Table 3.4-13 of the 2016 EIR, chronic non-cancer hazard index, increased cancer risk, and PM2.5 exposure to project emissions of toxic air contaminants would be below the BAAQMD project-level thresholds of 1 for chronic HI, 10 per million for cancer risk, and 0.3 ug/m3 for PM2.5. As indicated on page 3.4-40 in the 2016 EIR, with implementation of mitigation measure AQ-7.1, cancer risks and PM2.5 exposure for on- site new receptors associated with emissions from existing train service, an on-site emergency generator, and an off-site stationary source would be reduced below the BAAQMD project-level thresholds. Accordingly, this impact in the 2016 EIR was deemed less than significant with mitigation.
Ramboll evaluated the health risk from the truck travel, truck idling in loading areas, passenger vehicle travel, and emergency generators from Scheme C and determined that Project-level operational health risks would continue to be below BAAQMD thresholds of 1 for chronic HI, 10 per million for cancer risk, and 0.3 µg/m3 for PM2.5. Detailed Scheme C Project-level health risk and PM2.5 impacts from Scheme C are shown in Table 2 and summarized in Table D below. More details are found in the Operational Health Risk Assessment section below.
Table D. Summarized Scheme C Operational Project-level Health Risks Category
Impact at Maximally
Exposed Individual
Receptor of Each Category
BAAQMD Threshold
Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk 9.6 in a million 10 in a million Chronic Hazard Index (HI) 0.027 1.0
PM2.5 Concentration 0.281 ug/m3 0.30 ug/m3
Source: Table 2, attached
The evaluation of the impact of off-site sources on new on-site receptors was not re-assessed because Scheme C does not introduce new residential or daycare receptors where they were not considered for the Approved Project. Therefore, this impact would continue to be less than significant with mitigation.
Conclusion: The health risks and PM2.5 concentrations from Scheme C would be below BAAQMD thresholds of significance and therefore will have a less than significant with mitigation impact with respect to health risks during operation.
11/22
Impact AQ-8: Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Asbestos During Construction. The Project would not result in significant exposure of sensitive receptors to asbestos during demolition activities. (LTS) For the Approved Project, the potential impact from asbestos during demolition was discussed on page
3.4-41 of the 2016 EIR. The Project would comply with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, which would control emissions of asbestos to the atmosphere during demolition activities. Accordingly, this impact in the 2016 EIR was less than significant. No mitigation was required.
Scheme C would continue to comply with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 and does not change the evaluation in the 2016 EIR and the impact would remain less than significant.
Conclusion: No change from the 2016 EIR. Scheme C would result in a less than significant impact related to asbestos during demolition activities.
Impact AQ-9: Objectionable Odors. The Project could create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. (LTS/M)
The Approved Project operations were not expected to result in odor impacts that would exceed BAAQMD’s odor thresholds, of receiving five complaints per year averaged over 3 years. Approved Project operations were expected to result in odors similar to the surrounding area. Construction activities were determined to be temporary in nature and dissipate as a function of distance. However, due to the disturbance of landfill materials during construction, odors may be generated that could affect adjacent residential and recreational receptors, which would be a significant impact. Mitigation measure HAZ-2.1 in the 2016 EIR was developed to mitigate odors from landfill soil disturbances and will result in a construction-period impact that is less than significant with mitigation.
With the replacement of the office spaces in the northeast parcels with light industrial land use, the potential for construction odors would be expected to be similar to the Approved Project and Mitigation Measure HAZ-2.1 would continue to apply. Therefore, construction odors would continue to be less than significant with mitigation.
Scheme C introduces light industrial land use in the form of warehouse or light manufacturing that was not considered in the 2016 EIR. Potential odor sources from warehouse operations would include diesel exhaust from deliveries and shipments. Odor impacts would be limited to circulation routes, and parking areas. Although such brief exhaust-related odors may be considered adverse, they would not be atypical of developed urban areas.
The light industrial land use will not include wastewater treatment, confined animal facilities, composting stations, refineries, and chemical plants, which are odor-generating facility identified by BAAQMD.
7 However, if other odor-generating facilities identified by BAAQMD, such as food manufacturing plants, are built on this site, BAAQMD Regulation 7 would be used to control impacts.
BAAQMD Regulation 7 contains requirements on the discharge of odorous substances after the Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO) receives odor complaints from ten or more complainants within a 90- day period, alleging that a person has caused odors perceived at or beyond the property line of such person and deemed to be objectionable by the complainants in the normal course of their work, travel or residence [BAAQMD 7-102]. The operations within the Project will be subject to this regulation and
7 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2022. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines:
Chapter 5. “Project-Level Air Quality Impacts”. April. Available:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa-guidelines-2022/ceqa-guidelines- chapter-5-project-air-quality-impacts_final-pdf.pdf?rev=de582fe349e545989239cbbc0d62c37a&sc_lang=en.
Accessed: July 29, 2024.
12/22
will comply with the requirements if the regulation is activated via BAAQMD 7-102, which is not expected. Therefore, the Project would be in compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 7.
Since the light industrial land use would not introduce new odors that would not be representative of developed urban areas, would not be a land use associated with odor complaints, and would comply with BAAQMD Regulation 7, the impacts of odor are unchanged from the 2016 EIR and would remain less than significant with mitigation.
Conclusion: No change from the Approved Project as evaluated in the 2016 EIR. With mitigation measure HAZ-2.1 in effect, the odor impact will be less than significant with mitigation.
Impact GHG-1: Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The Project would generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment. (SU) For the Approved Project, operational GHG emissions, with amortized construction emissions, were evaluated. Emissions were compared to the BAAQMD threshold at the time, which was 4.6 metric tons (“MT”) of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) per service population designed to meet the AB 32 reduction target of reducing the State’s GHG emissions to the 1990 level by 2020. A substantial progress threshold of 2.7 MT CO2e in 2030 was also used, which projected BAAQMD’s threshold to 2030. The 2016 EIR determined that operational GHG emissions would be less than significant with regards to the BAAQMD’s threshold based on the AB 32's GHG reduction target. However, given the Approved Project’s level of emissions compared to the 2030 “substantial progress” metric and the fact that there was not yet a plan for achieving a 2030 or 2050 goal, the Approved Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on GHG emissions.
Operational GHG emissions for Scheme C and their comparison against the Approved Project are presented in Table 3 and summarized in Table E.
Table E. Summarized Comparison of Approved Project and Scheme C Mitigated GHG Emissions
Scenario
Scheme B in EIR
(Table 3.4-9)
Scheme C (with
Manufacturing)
Scheme C (with
Warehouse)
CO2e Emissions (metric tons per year)
Total (with amortized
construction minus
existing emissions)
94,014 90,009 89,713
Service Population 29,200 27,590 27,590
Emissions per Service
Population
(MT/year/population)
3.2 3.26 3.25
Source: Table 3, attached
As discussed in more detail in the Operational Emissions Estimation Methodologies below, emissions were estimated for a full warehouse build out and a full manufacturing build out to determine maximum emissions. Actual buildout is expected to be mix of both land uses. Emissions per service population were also re-calculated.
GHG emissions for Scheme C operations were determined to be lower than the Approved Project for both manufacturing and warehouse buildouts. Therefore, a build out that incorporates either or both land uses would also result in GHG emissions lower than the Approved Project. However, the GHG
13/22
emissions per service population show a slight increase compared to the Approved Project GHG emissions per capita, due to the reduction in service population with Scheme C, and remains above the substantial progress threshold. Therefore, GHG emissions will remain significant and unavoidable. Because the total emissions for Scheme C are lower than the Approved Project and the emissions per service population are only 2% higher than the Approved Project, this is not a substantial increase.
Conclusion: Slight increase in emissions per capita from the Approved Project as evaluated in the 2016 EIR. Overall decrease in total mass GHG emissions. However, operational GHG emissions they remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact GHG-2: Conflicts with Applicable Plans and Policies. The Project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. (LTS for AB 32 Scoping Plan, LTS/M for Santa Clara CAP, SU for EO S-03-05 and B-30-15) The Approved Project was evaluated against the Scoping Plan at the time, as outlined on page 3.5-22 of the 2016 EIR. It was concluded that the Approved Project would have a less-than-significant impact on consistency with the AB 32 Scoping Plan and was considered consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan (“SCCAP”) with respect to GHG emissions reduction goals. Furthermore, with mitigation measures GHG-1.2 and TRA-1.1, the Approved Project would be consistent with the SCCAP measures and would not impede achievement of the SCCAP’s GHG reduction target. Thus, impacts related to SCCAP consistency in the 2016 EIR would be less than significant with mitigation.
Despite having a less than significant impact for these categories, emissions from the Approved Project would be inconsistent with the goals in EO S-3-05 and EO B-30-15 due to the emissions per service population exceeding the substantial progress threshold and this impact was considered significant and unavoidable.
Since the 2016 EIR was certified, many new plans and policies have been adopted. However, the same plans and policies set forth for the Approved Project are used to evaluate Scheme C to be able to compare Scheme C to the Approved Project. Furthermore, since the GHG emissions are reduced for Scheme C and the GHG emissions per service population are similar to those evaluated in the 2016 EIR, the evaluation of Scheme C against plans and policies is assumed to be similar to the evaluation of the Approved Project. Therefore, this impact is also significant and unavoidable.
Conclusion: No change from the Approved Project. This impact is significant and unavoidable.
Impact GHG-3: Climate Change Effects on the Project (no significance determination) The 2016 EIR discussed how climate change may affect the Project. Scheme C would not change this discussion, so this impact was not evaluated further at this time.
Details on the calculations and methods are provided below.
DATA SOURCES AND EMISSIONS METHODOLOGIES
The following sections describe the input data and methodologies used in the operational emissions analysis. Detailed information for each section can be found in the referenced tables and appendices.
Construction emissions were not analyzed as construction emissions are expected to be similar or less than the Approved Project as discussed in Impact AQ-2 above.
Operational Emissions Estimation Methodologies
Operational emissions from Scheme C were estimated to capture the effects of the changes in land uses. Due to the differences in land use types, Ramboll evaluated emissions from the northeast parcels separately from the City Center parcels.
14/22
City Center Parcels
To estimate CAP and GHG operational emissions for the City Center parcels, Ramboll utilized the CalEEMod version 2022.1.1.26.8 This comprehensive approach accounts for emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, energy use, water, and waste, as well as mobile sources. Since CalEEMod calculates daily CAP emissions based on summer or winter seasons, the CAP emissions presented in Table 3 are the higher value of summer and winter.
For mobile emissions from the City Center parcels, the trip rates in CalEEMod were updated to reflect project-specific trip rates, ensuring that the mobile emission calculations are accurately tailored to the specific traffic patterns and usage characteristics of these parcels. Trip rates were provided by Arup, the transportation engineer, while trip lengths were based on CalEEMod version 2022 default values.
In preparing Scheme C operation emissions, several updates were made to modify the CalEEMod default factors and assumptions to incorporate the project design features and mitigation measures discussed in the Project Introduction and project characteristics from the Approved Project that would apply to Scheme C. These include the following:
Project Design
• A 50% solid waste reduction.
• Installation of low-flow water fixtures.
• Implementing a 10% indoor and 20% outdoor water use reduction. • Applying ROG content of 100 grams per liter (“g/L”) for both interior and exterior architectural coatings.
• Applying a ROG consumer products emission factor from California Emissions Projection Analysis specific to the County of Santa Clara. The development of this emission factor is shown in Table 4.
• Updating 2022 CalEEMod default general office space electricity and natural gas consumption to meet Related’s Recommended EUI targets. The EUI target is the standard to which Related will design its buildings against. Related’s EUI target for office land use is 61.50 thousand British thermal units (kBtu) per square foot (sf) per year (yr). This was modeled in CalEEMod as electricity use of 14.42 kiloWatt hours (kWh) per square foot, which is based on 45.32 kBtu/sf/yr, and natural gas use of 16.18 kBtu/sf/yr.
Mitigation Measures
• GHG-1.2: Incorporating renewable energy requirements, consistent with the analysis for the Approved Project.
• GHG-1.2: Only utilizing electric landscaping equipment.
These modifications ensure alignment with the Approved Project as well as modernize assumptions to be consistent with recent trends on activity and emissions since the certification of the 2016 EIR.
Energy use emissions were calculated using default assumptions from CalEEMod 2022 except for the office land use, which was based on Related’s energy targets. Related has made a commitment to design the office space to use lower energy, so CalEEMod defaults were updated. The default energy
8 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2022. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod®), Version 2022.1.1.26. Available online at: http://www.CalEEMod.com/
15/22
use is expected to result in a conservative estimate in emissions because the buildings would likely be constructed with less use of natural gas. The GHG carbon intensity (“CI”) profile was calculated by CalEEMod and is forecasted to 2030 values when additional renewables would be introduced by Silicon Valley Power.
Northeast Parcels
For northeast parcels, CalEEMod was also used to calculate emissions from all non-mobile sources, including consumer products, architectural coatings, energy use, water, and waste. All updates to CalEEMod default assumptions discussed above were also implemented for the northeast parcels.
CalEEMod was run for manufacturing land use and for a warehouse scenario where half of the acreage is refrigerated and the other half is unrefrigerated, both without rail land use, for the northeast parcels. A maximum of 50% of the square footage of the northeast parcel is expected to be refrigerated warehouse. The other portion could be non-refrigerated warehouse or manufacturing.
Actual buildout is expected to be a mix of warehouse and manufacturing. To bound the emissions results since the ratio of warehouse and manufacturing is not known, emissions are presented in Table 3 for full buildout as warehouse and full buildout as manufacturing. Truck and vehicle trip generation rates for the warehouse and manufacturing scenarios were provided by Arup and were used to calculate mobile emissions from each scenario.
Emissions from on-road mobile sources were estimated outside of CalEEMod to capture the specific fleet mix associated with light industrial land use. This approach was taken to specifically address the emissions from diesel-fueled delivery trucks, assuming the truck fleet to be used will consist of only diesel-fueled heavy-heavy duty trucks (“HHDT”), light-heavy duty trucks ranging from 10,001 pounds to 14,000 pounds (“LHDT2”), medium-heavy duty trucks (“MHDT”), and that gasoline-fueled passenger vehicles would be used to transport workers. As indicated by Related, at most, half of the warehouses would be refrigerated, so half of the truck fleet would be expected to be equipped with Transportation Refrigeration Units (“TRUs”) in the warehouse scenario. TRUs are separate engines that keep the freight chilled and are commonly separate engines from those that power the vehicle.
Table 5 shows the trip rates provided by Arup for both delivery trucks and passenger vehicles. The trip length for delivery trucks was provided by Related based on the average of the distances from the proposed light industrial land use to and from the surrounding major ports, which include the San Francisco International Airport, Port of Oakland, and San Jose International Airport. The proposed light industrial land use would primarily intend to receive and deliver shipments to and from those ports. To determine an average trip length for passenger vehicles, Ramboll used 2022 CalEEMod default trip type lengths, trip type percentages and trip purpose percentages for manufacturing land use.
Fuel usage calculations for diesel and gasoline are included in Table 6 and are based on vehicle-miles travelled (“VMT”) data and fleet-average fuel consumption in gallons per mile from EMFAC2021 for 2030 in Santa Clara County.
Emissions from trucks include running emissions, idling emissions, and TRU emissions. Table 6 shows the emission factors from passenger vehicles and the main engine of the delivery trucks. The California Air Resources Board’s (“CARB”) web-based Emission FACtor model (“EMFAC2021”) tool 9 was
utilized to obtain emission factors in Santa Clara in 2030. The calendar year of 2030 was used to be consistent with the 2016 EIR. Aggregated emission factors across fleet categories were calculated based on countywide vehicle miles travelled from EMFAC2021. EMFAC2021 does not take into account
9 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2021. Emission FACtor (EMFAC). Available online at:
https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory/6aa2d35e8c9b035f92357c8d78c92f9ebb69db26
16/22
full potential emissions reductions associated with the Advanced Clean Cars II regulation or the Advanced Clean Trucks regulation.10,11 Therefore, the effects of these regulations are not taken into account. Table 6 also contains emissions used in the health risk assessment, which are discussed separately. Table 7 shows the mass emissions from the delivery trucks and passenger vehicles without truck idling or TRU emissions.
TRU emissions were estimated using EMFAC2021. 2022 CARB regulations require truck-based TRUs to turn over their fleet to meet a 100% zero-emission limit by end of 2029, while trailer-based TRUs are required to meet the Tier 4 final off-road emissions limit starting with model year 2023.12 However, since it is not known whether the trucks will be equipped with truck-based or trailer-based TRUs, a conservative approach was taken in this analysis. Although the Tier 4 limits for trailer-based TRUs began in 2023, their emission factors remain higher than those of truck-based TRUs, which are expected to reach zero emissions by 2029. Therefore, TRUs were assumed to be all trailer-based for a conservative estimate in this analysis. TRU emission factors, in grams per hour (“g/hr”) of operation, were developed using EMFAC2021 and incorporate the February 2022 regulatory changes described above. Emissions are based on run time of the TRU, which includes time during truck travel and idling onsite during unloading. According to CARB, TRU engines are generally running about 62.5% of time that a TRU unit is turned on.13 The length of time the TRUs are running during truck travel is calculated assuming 25 miles per hour travel speed and the trip rate and length provided by Arup and Related, respectively, as shown in Table 8. The average unloading time per refrigerated truck with the TRU operating was assumed to be five minutes per one way trip to account for the time that delivery personnel would take to plug in and out, and the truck would be plugged into the warehouse for the remaining time during unloading and loading. The five minutes of idling are derived from CARB’s Airborne Toxic Control Measure (“ATCM”) to limit idling of diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles for 2008 and newer model year heavy-duty diesel engines by installing a system that automatically shuts down the engine after five minutes of idling.14 Since truck-based TRUs will be fully electric by the end of 2029, it is expected that delivery personnel will plug their TRUs for power in a reasonable amount of time, or risk draining power from the vehicle. Although trailer TRUs have their own engines separate from the vehicle’s engine, it is expected that delivery personnel will also plug in and out in a reasonable amount of time less than 5 minutes to reduce fuel usage. The ATCM also applies to diesel-fueled auxiliary power systems (“APS”), prohibiting diesel-fueled APS, and thus trailer-based TRUs, from idling greater than 5 minutes at any location when within 100 feet of a restricted area, such as residences (i.e., Tasman East apartment complexes).
Emission factors from the EMFAC web tool and the resulting emissions for the TRU emissions are presented in Table 8.
10 CARB. 2024. Advanced Clean Cars Program: About. Available online at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/advanced-clean-cars-program/about. Accessed on: July 29, 2024. 11 CARB. 2024. Advanced Clean Trucks: About. Available online at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/advanced-clean-trucks/about. Accessed on July 29, 2024. 12 CARB. 2022. 2022 Amendments to the Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets, and Facilities Where TRUs Operate. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/2022-amendments-tru-atcm. March 17. 13 California Air Resources Board. Appendix H: 2021 Update to Emissions Inventory for Transport Refrigeration Units. July. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/board/rulemaking/tru2021/apph.pdf. 14 California Air Resources Board, 2022. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/atcm-to-limit-vehicle-idling/about.
Accessed on: July 24, 2024.
17/22
Truck idling emissions are shown in Table 9. It was assumed that there would be 5 minutes of idling per one-way trip, in accordance with the state law,15 which requires no greater than 5 minutes of idling upon arrival and 5 minutes prior to departure. EMFAC2021’s idling emission factors were utilized in the calculation.
Total Emissions
Emission comparisons for average daily CAP emissions and annual GHG emissions of Scheme C were compared against Scheme B from the 2016 EIR, as shown in Tables 1 and 3. Using the same methodology from the 2016 EIR for calculating the service population as outlined in table 3.12-6 of the 2016 EIR, the revised land use acreages and addition of the light industrial land use resulted in a calculated service population of 27,590 which is detailed in Table 10. To determine the service population generation rate of the industrial sector in Santa Clara County, Ramboll referred to the Industrial Land and Jobs Study report written by the Center for Community Innovation.16
LOCAL COMMUNITY RISK AND HAZARD IMPACTS
Toxic Air Contaminant (“TAC”) Emissions
The TAC emissions associated with Scheme C operation were calculated with the following assumptions and exceptions:
1. Diesel Particulate Matter (“D PM”): DPM emissions were used to evaluate the cancer risk and non- cancer chronic HI from Scheme C operation. In this analysis, PM10 exhaust emissions from on-site stationary (i.e., emergency generators), on-site and off-site mobile (i.e., diesel fuel vehicles), TRU, and truck idling sources were calculated as DPM and modeled within 1,000 ft of the Project boundary (as discussed in the next section).
2. Speciated To tal Organic Gases (“TOG”): Gasoline vehicles (i.e., passenger vehicles) emit TOG that are composed of speciated toxic components. TOG was speciated based on Table 14 and Table 15 of the BAAQMD 2012 Risk Modeling Guidance.17 TOG is emitted in two forms: exhaust and evaporative. EMFAC2021 emission factors used to calculate TOG emissions for HRA are running exhaust emissions and running loss evaporative hydrocarbon emissions.
3. PM2.5: Exhaust and fugitive PM2.5 emissions were used to evaluate the PM2.5 concentration due to Scheme C operation. Exhaust PM2.5 emissions were calculated using the same method as mobile CAP PM2.5 emissions. Silt loading factors and fugitive PM2.5 emissions from road dust within modeling extent were calculated using CARB methodologies as shown in Tables 11-12.
As shown in Tab le 13, modeled TAC emissions were estimated for the emergency generators proposed for the northeast parcels based on the horsepower and tier rating provided by Related.
Project emissions for the emergency generators are based on the BAAQMD rule limiting the hours of non-emergency operation for emergency standby diesel engines to a maximum of 50 hours per year of testing and maintenance, which is consistent with the maximum allowed testing time from the
15 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2023. Community Idling Fact Sheet. Available online at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-03/Idling_Flyer_EN.pdf 16 Chapple, Karen, et al., Center for Community Innovation. 2017. Industrial Land and Jobs Study for the San Francisco Bay Area, pg. 136. Available online at: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/research- innovation-system-information/documents/final-reports/ca17-2792-finalreport-a11y.pdf. Accessed on July 24, 2024.
17 BAAQMD, 2012. Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards. Available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/risk-modeling-approach-may-2012.pdf.
Accessed on: May 23, 2024.
18/22
ATCM for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines.18 Based on the grid reliability in the area, the generators are not expected to operate for more than a total of 50 hours per year, including testing and maintenance and emergencies. Historically for the past three years from 2021 to 2023, annual outages have not exceeded 5 hours per year in the northwestern region of Silicon Valley Power (“SVP”) jurisdiction.19 In addition, generators are required to be tested monthly for thirty minutes under load which equals six hours per year plus any additional time for maintenance, which is expected to be minor. Thus, a maximum of 50 hours per year of engine operations is not likely to be exceeded. These emergency hours are also in Table 13. Annual emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 from the proposed generators were estimated using ARB standards for diesel generator engines.20 PM10 exhaust emissions from the proposed generators were conservatively calculated as DPM.
Modeled TAC emission rates from on-road tailpipe exhaust and fugitive dust corresponding with their traffic link locations are summarized in Table 14.
Construction Health Risk Assessment
For Impact AQ-6, the 2016 EIR included a construction health risk assessment of the phased construction on off-site sensitive receptors and on-site sensitive receptors, such as residents and daycare facilities. The 2016 EIR determined that the construction health risks were less than significant with mitigation.
Scheme C plans to construct the same total building square footage over the same physical footprint.
Compared to the Approved Project, Scheme C proposes to increase the square footage in the City Center parcels and decrease the square footage in the northeast parcels. The square footage increase in the City Center parcels would result in increased density of land use and more concentrated vertical construction. While it is expected that construction emissions of the entire site under Scheme C would be similar to construction emissions of the entire site under the Approved Project, emissions may be more concentrated in City Center under Scheme C compared to the Approved Project due to the potential for increased vertical construction in City Center. Therefore, Ramboll conservatively assessed construction activity health impacts at City Center, assuming the increase of square footage would contribute to higher health risk impacts. The square footage decrease in the northeast parcels was conservatively assumed to have no effect on the construction activity and health impacts, even though the construction activity and health impacts would be expected to decrease.
Ramboll scaled the construction health risk results from the 2016 EIR based on the building square footage increase in the City Center parcels, from 5.13 million square feet to 7.56 million square feet (approximately 47% increase). This analysis was conservative because it assumes construction activity in this area would increase linearly with square footage, which is likely an overestimate as discussed above. Furthermore, the scaling approach increases the total construction health impact by 47%, when only the City Center parcels may increase construction activity. As shown in Table F, the scaled mitigated PM2.5 concentration, chronic HI, and cancer risk at the on-site and off-site maximally exposed individual receptor (“MEIR”) remain below the BAAQMD thresholds. This scaling analysis
18 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2011. Final Regulations Order: Amendments to the Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/diesel/documents/finalreg2011.pdf. 19 Silicon Valley Power. 2023. Outage History. Available at: https://www.siliconvalleypower.com/svp-and- community/outages-and-alerts/outage-history/-FlexSetting_Type-1/-sortn-StartDate/-sortd-desc Accessed on July 24, 2024.
20 California Air Resources Board (CARB). Non-road Diesel Engine Certification Tier Chart. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/non-road-diesel-engine-certification-tier-chart
19/22
assumes the off-site MEIR is in the same place as in the 2016 EIR. Therefore, Scheme C would not change the conclusion of the 2016 EIR Impact AQ-6.
Table F: Scaled Project-Level Chronic HI, Cancer Risks, and PM2.5 Concentration during Construction
Phase
Approved Project Mitigated (Table 3.4-
11 EIR)21,22
Scaled Mitigated Scheme C
Non-
Cancer
HI
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Annual PM2.5
Concentration
(µg/m3)
Non-
Cancer
HI
Cancer
Risk
(per
million)
Annual PM2.5
Concentration
(µg/m3)
On-site
MEIR 0.01 1.5 0.01 0.015 2.2 0.015
Off-site
MEIR 0.01 0.8 0.01 0.015 1.2 0.015
BAAQMD
Threshold 1 10 0.3 1 10 0.3
Operational Health Risk Assessment
Ramboll analyzed Project operational health risks from Scheme C trucks, passenger vehicles and emergency generators by estimating ambient air concentrations of DPM, speciated TOG, and PM2.5.
The traffic inputs for this analysis as prepared by Related’s traffic engineer for Scheme C (see Appendix B) do not assume a Lick Mill Boulevard extension as it is not proposed for Scheme C. To present the worst case, truck trips assumed the warehouse traffic scenario while passenger vehicle trips assumed the manufacturing traffic scenario. To estimate airborne concentrations of DPM, TOG, and PM2.5, Ramboll used AERMOD, a steady-state Gaussian plume model developed by USEPA for regulatory applications. AERMOD requires emission source locations and release parameters, receptor locations, and processed meteorological data. Modeling parameters for all the operational sources including on-road heavy-duty trucks, on-road passenger vehicles, TRU, on-site idling, and emergency generator are summarized in Table 15. Ramboll used five years of meteorological data (2013-2017) from the San Jose International Airport, which was the nearest dataset available to the Project.
In AERMOD, passenger vehicle dispersion factors were represented with a diurnal pattern based on the hourly VMT data in Santa Clara County from EMFAC2021 to accurately account for air dispersion.
The diurnal pattern was incorporated into the model using EMISFACT parameters, which adjusts emission rates throughout the day to reflect higher activity levels during peak traffic periods and lower activity levels during off-peak hours. However, for delivery trucks, the diurnal pattern was not applied since delivery trucks may not follow a typical diurnal pattern for the county. This results in a conservative estimation since activity is assumed to be equal at all times of the day, including nighttime when dispersion conditions are typically less optimal.
Turbulent eddies can form on the downwind side of buildings and may cause a plume from a stack or point source located near the building to be drawn towards the ground to a greater degree than if the building were not present. This is referred to as the “building downwash” effect. The downwash effect can increase the resulting ground-level pollutant concentrations downwind of a building. AERMOD takes this effect into account for sources modeled as point sources, such as the emergency
21 Where the PM2.5 concentration in the 2016 EIR was shown as “<0.01”, the risk was conservatively assumed to be 0.01 for the scaling calculation.
22 Where the Chronic HI in the 2016 EIR was shown as “<0.01”, the risk was conservatively assumed to be 0.01 for the scaling calculation.
20/22
generators. AERMOD does not take the downwash effect into account for sources that are modeled as area or volume sources, such as construction activities or vehicle emissions. The dimensions and locations of the on-site buildings on the northeast parcel were included, as shown in Figure 1, to allow AERMOD to incorporate algorithms to evaluate the downwash effect on dispersion of point sources. The only point sources modeled in AERMOD are the new emergency generators for the warehouse/industrial buildings in the northeast parcels. A height of 60 feet was used for those warehouse/industrial buildings which was obtained from the Project developer. The direction-specific building downwash dimensions were determined by the latest version (04274) of the Building Profile Input Program, PRIME (“BPIP PRIME”).
In the 2016 EIR, health risk impacts from loading docks and office emergency generators were modeled using AERSCREEN. Since the loading docks are associated with City Center parcels and are not expected to change with the land use densification, and the office emergency generator impacts are relatively small compared to the loading docks, the results of the AERSCREEN run from the 2016 EIR were added on top of the latest modeling results, which included revised truck traffic, truck idling at the northeast parcel loading docks, revised passenger vehicle travel, and northeast parcel emergency generators, to conservatively determine new project-level impacts.
The AERMOD files are provided electronically as Appendix C. The source and building setup are shown in Figure 1.
To conform with the latest BAAQMD CEQA guidelines for HRA, a 20 meter (“m”) by 20 m receptor grid was used instead of the 100 m x 100 grid used in the 2016 EIR within 1,000 ft of the Project boundary. The revised receptor grid is shown in Figure 2. Receptor designations were changed to have residents and daycare co-located for all receptors located in City Center parcels. Additional daycare receptors within 1,000 meters of the Project boundary have been identified and included in the re-analysis. The area just south of the northeast parcels, known as Tasman East, is now proposed for additional residential development, which differs from the assumptions in the 2016 EIR. As a result, receptor types have been redesignated as residential and worker receptors based on the planned land uses for these areas. In addition, worker designations for off-site workers were added as part of this re-analysis. Both off-site and on-site receptors were modeled at the breathing height of ground floor receptors, assuming a breathing height of 1.5 m, consistent with the 2022 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines.
Exposure Parameters and Health Risk Calculations
In February 2015, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) released the updated Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, which combines information from previously-released and adopted technical support documents to delineate OEHHA’s revised risk assessment methodologies based on current science. 23 In accordance with
OEHHA’s revised HRA guidelines, the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines has adopted an intake methodology that addresses children’s greater sensitivity and health impacts from early exposure to carcinogenic compounds. The updated calculation procedures include the use of age-specific weighting factors, breathing rates, fraction of time at home, and reduced exposure durations, as shown in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Appendix E. This analysis followed the recommended methodology from the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines.
23 OEHHA. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program. Risk Assessment Guidelines. Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. February.
21/22
Ramboll conservatively evaluated Project impacts due to operational emissions using default exposure assumptions for a resident child from OEHHA unless otherwise noted.24 The resident child scenario assumes a much higher daily breathing rate and age-sensitivity factor (“ASF”)25 than other sensitive receptor populations and therefore is the most conservative scenario to evaluate for this analysis. The Project residential receptors were assumed to be exposed at the start of Project operation for 30 years. Other sensitive receptor locations including daycares, childcares, and elementary schools were identified in Project vicinity. Recreational, residential, and worker receptors near the Project were also evaluated and identified using zoning maps. Exposure periods for each of the non-residential sensitive land uses are assumed to be the same as the age range accepted at the location. The exposure parameters used to estimate excess lifetime cancer risks for the nearby sensitive receptors are presented in Tables 16. Compared to the exposure parameters used in the 2016 EIR, this analysis assumed a more conservative approach, consistent with the BAAQMD guidance.
Consistent with the analysis in the 2016 EIR, the dose estimated for each exposure pathway is a function of the concentration of a chemical and the intake of that chemical. The intake factor for inhalation, IF
inh, can be calculated as follows:
IFinh = DBR * FAH * EF * ED * CF * ASF * FY
AT
Where:
IFinh = Intake Factor for Inhalation (m3/kg-day)
DBR = Daily Breathing Rate (L/kg-day)
FAH = Fraction of Time at Home (unitless)
EF = Exposure Frequency (days/year)
ED = Exposure Duration (years)
AT = Averaging Time (days)
CF = Conversion Factor, 0.001 (m3/L)
ASF = Age Sensitivity Factor (unitless)
FY = Fraction of Year, to correct annualization of partial year emissions The chemical intake or dose is estimated by multiplying the inhalation intake factor, IFinh, by the chemical concentration in air, Ci. When coupled with the chemical concentration, this calculation is mathematically equivalent to the dose algorithm given in the OEHHA Hot Spots guidance.26 The toxicity assessment characterizes the relationship between the magnitude of exposure and the nature and magnitude of adverse health effects that may result from such exposure. This HRA evaluated theoretical exposures to TACs for two categories of potential adverse health effects, cancer and non-cancer endpoints. Toxicity values used to estimate the likelihood of adverse effects occurring in humans at different exposure levels are identified as part of the toxicity assessment component of a
24 OEHHA. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program. Risk Assessment Guidelines. Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. February.
25 Ibid.
26 Cal/EPA. 2003. The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. August.
22/22
risk assessment. Toxicity values for the toxic air contaminant emissions evaluated in this analysis are as presented in Table 17.
Cancer risk and chronic HI were calculated from ambient annual concentrations using intake factors, cancer potency factors, and chronic reference exposure levels calculated consistent with the 2015 OEHHA Hot Spots Guidance
27 and 2022 BAAQMD CEQA guidance.28
As shown in Table 3, Scheme C would result in a maximum operational cancer risk of 9.6 in a million (threshold of 10), a maximum operational non-cancer hazard index of 0.03 (threshold of 1.0), and maximum operational PM2.5 concentration of 0.281 µg/m3 (threshold of 0.3 µg/m3) at the maximally exposed individual (“MEI”) for each impact type.
The Scheme C cancer and chronic health risks on on-site and off-site sensitive receptors are all below the BAAQMD thresholds of significance; thus, health risk impacts associated with the operation of Scheme C remain less than significant.
CLOSING
The analysis presented above represents emissions and health risk impacts from construction and operations of Scheme C. Based on the findings of this report, it is not expected that Scheme C will increase overall CAP emissions and GHG per capita mass emissions in comparison with the Approved Project, nor exceed BAAQMD CEQA thresholds of significance for health risk and PM2.5. As discussed in the Impact Comparison section, Scheme C will not alter the impact conclusions of the 2016 EIR.
Attachments:
Tables
Figures
Appendix A: CalEEMod Outputs
Appendix B: Traffic Study
Appendix C: AERMOD Files (provided Electronically)
27 OEHHA. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program. Risk Assessment Guidelines. Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. February.
28 BAAQMD, 2022. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Available at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and- climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines. April 2022.
Ramboll
TABLES
ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Mobile Sources 299 462 2 ,743 625 173
Area Sources 229 1.0 17 1.0 1.0
Energy Sources 5.0 48 40 4.0 4.0
Total 534 511 2 ,801 629 177
Mobile Sources - Delivery Trucks (NE Parcel)3,4 1.4 57.0 7.8 4.8 2.09 Mobile Sources - Passenger Vehicle (NE Parcel)3,4 14 9.1 140 2.8 0.94 Mobile Sources (City Center + NW)3 251 191 1,978 520 134 Hearths 1.0 17 7.1 1.3 1.3
Consumer Products5 179 0000
Architectural Coatings6 25 0000
Energy Sources (NE Parcel)7 1.0 19 16 1.4 1.4
Energy Sources (City Center + NW)7 2.4 43 31 3.3 3.3
Total 476 335 2 ,179 534 143
EIR Thresholds 54 54 -- 82 82
Percentage changes -11% -34% -22% -15% -19%
Mobile Sources - Delivery Trucks with TRU (NE Parcel)3,4 34 105 14 6.7 3.1 Mobile Sources - Passenger Vehicle (NE Parcel)3,4 5.1 3.3 50 1.0 0.339 Mobile Sources (City Center + NW)3 251 191 1,978 520 134 Hearths 1.0 17 7.1 1.3 1.3
Consumer Products5 179 0000
Architectural Coatings6 25 0000
Energy Sources (NE Parcel)7 0.080 1.57 1.32 0.120 0.120 Energy Sources (City Center + NW)7 2.4 43 31 3.3 3.3
Total 498 360 2 ,081 533 142
EIR Thresholds 54 54 -- 82 82
Percentage changes -7% -30% -26% -15% -20%
Notes:
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 References:
The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod®). Available at: http://www.caleemod.com/ Abbreviations:
CO - carbon monoxide NOx - nitrogen oxides
DEIR - Draft Environmental Impact Report NW - northwest lbs - pounds PM2.5 - particulate matter less than 2.5 microns NE - northeast PM10 - particulate matter less than 10 microns ROG - reactive organic gas CARB - California Air Resources Board Scheme B in DEIR (Table 3.4-9)1
Scheme C (with Manufacturing)2
Scheme C (with Warehouse)4
Table 1
Santa Clara, CA
Comparison of Mitigated Criteria Air Pollutants Emissions: Scheme B vs. Scheme C Operations Related Santa Clara
Categories (lbs/day)
Emissions of the mitigated Scheme C were compared to emissions in mitigated Scheme B from the EIR, which had higher emissions than Scheme A. Mitigated Scheme B from the EIR implemented mitigation measures GHG-1.2 and TRA-1.1 as indicated on page 3.4-32 of the DEIR. The same mitigation measures would be implemented in Scheme C.
Mobile emissions include emissions from delivery trucks and passenger vehicles. Delivery trucks are conservatively assumed t o
be diesel-fueled and consist of light-heavy duty trucks 2 (LHDT2), medium-heavy duty trucks (MHDT) and heavy-duty trucks (HHDT) with half of the truck fleet assumed to be equipped with Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs). Passenger vehicles are assumed to be gasoline-fueled and consist of passenger cars (LDA), light-duty trucks 1 (LDT1), and light-duty trucks 2 (LDT2). CARB Advanced Clean Truck Program and Advanced Clean Fleets Program are not taken into account because EMFAC2021 does not account for full potential emissions reductions associated with those regulations.
Mobile emissions are calculated based on the trip generation rates for the project, as provided by the Project traffic engineer.
Emissions from hearths, consumer products, architectural coating, energy, and mobile sources for City Center were estimated in CalEEMod. CalEEMod was run for manufacturing land use and 50% refrigerated/50% unrefrigerated warehouses land uses for the northeast parcels. Mobile sources for the northeast parcels were estimated outside of CalEEMod as discussed in subsequent tables and use the trip generation rates corresponding to each scenario. The higher of daily winter or summer emissions are
presented in this table.
Emissions from electricity use were consistent with the analysis in the EIR to account for the mitigation measure GHG-1.2.
An ROG consumer products emission factor from the California Emission Projection Analysis for Santa Clara is used instead of the CalEEMod default emission factor.
In the EIR, the construction emissions are calculated assuming an ROG content of 100 grams per liter (g/L) for both interior and exterior architectural coatings. To be consistent, the same assumption is applied to the operation emission calculation.
Onsite Resident Offsite Resident Daycare Offsite Worker Onsite Worker School Recreational Offsite Delivery Trucks 2.3 0.4 1.3 0.73 0.046 0.093 0.052 Onsite Delivery Trucks 0.066 1.057 0.04 0.200 0.21 0.0114 0.40 Truck Idling 0.065 0.720 0.04 0.064 0.48 0.013 0.10
Offsite TRU Trailer 3.2 0.6 1.8 0.33 0.045 0.13 0.060
Onsite TRU Trailer 0.034 0.553 0.020 0.068 0.18 0.0064 0.187 Unloading TRU Trailer 0.074 0.822 0.04 0.073 0.55 0.015 0.12 Offsite Passenger Vehicle 0.27 0.05 0.154 0.013 0.0033 0.015 0.0050 Emergency Generator 0.29 4.32 0.16 0.16 0.58 0.055 0.54 2015 AERSCREEN - Docks 1.1 1.1 0.48 0.063 0.027 0.061 0.14 2015 AERSCREEN - Generators 0.090 0.090 0.040 0.0051 0.0023 0.0050 0.012 Operations Total 7.5 9.6 4.1 1.7 2.1 0.41 1.6
Significance Threshold 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Exceeds thresholds? No No No No No No No
UTMx 591436 591756 591436 590915 591416 591656 591596
UTMy 4140479 4141019 4140479 4141565 4141239 4140399 4141279 Onsite Resident Offsite Resident Daycare Offsite Worker Onsite Worker School Recreational Offsite Delivery Trucks 6.2E-04 4.6E-04 2.6E-04 0.0024 1.5E-04 2.2E-04 1.1E-04 Onsite Delivery Trucks 1.8E-05 2.1E-05 6.8E-06 6.5E-04 6.7E-04 2.7E-05 8.4E-04 Truck Idling 1.7E-05 2.3E-05 7.0E-06 2.1E-04 0.0016 3.1E-05 2.1E-04 Offsite TRU Trailer 8.6E-04 0.0008 4.0E-04 1.1E-03 1.4E-04 3.1E-04 1.3E-04 Onsite TRU Trailer 9.2E-06 1.2E-05 3.8E-06 2.2E-04 5.8E-04 1.5E-05 3.9E-04 Unloading TRU Trailer 2.0E-05 2.7E-05 8.0E-06 2.3E-04 0.0018 3.5E-05 2.4E-04 Offsite Passenger Vehicle 0.0012 0.0020 0.0021 6.9E-04 1.7E-04 5.6E-04 0.0002 Emergency Generator 7.8E-05 1.0E-04 4.2E-05 5.2E-04 0.0019 1.3E-04 1.1E-03 2015 AERSCREEN - Docks 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 2015 AERSCREEN - Generators 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 Operations Total 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.026 0.027 0.021 0.023 Significance Threshold 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Exceeds thresholds? No No No No No No No
UTMx 591436 591516 590516 590915 591416 591656 591596
UTMy 4140479 4140459 4140739 4141565 4141239 4140399 4141279 Onsite Resident Offsite Resident Daycare Offsite Worker Onsite Worker School Recreational Offsite Delivery Trucks 0.0036 0.004 0.0044 0.0059 0.0070 0.0038 0.0028 Onsite Delivery Trucks 9.8E-05 6.2E-04 1.2E-04 2.8E-04 0.0104 4.6E-04 1.6E-04 Truck Idling 2.6E-05 2.2E-04 3.3E-05 8.8E-05 0.0007 1.5E-04 3.7E-05 Offsite TRU Trailer 0.0015 0.0024 0.0019 0.0019 0.0019 0.0014 0.0023 Onsite TRU Trailer 1.4E-05 9.7E-05 1.8E-05 4.4E-05 9.9E-04 7.0E-05 2.1E-05 Unloading TRU Trailer 2.9E-05 2.4E-04 3.7E-05 9.7E-05 0.0008 1.6E-04 4.1E-05 Offsite Passenger Vehicle 0.18 0.248 0.23 0.25 0.132 0.061 0.242 Emergency Generator 1.8E-04 8.1E-04 2.1E-04 4.0E-04 0.0025 6.5E-04 2.4E-04 2015 AERSCREEN - Docks 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 2015 AERSCREEN - Generators 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 Operations Total 0.20 0.276 0.258 0.281 0.18 0.09 0.268 Significance Threshold 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 Exceeds thresholds? No No No No No No No
UTMx 590536 591636 590516 590516 591076 591656 591296
UTMy 4140639 4140519 4140739 4141119 4141759 4140399 4140339 Note:
Abbreviations:
BAAQMD - Bay Area Air Quality Management District μg - microgram HI - Hazard Index UTMx, UTMy - Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates m3 - cubic meter
Reference:
2. Excess lifetime cancer risks were estimated using the following equation:
Riskinh = ΣCi x CF x IFinh x CPFi x ASF
Where:
Riskinh = Cancer Risk for the Inhalation Pathway (unitless) Ci = Annual Average Air Concentration for Chemical "i" ug/m3 CF = Conversion Factor (mg/ug)
IFinh = Intake Factor for Inhalation (m3/kg-day)
CPFi = Cancer Potency Factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = Age Sensitivity Factor (unitless)
Chronic HI for each receptor was estimated using the following equation:
HIinh = Chronic HI for the Inhalation Pathway (unitless) Ci = Annual Average Air Concentration for Chemical "i" (ug/m3) cREL = Chronic Reference Exposure Level (ug/m3)
HIinh = ΣCi / cREL
Where:
Table 2
Maximum Project Operation Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk, Chronic HI and PM2.5 Related Santa Clara
Santa Clara, California
1. BAAQMD. 2023. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Available at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act- ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines
OEHHA. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. February.
Sources
Sources
Project Operation
Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk1
in a million
Chronic HI2
unitless
PM2.5 Concentration
μg/m3
Sources
CO2e
(MT/year)
Existing (refer to DEIR Table 3.5-6) 3,834
Amortized Construction Emissions (30-year) 863
Mobile Sources 71,102
Area Sources 9.0
Energy Sources 20,114
Water Consumption 930
Waste Generation 4,830
Total (project-only) 96,985
Total (with amortized construction minus existing) 94,014 Service Population 29,200
Emissions per Service Population (MT/year/population) 3.2 Mobile Sources - Delivery Trucks (NE Parcel)3,4 8,997
Mobile Sources - Passenger Vehicle (NE Parcel)3,4 7,242 Mobile Sources (City Center + NW)3 54,932
Area Sources5 86
Energy Sources - Electricity (NE Parcel)6 871
Energy Sources - Natural Gas (NE Parcel) 3,728
Energy Sources - Electricity (City Center + NW)6 4,902
Energy Sources - Natural Gas (City Center + NW) 8,668
Water Consumption7,8 1,919
Waste Generation9 1,635
Total (project-only) 92,980
Total (with amortized construction minus existing) 90,009 Percentage Change of Mass Emissions -4.3%
Service Population10 27,590
Emissions per Service Population (MT/year/population) 3.26 Mobile Sources - Delivery Trucks with TRU (NE Parcel)3,4 12,844 Mobile Sources - Passenger Vehicle (NE Parcel)3,4 2,606 Mobile Sources (City Center + NW)3 54,932
Area Sources5 86
Energy Sources - Electricity (NE Parcel)6 1,328
Energy Sources - Natural Gas (NE Parcel) 311
Energy Sources - Electricity (City Center + NW)6 4,902
Energy Sources - Natural Gas (City Center + NW) 8,668
Water Consumption7,8 1,919
Waste Generation9 1,559
Refrigerant Emissions (NE Parcel)11 3,530
Total (project-only) 92,684
Total (with amortized construction minus existing) 89,713 Percentage Change of Mass Emissions -4.6%
Service Population10 27,590
Emissions per Service Population (MT/year/population) 3.25 Table 3
Comparison of Mitigated Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Scheme B vs. Scheme C Operations Related Santa Clara
Santa Clara, CA
Categories
Scheme B in DEIR (Table 3.5-6)1
Scheme C (with Manufacturing)
Scheme C (with Warehouse)
#
Table 3 (continued)
Comparison
of Mitigated Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Scheme B vs. Scheme C Operations Related Santa Clara
Santa Clara, CA
Notes:
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 References:
The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod®). Available at: http://www.caleemod.com/ Abbreviations:
CO2e - carbon dioxide equivalent NW - northwest
DEIR - Draft Environmental Impact Report MT - metric ton NE - northeast
Emissions from electricity use were consistent with the analysis in the EIR to account for the mitigation measure GHG-1.2.
Consistent with the EIR, a 10% indoor and 20% outdoor water will be reduced by the implementation of water conversation strategies.
Consistent with the EIR, low-flow fixtures, including faucets, water closets, and urinals, will be installed.
Emissions from area sources, energy, and mobile sources for City Center were estimated in CalEEMod.
CalEEMod was run for manufacturing land use and 50% refrigerated/50% unrefrigerated warehouses land uses for the northeast parcels. Mobile sources for the northeast parcels were estimated outside of CalEEMod as discussed in subsequent tables and use the trip generation rates corresponding to each scenario.
Half of the warehouse is assumed to be refrigerated.
Consistent with the EIR, it is anticipated that recycling programs would divert at least 50 percent of Project waste from regional landfills.
Mobile emissions include emissions from delivery trucks and passenger vehicles. Delivery trucks are conservatively assumed to be diesel-fueled and consist of light-heavy duty trucks 2 (LHDT2), medium-heavy duty trucks (MHDT) and heavy-duty trucks (HHDT) with half of the truck fleet assumed to be equipped with Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs). Passenger vehicles are assumed to be gasoline-fueled and consist of passenger cars (LDA), light-duty trucks 1 (LDT1), and light-duty trucks 2 (LDT2). CARB Advanced Clean Truck Program and Advanced Clean Fleets Program are not taken into account because EMFAC2021 does not account for full potential emissions reductions associated with those regulations.
Mobile emissions are calculated based on the trip rates for the project, as provided by the Project traffic engineer.
Only electric landscape equipment will be used.
Using the same methodology as the EIR for calculating the service population as outlined in table 3.12-6 of the EIR, the revised land use acreages and addition of the light industrial land use, resulted in a calculated service population of 27,590 which is detailed in Table 10.
Emissions of the mitigated Scheme C were compared to emissions in mitigated Scheme B from the EIR, which had higher emissions than Scheme A in the EIR. Mitigated Scheme B from the EIR implemented mitigation measures GHG-1.2 and TRA-1.1 as indicated on page 3.4-32 in the DEIR. The same mitigation measures would be implemented in Scheme C.
#
Year County
Countywide
Consumer
Products VOC
inventory
(tons/day)1
Total County
Building Area
(sqft)2
Consumer
Products VOC EF
(lb/sqft/day)
2030 Santa Clara 15.265 1,554,943,566 1.96E-05
Notes:
1. 2.
Abbreviations:
lb - pound
ROG - Reactive Organic Compounds
EF - emission factor
sqft - square foot
References:
Conversion
2000 lbs/ton
California Air Resources Board. California Emissions Projection Analysis Model, CEPAM2019v1.03. Available online at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/applications/cepam2019v103- standard-emission-tool.
US Federal Emergency Management Agency's Hazus software (HAZUS-MH), Version 6.0.
Available online at https://msc.fema.gov/portal/resources/hazus.
Table 4
Consumer Products Emission Factor
Related Santa Clara
Santa Clara, California
ROG consumer products inventory obtained from California Emissions Projection Analysis Model for Santa Clara County.
Total building square footage in Santa Clara County for 2030 was obtained from FEMA HAZUS- MH software (version 6.0). The 2020 emission factor was conservatively assumed to represent the emission factor at full buildout.
Average Trip Rate1 Average Trip
Length2
Annual
Activity Annual Trips3 Annual VMT3 Fuel Consumption
per Mile4
Annual Gallons of Fuel
Consumption4
one-way trips/day mi/one-way trip days/year one-way trips/yr mi/yr gal/mi gal/year 720 25 365 262,800 6,570,000 0.12 883,878
7,600 9.5 365 2,774,000 26,439,496 0.032 839,797
960 25 365 350,400 8,760,000 0.12 1,178,504
2,735 9.5 365 998,275 9,514,740 0.032 302,217
Notes:
1 2
3 4
Abbreviations:
CalEEMod- California Emissions Estimator Model
EMFAC2021 - California Air Resources Board EMission FACtor model HHDT - heavy-heavy-duty truck
LDA - light-duty automobiles
LDT1 - Light-duty trucks (gross vehicle weight rating <6000 pounds. And equivalent test weight <= 3750 pounds) LDT2 - Light-duty trucks (gross vehicle weight rating <6000 pounds. And equivalent test weight <= 3751-5750 pounds) mi - mile
VMT - vehicle miles travelled
yr - year
References:
The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod®). Available at: http://www.caleemod.com/ Passenger Vehicles
Fleet Type
The total daily trip rates for trucks and passenger vehicles were provided by the Project's traffic engineer. For passenger veh icles, the trip rates for each fleet category were estimated based on the weighted CalEEMod default fleet mix for LDA, LDT1, and LDT2.
The average trip length for delivery trucks was provided by Related based on the average of the distances from the proposed lig ht industrial land use to and from the surrounding major ports, which include the San Francisco International Airport, Port of Oakland, and San Jose International Airport. The proposed light industrial land use would primar ily intend to receive and deliver shipments to and from those ports. To determine an average trip length for passenger vehicles, Ramboll used 2022 CalEEMod default trip type lengths, trip type percentages and trip purpose percentage s for manufacturing land use.
Annual trips and annual VMT were calculated assuming 365 days per year.
Fuel usage based on VMT data and fleet-average fuel consumption in gallons per mile from EMFAC2021 for 2030 in Santa Clara Coun ty.
Table 5
Trip Information and Vehicle Fuel Usage of Scheme C Operations for Northeast Parcels Related Santa Clara
Santa Clara, California
Warehouse Buildout Delivery Trucks Diesel
Passenger Vehicles Gasoline
Scenario
Manufacturing Buildout Diesel
Gasoline
Fuel Type
Delivery Trucks
Emission Factors for CAP and GHGs
ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 CO CO2 CH4 N2OC O 2e
g/mile 0.014 1.565 0.141 0.062 0.062 1474.596 0.001 0.232 1,544 g/trip -- 2.89 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
g/mile 0.13 0.75 0.13 0.06 0.32 728.40 0.01 0.11 763
g/trip -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0
g/mile 0.015 0.731 0.064 0.025 0.073 1109.144 0.001 0.175 1,161 g/trip -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0,000
g/mile 0.028 1.254 0.120 0.052 0.096 1291.016 0.001 0.203 1351.661 g/trip -- 2.20 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
g/mile 0.0051 0.027 0.017 0.0055 0.56 246 0.0015 0.0037 247 g/trip 0.75 0.20 0.0017 0.0015 2.4 62 0.052 0.029 72
g/mile 0.014 0.067 0.019 0.0064 0.91 295 0.0033 0.0060 297 g/trip 1.3 0.28 0.0021 0.0019 3.5 76 0.072 0.033 87
g/mile 0.00705 0.04252 0.017996 0.00607 0.65937 300.74448 0.00194 0.00449 302.13125 g/trip 0.78587 0.25433 0.00170 0.00156 2.80913 76.34787 0.06196 0.03252 87.58784 g/mile 0.0061 0.034 0.017 0.0057 0.61 265 0.0017 0.0040 266 g/trip 0.79 0.22 0.0017 0.0016 2.6 67 0.056 0.030 77
Emission Factors for Health Risk Assessment (HRA)
TOG
(exhaust)
TOG
(evaporation) DPM PM2.5
PM2.5
(fugitive)
Delivery Trucks Diesel HDT_MIX
Aggregate of
HHDT, LHDT2,
MHDT
g/mile -- -- 0.021 0.052
LDA 65.2% g/mile 0.0074 0.067 -- 0.0055
LDT1 4.5% g/mile 0.020 0.13 -- 0.0064
LDT2 30.3% g/mile 0.010 0.068 -- 0.0061
Notes:
1. 2.
3. 4.
Abbreviations:
CAP - Criteria Air Pollutant LDA - light-duty automobiles CH4 - methane mi - mile
CO - carbon monoxide N2O - Nitrous oxide
CO2 - carbon dioxide NOx - nitrogen oxides
CO2e - carbon dioxide equivalent PM - particulate matter DIURN - diurnal evaporative hydrocarbon emissions PMBW - break wear particulate matter emissions DPM - diesel particulate matter PMTW - tire wear particulate matter emissions EMFAC2017 - California Air Resources Board EMission FACtor model RESTLOSS - resting evaporative losses g - grams ROG - reactive organic gases
GHG - greenhouse gas RUNEX - running exhaust emissions
HHDT - heavy-heavy-duty truck RUNLOSS - running loss evaporative hydrocarbon emissions HOTSOAK - hot soak evaporative hydrocarbon emissions STREX - start exhaust tailpipe emissions HRA - health risk assessment TOG - toxic organic gases
IDLEX - idle exhaust emissions
LDT1 - Light-duty trucks (gross vehicle weight rating <6000 pounds. And equivalent test weight <= 3750 pounds) LDT2 - Light-duty trucks (gross vehicle weight rating <6000 pounds. And equivalent test weight <= 3751-5750 pounds) References:
Passenger Vehicles Gasoline
LD_MIX
65.2%
4.5%
30.3%
LDA
LDT1
LDT2
Emission
Factor Units
Gasoline
California Air Resources Board (ARB) 2021. EMFAC2021. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/mobile-source-emissions-inventory/msei-modeling-tools Fuel
The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod®). Available at: http://www.caleemod.com/ Emission factors were estimated using EMFAC2021 for Santa Clara County. EMFAC2021 was run in Emission Rates mode for calendar year 2030 in the annual season. The following processes have units of g/trip: DIRUN, HOTSOAK, RESTLOSS, STREX, and IDLEX. The following processes have units of g/mile: PMBW, PMTW, RUNEX, and RUNLOSS. Processes with units of g/vehicle/day were converted to g/trip using the population and trip rate values given in the EMFAC2021 run. Note that idling emissions (IDLEX) are excluded from the emission factors presented above and are separately calculated for the delivery trucks in Table 9.
For HRA, the RUNLOSS process has units of g/trip which were converted to g/mile based on EMFAC outputs for total trips and total VMT. Note that IDLEX, STREX, DIURN, HOTSOAK processes are excluded from the emission factors presented above. Health impacts from gasoline are estimated by speciating TOG emissions. Health impacts from diesel fueled vehicles are estimated using DPM as PM10 exhaust. PM2.5 concentration is estimated from all vehicles. PM10 emission factors only include RUNLOSS. PM2.5 emission factors include RUNLOSS, PMTW, and PMBW. The on-road fugitive dust PM2.5 emission factor is detailed in Tables 11-12.
Passenger Vehicles
Emission factors for CO2e were estimated by multiplying the CH4 and N2O emission factors by their global warming potentials from the CalEEMod Appendix G Table G-39.
0.020
Mobile Emission Factors4
Fleet Type
Delivery trucks are conservatively assumed to be diesel-fueled and consist of light-heavy duty trucks 2 (LHDT2), medium-heavy duty trucks (MHDT) and heavy-duty trucks (HHDT) with half of the truck fleet assumed to be equipped with Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs). Passenger vehicles are assumed to be gasoline-fueled and consist of passenger cars (LDA), light-duty trucks 1 (LDT1), and light-duty trucks 2 (LDT2). California Air Resources Board Advanced Clean Truck Program and Advanced Clean Fleets Program are not taken into account because EMFAC2021 does not account for full potential emissions reductions associated with those regulations.
Fleet
Category
Fleet
Percentages1
HDT_MIX
Table 6
Operational On-Road Emission Factors
Related Santa Clara
Santa Clara, California
Emission
Factor Units
Mobile Emission Factors2
CAPs GHGs3Fleet
Percentages1Fleet Type Fuel Fleet
Category
Delivery Trucks Diesel
HHDT 62.5%
12.2%LHDT2
25.4%MHDT
ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 CO CO2e
[MT/yr]
0.20 9.7 0.87 0.38 0.69 8,880
2.6 1.7 0.50 0.17 26 7,242
Total 2.8 11 1.4 0.55 26 16,123
0.27 13 1.2 0.50 0.93 11,841
0.93 0.60 0.18 0.062 9.2 2,606
Total 1.2 14 1.3 0.57 10 14,447
ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 CO
1.1 53 4.8 2.1 3.8
14 9.1 2.8 0.94 140
Total 15 62 7.5 3.0 144
1.5 71 6.4 2.8 5.1
5.1 3.3 1.0 0.34 50
Total 6.6 74 7.4 3.1 55
Notes:
1. 2.
Abbreviations:
CAP - Criteria Air Pollutant
CO - carbon monoxide
CO2e - carbon dioxide equivalent
GHG - greenhouse gas
lbs - pounds
MT - metric ton
Scenario
Delivery Trucks
Passenger Vehicles
Annual CAP and GHG Emissions
[tons/yr]
Delivery Trucks
Passenger Vehicles
Fleet Type
Manufacturing
Buildout
Warehouse
Buildout
Santa Clara, California
Table 7
Mobile Criteria Air Pollutants and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Scheme C Operations from Northeast Parcels Related Santa Clara
These emissions do not contain the emissions from idling and Transportation Refrigeration Units.
Scenario
Delivery Trucks
Passenger Vehicles
Manufacturing
Buildout
Warehouse
Buildout
Fleet Type
Average Daily CAP Emissions
[lbs/day]
Delivery Trucks
Passenger Vehicles
Mobile emissions were estimated based on trip rates shown in Table 5 and on-road emission factors in Table 6.
Trailer
TRU
480
62.5%
Average Speed Traveled by Truck3 [mi/hr]
Average Miles Traveled by Truck4 [mi/one-way trip] 25
Annual Hours of Operation During Travel [hr] 109,500
Unloading Time per TRU5 [hour/one-way trip] 0.083
Annual Hours of Operation During Unloading [hr] 9,125
TRU Emission Factors
ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5 CO CO2 CO2e8
Trailer TRU 44 40 0.42 0.38 4.8 6,827 7,148
TRU Emissions
ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5 CO CO2 CO2e8
Operation During Travel 29 26 0.28 0.25 3.2 748 783
Operation During Unloading 2.4 2.2 0.023 0.021 0.27 62 65 Notes:
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. 6.
7. 8.
Abbreviations:
ARB - [California] Air Resources Board NOX - oxides of nitrogen CO - carbon monoxide PM - particulate matter
CO2e - carbon dioxide equivalent ROG - reactive organic gases g - gram TRU - transportation refrigeration unit
hr - hour yr - year
mi - mile
References:
California Air Resources Board. 2021 OFFROAD database. Available at: https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory/.
California Air Resources Board. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/atcm-to-limit-vehicle-idling/about
Annual GHG
Emissions
The loading bays will be equipped with electrical plugs, which TRU units will be plugged in for power. Related assumes TRUs will be diesel-powered for 5 minutes during unloading and 5 minutes during loading to accommodate for the time it would take to plug in. 5 minutes is consistent with the CARB ACTM (Title 13, CCR, Section 2485).
Emissions from TRUs decrease over time, but the earliest possible year was chosen to calculate criteria air pollutant emissions from TRUs.
Based on OFFROAD2021 for Transportation Refrigeration Unit vehicle class.
TRU usage is assumed for half of operational trucks.
According to ARB Appendix H: 2021 Update to Emissions Inventory for Transport Refrigeration Units, TRU engines are generally running about 62.5% of time that a TRU unit is turned on.
Per Vehicle Code § 22350 VC "Prima facie" speed limits, the standard speed limit for business or residential districts in CA is 25 MPH. Some streets near the Project have limits of 30 MPH and a portion of each delivery trip will be on highways, but 25 MPH was conservatively assumed for the entire trip.
Santa Clara, California
California Air Resources Board. Appendix H: 2021 Update to Emissions Inventory for Transport Refrigeration Units. July. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/board/rulemaking/tru2021/apph.pdf.
Trailer TRU
2030
OperationTRU Type (lbs/day)
Emission Factor
(g/hour)
7 MT/year
OFFROAD2021 does not have CH4, N2O, or CO2e for TRUs. In order to determine a value for CO2-equivalent (CO2e) greenhouse gases, the CO2 emission factor for TRU was scaled by the CO2e factor/CO2 factor for Related's assumed Santa Clara truck fleet mix consisting of HHDT, LHDT2, and MHDT.
The average trip length for delivery trucks was provided by Related based on the average of the distances from the proposed light industrial land use to and from the surrounding major ports, which include the San Francisco International Airport, Port of Oakland, and San Jose International Airport. The proposed light industrial land use would primarily intend to receive and deliver shipments to and from those ports.
Annual Daily CAP Emissions
TRU Engine Operation
During Travel
TRU Engine Operation
During Unloading
365
25 TRU Usage Inputs [Unit]
TRU Usage
1 [One-way trips/day]
Operational Days [days/yr]
Year6Source
Percent of time when engine is on during TRU operation [--]2 Table 8
Transportation Refrigeration Unit (TRU) Criteria Air Pollutants Emissions from Scheme C Operations from Northeast Parcels Related Santa Clara
Truck Idling Inputs1
From Manufacturing From Warehouse Units
720 960 one-way trips/day
5 5 min/one-way trip
365 365 days/yr
21,900 29,200 idle-hr/yr
Truck Idling Emission Factors and Emissions
From
Manufacturing From Warehouse Units
ROG 2.0 0.27 0.35 lbs/day
NOX 28 3.7 5.0 lbs/day
PM10 0.11 0.015 0.020 lbs/day
PM2.5 0.11 0.014 0.019 lbs/day
CO 30 4.0 5.3 lbs/day
CO2e 5,338 117 156 MT/yr
Notes:
1. 2.
Abbreviations
CO - carbon monoxide NOx - nitrogen oxides
CO2e - carbon dioxide equivalent PM - particulate matter EMFAC - EMission FACtors model ROG - reactive organic gases g - grams tpy - tons per year
idle-hr - hour spent idling yr - year
lbs - pounds MT - metric ton
min - minute
References
ARB. 2021. EMission FACtors Model, 2021 (EMFAC2021). Available online at: https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory Santa Clara, California
Table 9
Idling Criteria Air Pollutants Emissions from Onsite Truck Activity in Northeast Parcels Related Santa Clara
Idle Time
Operational Days per Year
Average Number of Delivery Trucks per Day
Emission factors for diesel truck idling in Santa Clara County for the operational year of 2030 were estimated using EMFAC2021. 5 minutes of truck idling time assumed for each on e-way trip according to Title 13, CCR, Section 2485.
Pollutant Idling Emission Factors2
(g/idle-hr)
Delivery Trucks
Emissions
Parameter
Total Annual Delivery Trucks Idling
Truck Type
Land Use Gross Square Footage Dwelling Units/Rooms Projected Residents/ Employees
Residential2 1,680,000 1,680 2.4 persons/household 4,030 Total Residential 1,680,000 1,680 -- -- 4,030
Retail 800,000 -- 450 gsf/employee 1,778
Office 4,517,400 -- 270 gsf/employee 16,731
Hotel 567,000 -- 840 gsf/employee 675
Residential 1,680,000 1,680 1 employee/32 units 53
Industrial3 1,600,000 -- 331 gsf/employee 4,834
Total Project Employees -- -- -- -- 24,070
Existing On-site Employees -- -- -- -- 35
Existing Off-site Employees 127,500 270 gsf/employee 475 Total Net New Employees 127,500 -- -- -- 23,560
Total Service Population 27,590
Notes:
1. 2.
3. References:
Employees
The generation rates for all land uses except industrial were obtained from Table 3.12-6 in the EIR.
The generation rate for industrial land use was obtained from the Industrial Land and Jobs Study for the San Francisco Bay Area.
University of California Transportation Center (UCTC). 2017. Industrial Land and Jobs Study for the San Francisco Bay Area. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot- media/programs/research-innovation-system-information/documents/final-reports/ca17-2792-finalreport-a11y.pdf.
On-site Residents
To be consistent with the Approved Project, the calculated on-site residents were rounded down to 4,030.
Table 10
Scheme C Service Population Calculations
Related Santa Clara
Santa Clara, California
Generation Rate1
#
Roadway Category Silt Loading1 (g/m2) Travel Fraction1
Freeway 0.015 49%
Major 0.032 37%
Collector 0.032 6%
Local 0.32 7%
Weighted Silt Loading Factor 0.044 100%
Notes:
1. Abbreviations:
ARB - Air Resources Board
g - gram(s)
m - meter
References:
California Air Resources Board. 2021. Miscellaneous Process Methodology 7.9, Entrained Road Travel, Paved Road Dust. March. Available online at:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ei/areasrc/fullpdf/2021_paved_roads_7_9.pdf Table 11
Silt Loading Emission Factors
Related Santa Clara
Santa Clara, California
Entrained Roadway Dust Constants for Santa Clara County Travel fraction by roadway category and silt loading are from the California ARB's Entrained Road Travel Emission Inventory Source Methodology, Tables 2 and 4, respectively.
Road Dust Equation1
E = k*(sL)^0.91 * (W)^1.02 * (1-P/4N)
Parameter2
Value
E = annual average emission factor in the same units as k [calculated] k = particle size multiplier for particle size range and units of interest PM 10 (lb/VMT) 0.0022
PM 2.5 (lb/VMT) 3.3E-04
sL = road surface silt loading (grams per square meter) (g/m2 ) 2
0.044
W = average weight (tons) of all the vehicles traveling the road 2.4 64 N number of days in the averaging period 365
Scenario4 Fugitive PM2.5 Units
Emission Factor 4.5E-05 lb/VMT
Notes:
1. 2.
3. 4.
Abbreviations:
ARB - Air Resources Board lb - pounds
BAAQMD - Bay Area Air Quality Management District PM - particulate matter CalEEMod® - California Emissions Estimator Model VMT - vehicle miles traveled References:
P = number of “wet” days with at least 0.01 in of precipitation during averaging period3 Table 12
On-Road Fugitive Dust Emissions from Project Operations within Modeling Extent Related Santa Clara
Santa Clara, California
BAAQMD. 2023. 2022 CEQA Guidelines Appendix E. Available online at https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa-guidelines-2022/appendix-e- recommended-methods-for-screening-and-modeling-local-risks-and-hazards_final- pdf.pdf?rev=b8917a27345a4a629fc18fc8650951e4&sc_lang=en.
The road dust equation for paved roads is from the California Air Resources Board's (ARB) 2018 Miscellaneous Process Methodology 7.9 for Entrained Road Travel, Paved Road Dust.
The number of "wet" days for Santa Clara County is from Table 23 of 2022 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Appendix E (64 days).
Emission factors calculated using Road Dust Equation and parameters presented in upper sub-table. Fugitive emission rates calculated as product of the emission factor and annual VMT.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod®), Version 2022.1.1. Available online at http://www.caleemod.com/ California ARB. 2018. Miscellaneous Processes Methodologies - Paved Entrained Road Dust.
Available online at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/areasrc/fullpdf/full7-9_2018.pdf As shown in Table 11, the silt loading emission factor assumes Santa Clara county default roadway fractions and silt loading levels from ARB 2021.
Emergency Generator Emission Factors
DPM PM2.5
Diesel 671 0.15 0.15
Emergency Generator Emissions2
kW hp hr/yr DPM PM2.5
10 0.74 500 671 Diesel 50 1.2E-03 1.2E-03
Start Date/Time End Date/Time Duration (Hours)
7/20/2023 6:25 7/20/2023 8:30 2.08
2/21/2023 14:29 2/21/2023 16:39 2.17
4.25 12/24/2022 12:09 12/24/2022 14:30 2.35
6/17/2022 9:30 6/17/2022 10:05 0.58
3/3/2022 7:33 3/3/2022 8:53 1.33
4.27 7/1/2021 13:09 7/1/2021 13:16 0.12
7/1/2021 13:08 7/1/2021 13:09 0.02
0.13 Notes
1 2
3 Abbreviations
g - grams hp - horsepower
s - seconds kW - kilowatt
hr - hour PM2.5 - Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in aerodynamic diameter yr - year DPM - Diesel Particulate Matter
Historically, in the past three years from 2021 to 2023, annual outages have not exceeded 5 hours per year in the northwestern region of Silicon Valley Power (SVP) jurisdiction. In addition, generators are required to be tested monthly for thirty minutes under load which equals 12 hours per year plus any additional time for maintenance, which is expected to be minimal. Thus, a maximum of 50 hours per year of engine operations is not likely to be exceeded.
Silicon Valley Power Outage History (Northwest Region)3 2023 Total Outage Hours
2022 Total Outage Hours
2021 Total Outage Hours
Number, size, and fuel of the emergency generator engine was provided by Related.
Engine Type
Table 13
Emissions from Emergency Generators for Northeast Parcels and Outage History Related Santa Clara
Santa Clara, California
Engine Size
(hp)Fuel
Engine Emission Factors1
(g/bhp-hr)
Load Factor
Size
Emergency Generator
Project Operation
Engine emission factors for PM10 and PM2.5 (assumed all engines are diesel fueled and that all PM10 is diesel particulate matter) based on ARB standards for Tier 2 diesel generator engines.
Number of
EnginesScenario
Annual
Operation3 Annual Emissions, g/s
Fuel Type
Operations (2030)
Average Trip Rate1 Segment Length2 Annual Activity Annual Trips3 Annual VMT3 DPM Emission Rate
PM2.5
Emission
Rate4
TOG_EXH
Emission Rate
TOG_EVAP
Emission Rate
one-way trips/day mi/one-way trip days/year one-way trips/yr mi/yr HDT_MIX LAF_N 44 0.22 365 16,060 3,594 2.4E-06 8.3E-06 -- -- HDT_MIX LAF_S_2 704 0.078 365 256,960 20,051 1.3E-05 4.6E-05 -- -- HDT_MIX LAF_S_1 256 1.30 365 93,440 121,200 8.1E-05 2.8E-04 -- -- HDT_MIX TAS_W 24 0.86 365 8,760 7,556 5.0E-06 1.7E-05 -- -- HDT_MIX TAS_E 10 0.37 365 3,650 1,356 9.1E-07 3.1E-06 -- -- HDT_MIX GAP_1 472 0.13 365 172,280 22,217 1.5E-05 5.1E-05 -- -- HDT_MIX GAP_2 188 0.23 365 68,620 15,835 1.1E-05 3.6E-05 -- -- HDT_MIX GAP_3 182 0.36 365 66,430 24,109 1.6E-05 5.5E-05 -- -- HDT_MIX GAW 660 0.36 365 240,900 87,057 5.8E-05 2.0E-04 -- -- HDT_MIX MVAR 6 0.15 365 2,190 339 2.3E-07 7.8E-07 -- -- HDT_MIX US237WB 228 0.27 365 83,220 22,674 1.5E-05 5.2E-05 -- -- HDT_MIX US237EB 244 0.67 365 89,060 59,387 4.0E-05 1.4E-04 -- -- HDT_MIX ONSITE1 960 0.30 365 350,400 104,634 7.0E-05 2.4E-04 -- -- HDT_MIX ONSITE2 270 0.16 365 98,522 15,320 1.0E-05 3.5E-05 -- -- HDT_MIX ONSITE3 136 0.15 365 49,467 7,312 4.9E-06 1.7E-05 -- -- HDT_MIX ONSITE4 555 0.32 365 202,411 64,021 4.3E-05 1.5E-04 -- -- HDT_MIX ONSITE5 176 0.092 365 64,360 5,932 4.0E-06 1.4E-05 -- -- HDT_MIX ONSITE6 228 0.21 365 83,325 17,785 1.2E-05 4.1E-05 -- -- HDT_MIX ONSITE7 690 0.067 365 251,878 16,969 1.1E-05 3.9E-05 -- -- LD_MIX LAF_N_PV 0,972 0.22 365 354,780 79,386 -- 4.1E-04 2.2E-05 1.8E-04 LD_MIX LAF_S_P2 1,594 0.08 365 581,810 45,400 -- 8.3E-06 1.3E-05 1.0E-04 LD_MIX LAF_S_P1 1,410 1.3 365 514,650 667,546 -- 1.2E-04 1.9E-04 0.0015 LD_MIX TAS_W_PV 16,536 0.86 365 6,035,640 5,206,008 -- 9.5E-04 1.5E-03 0.012 LD_MIX TAS_E_PV 10,700 0.37 365 3,905,500 1,451,441 -- 2.7E-04 4.1E-04 0.0032 LD_MIX GAP_1_PV 26,263 0.13 365 9,585,995 1,236,192 -- 2.3E-04 3.5E-04 0.0028 LD_MIX GAP_2_PV 25,641 0.23 365 9,358,965 2,159,706 -- 4.1E-04 6.1E-04 0.0048 LD_MIX GAP_3_PV 28,420 0.36 365 10,373,300 3,764,717 -- 7.9E-04 1.1E-03 0.0084 LD_MIX GAW_PV 0,622 0.36 365 227,030 82,044 -- 4.5E-05 2.3E-05 1.8E-04 LD_MIX MVAR_PV 0,972 0.15 365 354,780 54,945 -- 3.5E-05 1.5E-05 1.2E-04 LD_MIX US237WPV 12,645 0.27 365 4,615,425 1,257,532 -- 2.7E-04 3.5E-04 0.0028 LD_MIX US237EPV 13,618 0.67 365 4,970,570 3,314,451 -- 6.8E-04 9.3E-04 0.0074 Notes:
1. 2.
3. 4.
Abbreviations:
mi - mile(s) TOG_EXH - Total organic gas from exhaust
VMT - vehicle miles travelled TOG_EVAP - Total organic gas from evaporation yr - year TAC - toxic air contaminants
DPM - diesel particulate matter PM2.5 - particulate matter less than 2.5 microns g/s
The PM2.5 emission rate includes both vehicle engine emission rates and fugitive emission rates. The fugitive emission rate is calculated by using the fugitive PM2.5 emission factor from Table 12, which is then multiplied by the percentage of total VMT for each segment. It is assumed that these operational trips occur 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
Table 14
Trip Rates and Modeled On-Road Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) Emission Rates from Operational Trips Related Santa Clara
Santa Clara, California
Source GroupFleet Type Fleet Category
Daily trip rates were provided by Arup. Truck trip rates assume the warehouse scenario while passenger vehicle trip rates assume the manufacturing scenario for a conservative risk scenario.
Passenger Vehicles
Delivery Trucks
Offsite and onsite segment lengths were estimated in GIS for each roadway segment within the modeling extent.
Annual trips and annual VMT were calculated assuming 365 days per year for trucking operations as assumed by Related.
LINE Sources1,2
Release Height Initial Vertical
Dimension
(m) (m)
Off-site On-road Passenger Vehicles3 Multiple Multiple 1.3 1.21 Off-site On-road Delivery Trucks and TRUs Multiple Multiple 3.4 3.16 On-site On-road Delivery Trucks and TRUs ONSITE1-ONSITE 7 7 3.4 3.16 AREAPOLY Sources1,5
Release Height Initial Vertical
Dimension
(m) (m)
On-site Delivery Truck TRU Unloading IDLE01-IDLE10 10 4.0 1.86 On-site Delivery Truck Idling IDLE01-IDLE10 10 4.0 1.86 POINT Sources1,6
Stack Height Stack
Temperature Stack Velocity Stack
Diameter
(m) (F) (m/s) (m)
Emergency Generators GEN01-GEN10 10 3.66 872 45.3 0.183
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. 6.
BAAQMD - Bay Area Air Quality Management District
F - Fahrenheit
m - meter
m/s - meters per second
TRU - transportation refrigeration unit
References:
Passenger vehicles dispersion factors were represented with a diurnal pattern based on the hourly VMT data in Santa Clara County from EMFAC2021 to accurately account for air dispersion. The diurnal pattern was incorporated into the model using EMISFACT parameters, which adjusts emission rates throughout the day to reflect higher activity levels during peak traffic periods and lower activity levels during off-peak hours. The EMISFACT scalars are presented in the modeling files.
BAAQMD. 2022. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Available at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental- quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines
Santa Clara, California
Abbreviations:
Modeled emission rates for emission sources were unit dispersion factors. For LINE and AREAPOLY sources, modeled emission rates were 1 gram/second divided by the area in meters. For the POINT source generators, the modeled emission rate for each generator was 1 gram/second. The complete AERMOD input file can be found in Appendix B.
Notes:Each of the roadway segments within a 1,000 ft buffer of the Project boundary was modeled as a source group for on-road delivery trucks and passenger vehicles (labeled as "Multiple"). Passenger vehicle sources were labeled with *PV in the AERMOD input files.
Delivery trucks and passenger vehicles were modeled as line sources where parameters were obtained from the2022 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. TRUs equipped on the delivery trucks are assumed to have the same modeling parameters as truck exhausts.
Delivery trucks idling and TRU unloading were modeled as an area source.
Emergency generator source parameters were obtained from the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. The emergency generators were modeled assuming activity can occur at any time during the day.
Source Source Group Number of
Sources
Source Source Group Number of
Sources
Source Source Group
4 Number of
Sources
Table 15
Modeling Parameters for Operational Sources
Related Santa Clara
Daily Breathing
Rate (DBR)1
Exposure
Duration (ED)2
Fraction of Time
at Home (FAH)3
Exposure
Frequency (EF)4
Averaging Time
(AT)
Age Sensitivity
Factor5
Modeling
Adjustment
Factor6
Intake Factor,
Inhalation (IFinh)
[L/kg-day] [years] [unitless] [days/year] [days] [unitless] [unitless] [m3/kg-day] Residential 3rd Trimester 361 0.25 1.0 10 1 0.012
Residential Age 0-<2 Years 1,090 2.0 1.0 10 1 0.30
Residential Age 2-<16 Years 572 14 1.0 3 1 0.33
Residential Age >16 Years 261 14 0.73 1 1 0.037
Daycare Age 0-<2 Years 1,090 2.0 10 1 0.30
Daycare Age 2-<16 Years 520 4.0 3 1 0.085
School School Age 2-<16 Years 520 7.0 3 1 0.077
Recreational Age 0-<2 Years 300 2.0 10 1 0.042
Recreational Age 2-<16 Years 130 14 3 1 0.038
Recreational Age >16 Years 60 14 1 1 0.0059
Worker Offsite Worker Age 16-70 Years 230 25 250 1 1 0.056 Notes:
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. 6.
Calculation:
IFinh = DBR * FAH * EF * ED * CF / AT
CF = 0.001 (m3/L)
Abbreviations:
AT - averaging time IFinh - intake factor
BAAQMD - Bay Area Air Quality Management District kg - kilogram DBR - daily breathing rate L - liter
ED - exposure duration m3 - cubic meter
EF - exposure frequency OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment FAH - fraction of time at home
References:
BAAQMD. 2023. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Available at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines OEHHA. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessment s. February.
Worker: reflects default worker exposure frequency, consistent with BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines.
Recreational: reflects default number of school days per year, assuming 2 hours of exposure each day.
Annual exposure duration represents one full year. The exposure duration for all years is 1, as the health risk assessment is b ased on annual emissions. For the construction and operation scenario, residential receptors are assumed to begin the third trimester at the beginning of construc tion and continue exposure for 30 years after birth; School (K -6) receptor is assumed to be exposed during age 5-12; Daycare receptor is assumed to be exposed during age 0-6. Pre-school receptor is assumed to be exposed during age 2-14. For the operation-only scenario, exposure begins at the start of operations. --
25,550
For resident, daycare, school, and worker, daily breathing rates by receptor type and age bin are consistent with Table 34 of A ppendix E of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. Daily breathing rates for recreational receptors assume 95th Percentile Eight-Hour Breathing Rates for Moderate Intensity Activities, scaled to 2 hours per day, consistent with the ex posure parameters in the 2015 EIR. 180
350
Residents: reflects default residential exposure frequency from Cal/EPA.
Recreational
Table 16
Exposure Parameters for Project Operations
Related Santa Clara
Santa Clara, California
Fraction of time spent at home is conservatively assumed to be 1 (i.e., 24 hours/day) for age groups from the third trimester t o less than 16 years old based on the recommendation from BAAQMD (2023) and OEHHA (OEHHA 2015). The fraction of time at home for adults age 16-30 reflects default OEHHA guidance (OEHHA 2015) as recommended by BAAQMD (2023).
Exposure frequency is consistent with the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines and was determined as follows:
Age Sensitive Factors account for an "anticipated special sensitivity to carcinogens" of infants and children as recommended in the OEHHA Technical Support Document and current OEHHA guidance. This is consistent with the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines.
Modeling adjustment factors are calculated based on the methodology from OEHHA's Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (2015). Residents are expected to be exposed 24 hours/day and 7 days/week; as a result, the MAF is 1. Operational sources are expected 24 hours/day and 7 days/week; as a result, the MAF is 1 for all recepto rs.
Exposure Parameters
Daycare/School: reflects default residential exposure frequency for 0-2 age bin, consistent with the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, an d default worker exposure frequency for 2-16 age bin, assuming a child is at the daycare/school when the parents are at work.
Population Receptor Age Group
Residents
Daycare
Receptor Type
Chemical1 CAS Cancer Potency Factor
(mg/kg-day)-1 Chronic REL (µg/m3)
Diesel PM 9901 1.1 5.0
1,3-Butadiene 106990 0.60 2.0
Acetaldehyde 75070 0.010 140
Acrolein 107028 -- 0.35
Benzene 71432 0.10 3.0
Ethylbenzene 100414 0.0087 2,000
Formaldehyde 50000 0.021 9.0
Methanol 67561 -- 4,000
Naphthalene 91203 0.12 9.0
n-Hexane 110543 -- 7,000
Propene 115071 -- 3,000
Styrene 100425 -- 900
Toluene 108883 -- 420
Xylenes 1330207 -- 700
Notes:
1. Abbreviations:
µg/m3 - micrograms per cubic meter
ARB - [California] Air Resources Board
Cal/EPA - California Environmental Protection Agency
(mg/kg-day)-1 - per milligram per kilogram-day
OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment PM - particulate matter
REL - reference exposure level
TRU - transportation refrigeration unit
Reference:
Cal/EPA. 2023. OEHHA/ARB Consolidated Table of Approved Risk Assessment Health Values. October 6.
Table 17
Toxicity Values
Related Santa Clara
Santa Clara, California
Chemicals presented in this table reflect air toxic contaminants in the proposed fuel types that are expected from on-road truck trips, gasoline vehicle trips, diesel-fueled transportation refrigeration units (TRU), idling at loading dock, and generator operations.
Ramboll
FIGURES
LAST SAVE: 5/22/2024 5:58 PM
Cal
abazas
Creek
237
Patrick
H
en
ry D
rElk o Dr
Bunker Hi ll Ln
Betsy R
os
s
Dr
GreatAm
erica Way
Gre
atAme
rica P
kwy
GoldSt
La
fayette
St
Mountain
View A
lviso Rd
Santa Clara Golf
and Tennis Club
Old
Iro
nsides Dr
Gr
eat A
mer
ica
Pkwy
California's
Great America
Reamwood
Station
Westbound
Old Ironsides
Station Great America
Station
G
uada
lupe
River
Guada
lupe River
N 1s
t St
Holg
er Way
Pinefield Rd
N 1st St
Moun tain Vi ew Alviso Rd
Ulistac Natural
AreaKathryn Hughes
Elementary
School
Great America
Amtrak Station
Lick Mill Station
Westbound
Champion
Station
Gua
dalupe
River
Eisenhower D
r
Hope D
rGianera St
Ga
rr
ity
Way
Lafa
yette St
Lick Mill Park
Santa Clara
Youth Soccer
Park
Holge r Way
Tasman Station
Skytop St
Service Layer Credits: World Imagery: Sanborn Map Company, Maxar 0 5,0002,500
Feet
RAMBOLL AMERICAS
ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS, INC.
A RAMBOLL COMPANY
FIGURE 01
Related Santa Clara
Santa Clara, California
Project Site
Onsite Building
Truck Idling and TRU Trailer Unloading
On-Road Truck, Passenger Vehicle, and TRU Sources
Emergency Generators
MODELED SOURCES AND VICINITY
!á(N
LAST SAVE: 7/18/2024 3:50 PM
E Caribbea
n Dr
Mounta
in View Alviso Rd
Sunnyvale
Baylands
County Park
Lakew
ood D
r
Lakebird Dr
Lakehaven Dr
Tasman Dr
237
N 1st St
N 1st St
Nortech Pkwy
Disk D
r
Grand
Blvd
Holg
er Way
N 1st St
Great Amer
ica Pkwy
Tasman Dr
W Tasman Dr
Gold
St
Mountain
View Alvis o Rd
Santa Clara Golf
and Tennis Club
Ulistac Natural
Area
Alviso
Agnew
Rd
Agnew Rd
Hope Dr
Sand
ia A
ve
Chee
ney
St
Lake
shor
eDr 2nd St
Tasma n Dr
G
reat
Ameri
ca P
kwy
California's
Great America
Levi's Stadium
Fairwood Park
Lick Mill Park
E Tas
man Dr
N
1st St
Mountain View Alviso R
d
Service Layer Credits: Hybrid Reference Layer: County of Santa Clara, California State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, 0 5,0002,500
Feet
RAMBOLL AMERICAS
ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS, INC.
A RAMBOLL COMPANY
FIGURE 02
Related Santa Clara
Santa Clara, California
Project Site
1,000 ft Buffer
Tasman East
20m x 20m Receptor Grid
Co-located Residential/Daycare
Daycare
Nonsensitive
Offsite Worker
Onsite Worker
Recreational
Residential
School
100m x 100m EIR Receptor Grid
offsite residential
park
path
school
PROJECT SITE AND MODELED
RECEPTORS
!á(N
APPENDIX A
CALEEMOD OUTPUTS
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
1 / 65
Related_City Center Detailed Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.1.2. Mitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
2 / 65
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
4.3.2. Mitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
4.4.2. Mitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
4.5.2. Mitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
4.6.2. Mitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.7.2. Mitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
3 / 65
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.8.2. Mitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.9.2. Mitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated
5. Activity Data
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.9.2. Mitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
4 / 65
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.1.2. Mitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.11.2. Mitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.12.2. Mitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.13.2. Mitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.14.2. Mitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
5 / 65
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.15.2. Mitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
6 / 65
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
7 / 65
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Related_City Center
Operational Y ear 2030
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.70
Precipitation (days) 32.8
Location 37.40977477774611, -121.97206281015863
County Santa Clara
City Santa Clara
Air District Bay Area AQMD
Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area
TAZ 1704
EDFZ 1
Electric Utility Silicon Valley Power
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.26
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Condo/Townhouse 1,680 Dwelling Unit 105 1,680,000 0.00 — 5,023 — Supermarket 50.0 1000sqft 1.15 50,000 0.00 — — —
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
8 / 65
Regional Shopping
Center
575 1000sqft 13.2 575,000 0.00 — — —
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
125 1000sqft 2.87 125,000 0.00 — — —
Movie Theater (No
Matinee)
50.0 1000sqft 1.15 50,000 0.00 — — —
General Office
Building
4,517 1000sqft 104 4,517,400 0.00 — — —
Hotel 700 Room 23.3 567,000 0.00 — — —
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Energy E-10-B Establish Onsite Renewable Energy Systems: Solar Power Water W-4 Require Low-Flow Water Fixtures
Water W-7 Adopt a Water Conservation Strategy
Waste S-1/S-2 Implement Waste Reduction Plan
2. Emissions Summary
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 446 424 222 2,017 5.50 7.46 517 525 7.27 131 138 6,467 636,370 642,837 685 25.6 12,683 680,276 Mit. 446 424 222 2,017 5.50 7.46 517 525 7.27 131 138 3,760 627,390 631,150 411 24.4 12,683 661,375 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 42% 1% 2% 40% 5% — 3%
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
9 / 65
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Unmit. 437 414 250 1,897 5.20 7.46 517 525 7.28 131 138 6,467 605,306 611,773 687 27.6 11,505 648,677 Mit. 437 414 250 1,897 5.20 7.46 517 525 7.28 131 138 3,760 596,326 600,086 414 26.3 11,505 629,776 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 42% 1% 2% 40% 5% — 3%
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 374 358 170 1,296 3.47 5.24 331 336 5.11 83.9 89.0 6,467 419,718 426,185 680 20.4 11,815 461,093 Mit. 374 358 170 1,296 3.47 5.24 331 336 5.11 83.9 89.0 3,760 410,738 414,498 407 19.2 11,815 442,192 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 42% 2% 3% 40% 6% — 4%
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 68.3 65.4 31.0 237 0.63 0.96 60.4 61.4 0.93 15.3 16.2 1,071 69,489 70,560 113 3.38 1,956 76,339 Mit. 68.3 65.4 31.0 237 0.63 0.96 60.4 61.4 0.93 15.3 16.2 623 68,002 68,625 67.3 3.17 1,956 73,210 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 42% 2% 3% 40% 6% — 4%
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 269 251 163 1,979 5.13 2.79 517 520 2.61 131 134 — 522,806 522,806 19.7 19.8 1,210 530,418 Area 172 171 16.6 7.06 0.11 1.34 — 1.34 1.34 — 1.34 0.00 21,047 21,047 0.40 0.04 — 21,069 Energy 4.81 2.41 43.0 31.0 0.26 3.33 — 3.33 3.33 — 3.33 — 89,835 89,835 12.7 1.08 — 90,475 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 1,894 2,682 4,576 195 4.68 — 10,841 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 4,573 0.00 4,573 457 0.00 — 15,999 Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
10 / 65
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11,474 11,474
Total 446 424 222 2,017 5.50 7.46 517 525 7.27 131 138 6,467 636,370 642,837 685 25.6 12,683 680,276 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 260 241 191 1,859 4.83 2.80 517 520 2.61 131 134 — 491,743 491,743 22.3 21.8 31.4 498,818 Area 172 171 16.6 7.06 0.11 1.34 — 1.34 1.34 — 1.34 0.00 21,047 21,047 0.40 0.04 — 21,069 Energy 4.81 2.41 43.0 31.0 0.26 3.33 — 3.33 3.33 — 3.33 — 89,835 89,835 12.7 1.08 — 90,475 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 1,894 2,682 4,576 195 4.68 — 10,841 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 4,573 0.00 4,573 457 0.00 — 15,999 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11,474 11,474
Total 437 414 250 1,897 5.20 7.46 517 525 7.28 131 138 6,467 605,306 611,773 687 27.6 11,505 648,677 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 200 186 127 1,265 3.21 1.88 331 333 1.75 83.9 85.7 — 326,683 326,683 15.7 14.7 341 331,784 Area 170 170 0.41 0.17 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 0.00 519 519 0.01 < 0.005 — 520 Energy 4.81 2.41 43.0 31.0 0.26 3.33 — 3.33 3.33 — 3.33 — 89,835 89,835 12.7 1.08 — 90,475 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 1,894 2,682 4,576 195 4.68 — 10,841 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 4,573 0.00 4,573 457 0.00 — 15,999 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11,474 11,474
Total 374 358 170 1,296 3.47 5.24 331 336 5.11 83.9 89.0 6,467 419,718 426,185 680 20.4 11,815 461,093 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 36.4 34.0 23.1 231 0.59 0.34 60.4 60.7 0.32 15.3 15.6 — 54,086 54,086 2.60 2.43 56.5 54,931 Area 31.0 30.9 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 85.9 85.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 86.0 Energy 0.88 0.44 7.84 5.65 0.05 0.61 — 0.61 0.61 — 0.61 — 14,873 14,873 2.11 0.18 — 14,979 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 314 444 758 32.2 0.78 — 1,795 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 757 0.00 757 75.7 0.00 — 2,649 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,900 1,900
Total 68.3 65.4 31.0 237 0.63 0.96 60.4 61.4 0.93 15.3 16.2 1,071 69,489 70,560 113 3.38 1,956 76,339 Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
11 / 65
2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 269 251 163 1,979 5.13 2.79 517 520 2.61 131 134 — 522,806 522,806 19.7 19.8 1,210 530,418 Area 172 171 16.6 7.06 0.11 1.34 — 1.34 1.34 — 1.34 0.00 21,047 21,047 0.40 0.04 — 21,069 Energy 4.81 2.41 43.0 31.0 0.26 3.33 — 3.33 3.33 — 3.33 — 81,450 81,450 10.9 0.86 — 81,980 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 1,474 2,086 3,560 152 3.64 — 8,435 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 2,286 0.00 2,286 229 0.00 — 7,999 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11,474 11,474
Total 446 424 222 2,017 5.50 7.46 517 525 7.27 131 138 3,760 627,390 631,150 411 24.4 12,683 661,375 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 260 241 191 1,859 4.83 2.80 517 520 2.61 131 134 — 491,743 491,743 22.3 21.8 31.4 498,818 Area 172 171 16.6 7.06 0.11 1.34 — 1.34 1.34 — 1.34 0.00 21,047 21,047 0.40 0.04 — 21,069 Energy 4.81 2.41 43.0 31.0 0.26 3.33 — 3.33 3.33 — 3.33 — 81,450 81,450 10.9 0.86 — 81,980 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 1,474 2,086 3,560 152 3.64 — 8,435 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 2,286 0.00 2,286 229 0.00 — 7,999 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11,474 11,474
Total 437 414 250 1,897 5.20 7.46 517 525 7.28 131 138 3,760 596,326 600,086 414 26.3 11,505 629,776 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 200 186 127 1,265 3.21 1.88 331 333 1.75 83.9 85.7 — 326,683 326,683 15.7 14.7 341 331,784 Area 170 170 0.41 0.17 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 0.00 519 519 0.01 < 0.005 — 520 Energy 4.81 2.41 43.0 31.0 0.26 3.33 — 3.33 3.33 — 3.33 — 81,450 81,450 10.9 0.86 — 81,980 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 1,474 2,086 3,560 152 3.64 — 8,435 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 2,286 0.00 2,286 229 0.00 — 7,999 Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
12 / 65
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11,474 11,474
Total 374 358 170 1,296 3.47 5.24 331 336 5.11 83.9 89.0 3,760 410,738 414,498 407 19.2 11,815 442,192 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 36.4 34.0 23.1 231 0.59 0.34 60.4 60.7 0.32 15.3 15.6 — 54,086 54,086 2.60 2.43 56.5 54,931 Area 31.0 30.9 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 85.9 85.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 86.0 Energy 0.88 0.44 7.84 5.65 0.05 0.61 — 0.61 0.61 — 0.61 — 13,485 13,485 1.81 0.14 — 13,573 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 244 345 589 25.1 0.60 — 1,396 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 379 0.00 379 37.8 0.00 — 1,324 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,900 1,900
Total 68.3 65.4 31.0 237 0.63 0.96 60.4 61.4 0.93 15.3 16.2 623 68,002 68,625 67.3 3.17 1,956 73,210
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
32.5 30.3 18.8 225 0.57 0.32 57.6 57.9 0.29 14.6 14.9 — 58,444 58,444 2.31 2.27 135 59,314 Superm
arket
23.6 21.8 15.7 195 0.52 0.28 53.0 53.3 0.26 13.4 13.7 — 53,310 53,310 1.83 1.93 124 54,054 Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
74.4 70.5 36.2 412 0.96 0.55 94.6 95.2 0.51 24.0 24.5 — 97,436 97,436 4.80 4.29 221 99,055 Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
13 / 65
High
Turnover
(Sit
Down
Restaurant)
81.0 74.7 53.7 668 1.79 0.96
182 183 0.90 46.1 46.9 — 182,734 182,734 6.28 6.61 425 185,286 Movie
Theater
(No
Matinee)
0.93 0.86 0.62 7.71 0.02 0.01 2.10 2.11 0.01 0.53 0.54 — 2,110 2,110 0.07 0.08 4.91 2,139 General
Office
Building
39.9 36.9 26.5 329 0.88 0.47 89.6 90.1 0.44 22.7 23.2 — 90,104 90,104 3.10 3.26 210 91,362 Hotel 17.1 15.8 11.4 141 0.38 0.20 38.4 38.6 0.19 9.75 9.93 — 38,668 38,668 1.33 1.40 89.9 39,208 Total 269 251 163 1,979 5.13 2.79 517 520 2.61 131 134 — 522,806 522,806 19.7 19.8 1,210 530,418 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
31.4 29.1 22.0 214 0.54 0.32 57.6 57.9 0.29 14.6 14.9 — 54,986 54,986 2.64 2.50 3.50 55,800 Superm
arket
22.8 20.9 18.3 179 0.49 0.28 53.0 53.3 0.26 13.4 13.7 — 50,119 50,119 2.04 2.11 3.21 50,802 Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
71.8 67.5 42.4 413 0.90 0.55 94.6 95.2 0.51 24.0 24.5 — 91,797 91,797 5.62 4.73 5.74 93,352 High
Turnover
(Sit
Down
Restaurant)
78.3 71.8 62.9 614 1.69 0.96
182 183 0.90 46.1 47.0 — 171,795 171,795 7.00 7.24 11.0 174,139 Movie
Theater
(No
Matinee)
0.90 0.83 0.73 7.08 0.02 0.01 2.10 2.11 0.01 0.53 0.54 — 1,983 1,983 0.08 0.08 0.13 2,010 Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
14 / 65
85,8665.433.573.4584,71084,710—23.222.70.4490.189.60.470.8330331.035.438.6General Office
Building
Hotel 16.6 15.2 13.3 130 0.36 0.20 38.4 38.6 0.19 9.75 9.94 — 36,353 36,353 1.48 1.53 2.33 36,849 Total 260 241 191 1,859 4.83 2.80 517 520 2.61 131 134 — 491,743 491,743 22.3 21.8 31.4 498,818 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
5.05 4.70 3.38 33.9 0.09 0.05 9.21 9.27 0.05 2.34 2.38 — 8,217 8,217 0.37 0.36 8.63 8,342 Superm
arket
2.62 2.45 1.62 16.2 0.04 0.02 4.16 4.18 0.02 1.05 1.08 — 3,729 3,729 0.18 0.17 3.89 3,789 Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
10.1 9.55 5.52 54.2 0.12 0.07 12.4 12.4 0.07 3.13 3.20 — 11,248 11,248 0.67 0.57 11.6 11,446 High
Turnover
(Sit
Down
Restaurant)
10.4 9.75 6.28 62.4 0.15 0.09
15.7 15.8 0.08 3.98 4.06 — 14,108 14,108 0.72 0.66 14.7 14,336 Movie
Theater
(No
Matinee)
0.13 0.12 0.10 1.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 0.31 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 273 273 0.01 0.01 0.29 276 General
Office
Building
5.27 4.83 4.03 40.9 0.12 0.07 12.1 12.2 0.06 3.07 3.13 — 10,708 10,708 0.41 0.43 11.3 10,859 Hotel 2.85 2.62 2.18 22.2 0.06 0.04 6.56 6.60 0.03 1.66 1.70 — 5,803 5,803 0.22 0.23 6.14 5,884 Total 36.4 34.0 23.1 231 0.59 0.34 60.4 60.7 0.32 15.3 15.6 — 54,086 54,086 2.60 2.43 56.5 54,931
4.1.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
15 / 65
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
32.5 30.3 18.8 225 0.57 0.32 57.6 57.9 0.29 14.6 14.9 — 58,444 58,444 2.31 2.27 135 59,314 Superm
arket
23.6 21.8 15.7 195 0.52 0.28 53.0 53.3 0.26 13.4 13.7 — 53,310 53,310 1.83 1.93 124 54,054 Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
74.4 70.5 36.2 412 0.96 0.55 94.6 95.2 0.51 24.0 24.5 — 97,436 97,436 4.80 4.29 221 99,055 High
Turnover
(Sit
Down
Restaurant)
81.0 74.7 53.7 668 1.79 0.96
182 183 0.90 46.1 46.9 — 182,734 182,734 6.28 6.61 425 185,286 Movie
Theater
(No
Matinee)
0.93 0.86 0.62 7.71 0.02 0.01 2.10 2.11 0.01 0.53 0.54 — 2,110 2,110 0.07 0.08 4.91 2,139 General
Office
Building
39.9 36.9 26.5 329 0.88 0.47 89.6 90.1 0.44 22.7 23.2 — 90,104 90,104 3.10 3.26 210 91,362 Hotel 17.1 15.8 11.4 141 0.38 0.20 38.4 38.6 0.19 9.75 9.93 — 38,668 38,668 1.33 1.40 89.9 39,208 Total 269 251 163 1,979 5.13 2.79 517 520 2.61 131 134 — 522,806 522,806 19.7 19.8 1,210 530,418 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
31.4 29.1 22.0 214 0.54 0.32 57.6 57.9 0.29 14.6 14.9 — 54,986 54,986 2.64 2.50 3.50 55,800 Superm
arket
22.8 20.9 18.3 179 0.49 0.28 53.0 53.3 0.26 13.4 13.7 — 50,119 50,119 2.04 2.11 3.21 50,802 Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
16 / 65
93,3525.744.735.6291,79791,797—24.524.00.5195.294.60.550.9041342.467.571.8Regiona l
Shoppin
g
High
Turnover
(Sit
Down
Restaurant)
78.3 71.8 62.9 614 1.69 0.96
182 183 0.90 46.1 47.0 — 171,795 171,795 7.00 7.24 11.0 174,139 Movie
Theater
(No
Matinee)
0.90 0.83 0.73 7.08 0.02 0.01 2.10 2.11 0.01 0.53 0.54 — 1,983 1,983 0.08 0.08 0.13 2,010 General
Office
Building
38.6 35.4 31.0 303 0.83 0.47 89.6 90.1 0.44 22.7 23.2 — 84,710 84,710 3.45 3.57 5.43 85,866 Hotel 16.6 15.2 13.3 130 0.36 0.20 38.4 38.6 0.19 9.75 9.94 — 36,353 36,353 1.48 1.53 2.33 36,849 Total 260 241 191 1,859 4.83 2.80 517 520 2.61 131 134 — 491,743 491,743 22.3 21.8 31.4 498,818 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
5.05 4.70 3.38 33.9 0.09 0.05 9.21 9.27 0.05 2.34 2.38 — 8,217 8,217 0.37 0.36 8.63 8,342 Superm
arket
2.62 2.45 1.62 16.2 0.04 0.02 4.16 4.18 0.02 1.05 1.08 — 3,729 3,729 0.18 0.17 3.89 3,789 Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
10.1 9.55 5.52 54.2 0.12 0.07 12.4 12.4 0.07 3.13 3.20 — 11,248 11,248 0.67 0.57 11.6 11,446 High
Turnover
(Sit
Down
Restaurant)
10.4 9.75 6.28 62.4 0.15 0.09
15.7 15.8 0.08 3.98 4.06 — 14,108 14,108 0.72 0.66 14.7 14,336 Movie
Theater
(No
Matinee)
0.13 0.12 0.10 1.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 0.31 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 273 273 0.01 0.01 0.29 276 Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
17 / 65
General
Office
Building
5.27 4.83 4.03 40.9 0.12 0.07 12.1 12.2 0.06 3.07 3.13 — 10,708 10,708 0.41 0.43 11.3 10,859 Hotel 2.85 2.62 2.18 22.2 0.06 0.04 6.56 6.60 0.03 1.66 1.70 — 5,803 5,803 0.22 0.23 6.14 5,884 Total 36.4 34.0 23.1 231 0.59 0.34 60.4 60.7 0.32 15.3 15.6 — 54,086 54,086 2.60 2.43 56.5 54,931
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — — 3,009 3,009 0.65 0.08 — 3,049
Superm
arket
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,079 1,079 0.23 0.03 — 1,093
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2,059 2,059 0.44 0.05 — 2,086
High
Turnover
(Sit
Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — —
— — — — — — 2,377 2,377 0.51 0.06 — 2,408
Movie
Theater
(No
Matinee)
— — — — — — — — — — — — 229 229 0.05 0.01 — 232
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
18 / 65
27,653—0.715.8927,29327,293————————————General
Office
Building
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,570 1,570 0.34 0.04 — 1,591 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 37,615 37,615 8.12 0.98 — 38,111 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — — 3,009 3,009 0.65 0.08 — 3,049
Superm
arket
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,079 1,079 0.23 0.03 — 1,093
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2,059 2,059 0.44 0.05 — 2,086
High
Turnover
(Sit
Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — —
— — — — — — 2,377 2,377 0.51 0.06 — 2,408
Movie
Theater
(No
Matinee)
— — — — — — — — — — — — 229 229 0.05 0.01 — 232
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — 27,293 27,293 5.89 0.71 — 27,653 Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,570 1,570 0.34 0.04 — 1,591 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 37,615 37,615 8.12 0.98 — 38,111 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — — 498 498 0.11 0.01 — 505
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
19 / 65
181—< 0.0050.04179179————————————Superm
arket
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — 341 341 0.07 0.01 — 345
High
Turnover
(Sit
Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — —
— — — — — — 393 393 0.08 0.01 — 399
Movie
Theater
(No
Matinee)
— — — — — — — — — — — — 37.8 37.8 0.01 < 0.005 — 38.3
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — 4,519 4,519 0.98 0.12 — 4,578
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — — 260 260 0.06 0.01 — 263
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 6,228 6,228 1.34 0.16 — 6,310
4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2,136 2,136 0.46 0.06 — 2,164
Superm
arket
— — — — — — — — — — — — 766 766 0.17 0.02 — 776
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
20 / 65
1,481—0.040.321,4621,462————————————Regiona
l
Shoppin
Center
High
Turnover
(Sit
Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — —
— — — — — — 1,687 1,687 0.36 0.04 — 1,710
Movie
Theater
(No
Matinee)
— — — — — — — — — — — — 162 162 0.04 < 0.005 — 164
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — 21,902 21,902 4.73 0.57 — 22,190 Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,115 1,115 0.24 0.03 — 1,130 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 29,230 29,230 6.31 0.76 — 29,615 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2,136 2,136 0.46 0.06 — 2,164
Superm
arket
— — — — — — — — — — — — 766 766 0.17 0.02 — 776
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,462 1,462 0.32 0.04 — 1,481
High
Turnover
(Sit
Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — —
— — — — — — 1,687 1,687 0.36 0.04 — 1,710
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
21 / 65
164—< 0.0050.04162162————————————Movie
Theater
(No
Matinee)
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — 21,902 21,902 4.73 0.57 — 22,190 Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,115 1,115 0.24 0.03 — 1,130 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 29,230 29,230 6.31 0.76 — 29,615 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — — 354 354 0.08 0.01 — 358
Superm
arket
— — — — — — — — — — — — 127 127 0.03 < 0.005 — 128
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — 242 242 0.05 0.01 — 245
High
Turnover
(Sit
Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — —
— — — — — — 279 279 0.06 0.01 — 283
Movie
Theater
(No
Matinee)
— — — — — — — — — — — — 26.9 26.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 27.2
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — 3,626 3,626 0.78 0.09 — 3,674
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — — 185 185 0.04 < 0.005 — 187 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 4,839 4,839 1.04 0.13 — 4,903
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
22 / 65
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
1.45 0.73 12.4 5.28 0.08 1.00 — 1.00 1.00 — 1.00 — 15,735 15,735 1.39 0.03 — 15,779 Superm
arket
0.04 0.02 0.36 0.31 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 434 434 0.04 < 0.005 — 435 Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
0.10 0.05 0.88 0.74 0.01 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 1,050 1,050 0.09 < 0.005 — 1,053 High
Turnover
(Sit
Down
Restaurant)
0.50 0.25 4.53 3.81 0.03 0.34
— 0.34 0.34 — 0.34 — 5,405 5,405 0.48 0.01 — 5,420
Movie
Theater
(No
Matinee)
0.06 0.03 0.59 0.49 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 702 702 0.06 < 0.005 — 704 General
Office
Building
2.16 1.08 19.6 16.5 0.12 1.49 — 1.49 1.49 — 1.49 — 23,425 23,425 2.07 0.04 — 23,490 Hotel 0.50 0.25 4.58 3.85 0.03 0.35 — 0.35 0.35 — 0.35 — 5,469 5,469 0.48 0.01 — 5,484 Total 4.81 2.41 43.0 31.0 0.26 3.33 — 3.33 3.33 — 3.33 — 52,220 52,220 4.62 0.10 — 52,364 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
1.45 0.73 12.4 5.28 0.08 1.00 — 1.00 1.00 — 1.00 — 15,735 15,735 1.39 0.03 — 15,779 Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
23 / 65
435—< 0.0050.04434434—0.03—0.030.03—0.03< 0.0050.310.360.020.04Superm arket
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
0.10 0.05 0.88 0.74 0.01 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 1,050 1,050 0.09 < 0.005 — 1,053 High
Turnover
(Sit
Down
Restaurant)
0.50 0.25 4.53 3.81 0.03 0.34
— 0.34 0.34 — 0.34 — 5,405 5,405 0.48 0.01 — 5,420
Movie
Theater
(No
Matinee)
0.06 0.03 0.59 0.49 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 702 702 0.06 < 0.005 — 704 General
Office
Building
2.16 1.08 19.6 16.5 0.12 1.49 — 1.49 1.49 — 1.49 — 23,425 23,425 2.07 0.04 — 23,490 Hotel 0.50 0.25 4.58 3.85 0.03 0.35 — 0.35 0.35 — 0.35 — 5,469 5,469 0.48 0.01 — 5,484 Total 4.81 2.41 43.0 31.0 0.26 3.33 — 3.33 3.33 — 3.33 — 52,220 52,220 4.62 0.10 — 52,364 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
0.26 0.13 2.26 0.96 0.01 0.18 — 0.18 0.18 — 0.18 — 2,605 2,605 0.23 < 0.005 — 2,612 Superm
arket
0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 —
71.8 71.8 0.01 < 0.005 — 72.0
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
0.02 0.01 0.16 0.13 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 174 174 0.02 < 0.005 — 174 High
Turnover
(Sit
Down
Restaurant)
0.09 0.05 0.83 0.69 < 0.005
0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 895 895 0.08 < 0.005 — 897
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
24 / 65
116—< 0.0050.01116116—0.01—0.010.01—0.01< 0.0050.090.110.010.01Movie Theater
(No
Matinee)
General
Office
Building
0.39 0.20 3.58 3.01 0.02 0.27 — 0.27 0.27 — 0.27 — 3,878 3,878 0.34 0.01 — 3,889 Hotel 0.09 0.05 0.84 0.70 0.01 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 905 905 0.08 < 0.005 — 908 Total 0.88 0.44 7.84 5.65 0.05 0.61 — 0.61 0.61 — 0.61 — 8,646 8,646 0.77 0.02 — 8,670
4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
1.45 0.73 12.4 5.28 0.08 1.00 — 1.00 1.00 — 1.00 — 15,735 15,735 1.39 0.03 — 15,779 Superm
arket
0.04 0.02 0.36 0.31 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 434 434 0.04 < 0.005 — 435 Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
0.10 0.05 0.88 0.74 0.01 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 1,050 1,050 0.09 < 0.005 — 1,053 High
Turnover
(Sit
Down
Restaurant)
0.50 0.25 4.53 3.81 0.03 0.34
— 0.34 0.34 — 0.34 — 5,405 5,405 0.48 0.01 — 5,420
Movie
Theater
(No
Matinee)
0.06 0.03 0.59 0.49 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 702 702 0.06 < 0.005 — 704 Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
25 / 65
General
Office
Building
2.16 1.08 19.6 16.5 0.12 1.49 — 1.49 1.49 — 1.49 — 23,425 23,425 2.07 0.04 — 23,490 Hotel 0.50 0.25 4.58 3.85 0.03 0.35 — 0.35 0.35 — 0.35 — 5,469 5,469 0.48 0.01 — 5,484 Total 4.81 2.41 43.0 31.0 0.26 3.33 — 3.33 3.33 — 3.33 — 52,220 52,220 4.62 0.10 — 52,364 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
1.45 0.73 12.4 5.28 0.08 1.00 — 1.00 1.00 — 1.00 — 15,735 15,735 1.39 0.03 — 15,779 Superm
arket
0.04 0.02 0.36 0.31 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 434 434 0.04 < 0.005 — 435 Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
0.10 0.05 0.88 0.74 0.01 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 1,050 1,050 0.09 < 0.005 — 1,053 High
Turnover
(Sit
Down
Restaurant)
0.50 0.25 4.53 3.81 0.03 0.34
— 0.34 0.34 — 0.34 — 5,405 5,405 0.48 0.01 — 5,420
Movie
Theater
(No
Matinee)
0.06 0.03 0.59 0.49 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 702 702 0.06 < 0.005 — 704 General
Office
Building
2.16 1.08 19.6 16.5 0.12 1.49 — 1.49 1.49 — 1.49 — 23,425 23,425 2.07 0.04 — 23,490 Hotel 0.50 0.25 4.58 3.85 0.03 0.35 — 0.35 0.35 — 0.35 — 5,469 5,469 0.48 0.01 — 5,484 Total 4.81 2.41 43.0 31.0 0.26 3.33 — 3.33 3.33 — 3.33 — 52,220 52,220 4.62 0.10 — 52,364 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
0.26 0.13 2.26 0.96 0.01 0.18 — 0.18 0.18 — 0.18 — 2,605 2,605 0.23 < 0.005 — 2,612 Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
26 / 65
72.0—< 0.0050.0171.871.8—0.01—0.010.01—0.01< 0.0050.060.07< 0.0050.01Superm arket
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
0.02 0.01 0.16 0.13 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 174 174 0.02 < 0.005 — 174 High
Turnover
(Sit
Down
Restaurant)
0.09 0.05 0.83 0.69 < 0.005
0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 895 895 0.08 < 0.005 — 897
Movie
Theater
(No
Matinee)
0.01 0.01 0.11 0.09 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 116 116 0.01 < 0.005 — 116 General
Office
Building
0.39 0.20 3.58 3.01 0.02 0.27 — 0.27 0.27 — 0.27 — 3,878 3,878 0.34 0.01 — 3,889 Hotel 0.09 0.05 0.84 0.70 0.01 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 905 905 0.08 < 0.005 — 908 Total 0.88 0.44 7.84 5.65 0.05 0.61 — 0.61 0.61 — 0.61 — 8,646 8,646 0.77 0.02 — 8,670
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 1.94 0.97 16.6 7.06 0.11 1.34 — 1.34 1.34 — 1.34 0.00 21,047 21,047 0.40 0.04 — 21,069 Consum
er
Product
s
148 148 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
27 / 65
Architect
Coatings
21.3 21.3 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 172 171 16.6 7.06 0.11 1.34 — 1.34 1.34 — 1.34 0.00 21,047 21,047 0.40 0.04 — 21,069 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 1.94 0.97 16.6 7.06 0.11 1.34 — 1.34 1.34 — 1.34 0.00 21,047 21,047 0.40 0.04 — 21,069 Consum
er
Product
s
148 148 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
21.3 21.3 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 172 171 16.6 7.06 0.11 1.34 — 1.34 1.34 — 1.34 0.00 21,047 21,047 0.40 0.04 — 21,069 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 85.9 85.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 86.0 Consum
er
Product
s
27.1 27.1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
3.89 3.89 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 31.0 30.9 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 85.9 85.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 86.0
4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
28 / 65
Hearths 1.94 0.97 16.6 7.06 0.11 1.34 — 1.34 1.34 — 1.34 0.00 21,047 21,047 0.40 0.04 — 21,069 Consum
er
Product
s
148 148 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
21.3 21.3 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 172 171 16.6 7.06 0.11 1.34 — 1.34 1.34 — 1.34 0.00 21,047 21,047 0.40 0.04 — 21,069 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 1.94 0.97 16.6 7.06 0.11 1.34 — 1.34 1.34 — 1.34 0.00 21,047 21,047 0.40 0.04 — 21,069 Consum
er
Product
s
148 148 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
21.3 21.3 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 172 171 16.6 7.06 0.11 1.34 — 1.34 1.34 — 1.34 0.00 21,047 21,047 0.40 0.04 — 21,069 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 85.9 85.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 86.0 Consum
er
Product
s
27.1 27.1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
3.89 3.89 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 31.0 30.9 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 85.9 85.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 86.0 Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
29 / 65
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — 117 165 282 12.0 0.29 — 668
Superm
arket
— — — — — — — — — — — 11.8 16.7 28.5 1.21 0.03 — 67.6
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 81.6 116 197 8.39 0.20 — 467
High
Turnover
(Sit
Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — —
— — — — — 72.7 103 176 7.48 0.18 — 416
Movie
Theater
(No
Matinee)
— — — — — — — — — — — 38.5 54.5 93.0 3.96 0.10 — 220
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 1,539 2,178 3,717 158 3.81 — 8,807 Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — 34.0 48.2 82.2 3.50 0.08 — 195 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1,894 2,682 4,576 195 4.68 — 10,841 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
30 / 65
Condo/T — — — — — — — — — — — 117 165 282 12.0 0.29 — 668 Superm
arket
— — — — — — — — — — — 11.8 16.7 28.5 1.21 0.03 — 67.6
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 81.6 116 197 8.39 0.20 — 467
High
Turnover
(Sit
Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — —
— — — — — 72.7 103 176 7.48 0.18 — 416
Movie
Theater
(No
Matinee)
— — — — — — — — — — — 38.5 54.5 93.0 3.96 0.10 — 220
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 1,539 2,178 3,717 158 3.81 — 8,807 Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — 34.0 48.2 82.2 3.50 0.08 — 195 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1,894 2,682 4,576 195 4.68 — 10,841 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — 19.3 27.4 46.7 1.99 0.05 — 111
Superm
arket
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.96 2.77 4.72 0.20 < 0.005 — 11.2 Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 13.5 19.1 32.6 1.39 0.03 — 77.3
High
Turnover
(Sit
Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — —
— — — — — 12.0 17.0 29.1 1.24 0.03 — 68.9
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
31 / 65
Movie
Theater
(No
Matinee)
— — — — — — — — — — — 6.37 9.02 15.4 0.66 0.02 — 36.5
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 255 361 615 26.2 0.63 — 1,458
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — 5.63 7.98 13.6 0.58 0.01 — 32.2 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 314 444 758 32.2 0.78 — 1,795
4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — 90.8 129 219 9.34 0.22 — 520
Superm
arket
— — — — — — — — — — — 9.61 13.6 23.2 0.99 0.02 — 55.0
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 63.6 90.1 154 6.55 0.16 — 364
High
Turnover
(Sit
Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — —
— — — — — 56.7 80.3 137 5.83 0.14 — 325
Movie
Theater
(No
Matinee)
— — — — — — — — — — — 30.0 42.5 72.5 3.09 0.07 — 172
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
32 / 65
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 1,196 1,694 2,890 123 2.96 — 6,848 Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — 26.5 37.5 64.0 2.72 0.07 — 152 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1,474 2,086 3,560 152 3.64 — 8,435 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — 90.8 129 219 9.34 0.22 — 520
Superm
arket
— — — — — — — — — — — 9.61 13.6 23.2 0.99 0.02 — 55.0
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 63.6 90.1 154 6.55 0.16 — 364
High
Turnover
(Sit
Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — —
— — — — — 56.7 80.3 137 5.83 0.14 — 325
Movie
Theater
(No
Matinee)
— — — — — — — — — — — 30.0 42.5 72.5 3.09 0.07 — 172
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 1,196 1,694 2,890 123 2.96 — 6,848 Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — 26.5 37.5 64.0 2.72 0.07 — 152 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1,474 2,086 3,560 152 3.64 — 8,435 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — 15.0 21.3 36.3 1.55 0.04 — 86.0
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
33 / 65
9.10—< 0.0050.163.842.251.59———————————Superm
arket
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 10.5 14.9 25.5 1.08 0.03 — 60.3
High
Turnover
(Sit
Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — —
— — — — — 9.39 13.3 22.7 0.97 0.02 — 53.7
Movie
Theater
(No
Matinee)
— — — — — — — — — — — 4.97 7.03 12.0 0.51 0.01 — 28.4
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 198 280 479 20.4 0.49 — 1,134
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — 4.38 6.21 10.6 0.45 0.01 — 25.1 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 244 345 589 25.1 0.60 — 1,396
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — 669 0.00 669 66.9 0.00 — 2,342
Superm
arket
— — — — — — — — — — — 152 0.00 152 15.2 0.00 — 532
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
34 / 65
Regiona
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 325 0.00 325 32.5 0.00 — 1,138
High
Turnover
(Sit
Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — —
— — — — — 802 0.00 802 80.1 0.00 — 2,805
Movie
Theater
(No
Matinee)
— — — — — — — — — — — 154 0.00 154 15.4 0.00 — 537
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 2,264 0.00 2,264 226 0.00 — 7,922 Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — 207 0.00 207 20.6 0.00 — 723 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 4,573 0.00 4,573 457 0.00 — 15,999 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — 669 0.00 669 66.9 0.00 — 2,342
Superm
arket
— — — — — — — — — — — 152 0.00 152 15.2 0.00 — 532
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 325 0.00 325 32.5 0.00 — 1,138
High
Turnover
(Sit
Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — —
— — — — — 802 0.00 802 80.1 0.00 — 2,805
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
35 / 65
537—0.0015.41540.00154———————————Movie
Theater
(No
Matinee)
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 2,264 0.00 2,264 226 0.00 — 7,922 Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — 207 0.00 207 20.6 0.00 — 723 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 4,573 0.00 4,573 457 0.00 — 15,999 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — 111 0.00 111 11.1 0.00 — 388
Superm
arket
— — — — — — — — — — — 25.2 0.00 25.2 2.51 0.00 — 88.0
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 53.9 0.00 53.9 5.38 0.00 — 188
High
Turnover
(Sit
Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — —
— — — — — 133 0.00 133 13.3 0.00 — 464
Movie
Theater
(No
Matinee)
— — — — — — — — — — — 25.4 0.00 25.4 2.54 0.00 — 89.0
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 375 0.00 375 37.5 0.00 — 1,312
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — 34.2 0.00 34.2 3.42 0.00 — 120 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 757 0.00 757 75.7 0.00 — 2,649
4.5.2. Mitigated
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
36 / 65
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — 335 0.00 335 33.5 0.00 — 1,171
Superm
arket
— — — — — — — — — — — 76.0 0.00 76.0 7.59 0.00 — 266
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 163 0.00 163 16.3 0.00 — 569
High
Turnover
(Sit
Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — —
— — — — — 401 0.00 401 40.1 0.00 — 1,402
Movie
Theater
(No
Matinee)
— — — — — — — — — — — 76.8 0.00 76.8 7.68 0.00 — 269
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 1,132 0.00 1,132 113 0.00 — 3,961 Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — 103 0.00 103 10.3 0.00 — 361 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 2,286 0.00 2,286 229 0.00 — 7,999 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — 335 0.00 335 33.5 0.00 — 1,171
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
37 / 65
266—0.007.5976.00.0076.0———————————Superm
arket
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 163 0.00 163 16.3 0.00 — 569
High
Turnover
(Sit
Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — —
— — — — — 401 0.00 401 40.1 0.00 — 1,402
Movie
Theater
(No
Matinee)
— — — — — — — — — — — 76.8 0.00 76.8 7.68 0.00 — 269
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 1,132 0.00 1,132 113 0.00 — 3,961 Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — 103 0.00 103 10.3 0.00 — 361 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 2,286 0.00 2,286 229 0.00 — 7,999 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — 55.4 0.00 55.4 5.54 0.00 — 194
Superm
arket
— — — — — — — — — — — 12.6 0.00 12.6 1.26 0.00 — 44.0
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 26.9 0.00 26.9 2.69 0.00 — 94.2
High
Turnover
(Sit
Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — —
— — — — — 66.4 0.00 66.4 6.63 0.00 — 232
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
38 / 65
44.5—0.001.2712.70.0012.7———————————Movie
Theater
(No
Matinee)
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 187 0.00 187 18.7 0.00 — 656
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — 17.1 0.00 17.1 1.71 0.00 — 59.8 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 379 0.00 379 37.8 0.00 — 1,324
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 12.0 12.0
Superm
arket
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 10,366 10,366
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.76 2.76
High
Turnover
(Sit
Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — 195 195
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
39 / 65
0.310.31————————————————Movie
Theater
(No
Matinee)
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11.0 11.0
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 886 886
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11,474 11,474
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 12.0 12.0
Superm
arket
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 10,366 10,366
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.76 2.76
High
Turnover
(Sit
Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — 195 195
Movie
Theater
(No
Matinee)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.31 0.31
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11.0 11.0
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 886 886
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11,474 11,474
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
40 / 65
Condo/T — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.99 1.99
Superm
arket
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,716 1,716
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.46 0.46
High
Turnover
(Sit
Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — 32.4 32.4
Movie
Theater
(No
Matinee)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.05 0.05
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.82 1.82
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 147 147
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,900 1,900
4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 12.0 12.0
Superm
arket
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 10,366 10,366
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
41 / 65
2.762.76————————————————Regiona
l
High
Turnover
(Sit
Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — 195 195
Movie
Theater
(No
Matinee)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.31 0.31
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11.0 11.0
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 886 886
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11,474 11,474
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 12.0 12.0
Superm
arket
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 10,366 10,366
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.76 2.76
High
Turnover
(Sit
Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — 195 195
Movie
Theater
(No
Matinee)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.31 0.31
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
42 / 65
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11.0 11.0
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 886 886
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11,474 11,474
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.99 1.99
Superm
arket
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,716 1,716
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.46 0.46
High
Turnover
(Sit
Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — 32.4 32.4
Movie
Theater
(No
Matinee)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.05 0.05
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.82 1.82
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 147 147
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,900 1,900
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
43 / 65
Equipm
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
44 / 65
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
45 / 65
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
46 / 65
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
47 / 65
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
48 / 65
——————————————————Sequest
ered
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
49 / 65
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
50 / 65
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
5. Activity Data
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Condo/Townhouse 10,433 11,609 8,954 3,792,204 73,439 81,718 63,033 26,694,391 Supermarket 4,740 7,885 7,390 2,032,216 17,065 75,149 70,431 12,040,003 Regional Shopping
Center
23,328 28,503 13,041 8,248,087 98,206 134,177 61,391 35,801,076 High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
21,255 23,191 27,026 8,159,966 78,530 221,040 257,592 45,431,075 Movie Theater (No
Matinee)
246 312 258 93,701 2,340 2,974 2,454 893,078
General Office
Building
13,326 3,027 949 3,681,649 127,016 28,848 9,042 35,090,461 Hotel 5,719 5,600 4,067 1,995,090 54,509 53,375 38,763 19,015,564 Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
51 / 65
5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Condo/Townhouse 10,433 11,609 8,954 3,792,204 73,439 81,718 63,033 26,694,391 Supermarket 4,740 7,885 7,390 2,032,216 17,065 75,149 70,431 12,040,003 Regional Shopping
Center
23,328 28,503 13,041 8,248,087 98,206 134,177 61,391 35,801,076 High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
21,255 23,191 27,026 8,159,966 78,530 221,040 257,592 45,431,075 Movie Theater (No
Matinee)
246 312 258 93,701 2,340 2,974 2,454 893,078
General Office
Building
13,326 3,027 949 3,681,649 127,016 28,848 9,042 35,090,461 Hotel 5,719 5,600 4,067 1,995,090 54,509 53,375 38,763 19,015,564
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Condo/Townhouse —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 857
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 823
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
52 / 65
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
5.10.1.2. Mitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Condo/Townhouse —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 857
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 823
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
3402000 1,134,000 8,826,600 2,942,200 462,309
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
53 / 65
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Condo/Townhouse 7,181,143 153 0.0330 0.0040 49,097,309
Supermarket 2,574,441 153 0.0330 0.0040 1,354,045
Regional Shopping Center 4,913,359 153 0.0330 0.0040 3,276,680 High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
5,672,351 153 0.0330 0.0040 16,865,116
Movie Theater (No Matinee) 545,507 153 0.0330 0.0040 2,189,455 General Office Building 65,140,908 153 0.0330 0.0040 73,091,532 Hotel 3,747,773 153 0.0330 0.0040 17,065,033
5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Condo/Townhouse 5,098,611 153 0.0330 0.0040 49,097,309
Supermarket 1,827,853 153 0.0330 0.0040 1,354,045
Regional Shopping Center 3,488,485 153 0.0330 0.0040 3,276,680 High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
4,027,369 153 0.0330 0.0040 16,865,116
Movie Theater (No Matinee) 387,310 153 0.0330 0.0040 2,189,455 General Office Building 52,272,517 153 0.0330 0.0040 73,091,532 Hotel 2,660,919 153 0.0330 0.0040 17,065,033
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
54 / 65
Condo/Townhouse 60,927,552 0.00
Supermarket 6,163,411 0.00
Regional Shopping Center 42,591,700 0.00
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 37,941,714 0.00
Movie Theater (No Matinee) 20,080,073 0.00
General Office Building 802,894,433 0.00
Hotel 17,756,739 0.00
5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Condo/Townhouse 47,377,264 0.00
Supermarket 5,013,442 0.00
Regional Shopping Center 33,211,304 0.00
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 29,585,431 0.00
Movie Theater (No Matinee) 15,657,638 0.00
General Office Building 624,330,711 0.00
Hotel 13,817,229 0.00
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Condo/Townhouse 1,242 —
Supermarket 282 —
Regional Shopping Center 604 —
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 1,487 —
Movie Theater (No Matinee) 285 —
General Office Building 4,201 —
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
55 / 65
Hotel 383 —
5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Condo/Townhouse 621 —
Supermarket 141 —
Regional Shopping Center 302 —
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 744 —
Movie Theater (No Matinee) 142 —
General Office Building 2,101 —
Hotel 192 —
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Condo/Townhouse Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Condo/Townhouse Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Supermarket Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Supermarket Supermarket
refrigeration and
condensing units
R-404A 3,922 26.5 16.5 16.5 18.0
Regional Shopping
Center
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Regional Shopping
Center
Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
56 / 65
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
Movie Theater (No
Matinee)
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Movie Theater (No
Matinee)
Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Movie Theater (No
Matinee)
Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
General Office
Building
Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.02 0.60 0.00 1.00
General Office
Building
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Hotel Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
Hotel Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
Hotel Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Condo/Townhouse Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Condo/Townhouse Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
57 / 65
Supermarket Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Supermarket Supermarket
refrigeration and
condensing units
R-404A 3,922 26.5 16.5 16.5 18.0
Regional Shopping
Center
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Regional Shopping
Center
Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
Movie Theater (No
Matinee)
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Movie Theater (No
Matinee)
Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Movie Theater (No
Matinee)
Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
General Office
Building
Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.02 0.60 0.00 1.00
General Office
Building
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Hotel Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
Hotel Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
Hotel Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
58 / 65
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)
5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
59 / 65
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 12.2 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 2.50 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
60 / 65
Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 10.5 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble
from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or hea
vy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San F
rancisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation 1 0 0 N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project
refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall
vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
61 / 65
Extreme Precipitation 1 1 1 2
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project ref
ers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulner
ability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen
4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 16.8
AQ-PM 19.6
AQ-DPM 73.9
Drinking Water 50.2
Lead Risk Housing 12.0
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 38.1
Traffic 88.8
Effect Indicators —
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
62 / 65
CleanUp Sites 99.3
Groundwater 93.5
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 96.1
Impaired Water Bodies 43.8
Solid Waste 75.7
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 17.8
Cardio-vascular 31.2
Low Birth Weights 62.9
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 26.9
Housing 25.3
Linguistic 48.7
Poverty 14.7
Unemployment 45.8
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 68.7925061
Employed 79.36609778
Median HI 89.15693571
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 88.31002181
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 64.42961632
Transportation —
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
63 / 65
Auto Access 56.16578981
Active commuting 48.06877967
Social —
2-parent households 36.23764917
Voting 66.09778006
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 46.61876043
Park access 62.01719492
Retail density 89.61888875
Supermarket access 23.44411651
Tree canopy 61.86321057
Housing —
Homeownership 33.00397793
Housing habitability 71.61555242
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 73.55318876 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 86.48787373
Uncrowded housing 43.11561658
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 78.54484794
Arthritis 97.3
Asthma ER Admissions 87.5
High Blood Pressure 94.2
Cancer (excluding skin) 87.6
Asthma 98.2
Coronary Heart Disease 97.8
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 98.8
Diagnosed Diabetes 93.4
Life Expectancy at Birth 91.5
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
64 / 65
Cognitively Disabled 94.6
Physically Disabled 87.9
Heart Attack ER Admissions 63.3
Mental Health Not Good 95.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 97.1
Obesity 97.1
Pedestrian Injuries 39.7
Physical Health Not Good 97.7
Stroke 97.8
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 73.8
Current Smoker 92.2
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 82.1
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 13.7
Children 14.8
Elderly 73.9
English Speaking 66.5
Foreign-born 91.6
Outdoor Workers 78.1
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 26.4
Traffic Density 75.6
Traffic Access 56.3
Other Indices —
Hardship 22.1
Other Decision Support —
Related_City Center Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
65 / 65
2016 Voting 71.9
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 44.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 81.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Characteristics: Utility Information EF based on 2035 CAP reach goal.
Land Use Based on the info provided by the client on 3/11.
Operations: Consumer Products Consumer Product EF Update.
Operations: Architectural Coatings Updated the VOC content to 100g/L for both exterior and interior.
Operations: Vehicle Data Based on the trip rates provided by the client. Other information remain as defaults.
Operations: Energy Use Updated General Office based on the info provided by the client.
Related_Manufacture Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
1 / 40
Related_Manufacture Detailed Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.1.2. Mitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Related_Manufacture Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
2 / 40
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
4.3.2. Mitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
4.4.2. Mitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
4.5.2. Mitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
4.6.2. Mitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.7.2. Mitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
Related_Manufacture Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
3 / 40
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.8.2. Mitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.9.2. Mitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated
5. Activity Data
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.9.2. Mitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
Related_Manufacture Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
4 / 40
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.1.2. Mitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.11.2. Mitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.12.2. Mitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.13.2. Mitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.14.2. Mitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
Related_Manufacture Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
5 / 40
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.15.2. Mitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Related_Manufacture Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
6 / 40
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data
Related_Manufacture Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
7 / 40
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Related_Manufacture
Operational Y ear 2030
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.70
Precipitation (days) 32.8
Location 37.40977477774611, -121.97206281015863
County Santa Clara
City Santa Clara
Air District Bay Area AQMD
Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area
TAZ 1704
EDFZ 1
Electric Utility Silicon Valley Power
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.26
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Manufacturing 1,600 1000sqft 36.7 1,600,000 0.00 — — —
Related_Manufacture Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
8 / 40
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Energy E-10-B Establish Onsite Renewable Energy Systems: Solar Power Water W-4 Require Low-Flow Water Fixtures
Water W-7 Adopt a Water Conservation Strategy
Waste S-1/S-2 Implement Waste Reduction Plan
2. Emissions Summary
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 68.3 64.9 39.2 270 0.79 1.80 69.0 70.8 1.77 17.5 19.3 1,778 100,225 102,003 186 4.50 578 108,565 Mit. 68.3 64.9 39.2 270 0.79 1.80 69.0 70.8 1.77 17.5 19.3 1,086 97,880 98,966 116 4.05 578 103,643 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 39% 2% 3% 38% 10% — 5%
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 67.2 63.7 42.7 249 0.75 1.80 69.0 70.8 1.77 17.5 19.3 1,778 96,067 97,845 186 4.74 421 104,328 Mit. 67.2 63.7 42.7 249 0.75 1.80 69.0 70.8 1.77 17.5 19.3 1,086 93,722 94,808 116 4.29 421 99,406 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 39% 2% 3% 38% 9% — 5%
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 57.9 55.2 34.4 174 0.56 1.68 46.9 48.5 1.67 11.9 13.6 1,778 76,442 78,220 185 3.83 465 84,454 Related_Manufacture Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
9 / 40
Mit. 57.9 55.2 34.4 174 0.56 1.68 46.9 48.5 1.67 11.9 13.6 1,086 74,098 75,184 115 3.38 465 79,532 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 39% 3% 4% 38% 12% — 6%
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 10.6 10.1 6.28 31.8 0.10 0.31 8.55 8.86 0.30 2.17 2.47 294 12,656 12,950 30.6 0.63 77.0 13,982 Mit. 10.6 10.1 6.28 31.8 0.10 0.31 8.55 8.86 0.30 2.17 2.47 180 12,268 12,448 19.0 0.56 77.0 13,167 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 39% 3% 4% 38% 12% — 6%
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 30.8 28.4 20.4 254 0.68 0.36 69.0 69.4 0.34 17.5 17.8 — 69,453 69,453 2.39 2.51 162 70,422 Area 35.4 35.4 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 2.07 1.04 18.8 15.8 0.11 1.43 — 1.43 1.43 — 1.43 — 29,768 29,768 3.57 0.23 — 29,927 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 709 1,004 1,713 72.9 1.75 — 4,058 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 1,069 0.00 1,069 107 0.00 — 3,741 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 416 416
Total 68.3 64.9 39.2 270 0.79 1.80 69.0 70.8 1.77 17.5 19.3 1,778 100,225 102,003 186 4.50 578 108,565 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 29.7 27.3 23.9 233 0.64 0.37 69.0 69.4 0.34 17.5 17.8 — 65,295 65,295 2.66 2.75 4.19 66,186 Area 35.4 35.4 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 2.07 1.04 18.8 15.8 0.11 1.43 — 1.43 1.43 — 1.43 — 29,768 29,768 3.57 0.23 — 29,927 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 709 1,004 1,713 72.9 1.75 — 4,058 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 1,069 0.00 1,069 107 0.00 — 3,741 Related_Manufacture Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
10 / 40
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 416 416
Total 67.2 63.7 42.7 249 0.75 1.80 69.0 70.8 1.77 17.5 19.3 1,778 96,067 97,845 186 4.74 421 104,328 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 20.4 18.7 15.6 158 0.45 0.25 46.9 47.1 0.24 11.9 12.1 — 45,670 45,670 1.76 1.84 48.4 46,311 Area 35.4 35.4 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 2.07 1.04 18.8 15.8 0.11 1.43 — 1.43 1.43 — 1.43 — 29,768 29,768 3.57 0.23 — 29,927 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 709 1,004 1,713 72.9 1.75 — 4,058 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 1,069 0.00 1,069 107 0.00 — 3,741 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 416 416
Total 57.9 55.2 34.4 174 0.56 1.68 46.9 48.5 1.67 11.9 13.6 1,778 76,442 78,220 185 3.83 465 84,454 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.72 3.41 2.85 28.9 0.08 0.05 8.55 8.60 0.04 2.17 2.21 — 7,561 7,561 0.29 0.30 8.01 7,667 Area 6.47 6.47 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.38 0.19 3.43 2.88 0.02 0.26 — 0.26 0.26 — 0.26 — 4,928 4,928 0.59 0.04 — 4,955 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 117 166 284 12.1 0.29 — 672 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 177 0.00 177 17.7 0.00 — 619 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 69.0 69.0
Total 10.6 10.1 6.28 31.8 0.10 0.31 8.55 8.86 0.30 2.17 2.47 294 12,656 12,950 30.6 0.63 77.0 13,982
2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 30.8 28.4 20.4 254 0.68 0.36 69.0 69.4 0.34 17.5 17.8 — 69,453 69,453 2.39 2.51 162 70,422 Area 35.4 35.4 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 2.07 1.04 18.8 15.8 0.11 1.43 — 1.43 1.43 — 1.43 — 27,647 27,647 3.11 0.18 — 27,778 Related_Manufacture Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
11 / 40
Water — — — — — — — — — — — 551 781 1,332 56.7 1.36 — 3,156 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 535 0.00 535 53.4 0.00 — 1,870 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 416 416
Total 68.3 64.9 39.2 270 0.79 1.80 69.0 70.8 1.77 17.5 19.3 1,086 97,880 98,966 116 4.05 578 103,643 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 29.7 27.3 23.9 233 0.64 0.37 69.0 69.4 0.34 17.5 17.8 — 65,295 65,295 2.66 2.75 4.19 66,186 Area 35.4 35.4 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 2.07 1.04 18.8 15.8 0.11 1.43 — 1.43 1.43 — 1.43 — 27,647 27,647 3.11 0.18 — 27,778 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 551 781 1,332 56.7 1.36 — 3,156 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 535 0.00 535 53.4 0.00 — 1,870 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 416 416
Total 67.2 63.7 42.7 249 0.75 1.80 69.0 70.8 1.77 17.5 19.3 1,086 93,722 94,808 116 4.29 421 99,406 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 20.4 18.7 15.6 158 0.45 0.25 46.9 47.1 0.24 11.9 12.1 — 45,670 45,670 1.76 1.84 48.4 46,311 Area 35.4 35.4 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 2.07 1.04 18.8 15.8 0.11 1.43 — 1.43 1.43 — 1.43 — 27,647 27,647 3.11 0.18 — 27,778 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 551 781 1,332 56.7 1.36 — 3,156 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 535 0.00 535 53.4 0.00 — 1,870 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 416 416
Total 57.9 55.2 34.4 174 0.56 1.68 46.9 48.5 1.67 11.9 13.6 1,086 74,098 75,184 115 3.38 465 79,532 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.72 3.41 2.85 28.9 0.08 0.05 8.55 8.60 0.04 2.17 2.21 — 7,561 7,561 0.29 0.30 8.01 7,667 Area 6.47 6.47 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.38 0.19 3.43 2.88 0.02 0.26 — 0.26 0.26 — 0.26 — 4,577 4,577 0.51 0.03 — 4,599 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 91.3 129 221 9.39 0.23 — 522 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 88.5 0.00 88.5 8.85 0.00 — 310 Related_Manufacture Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
12 / 40
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 69.0 69.0
Total 10.6 10.1 6.28 31.8 0.10 0.31 8.55 8.86 0.30 2.17 2.47 180 12,268 12,448 19.0 0.56 77.0 13,167
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Manufac
turing
30.8 28.4 20.4 254 0.68 0.36 69.0 69.4 0.34 17.5 17.8 — 69,453 69,453 2.39 2.51 162 70,422 Total 30.8 28.4 20.4 254 0.68 0.36 69.0 69.4 0.34 17.5 17.8 — 69,453 69,453 2.39 2.51 162 70,422 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Manufac
turing
29.7 27.3 23.9 233 0.64 0.37 69.0 69.4 0.34 17.5 17.8 — 65,295 65,295 2.66 2.75 4.19 66,186 Total 29.7 27.3 23.9 233 0.64 0.37 69.0 69.4 0.34 17.5 17.8 — 65,295 65,295 2.66 2.75 4.19 66,186 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Manufac
turing
3.72 3.41 2.85 28.9 0.08 0.05 8.55 8.60 0.04 2.17 2.21 — 7,561 7,561 0.29 0.30 8.01 7,667 Total 3.72 3.41 2.85 28.9 0.08 0.05 8.55 8.60 0.04 2.17 2.21 — 7,561 7,561 0.29 0.30 8.01 7,667
4.1.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Related_Manufacture Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
13 / 40
CO2eRN2OCH4CO2TNBCO2BCO2PM2.5TPM2.5DPM2.5EPM10TPM10DPM10ESO2CONOxROGTOGLand Use
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Manufac
turing
30.8 28.4 20.4 254 0.68 0.36 69.0 69.4 0.34 17.5 17.8 — 69,453 69,453 2.39 2.51 162 70,422 Total 30.8 28.4 20.4 254 0.68 0.36 69.0 69.4 0.34 17.5 17.8 — 69,453 69,453 2.39 2.51 162 70,422 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Manufac
turing
29.7 27.3 23.9 233 0.64 0.37 69.0 69.4 0.34 17.5 17.8 — 65,295 65,295 2.66 2.75 4.19 66,186 Total 29.7 27.3 23.9 233 0.64 0.37 69.0 69.4 0.34 17.5 17.8 — 65,295 65,295 2.66 2.75 4.19 66,186 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Manufac
turing
3.72 3.41 2.85 28.9 0.08 0.05 8.55 8.60 0.04 2.17 2.21 — 7,561 7,561 0.29 0.30 8.01 7,667 Total 3.72 3.41 2.85 28.9 0.08 0.05 8.55 8.60 0.04 2.17 2.21 — 7,561 7,561 0.29 0.30 8.01 7,667
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Manufac
turing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 7,314 7,314 1.58 0.19 — 7,410
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 7,314 7,314 1.58 0.19 — 7,410 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Related_Manufacture Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
14 / 40
Manufac — — — — — — — — — — — — 7,314 7,314 1.58 0.19 — 7,410 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 7,314 7,314 1.58 0.19 — 7,410 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Manufac
turing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,211 1,211 0.26 0.03 — 1,227
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,211 1,211 0.26 0.03 — 1,227
4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Manufac
turing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 5,193 5,193 1.12 0.14 — 5,261
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 5,193 5,193 1.12 0.14 — 5,261 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Manufac
turing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 5,193 5,193 1.12 0.14 — 5,261
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 5,193 5,193 1.12 0.14 — 5,261 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Manufac
turing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 860 860 0.19 0.02 — 871
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 860 860 0.19 0.02 — 871
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Related_Manufacture Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
15 / 40
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Manufac
turing
2.07 1.04 18.8 15.8 0.11 1.43 — 1.43 1.43 — 1.43 — 22,454 22,454 1.99 0.04 — 22,516 Total 2.07 1.04 18.8 15.8 0.11 1.43 — 1.43 1.43 — 1.43 — 22,454 22,454 1.99 0.04 — 22,516 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Manufac
turing
2.07 1.04 18.8 15.8 0.11 1.43 — 1.43 1.43 — 1.43 — 22,454 22,454 1.99 0.04 — 22,516 Total 2.07 1.04 18.8 15.8 0.11 1.43 — 1.43 1.43 — 1.43 — 22,454 22,454 1.99 0.04 — 22,516 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Manufac
turing
0.38 0.19 3.43 2.88 0.02 0.26 — 0.26 0.26 — 0.26 — 3,718 3,718 0.33 0.01 — 3,728 Total 0.38 0.19 3.43 2.88 0.02 0.26 — 0.26 0.26 — 0.26 — 3,718 3,718 0.33 0.01 — 3,728
4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Manufac
turing
2.07 1.04 18.8 15.8 0.11 1.43 — 1.43 1.43 — 1.43 — 22,454 22,454 1.99 0.04 — 22,516 Total 2.07 1.04 18.8 15.8 0.11 1.43 — 1.43 1.43 — 1.43 — 22,454 22,454 1.99 0.04 — 22,516 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Manufac
turing
2.07 1.04 18.8 15.8 0.11 1.43 — 1.43 1.43 — 1.43 — 22,454 22,454 1.99 0.04 — 22,516 Total 2.07 1.04 18.8 15.8 0.11 1.43 — 1.43 1.43 — 1.43 — 22,454 22,454 1.99 0.04 — 22,516 Related_Manufacture Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
16 / 40
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Manufac
turing
0.38 0.19 3.43 2.88 0.02 0.26 — 0.26 0.26 — 0.26 — 3,718 3,718 0.33 0.01 — 3,728 Total 0.38 0.19 3.43 2.88 0.02 0.26 — 0.26 0.26 — 0.26 — 3,718 3,718 0.33 0.01 — 3,728
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s
31.4 31.4 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
4.06 4.06 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 35.4 35.4 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s
31.4 31.4 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
4.06 4.06 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 35.4 35.4 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Related_Manufacture Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
17 / 40
Consum
Products
5.72 5.72 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.74 0.74 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 6.47 6.47 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s
31.4 31.4 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
4.06 4.06 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 35.4 35.4 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s
31.4 31.4 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
4.06 4.06 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 35.4 35.4 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Related_Manufacture Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
18 / 40
Consum
Products
5.72 5.72 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.74 0.74 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 6.47 6.47 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Manufac
turing
— — — — — — — — — — — 709 1,004 1,713 72.9 1.75 — 4,058 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 709 1,004 1,713 72.9 1.75 — 4,058 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Manufac
turing
— — — — — — — — — — — 709 1,004 1,713 72.9 1.75 — 4,058 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 709 1,004 1,713 72.9 1.75 — 4,058 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Manufac
turing
— — — — — — — — — — — 117 166 284 12.1 0.29 — 672
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 117 166 284 12.1 0.29 — 672
4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Related_Manufacture Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
19 / 40
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Manufac
turing
— — — — — — — — — — — 551 781 1,332 56.7 1.36 — 3,156
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 551 781 1,332 56.7 1.36 — 3,156 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Manufac
turing
— — — — — — — — — — — 551 781 1,332 56.7 1.36 — 3,156
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 551 781 1,332 56.7 1.36 — 3,156 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Manufac
turing
— — — — — — — — — — — 91.3 129 221 9.39 0.23 — 522
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 91.3 129 221 9.39 0.23 — 522
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Manufac
turing
— — — — — — — — — — — 1,069 0.00 1,069 107 0.00 — 3,741 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1,069 0.00 1,069 107 0.00 — 3,741 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Related_Manufacture Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
20 / 40
Manufac — — — — — — — — — — — 1,069 0.00 1,069 107 0.00 — 3,741 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1,069 0.00 1,069 107 0.00 — 3,741 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Manufac
turing
— — — — — — — — — — — 177 0.00 177 17.7 0.00 — 619
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 177 0.00 177 17.7 0.00 — 619
4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Manufac
turing
— — — — — — — — — — — 535 0.00 535 53.4 0.00 — 1,870
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 535 0.00 535 53.4 0.00 — 1,870 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Manufac
turing
— — — — — — — — — — — 535 0.00 535 53.4 0.00 — 1,870
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 535 0.00 535 53.4 0.00 — 1,870 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Manufac
turing
— — — — — — — — — — — 88.5 0.00 88.5 8.85 0.00 — 310
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 88.5 0.00 88.5 8.85 0.00 — 310
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Related_Manufacture Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
21 / 40
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Manufac
turing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 416 416
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 416 416
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Manufac
turing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 416 416
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 416 416
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Manufac
turing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 69.0 69.0
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 69.0 69.0
4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Manufac
turing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 416 416
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 416 416
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Manufac
turing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 416 416
Related_Manufacture Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
22 / 40
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 416 416
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Manufac
turing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 69.0 69.0
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 69.0 69.0
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Related_Manufacture Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
23 / 40
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Related_Manufacture Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
24 / 40
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Related_Manufacture Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
25 / 40
CO2eRN2OCH4CO2TNBCO2BCO2PM2.5TPM2.5DPM2.5EPM10TPM10DPM10ESO2CONOxROGTOGEquipm ent
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Related_Manufacture Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
26 / 40
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Related_Manufacture Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
27 / 40
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Related_Manufacture Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
28 / 40
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Related_Manufacture Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
29 / 40
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
5. Activity Data
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Related_Manufacture Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
30 / 40
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Manufacturing 6,288 10,272 8,144 2,599,634 59,932 97,904 77,622 24,777,586
5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Manufacturing 6,288 10,272 8,144 2,599,634 59,932 97,904 77,622 24,777,586
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.1.2. Mitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 2,400,000 800,000 —
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
Related_Manufacture Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
31 / 40
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Manufacturing 17,456,234 153 0.0330 0.0040 70,062,570
5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Manufacturing 12,393,926 153 0.0330 0.0040 70,062,570
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Manufacturing 370,000,000 0.00
5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Manufacturing 287,712,000 0.00
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Manufacturing 1,984 —
5.13.2. Mitigated
Related_Manufacture Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
32 / 40
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Manufacturing 992 —
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Manufacturing Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 0.30 4.00 4.00 18.0
5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Manufacturing Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 0.30 4.00 4.00 18.0
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor Related_Manufacture Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
33 / 40
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)
5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Related_Manufacture Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
34 / 40
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 12.2 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 2.50 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 10.5 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy
rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Fr
ancisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation 1 0 0 N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Related_Manufacture Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
35 / 40
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project ref
ers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulner
ability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation 1 1 1 2
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project ref
ers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulner
ability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
Related_Manufacture Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
36 / 40
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 16.8
AQ-PM 19.6
AQ-DPM 73.9
Drinking Water 50.2
Lead Risk Housing 12.0
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 38.1
Traffic 88.8
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 99.3
Groundwater 93.5
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 96.1
Impaired Water Bodies 43.8
Solid Waste 75.7
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 17.8
Cardio-vascular 31.2
Low Birth Weights 62.9
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 26.9
Housing 25.3
Linguistic 48.7
Poverty 14.7
Unemployment 45.8
Related_Manufacture Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
37 / 40
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 68.7925061
Employed 79.36609778
Median HI 89.15693571
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 88.31002181
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 64.42961632
Transportation —
Auto Access 56.16578981
Active commuting 48.06877967
Social —
2-parent households 36.23764917
Voting 66.09778006
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 46.61876043
Park access 62.01719492
Retail density 89.61888875
Supermarket access 23.44411651
Tree canopy 61.86321057
Housing —
Homeownership 33.00397793
Housing habitability 71.61555242
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 73.55318876 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 86.48787373
Related_Manufacture Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
38 / 40
Uncrowded housing 43.11561658
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 78.54484794
Arthritis 97.3
Asthma ER Admissions 87.5
High Blood Pressure 94.2
Cancer (excluding skin) 87.6
Asthma 98.2
Coronary Heart Disease 97.8
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 98.8
Diagnosed Diabetes 93.4
Life Expectancy at Birth 91.5
Cognitively Disabled 94.6
Physically Disabled 87.9
Heart Attack ER Admissions 63.3
Mental Health Not Good 95.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 97.1
Obesity 97.1
Pedestrian Injuries 39.7
Physical Health Not Good 97.7
Stroke 97.8
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 73.8
Current Smoker 92.2
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 82.1
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 13.7
Related_Manufacture Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
39 / 40
Children 14.8
Elderly 73.9
English Speaking 66.5
Foreign-born 91.6
Outdoor Workers 78.1
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 26.4
Traffic Density 75.6
Traffic Access 56.3
Other Indices —
Hardship 22.1
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 71.9
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 44.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 81.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
Related_Manufacture Detailed Report, 7/25/2024
40 / 40
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Characteristics: Utility Information EF based on 2035 CAP reach goal. (Consistent with EIR scheme B baseline) Operations: Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps Assumption based on other manufacturing EIR.
Operations: Consumer Products Updated general category EF .
Operations: Architectural Coatings Change VOC content to 100 g/L for both exterior and interior.
Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 1 / 42
Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated Detailed Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.1.2. Mitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 2 / 42
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
4.3.2. Mitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
4.4.2. Mitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
4.5.2. Mitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
4.6.2. Mitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.7.2. Mitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 3 / 42
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.8.2. Mitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.9.2. Mitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated
5. Activity Data
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.9.2. Mitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 4 / 42
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.1.2. Mitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.11.2. Mitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.12.2. Mitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.13.2. Mitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.14.2. Mitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 5 / 42
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.15.2. Mitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 6 / 42
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data
Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 7 / 42
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated
Operational Y ear 2030
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.70
Precipitation (days) 32.8
Location 37.40977477774611, -121.97206281015863
County Santa Clara
City Santa Clara
Air District Bay Area AQMD
Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area
TAZ 1704
EDFZ 1
Electric Utility Silicon Valley Power
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.26
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
800 1000sqft 18.4 800,000 0.00 — — —
Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 8 / 42
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Energy E-10-B Establish Onsite Renewable Energy Systems: Solar Power Water W-4 Require Low-Flow Water Fixtures
Water W-7 Adopt a Water Conservation Strategy
Waste S-1/S-2 Implement Waste Reduction Plan
2. Emissions Summary
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 22.0 21.6 3.90 35.4 0.10 0.14 9.36 9.49 0.13 2.37 2.50 760 14,619 15,379 78.1 1.31 21.9 17,743 Mit. 22.0 21.6 3.90 35.4 0.10 0.14 9.36 9.49 0.13 2.37 2.50 478 13,533 14,012 49.6 1.09 21.9 15,597 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 37% 7% 9% 37% 17% — 12%
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 21.9 21.5 4.37 32.6 0.09 0.14 9.36 9.49 0.13 2.37 2.50 760 14,055 14,815 78.2 1.34 0.57 17,169 Mit. 21.9 21.5 4.37 32.6 0.09 0.14 9.36 9.49 0.13 2.37 2.50 478 12,970 13,448 49.6 1.12 0.57 15,022 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 37% 8% 9% 37% 16% — 13%
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 21.8 21.4 4.18 31.9 0.09 0.14 9.16 9.29 0.13 2.32 2.45 760 14,133 14,893 78.2 1.33 9.45 17,251 Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 9 / 42
Mit. 21.8 21.4 4.18 31.9 0.09 0.14 9.16 9.29 0.13 2.32 2.45 478 13,047 13,526 49.6 1.11 9.45 15,104 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 37% 8% 9% 37% 17% — 12%
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.98 3.91 0.76 5.82 0.02 0.02 1.67 1.70 0.02 0.42 0.45 126 2,340 2,466 12.9 0.22 1.56 2,856 Mit. 3.98 3.91 0.76 5.82 0.02 0.02 1.67 1.70 0.02 0.42 0.45 79.2 2,160 2,239 8.21 0.18 1.56 2,501 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 37% 8% 9% 37% 17% — 12%
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.17 3.85 2.77 34.4 0.09 0.05 9.36 9.41 0.05 2.37 2.42 — 9,412 9,412 0.32 0.34 21.9 9,543 Area 17.7 17.7 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.12 0.06 1.13 0.95 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 — 4,705 4,705 0.84 0.09 — 4,753 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 355 502 856 36.5 0.88 — 2,029 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 405 0.00 405 40.5 0.00 — 1,418 Total 22.0 21.6 3.90 35.4 0.10 0.14 9.36 9.49 0.13 2.37 2.50 760 14,619 15,379 78.1 1.31 21.9 17,743 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.03 3.70 3.24 31.6 0.09 0.05 9.36 9.41 0.05 2.37 2.42 — 8,848 8,848 0.36 0.37 0.57 8,969 Area 17.7 17.7 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.12 0.06 1.13 0.95 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 — 4,705 4,705 0.84 0.09 — 4,753 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 355 502 856 36.5 0.88 — 2,029 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 405 0.00 405 40.5 0.00 — 1,418 Total 21.9 21.5 4.37 32.6 0.09 0.14 9.36 9.49 0.13 2.37 2.50 760 14,055 14,815 78.2 1.34 0.57 17,169 Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 10 / 42
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.98 3.66 3.05 30.9 0.09 0.05 9.16 9.21 0.05 2.32 2.37 — 8,926 8,926 0.34 0.36 9.45 9,051 Area 17.7 17.7 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.12 0.06 1.13 0.95 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 — 4,705 4,705 0.84 0.09 — 4,753 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 355 502 856 36.5 0.88 — 2,029 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 405 0.00 405 40.5 0.00 — 1,418 Total 21.8 21.4 4.18 31.9 0.09 0.14 9.16 9.29 0.13 2.32 2.45 760 14,133 14,893 78.2 1.33 9.45 17,251 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.73 0.67 0.56 5.65 0.02 0.01 1.67 1.68 0.01 0.42 0.43 — 1,478 1,478 0.06 0.06 1.56 1,499 Area 3.23 3.23 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.02 0.01 0.21 0.17 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 779 779 0.14 0.01 — 787 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 58.7 83.1 142 6.04 0.15 — 336 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 67.1 0.00 67.1 6.71 0.00 — 235 Total 3.98 3.91 0.76 5.82 0.02 0.02 1.67 1.70 0.02 0.42 0.45 126 2,340 2,466 12.9 0.22 1.56 2,856
2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.17 3.85 2.77 34.4 0.09 0.05 9.36 9.41 0.05 2.37 2.42 — 9,412 9,412 0.32 0.34 21.9 9,543 Area 17.7 17.7 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.12 0.06 1.13 0.95 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 — 3,731 3,731 0.63 0.06 — 3,766 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 276 390 666 28.4 0.68 — 1,578 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 203 0.00 203 20.3 0.00 — 709 Total 22.0 21.6 3.90 35.4 0.10 0.14 9.36 9.49 0.13 2.37 2.50 478 13,533 14,012 49.6 1.09 21.9 15,597 Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 11 / 42
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Mobile 4.03 3.70 3.24 31.6 0.09 0.05 9.36 9.41 0.05 2.37 2.42 — 8,848 8,848 0.36 0.37 0.57 8,969 Area 17.7 17.7 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.12 0.06 1.13 0.95 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 — 3,731 3,731 0.63 0.06 — 3,766 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 276 390 666 28.4 0.68 — 1,578 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 203 0.00 203 20.3 0.00 — 709 Total 21.9 21.5 4.37 32.6 0.09 0.14 9.36 9.49 0.13 2.37 2.50 478 12,970 13,448 49.6 1.12 0.57 15,022 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.98 3.66 3.05 30.9 0.09 0.05 9.16 9.21 0.05 2.32 2.37 — 8,926 8,926 0.34 0.36 9.45 9,051 Area 17.7 17.7 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.12 0.06 1.13 0.95 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 — 3,731 3,731 0.63 0.06 — 3,766 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 276 390 666 28.4 0.68 — 1,578 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 203 0.00 203 20.3 0.00 — 709 Total 21.8 21.4 4.18 31.9 0.09 0.14 9.16 9.29 0.13 2.32 2.45 478 13,047 13,526 49.6 1.11 9.45 15,104 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.73 0.67 0.56 5.65 0.02 0.01 1.67 1.68 0.01 0.42 0.43 — 1,478 1,478 0.06 0.06 1.56 1,499 Area 3.23 3.23 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.02 0.01 0.21 0.17 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 618 618 0.10 0.01 — 624 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 45.6 64.6 110 4.69 0.11 — 261 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 33.5 0.00 33.5 3.35 0.00 — 117 Total 3.98 3.91 0.76 5.82 0.02 0.02 1.67 1.70 0.02 0.42 0.45 79.2 2,160 2,239 8.21 0.18 1.56 2,501
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 12 / 42
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
4.17 3.85 2.77 34.4 0.09 0.05 9.36 9.41 0.05 2.37 2.42 — 9,412 9,412 0.32 0.34 21.9 9,543 Total 4.17 3.85 2.77 34.4 0.09 0.05 9.36 9.41 0.05 2.37 2.42 — 9,412 9,412 0.32 0.34 21.9 9,543 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
4.03 3.70 3.24 31.6 0.09 0.05 9.36 9.41 0.05 2.37 2.42 — 8,848 8,848 0.36 0.37 0.57 8,969 Total 4.03 3.70 3.24 31.6 0.09 0.05 9.36 9.41 0.05 2.37 2.42 — 8,848 8,848 0.36 0.37 0.57 8,969 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
0.73 0.67 0.56 5.65 0.02 0.01 1.67 1.68 0.01 0.42 0.43 — 1,478 1,478 0.06 0.06 1.56 1,499 Total 0.73 0.67 0.56 5.65 0.02 0.01 1.67 1.68 0.01 0.42 0.43 — 1,478 1,478 0.06 0.06 1.56 1,499
4.1.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 13 / 42
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
4.17 3.85 2.77 34.4 0.09 0.05 9.36 9.41 0.05 2.37 2.42 — 9,412 9,412 0.32 0.34 21.9 9,543 Total 4.17 3.85 2.77 34.4 0.09 0.05 9.36 9.41 0.05 2.37 2.42 — 9,412 9,412 0.32 0.34 21.9 9,543 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
4.03 3.70 3.24 31.6 0.09 0.05 9.36 9.41 0.05 2.37 2.42 — 8,848 8,848 0.36 0.37 0.57 8,969 Total 4.03 3.70 3.24 31.6 0.09 0.05 9.36 9.41 0.05 2.37 2.42 — 8,848 8,848 0.36 0.37 0.57 8,969 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
0.73 0.67 0.56 5.65 0.02 0.01 1.67 1.68 0.01 0.42 0.43 — 1,478 1,478 0.06 0.06 1.56 1,499 Total 0.73 0.67 0.56 5.65 0.02 0.01 1.67 1.68 0.01 0.42 0.43 — 1,478 1,478 0.06 0.06 1.56 1,499
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 14 / 42
Unrefrig
Warehouse-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 3,358 3,358 0.72 0.09 — 3,402
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 3,358 3,358 0.72 0.09 — 3,402 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 3,358 3,358 0.72 0.09 — 3,402
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 3,358 3,358 0.72 0.09 — 3,402 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 556 556 0.12 0.01 — 563
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 556 556 0.12 0.01 — 563
4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2,384 2,384 0.51 0.06 — 2,416
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 2,384 2,384 0.51 0.06 — 2,416 Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 15 / 42
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2,384 2,384 0.51 0.06 — 2,416
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 2,384 2,384 0.51 0.06 — 2,416 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 395 395 0.09 0.01 — 400
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 395 395 0.09 0.01 — 400
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
0.12 0.06 1.13 0.95 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 — 1,347 1,347 0.12 < 0.005 — 1,351 Total 0.12 0.06 1.13 0.95 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 — 1,347 1,347 0.12 < 0.005 — 1,351 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 16 / 42
1,351—< 0.0050.121,3471,347—0.09—0.090.09—0.090.010.951.130.060.12Unrefrig erated
Wareho
use-No
Total 0.12 0.06 1.13 0.95 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 — 1,347 1,347 0.12 < 0.005 — 1,351 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
0.02 0.01 0.21 0.17 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 223 223 0.02 < 0.005 — 224 Total 0.02 0.01 0.21 0.17 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 223 223 0.02 < 0.005 — 224
4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
0.12 0.06 1.13 0.95 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 — 1,347 1,347 0.12 < 0.005 — 1,351 Total 0.12 0.06 1.13 0.95 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 — 1,347 1,347 0.12 < 0.005 — 1,351 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
0.12 0.06 1.13 0.95 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 — 1,347 1,347 0.12 < 0.005 — 1,351 Total 0.12 0.06 1.13 0.95 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 — 1,347 1,347 0.12 < 0.005 — 1,351 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 17 / 42
Unrefrig
Warehouse-No
Rail
0.02 0.01 0.21 0.17 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 223 223 0.02 < 0.005 — 224 Total 0.02 0.01 0.21 0.17 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 223 223 0.02 < 0.005 — 224
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s
15.7 15.7 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
2.03 2.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 17.7 17.7 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s
15.7 15.7 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
2.03 2.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 17.7 17.7 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 18 / 42
Consum
Products
2.86 2.86 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.37 0.37 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 3.23 3.23 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s
15.7 15.7 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
2.03 2.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 17.7 17.7 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s
15.7 15.7 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
2.03 2.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 17.7 17.7 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 19 / 42
Consum
Products
2.86 2.86 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.37 0.37 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 3.23 3.23 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 355 502 856 36.5 0.88 — 2,029
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 355 502 856 36.5 0.88 — 2,029 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 355 502 856 36.5 0.88 — 2,029
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 355 502 856 36.5 0.88 — 2,029 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 20 / 42
336—0.156.0414283.158.7———————————Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
Rail
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 58.7 83.1 142 6.04 0.15 — 336
4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 276 390 666 28.4 0.68 — 1,578
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 276 390 666 28.4 0.68 — 1,578 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 276 390 666 28.4 0.68 — 1,578
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 276 390 666 28.4 0.68 — 1,578 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 45.6 64.6 110 4.69 0.11 — 261
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 45.6 64.6 110 4.69 0.11 — 261 Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 21 / 42
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 405 0.00 405 40.5 0.00 — 1,418
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 405 0.00 405 40.5 0.00 — 1,418 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 405 0.00 405 40.5 0.00 — 1,418
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 405 0.00 405 40.5 0.00 — 1,418 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 67.1 0.00 67.1 6.71 0.00 — 235
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 67.1 0.00 67.1 6.71 0.00 — 235
4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 22 / 42
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 203 0.00 203 20.3 0.00 — 709
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 203 0.00 203 20.3 0.00 — 709 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 203 0.00 203 20.3 0.00 — 709
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 203 0.00 203 20.3 0.00 — 709 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 33.5 0.00 33.5 3.35 0.00 — 117
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 33.5 0.00 33.5 3.35 0.00 — 117
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 23 / 42
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 24 / 42
CO2eRN2OCH4CO2TNBCO2BCO2PM2.5TPM2.5DPM2.5EPM10TPM10DPM10ESO2CONOxROGTOGEquipm ent
Type
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 25 / 42
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 26 / 42
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 27 / 42
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 28 / 42
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 29 / 42
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 30 / 42
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 31 / 42
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
5. Activity Data
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
1,392 1,392 1,392 508,080 13,267 13,267 13,267 4,842,603
5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
1,392 1,392 1,392 508,080 13,267 13,267 13,267 4,842,603
5.10. Operational Area Sources
Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 32 / 42
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.1.2. Mitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 1,200,000 400,000 —
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail
8,014,251 153 0.0330 0.0040 4,203,418
5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 33 / 42
4,203,4180.00400.03301535,690,118Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 185,000,000 0.00
5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 143,856,000 0.00
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 752 —
5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 376 —
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 34 / 42
5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)
5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 35 / 42
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 36 / 42
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 12.2 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 2.50 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 10.5 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy
rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Fr
ancisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation 1 0 0 N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project ref
ers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulner
ability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 37 / 42
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation 1 1 1 2
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project ref
ers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulner
ability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen
4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 16.8
AQ-PM 19.6
AQ-DPM 73.9
Drinking Water 50.2
Lead Risk Housing 12.0
Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 38 / 42
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 38.1
Traffic 88.8
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 99.3
Groundwater 93.5
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 96.1
Impaired Water Bodies 43.8
Solid Waste 75.7
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 17.8
Cardio-vascular 31.2
Low Birth Weights 62.9
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 26.9
Housing 25.3
Linguistic 48.7
Poverty 14.7
Unemployment 45.8
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 68.7925061
Employed 79.36609778
Median HI 89.15693571
Education —
Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 39 / 42
Bachelor's or higher 88.31002181
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 64.42961632
Transportation —
Auto Access 56.16578981
Active commuting 48.06877967
Social —
2-parent households 36.23764917
Voting 66.09778006
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 46.61876043
Park access 62.01719492
Retail density 89.61888875
Supermarket access 23.44411651
Tree canopy 61.86321057
Housing —
Homeownership 33.00397793
Housing habitability 71.61555242
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 73.55318876 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 86.48787373
Uncrowded housing 43.11561658
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 78.54484794
Arthritis 97.3
Asthma ER Admissions 87.5
High Blood Pressure 94.2
Cancer (excluding skin) 87.6
Asthma 98.2
Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 40 / 42
Coronary Heart Disease 97.8
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 98.8
Diagnosed Diabetes 93.4
Life Expectancy at Birth 91.5
Cognitively Disabled 94.6
Physically Disabled 87.9
Heart Attack ER Admissions 63.3
Mental Health Not Good 95.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 97.1
Obesity 97.1
Pedestrian Injuries 39.7
Physical Health Not Good 97.7
Stroke 97.8
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 73.8
Current Smoker 92.2
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 82.1
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 13.7
Children 14.8
Elderly 73.9
English Speaking 66.5
Foreign-born 91.6
Outdoor Workers 78.1
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 26.4
Traffic Density 75.6
Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 41 / 42
Traffic Access 56.3
Other Indices —
Hardship 22.1
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 71.9
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 44.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 81.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Characteristics: Utility Information EF based on 2035 CAP reach goal. (Consistent with EIR scheme B baseline) Operations: Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps Assumption based on other manufacturing EIR.
Operations: Consumer Products Updated general category EF .
Related_Warehouse_NotRefrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 42 / 42
Operations: Architectural Coatings Update VOC content to 100g/L for both exterior and interior.
Operations: Refrigerants Only half of warehouse will be refrigerated.
Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 1 / 43
Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.1.2. Mitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 2 / 43
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
4.3.2. Mitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
4.4.2. Mitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
4.5.2. Mitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
4.6.2. Mitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.7.2. Mitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 3 / 43
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.8.2. Mitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.9.2. Mitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated
5. Activity Data
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.9.2. Mitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 4 / 43
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.1.2. Mitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.11.2. Mitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.12.2. Mitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.13.2. Mitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.14.2. Mitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 5 / 43
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.15.2. Mitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 6 / 43
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data
Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 7 / 43
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated
Operational Y ear 2030
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.70
Precipitation (days) 32.8
Location 37.40977477774611, -121.97206281015863
County Santa Clara
City Santa Clara
Air District Bay Area AQMD
Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area
TAZ 1704
EDFZ 1
Electric Utility Silicon Valley Power
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.26
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
800 1000sqft 18.4 800,000 0.00 — — —
Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 8 / 43
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Energy E-10-B Establish Onsite Renewable Energy Systems: Solar Power Water W-4 Require Low-Flow Water Fixtures
Water W-7 Adopt a Water Conservation Strategy
Waste S-1/S-2 Implement Waste Reduction Plan
2. Emissions Summary
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 22.8 22.4 3.81 42.3 0.12 0.09 11.4 11.5 0.09 2.89 2.98 760 20,285 21,045 79.1 1.50 21,347 44,815 Mit. 22.8 22.4 3.81 42.3 0.12 0.09 11.4 11.5 0.09 2.89 2.98 478 17,913 18,391 50.2 1.24 21,347 41,364 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 37% 12% 13% 36% 17% — 8%
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 22.7 22.2 4.38 38.9 0.11 0.09 11.4 11.5 0.09 2.89 2.98 760 19,598 20,358 79.1 1.54 21,321 44,115 Mit. 22.7 22.2 4.38 38.9 0.11 0.09 11.4 11.5 0.09 2.89 2.98 478 17,226 17,705 50.3 1.28 21,321 40,665 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 37% 12% 13% 36% 17% — 8%
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 22.6 22.2 4.15 38.1 0.11 0.09 11.2 11.3 0.09 2.83 2.92 760 19,693 20,453 79.1 1.52 21,332 44,215 Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 9 / 43
Mit. 22.6 22.2 4.15 38.1 0.11 0.09 11.2 11.3 0.09 2.83 2.92 478 17,321 17,799 50.3 1.27 21,332 40,765 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 37% 12% 13% 36% 17% — 8%
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.13 4.05 0.76 6.95 0.02 0.02 2.04 2.05 0.02 0.52 0.53 126 3,260 3,386 13.1 0.25 3,532 7,320 Mit. 4.13 4.05 0.76 6.95 0.02 0.02 2.04 2.05 0.02 0.52 0.53 79.2 2,868 2,947 8.32 0.21 3,532 6,749 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 37% 12% 13% 36% 17% — 8%
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 5.08 4.69 3.37 41.9 0.11 0.06 11.4 11.5 0.06 2.89 2.95 — 11,467 11,467 0.39 0.41 26.7 11,627 Area 17.7 17.7 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.05 0.02 0.44 0.37 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 8,316 8,316 1.73 0.20 — 8,420 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 355 502 856 36.5 0.88 — 2,029 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 405 0.00 405 40.5 0.00 — 1,418 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 21,320 21,320
Total 22.8 22.4 3.81 42.3 0.12 0.09 11.4 11.5 0.09 2.89 2.98 760 20,285 21,045 79.1 1.50 21,347 44,815 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.91 4.51 3.95 38.5 0.11 0.06 11.4 11.5 0.06 2.89 2.95 — 10,781 10,781 0.44 0.45 0.69 10,928 Area 17.7 17.7 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.05 0.02 0.44 0.37 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 8,316 8,316 1.73 0.20 — 8,420 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 355 502 856 36.5 0.88 — 2,029 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 405 0.00 405 40.5 0.00 — 1,418 Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 10 / 43
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 21,320 21,320
Total 22.7 22.2 4.38 38.9 0.11 0.09 11.4 11.5 0.09 2.89 2.98 760 19,598 20,358 79.1 1.54 21,321 44,115 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.85 4.45 3.71 37.7 0.11 0.06 11.2 11.2 0.06 2.83 2.89 — 10,875 10,875 0.42 0.44 11.5 11,028 Area 17.7 17.7 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.05 0.02 0.44 0.37 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 8,316 8,316 1.73 0.20 — 8,420 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 355 502 856 36.5 0.88 — 2,029 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 405 0.00 405 40.5 0.00 — 1,418 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 21,320 21,320
Total 22.6 22.2 4.15 38.1 0.11 0.09 11.2 11.3 0.09 2.83 2.92 760 19,693 20,453 79.1 1.52 21,332 44,215 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.89 0.81 0.68 6.88 0.02 0.01 2.04 2.05 0.01 0.52 0.53 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.07 1.91 1,826 Area 3.23 3.23 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.01 < 0.005 0.08 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 1,377 1,377 0.29 0.03 — 1,394 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 58.7 83.1 142 6.04 0.15 — 336 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 67.1 0.00 67.1 6.71 0.00 — 235 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3,530 3,530
Total 4.13 4.05 0.76 6.95 0.02 0.02 2.04 2.05 0.02 0.52 0.53 126 3,260 3,386 13.1 0.25 3,532 7,320
2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 5.08 4.69 3.37 41.9 0.11 0.06 11.4 11.5 0.06 2.89 2.95 — 11,467 11,467 0.39 0.41 26.7 11,627 Area 17.7 17.7 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.05 0.02 0.44 0.37 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 6,055 6,055 1.24 0.15 — 6,130 Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 11 / 43
Water — — — — — — — — — — — 276 390 666 28.4 0.68 — 1,578 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 203 0.00 203 20.3 0.00 — 709 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 21,320 21,320
Total 22.8 22.4 3.81 42.3 0.12 0.09 11.4 11.5 0.09 2.89 2.98 478 17,913 18,391 50.2 1.24 21,347 41,364 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.91 4.51 3.95 38.5 0.11 0.06 11.4 11.5 0.06 2.89 2.95 — 10,781 10,781 0.44 0.45 0.69 10,928 Area 17.7 17.7 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.05 0.02 0.44 0.37 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 6,055 6,055 1.24 0.15 — 6,130 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 276 390 666 28.4 0.68 — 1,578 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 203 0.00 203 20.3 0.00 — 709 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 21,320 21,320
Total 22.7 22.2 4.38 38.9 0.11 0.09 11.4 11.5 0.09 2.89 2.98 478 17,226 17,705 50.3 1.28 21,321 40,665 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.85 4.45 3.71 37.7 0.11 0.06 11.2 11.2 0.06 2.83 2.89 — 10,875 10,875 0.42 0.44 11.5 11,028 Area 17.7 17.7 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.05 0.02 0.44 0.37 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 6,055 6,055 1.24 0.15 — 6,130 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 276 390 666 28.4 0.68 — 1,578 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 203 0.00 203 20.3 0.00 — 709 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 21,320 21,320
Total 22.6 22.2 4.15 38.1 0.11 0.09 11.2 11.3 0.09 2.83 2.92 478 17,321 17,799 50.3 1.27 21,332 40,765 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.89 0.81 0.68 6.88 0.02 0.01 2.04 2.05 0.01 0.52 0.53 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.07 1.91 1,826 Area 3.23 3.23 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.01 < 0.005 0.08 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 1,003 1,003 0.21 0.02 — 1,015 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 45.6 64.6 110 4.69 0.11 — 261 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 33.5 0.00 33.5 3.35 0.00 — 117 Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 12 / 43
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3,530 3,530
Total 4.13 4.05 0.76 6.95 0.02 0.02 2.04 2.05 0.02 0.52 0.53 79.2 2,868 2,947 8.32 0.21 3,532 6,749
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refriger
ated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
5.08 4.69 3.37 41.9 0.11 0.06 11.4 11.5 0.06 2.89 2.95 — 11,467 11,467 0.39 0.41 26.7 11,627 Total 5.08 4.69 3.37 41.9 0.11 0.06 11.4 11.5 0.06 2.89 2.95 — 11,467 11,467 0.39 0.41 26.7 11,627 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refriger
ated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
4.91 4.51 3.95 38.5 0.11 0.06 11.4 11.5 0.06 2.89 2.95 — 10,781 10,781 0.44 0.45 0.69 10,928 Total 4.91 4.51 3.95 38.5 0.11 0.06 11.4 11.5 0.06 2.89 2.95 — 10,781 10,781 0.44 0.45 0.69 10,928 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refriger
ated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
0.89 0.81 0.68 6.88 0.02 0.01 2.04 2.05 0.01 0.52 0.53 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.07 1.91 1,826 Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 13 / 43
Total 0.89 0.81 0.68 6.88 0.02 0.01 2.04 2.05 0.01 0.52 0.53 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.07 1.91 1,826
4.1.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refriger
ated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
5.08 4.69 3.37 41.9 0.11 0.06 11.4 11.5 0.06 2.89 2.95 — 11,467 11,467 0.39 0.41 26.7 11,627 Total 5.08 4.69 3.37 41.9 0.11 0.06 11.4 11.5 0.06 2.89 2.95 — 11,467 11,467 0.39 0.41 26.7 11,627 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refriger
ated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
4.91 4.51 3.95 38.5 0.11 0.06 11.4 11.5 0.06 2.89 2.95 — 10,781 10,781 0.44 0.45 0.69 10,928 Total 4.91 4.51 3.95 38.5 0.11 0.06 11.4 11.5 0.06 2.89 2.95 — 10,781 10,781 0.44 0.45 0.69 10,928 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refriger
ated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
0.89 0.81 0.68 6.88 0.02 0.01 2.04 2.05 0.01 0.52 0.53 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.07 1.91 1,826 Total 0.89 0.81 0.68 6.88 0.02 0.01 2.04 2.05 0.01 0.52 0.53 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.07 1.91 1,826
4.2. Energy
Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 14 / 43
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refriger
ated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 7,794 7,794 1.68 0.20 — 7,897
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 7,794 7,794 1.68 0.20 — 7,897 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refriger
ated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 7,794 7,794 1.68 0.20 — 7,897
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 7,794 7,794 1.68 0.20 — 7,897 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refriger
ated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,290 1,290 0.28 0.03 — 1,307
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,290 1,290 0.28 0.03 — 1,307
4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 15 / 43
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refriger
ated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 5,534 5,534 1.19 0.14 — 5,607
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 5,534 5,534 1.19 0.14 — 5,607 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refriger
ated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 5,534 5,534 1.19 0.14 — 5,607
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 5,534 5,534 1.19 0.14 — 5,607 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refriger
ated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 916 916 0.20 0.02 — 928
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 916 916 0.20 0.02 — 928
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 16 / 43
523—< 0.0050.05521521—0.03—0.030.03—0.03< 0.0050.370.440.020.05Refriger ated
Wareho
use-No
Total 0.05 0.02 0.44 0.37 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 521 521 0.05 < 0.005 — 523 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refriger
ated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
0.05 0.02 0.44 0.37 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 521 521 0.05 < 0.005 — 523 Total 0.05 0.02 0.44 0.37 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 521 521 0.05 < 0.005 — 523 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refriger
ated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
0.01 < 0.005 0.08 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 86.3 86.3 0.01 < 0.005 — 86.5 Total 0.01 < 0.005 0.08 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 86.3 86.3 0.01 < 0.005 — 86.5
4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refriger
ated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
0.05 0.02 0.44 0.37 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 521 521 0.05 < 0.005 — 523 Total 0.05 0.02 0.44 0.37 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 521 521 0.05 < 0.005 — 523 Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 17 / 43
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Refriger
ated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
0.05 0.02 0.44 0.37 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 521 521 0.05 < 0.005 — 523 Total 0.05 0.02 0.44 0.37 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 521 521 0.05 < 0.005 — 523 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refriger
ated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
0.01 < 0.005 0.08 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 86.3 86.3 0.01 < 0.005 — 86.5 Total 0.01 < 0.005 0.08 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 86.3 86.3 0.01 < 0.005 — 86.5
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s
15.7 15.7 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
2.03 2.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 17.7 17.7 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 18 / 43
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Consum
er
Product
s
15.7 15.7 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
2.03 2.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 17.7 17.7 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s
2.86 2.86 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.37 0.37 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 3.23 3.23 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s
15.7 15.7 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 19 / 43
————————————————2.032.03Architect
ural
Coating
s
Total 17.7 17.7 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s
15.7 15.7 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
2.03 2.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 17.7 17.7 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s
2.86 2.86 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.37 0.37 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 3.23 3.23 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 20 / 43
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Refriger
ated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 355 502 856 36.5 0.88 — 2,029
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 355 502 856 36.5 0.88 — 2,029 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refriger
ated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 355 502 856 36.5 0.88 — 2,029
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 355 502 856 36.5 0.88 — 2,029 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refriger
ated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 58.7 83.1 142 6.04 0.15 — 336
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 58.7 83.1 142 6.04 0.15 — 336
4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 21 / 43
1,578—0.6828.4666390276———————————Refriger
ated
Wareho
use-No
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 276 390 666 28.4 0.68 — 1,578 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refriger
ated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 276 390 666 28.4 0.68 — 1,578
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 276 390 666 28.4 0.68 — 1,578 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refriger
ated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 45.6 64.6 110 4.69 0.11 — 261
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 45.6 64.6 110 4.69 0.11 — 261
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refriger
ated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 405 0.00 405 40.5 0.00 — 1,418
Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 22 / 43
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 405 0.00 405 40.5 0.00 — 1,418 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refriger
ated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 405 0.00 405 40.5 0.00 — 1,418
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 405 0.00 405 40.5 0.00 — 1,418 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refriger
ated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 67.1 0.00 67.1 6.71 0.00 — 235
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 67.1 0.00 67.1 6.71 0.00 — 235
4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refriger
ated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 203 0.00 203 20.3 0.00 — 709
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 203 0.00 203 20.3 0.00 — 709 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 23 / 43
709—0.0020.32030.00203———————————Refriger
ated
Wareho
Rail
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 203 0.00 203 20.3 0.00 — 709 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refriger
ated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 33.5 0.00 33.5 3.35 0.00 — 117
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 33.5 0.00 33.5 3.35 0.00 — 117
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refriger
ated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 21,320 21,320
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 21,320 21,320
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refriger
ated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 21,320 21,320
Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 24 / 43
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 21,320 21,320
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refriger
ated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3,530 3,530
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3,530 3,530
4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refriger
ated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 21,320 21,320
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 21,320 21,320
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refriger
ated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 21,320 21,320
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 21,320 21,320
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 25 / 43
3,5303,530————————————————Refriger
ated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3,530 3,530
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 26 / 43
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 27 / 43
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 28 / 43
CO2eRN2OCH4CO2TNBCO2BCO2PM2.5TPM2.5DPM2.5EPM10TPM10DPM10ESO2CONOxROGTOGEquipm ent
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 29 / 43
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 30 / 43
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 31 / 43
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 32 / 43
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
5. Activity Data
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 33 / 43
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Refrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
1,696 1,696 1,696 619,040 16,165 16,165 16,165 5,900,182
5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Refrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
1,696 1,696 1,696 619,040 16,165 16,165 16,165 5,900,182
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.1.2. Mitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 1,200,000 400,000 —
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 34 / 43
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Refrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail
18,602,730 153 0.0330 0.0040 1,626,315
5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Refrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail
13,207,938 153 0.0330 0.0040 1,626,315
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 185,000,000 0.00
5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 143,856,000 0.00
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 752 —
Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 35 / 43
5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 376 —
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Refrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
Cold storage R-404A 3,922 7.50 7.50 7.50 25.0
5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Refrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
Cold storage R-404A 3,922 7.50 7.50 7.50 25.0
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 36 / 43
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)
5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 37 / 43
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 12.2 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 2.50 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 10.5 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy
rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Fr
ancisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 38 / 43
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation 1 0 0 N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project ref
ers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulner
ability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation 1 1 1 2
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project ref
ers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 39 / 43
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 16.8
AQ-PM 19.6
AQ-DPM 73.9
Drinking Water 50.2
Lead Risk Housing 12.0
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 38.1
Traffic 88.8
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 99.3
Groundwater 93.5
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 96.1
Impaired Water Bodies 43.8
Solid Waste 75.7
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 17.8
Cardio-vascular 31.2
Low Birth Weights 62.9
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 40 / 43
Education 26.9
Housing 25.3
Linguistic 48.7
Poverty 14.7
Unemployment 45.8
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 68.7925061
Employed 79.36609778
Median HI 89.15693571
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 88.31002181
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 64.42961632
Transportation —
Auto Access 56.16578981
Active commuting 48.06877967
Social —
2-parent households 36.23764917
Voting 66.09778006
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 46.61876043
Park access 62.01719492
Retail density 89.61888875
Supermarket access 23.44411651
Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 41 / 43
Tree canopy 61.86321057
Housing —
Homeownership 33.00397793
Housing habitability 71.61555242
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 73.55318876 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 86.48787373
Uncrowded housing 43.11561658
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 78.54484794
Arthritis 97.3
Asthma ER Admissions 87.5
High Blood Pressure 94.2
Cancer (excluding skin) 87.6
Asthma 98.2
Coronary Heart Disease 97.8
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 98.8
Diagnosed Diabetes 93.4
Life Expectancy at Birth 91.5
Cognitively Disabled 94.6
Physically Disabled 87.9
Heart Attack ER Admissions 63.3
Mental Health Not Good 95.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 97.1
Obesity 97.1
Pedestrian Injuries 39.7
Physical Health Not Good 97.7
Stroke 97.8
Health Risk Behaviors —
Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 42 / 43
Binge Drinking 73.8
Current Smoker 92.2
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 82.1
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 13.7
Children 14.8
Elderly 73.9
English Speaking 66.5
Foreign-born 91.6
Outdoor Workers 78.1
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 26.4
Traffic Density 75.6
Traffic Access 56.3
Other Indices —
Hardship 22.1
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 71.9
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 44.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 81.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No Related_Warehouse_Refrigerated Detailed Report, 7/30/2024 43 / 43
a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Characteristics: Utility Information EF based on 2035 CAP reach goal. (Consistent with EIR scheme B baseline) Operations: Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps Assumption based on other manufacturing EIR.
Operations: Consumer Products Updated general category EF .
Operations: Architectural Coatings Update VOC content to 100g/L for both exterior and interior.
Operations: Refrigerants Only half of warehouse will be refrigerated.
Ramboll
APPENDIX B
TRAFFIC STUDY
Data Sources, Assumptions and Trip Generation
Intersections
Intersection No. Intersection Name
8 Great America Pkwy / Tasman Dr
11 Tasman Dr / Centennial Blvd
13 Tasman Dr / Calle del Sol
14 Tasman Dr / Lick Mill Blvd
59 Great America Pkwy / Great America Way
60 Great America Pkwy / Old Mountain View‐Alviso Rd
61 Great America Pkwy / City Place Pkwy
62 Great America Pkwy / Second St
85 Lafayette St /
Great America Way
86 Lafayette St / Future Driveway to NE Parcel
87 Lafayette St / Jug Handle
88 Lafayette St / Future Driveway to NE Parcel South
90 Lafayette St / Calle De Luna
Analysis Period
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Daily
Background Traffic Volumes
Data Intersections No.
2020 Background 8, 11, 13, 14, 59, 60
2020 Background 61, 62, 85, 86, 87, 90
2040 Cumulative all intersections
Data Intersections No. Multiplier
Daily Traffic % Adjustment
NA 6.7
Daily Traffic % Adjustment NA Replica ‐ AM peak hour 8.7%; PM peak hour 7.75% 6.1 Daily Traffic % Adjustment NA 6.7
Nightime Traffic % Adjustment ‐ VehicleNA 0.0442
Nightime Traffic % Adjustment ‐ Trucks NA 0.0565
Trip Generation
NE Parcel Trip Generation
AM Rate (per 1000 sqft) PM Rate (per 1000 sqft) Daily Rate (per 1000 sqft) Citycenter Trip Generation
Silicon Valley
Average Rate1
ITE (LUC 850)
Fitted Curve2
ITE (LUC 820)
Fitted Curve
Other3
Average Rate
ITE (LUC 445)
Average Rate
ITE (LUC 220)
Fitted Curve
ITE (LUC 310)
Average Rate
Internalization Reduction
In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
Retail EIR 2015 33% 30% 32% 38% 37% 37% 35% 33% 34%
Restaurants EIR 2015 32% 32% 32% 37% 37% 37% 35% 34% 34% Entertainment EIR 2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 38% 33% 35% 38% 33% 35% Residential Blended Rate (MXD Tool , ITE) 16% 17% 17% 32% 24% 28% 25% 22% 23% Hotel EIR 2015 32% 33% 32% 38% 36% 37% 35% 35% 35%
5 – ITE 9th edition does not include a daily rate for LUC 445. To derive a daily rate, the peak hour rate is inflated based on the difference of daily to peak hour rates in the latest 11th edition of ITE Replica ‐ Traffic Profile; Nighttime typical hour compared to daily traffic Replica ‐ Traffic Profile Commercial Traffic; Nighttime typical hour compared to daily traffic 4‐ trip rates based on fitted curve vary by area, hence two rates are provided for Parcel 4 and Parcel 5 Data Sources
Menlo Equities 2018/2019 Traffic Counts (note that these counts are also used in other recent EIRs) EIR 2014 + 2% annual growth rate (Traffic counts from Menlo Equities are not available at these intersections) Maximum volume forecast from either the 2015 EIR Cumulative No Project forecast or Cumulative Plus Project forecasts f AM Rate (per 1000 sqft)4Parcel 5
0.02 0.03
23% of PM peak period (with 3h period results in 7.6% per hour) and 22% AM peak period (7.3% per hour) traffic based on VTA (https://data.vta.org/pages/traffic‐volume) ‐ assuming that peak periods are about 3h results in 2019 Data Sources
Adopted for daily counts
2 – Fitted Curve for Supermarket (LUC 950) is available for PM Peak Hour only 3 – Based on trip rate from DAP 2 and various restaurant types from ITE 9 th Edition and ITE 10 th Edition Manufacturing (used for Vehicles)
Warehouse
(used for Trucks)
480 keys 0.53 0.6
Restaurant (F&B) 100,000 sqft 25,000 sqft
25,000 sqft
0.74 1 – Silicon Valley rate: AM / PM – 0.31/0.3 per employee with 270 sqft to be considered for each employee NA 4.91
200 keys 0.49 / 0.5 0.56 / 0.65
Hotel 220 keys
Entertainment 50,000 sqft
Residential 1,480 keys
Land‐Use
Type
ITE
Code
NE
Parcel
Shopping Center / Retail 550,000 sqft
Land‐Use Type Methodology Parcel 4
150 1,600,000 sqft
140 1,600,000 sqft
Office 4,102,181 sqft
Supermarket 50,000 sqft
ITE 11th Edition
4.750.68
415,219 sqft
7.29 10.69
0.8 / 2.6
0.31 3.4 9.3
6.14 / 6.7
8.17 0.6
Daily (per 1000 sqft)4
2.95 94.8
37.4 / 110.4
PM Rate (per 1000 sqft)4
3.41 / 9.4
170.04
27.27 5
0.3 5%
Transit Reduction6
6 – No Public Transportation reduction is applied to the NE Parcel and part of Parcel 4 is also excluded from transit reduction 1 – Daily Internalization Reduction is the average of AM and PM Internalization Reductions 5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
Land‐Use Type Methodology AM Internalization Reduction PM Internalization Reduction Daily Internalization Reduction 1 Intersection ID Street Movement
Direction
Movement
Type Lanes
Volume
Project
(AM Peak)
Passenger Vehicles
Volume
Project
(PM Peak)
Passenger Vehicles
Volume
Project
(Daily)
Passenger Vehicles
Volume
Project
(AM Peak)
Trucks
Volume
Project
(PM Peak)
Trucks
Volume
Project
(Daily)
Trucks
Volume
Project
(AM Peak)
Total
Volume
Project
(PM Peak)
Total
Volume
Project
(Daily)
Total
8 Tasman Drive WB R 1 0 3 1000 0 2 12 0 5 1012
8 Tasman Drive WB T 2 171 656 1243 0 0 0 171 656 1243
8 Tasman Drive WB L 3 172 595 2083 0 0 0 172 595 2083
8 Great America Pkwy SB R 1 0 114 4107 0 3 34 0 117 4141 8 Great America Pkwy SB T 3 278 800 9103 1 3 45 279 803 9148 8 Great America Pkwy SB L 2 0 2 1000 0 2 12 0 4 1012
8 Tasman Drive EB R 1000000000
8 Tasman
Drive EB T 2 569 306 1243 0 0 0 569 306 1243
8 Tasman Drive EB L 2 0 77 4107 0 3 34 0 80 4141
8 Great America Pkwy NB R 1 509 2 2083 0 0 0 509 2 2083 8 Great America Pkwy NB T 3 984 690 9103 1 3 45 985 693 9148 8 Great America Pkwy NB L 2000000000
8 Tasman Drive, west of GAPW EB + WB 740 1153 10700 0 6 68 740 1159 10768 8 Great America Pkwy south of Tasman SB + NB 1943 2087 22372 2 6 90 1945 2093 22462 8 Great America Pkwy north of Tasman SB + NB 1262 1686 28420 2 16 182 1264 1702 28602 11 Tasman Dr SW R 1 592 102 7119 0 0 0 592 102 7119
11 Tasman Dr SW T 2 0 564 1237 0 2 12 0 566 1249
11 Tasman D r SW L 1000000000
11 Centennial Blvd SE R 1 0 123 3089 0000 1 23 3089
11 Centennial Blvd SE T 1000000000
11 Centennial Blvd SE L 2 266 938 7119 0 0 0 266 938 7119 11 Tasman D r NE R 1000000000
11 Tasman Dr NE T 2 1078 287 1237 0 2 12 1078 289 1249
11 Tasman
Dr NE L 2 0 22 3089 0000 2 2 3089
11 Centennial Blvd NW R 1000000000
11 Centennial Blvd NW T 1000000000
11 Centennial Blvd NW L 1000000000
13 Tasman Dr SW R 1 133 59 149 0 0 0 133 59 149
13 Tasman Dr SW T 2 883 472 8119 0 2 12 883 474 8131
13 Calle del Sol SE R 1 55 35 440 0 0 0 55 35 440
13 Calle del Sol SE L 2 40 134 149 0 0 0 40 134 149
13 Tasman Dr NE T 2 266 938 8119 0 2 12 266 940 8131
13 Tasman D r NE L 20 4 4 4 400000 4 4 4 40
14 Tasman D r SW R 1000000000
14 Tasman Dr SW T 2 662 343 5350 0 1 5 662 344 5355
14 Tasman D r SW L 2000000000
14 Lick Mill Blvd SE R 1000000000
14 Lick Mill Blvd SE T 1000000000
14 Lick Mill Blvd SE L 2000000000
14 Tasman Dr NE R 1 105 378 2918 0 1 7 105 379 2925
14 Tasman Dr NE T 2 200 693 5350 0 1 5 200 694 5355
14 Tasman D r NE L 1000000000
14 Lick Mill Blvd NW R 1000000000
14 Lick Mill Blvd NW T 1000000000
14 Lick Mill Blvd NW L 2 353 188 2918 0 1 7 353 189 2925 14 Tasman east of Lick Mill WB + EB 862 1036 10700 0 2 10 862 1038 10710 59 Great America Pkwy SB R 1000000000
59 Great America Pkwy SB T 3 1493 682 12821 0 0 0 1931 630 12821 59 Great America
Pkwy SB L 2 226 119 311 8 11 236 378 263 547
59 Stadium Tech Center Access Drive EB R 1000000000
59 Stadium Tech Center Access Drive EB T 1000000000
59 Stadium Tech Center Access Drive EB L 1000000000
59 Great America Pkwy NB R 1 22 1018 9 4 2 7 1 8 9 4
59 Great America Pkwy NB T 3 517 1309 12820 0 0 0 659 1618 12820 59 Great America Pkwy NB L 1000000000
59 Great America Way WB R 2 0 302 311 8 11 236 7 174 547 59 Great America Way W B T 1000000000
59 Great America Way W B L 101018 9 46 2 0 9 4
60 Great America Pkwy SB R 1010003183
60 Great America Pkwy SB T 3 1493 682 12821 1 8 91 1937 642 12912 60 Great America Pkwy SB L 1000000000
60 Old Mountain View‐Alviso Rd EB R 1 22 21 486 0 0 0 52 28 486 60 Old Mountain View‐Alviso
Rd E B T 1000000000
60 Old Mountain View‐Alviso Rd E B L 2310003843
60 Great America Pkwy NB R 1000000000
60 Great America Pkwy NB T 3 536 1309 12368 1 8 91 678 1632 12459 60 Great America Pkwy NB L 1 7 40 486 0 0 0 16 55 486
60 Old Mountain View‐Alviso Rd W B R 1000000000
60 Old Mountain View‐Alviso Rd W B T 1000000000
60 Old Mountain View‐Alviso Rd W B L 1000000000
60 Great America Pkwy NB + SB 2032 1993 25189 2 16 188 2624 2286 25377 61 City Place Pkwy WB R 2 72 1121 6654 0 0 0 187 1163 6654 61 City Place Pkwy WB T 1000000000
61 City Place Pkwy WB L 2 149 279 7105 0 0 0 61 273 7105 61 Great America Pkwy SB R 1000000000
61 Great America Pkwy SB T 3 672 318 6653 1 8 91 964 312 6744 61 Great America Pkwy SB L 2 842 385 6654 0 0 0 1024 358 6654 61 Driveway EB R 1000000000
61 Driveway EB T 1000000000
61 Driveway EB L 1000000000
61 Great America
Pkwy NB R 1 587 224 7105 0 0 0 265 254 7105
61 Great America Pkwy NB T 3 472 228 6652 1 8 91 508 524 6743 61 Great America Pkwy NB L 1000000000
62 Second St SW R 1 473 228 6653 0 0 0 503 266 6653
62 Second St SW L 2 219 640 7106 0 0 0 198 668 7106
62 Great America Pkwy SB T 3 60 276 7105 1 8 91 65 283 7196 62 Great America Pkwy SB L 1 762 321 6653 0 0 0 960 302 6653 62 Great America Pkwy NB R 1 399 546 7106 0 0 0 312 653 7106 62 Great America Pkwy NB T 3 586 224 7104 1 8 91 269 511 7195 85 Lafayette St S E R 1000000110
85 Lafayette St SE T 3 74 24 486 1 1 22 59 64 508
85 Great America Way NE R 1 229 119 311 9 19 330 390 281 641 85 Great America Way N E L 1 1 900000 1 400
85 Lafayette St NB T 2 3 47 486 1 1 22 3 125 508
85 Lafayette St NB L 1 0 302 311 9 19 330 12 194 641
85 Lafayette St NB + SB 77 373 1283 11 21 374 75 384 1657 86 Future Driveway to NE Parcel North SB R 2 3 207 173 10 20 352 14 205 525 86 Future Driveway to NE Parcel North SB L 2 0 250 167 5 6 128 3 11 295 86 Lafayette
St SE T 2 66 143 624 0 0 0 340 325 624
86 Lafayette St SE L 1 237 0 173 10 20 352 110 20 525
86 Lafayette St NB R 2 61 68 167 5 6 128 3 5 295
86 Lafayette St N B T 21 1 43 4 520001 1 14 4 52
87 Jug Handle SW R 2 61 211 512 0001 1 14 5 12
87 Jug Handle SW L 2 527 1151 10095 0 0 0 366 1139 10095 87 Lafayette St SE T 2 1 92 279 5 6 128 230 115 407
87 Lafayette St SE L 1 66 301 512 0 0 0 114 220 512
87 Lafayette St NW R 2 1153 575 8135 0 0 0 1114 849 8135 87 Lafayette St N W T 211056 1 2836 1 28
88 Future Driveway to NE Parcel South SW R 2 151 33 2133 0 0 0 154 319 2133 88 Future Driveway to NE Parcel South SW L 2 87 300 967 0 0 0 88 287 967 88 Lafayette St SE T 2 317 1140 8242 5 6 128 316 1047 8370 88 Lafayette St SE L 2 210 103 2133 0 0 0 279 208 2133 88 Lafayette St NW R 2 292 175 967 0 0 0 437 132 967
88 Lafayette St NW T 2 1003 543 8242 5 6 128 963 536 8370 90 Calle de Luna WB R 1 133 103 455 0 0 0 266 61 455
90 Calle de Luna WB L 1 0 0 203 0000 8 5 2 03
90 Lafayette St SE T 2 324 1172 8754 5 6 128 367 1214 8882 90 Lafayette St SE L 1 40 136 455 0 0 0 37 120 455
90 Lafayette St NW R 1 55 34 203 0 0 0 143 40 203
90 Lafayette St NW T 2 1024 550 8551 5 6 128 1134 607 8679 Project Trips (Base Case ‐ No Lick Mill Connection)Base Conditions Intersection ID Street Movement
Direction
Movement
Type Lanes
Volume
Background + Project
(AM Peak)
Total
Volume
Background + Project
(PM Peak)
Total
Volume
Cumulative + Project
(AM Peak)
Total
Volume
Cumulative + Project
(PM Peak)
Total
Volume
Background + Project
(Daily)
Total
Volume
Cumulative + Project
(Daily)
Total
8 Tasman Drive WB R 1 147 328 147 125 2381 2737
8 Tasman Drive WB T 2 723 711 1040 771 6867 8404
8 Tasman Drive WB L 3 505 781 698 995 6143 9083
8 Great America Pkwy SB R 1 124 456 658 565 4792 9208
8 Great America Pkwy SB T 3 750 1158 1399 1209 18987 22215 8 Great America Pkwy SB L 2 124 382 115 394 3918 4341
8 Tasman Drive EB R 1 33 52 33 52 570 570
8 Tasman Drive EB T 2 675 685 978 1057 6424 7860
8 Tasman
Drive EB L 2 105 422 167 920 4503 9745
8 Great America Pkwy NB R 1 524 536 452 828 6754 8976
8 Great America Pkwy NB T 3 1480 989 1540 1739 17282 21403 8 Great America Pkwy NB L 2 326 84 326 84 2752 2752
8 Tasman Drive, west of GAPW EB + WB
8 Great America Pkwy south of Tasman SB + NB
8 Great America Pkwy north of Tasman SB + NB
11 Tasman Dr SW R 1 452 161 579 449 8220 10058
11 Tasman Dr SW T 2 1675 847 571 703 13189 7040
11 Tasman Dr SW L 1 6 21 21 0 181 141
11 Centennial Blvd SE R 1 83 100 100 0 4317 3760
11 Centennial Blvd SE T 1011077
11 Centennial Blvd SE L 2 295 1096 406 1288 8092 9669
11 Tasman Dr NE R 1 7 33 33 0 268 221
11 Tasman Dr NE T 2 1194 1605 3024 916 13544 20994
11 Tasman Dr NE L 2 135 99 186 284 4263 4112
11 Centennial Blvd NW R 1 4 26 26 0 201 174
11 Centennial Blvd NW T 1 0 10 10 0 67 67
11 Centennial Blvd NW L 1 9 22 22 0 208 148
13 Tasman Dr SW R 1 225 170 225 288 2800 3592
13 Tasman Dr SW T 2 2076 983 2544 1187 18628 22668
13 Calle del Sol SE R 1 248 154 324 141 1722 3386
13 Calle del Sol SE L 2 99 166 388 295 1928 3820
13 Tasman Dr NE T 2 546 2137 555 2661 17534 21097
13 Tasman Dr NE L 2 92 132 89 221 1272 2259
14 Tasman Dr SW R 1 105 42 285 327 188 3349
14 Tasman Dr SW T 2 1493 858 1841 839 15489 17986
14 Tasman Dr SW L 2 132 237 301 308 2477 4087
14 Lick Mill Blvd SE R 1 64 87 96 247 148 510
14 Lick Mill Blvd SE T 1 31 81 147 153 268 2000
14 Lick Mill Blvd SE L 2 28 115 355 387 215 4819
14 Tasman Dr NE R 1 165 767 321 1158 5972 9368
14 Tasman Dr NE T 2 477 1659 636 1706 14744 15872
14 Tasman Dr NE L 1 47 45 31 166 168 477
14 Lick Mill Blvd NW R 1 335 243 345 421 3879 5141
14 Lick Mill Blvd NW T 1 78 28 112 138 215 1195
14 Lick Mill Blvd NW L 2 619 255 674 463 5267 7207
14 Tasman east of Lick Mill WB + EB 2170
59 Great America Pkwy SB R 1 68 7 68 7 503 503
59 Great America Pkwy SB T 3 2673 1370 3058 1326 23613 26673 59 Great America Pkwy SB L 2 444 215 491 207 2500 2889 59 Stadium Tech Center Access Drive EB R 1 9 23 9 23 215 215 59 Stadium Tech Center Access Drive EB T 1 3 82 3 82 570 570 59 Stadium Tech Center Access Drive EB L 1 2 60 2 60 416 416 59 Great America Pkwy NB R 1 82 514 102 1051 3604 7638 59 Great America Pkwy NB T 3 908 2631 1036 3598 21927 30350 59 Great America Pkwy NB L 1 36 21 36 21 383 383
59 Great America Way WB R 2 202 412 202 440 2983 2983
59 Great America Way WB T 1 57 9 57 9 443 443
59 Great America Way WB L 1 176 84 1078 136 1779 8188
60 Great America Pkwy SB R 1 423 82 571 134 3386 4735
60 Great America Pkwy SB T 3 2395 1464 3535 1420 22415 30543 60 Great America Pkwy SB L 1 36 11 36 11 315 315
60 Old Mountain View‐Alviso Rd EB R 1 44 167 44 167 1593 1593 60 Old Mountain View‐Alviso Rd EB T 1 8 77 8 77 570 570 60 Old Mountain View‐Alviso Rd EB L 2 76 537 136 744 4070 5909 60 Great America Pkwy NB R 1 85 11 85 45 644 872
60 Great America Pkwy NB T 3 939 2590 1027 3887 21056 31674 60 Great America Pkwy NB L 1 138 93 138 92 1674 1674
60 Old Mountain View‐Alviso Rd WB R 1 5 49 5 49 362 362 60 Old Mountain View‐Alviso Rd WB T 1 4 10 4 10 94 94
60 Old Mountain View‐Alviso Rd WB L 1 10 67 36 67 517 691 60 Great America Pkwy NB + SB
61 City Place Pkwy WB R 2 143 1101 152 1267 6654 6654
61 City Place Pkwy WB T 1000000
61 City Place Pkwy WB L 2 81 218 172 252 7105 7105
61 Great America Pkwy SB R 1000000
61 Great America Pkwy SB T 3 1941 1322 3093 1302 20422 28637 61 Great America Pkwy SB L 2 751 514 751 490 6654 6654 61 Driveway EB R 1000000
61 Driveway EB T 1000000
61 Driveway EB L 1000000
61 Great America Pkwy NB R 1 514 76 510 225 7105 7105
61 Great America Pkwy NB T 3 1176 1563 1147 2690 18018 27904 61 Great America Pkwy NB L 1000000
62 Second St SW R 1 440 301 413 261 6653 6653
62 Second St SW L 2 215 494 243 540 7106 7106
62 Great America Pkwy SB T 3 1196 1216 2443 1251 20874 29089 62 Great America Pkwy SB L 1 826 323 822 302 6653 6653 62 Great America Pkwy NB R 1 486 681 504 532 7106 7106 62 Great America Pkwy NB T 3 1249 1337 1244 2654 18470 28356 85 Lafayette St SE R 1 23 9 568 15 215 3913
85 Lafayette St SE T 3 244 523 243 530 4917 4985
85 Great America Way NE R 1 330 624 502 1064 4171 8755 85 Great America Way NE L 1 16 59 24 276 416 1872
85 Lafayette St NB T 2 614 246 828 525 5817 9199
85 Lafayette St NB L 1 321 319 721 421 3191 6379
85 Lafayette St NB + SB
86 Future Driveway to NE Parcel North SB R 2 13 188 13 242 525 525 86 Future Driveway to NE Parcel North SB L 2 5 8 174 10 295 295 86 Lafayette St SE T 2 440 1128 574 1576 8557 13241
86 Lafayette St SE L 1 133 19 5 19 525 525
86 Lafayette St N B R 25676 2 95 2 95
86 Lafayette St NB T 2 924 435 1540 766 8714 15324
87 Jug Handle SW R 2 8 49 2 90 512 512
87 Jug Handle SW L 2 485 1288 545 1226 10095 10095
87 Lafayette St SE T 2 374 1105 510 1557 8340 13011
87 Lafayette St SE L 1 71 31 70 27 512 512
87 Lafayette St NW R 2 1033 722 1094 672 8135 8135
87 Lafayette St NW T 2 921 392 1542 682 8390 14980
88 Future Driveway to NE Parcel South SW R 2 149 286 158 260 2133 2133 88 Future Driveway to NE Parcel South SW L 2 88 333 77 306 967 967 88 Lafayette St SE T 2 557 2241 702 2572 16303 20974
88 Lafayette St SE L 2 302 151 353 211 2133 2133
88 Lafayette St NW R 2 376 194 281 135 967 967
88 Lafayette St NW T 2 1805 828 2478 1094 16632 23222
90 Calle de Luna WB R 1 169 79 458 56 1549 3898
90 Calle de Luna WB L 1 91 380 486 658 3263 7881
90 Lafayette St SE T 2 535 2307 693 2430 16754 19144
90 Lafayette St SE L 1 39 166 70 346 1831 2173
90 Lafayette St NW R 1 381 252 340 522 3035 5814
90 Lafayette St NW T 2 1839 851 1892 1083 16357 17605
Combined (Base Case ‐ No Lick Mill Connection)
Hourly Volumes
Street Name Location Direction
AM Peak Hour
Passenger
Vehicles
AM Peak Hour
Trucks
PM Peak Hour
Passenger
Vehicles
PM Peak Hour
Trucks
Nighttime
(6‐7 AM)
Passenger
Vehicles
Nighttime
(6‐7 AM)
Trucks
Nighttime
(10‐11 PM)
Passenger
Vehicles
Nighttime
(10‐11 PM)
Trucks
Nighttime
(11 PM‐12 AM)
Passenger
Vehicles
Nighttime
(11 PM‐12 AM)
Trucks
Daily
Passenger
Vehicles
Daily
Trucks
Northbound 221 4 71 1 319040 4 86 2 2
Southbound 741 2 41 1 319040 4 86 2 2
Northbound 3 1 0 3 49 2 0 2 1 1 5 1 5071 7 97 3 52
Southbound 303 1 0 1 43 2 0 2 1 1 5 1 5071 7 97 3 52
Northbound 625 2 116 1 66 1 2060 6 19 1 28
Southbound 665 3 936 2 16 1 5070 7 91 1 28
Eastbound 569 0 383 3 141 1 103 0 49 0 5350 34
Westbound 171 0 770 3 141 1 103 0 49 0 5350 34
Eastbound 305 0 1071 2 218 1 159 0 76 0 8268 12
Westbound 1015 0 531 2 218 1 159 0 76 0 8268 12
Eastbound 200 0 693 1 141 0 103 0 49 0 5350 5
Westbound 662 0 343 1 141 0 103 0 49 0 5350 5
Northbound 353 0 188 1 77 0 56 0 27 0 2918 7
Southbound 105 0 378 1 77 0 56 0 27 0 2918 7
Northbound 517 8 1611 11 346 10 253 0 120 0 13131 236
Southbound 1719 8 801 11 346 10 253 0 120 0 13132 236
Northbound 539 1 1310 8 338 4 247 0 117 0 12820 94
Southbound 1493 1 683 8 338 4 247 0 117 0 12821 94
Northbound 984 1 770 8 374 4 274 0 130 0 14210 91
Southbound 278 1 916 8 374 4 274 0 130 0 14210 91
Northbound 1493 1 692 3 295 2 215 0 102 0 11186 45
Southbound 450 1 1395 3 295 2 215 0 102 0 11186 45
Eastbound 2489 1 19 1 98 1 46031 3 11 3 30
Westbound 09 3 02 1 98 1 46031 3 11 3 30
Eastbound 250 2 20 1 309040 4 863
Westbound 70 4 10 1 309040 4 863
Inbound 921 4 320 4 167 5 122 0 58 0 6323 114
Outbound 277 4 644 4 167 5 122 0 58 0 6322 114
Inbound 798 4 481 7 179 5 131 0 62 0 6809 122
Outbound 240 4 967 7 179 5 131 0 62 0 6809 122
Inbound 298 1 5 6 8 2 69 2 17031 3 40 4 80
Outbound 3 1 5 4 57 2 69 2 17031 3 40 4 80
Inbound 502 0 278 0 82 0 60 0 28 0 3100 0
Outbound 238 0 333 0 82 0 60 0 28 0 3100 0Future Access (South) East of Lafayette Street Great America Way Between Great America Pkway and Lafayette Street Mountain View - Alviso Road West of Great America Pkwy
US 237 Fwy WB North of Great America Way
US 237 Fwy EB North of Great America Way
Future Access (North) East of Lafayette Street
North of Great America Way
Between Great America Way and Future Access (North)
Tasman Drive
West of Great America Pkwy
Between Great America Pkway and Lick Mill Blvd
East of Lick Mill Blvd
South of Future Access (North)
Lafayette Street
Lick Mill Blvd South of Tasman Drive
Great America Pkway
North of Great America Way
Between Great America Way and Mountain View ‐ Alviso Rd Between Mountain View‐Alviso Rd and Tasman Drive
South of Tasman Drive
Project
Mountain View ‐ Alviso Rd
ITE Weekday Daily
Code ITE Land Use Units Daily Trips In Out Total In Out Total Total (in/out balanced) 150 Warehousing Trip Rates and Directional 77% 23% 0.17 28% 72% 0.18 1.71 1,600,000 Square Feet Vehicle Trips 210 60 270 80 210 290 2735 150 Warehousing Trip Rates and Directional 52% 48% 0.02 52% 48% 0.03 0.6 1,600,000 Square Feet Truck Trips 15 15 30 25 25 50 960 ITE Weekday Daily
Code ITE Land Use Units Daily Trips In Out Total (in/out balanced) In Out Total Total (in/out balanced) 140 Manufacturing Trip Rates and Directional 76% 24% 0.68 31% 69% 0.74 4.75 1,600,000 Square Feet Vehicle Trips 830 260 1090 365 820 1185 7600 140 Manufacturing Trip Rates and Directional 56% 44% 0.03 41% 59% 0.03 0.45 1,600,000 Square Feet Truck Trips 30 20 50 20 30 50 720 AM Peak PM Peak
AM Peak PM Peak
Ramboll
APPENDIX C
AERMOD FILES (PROVIDED ELECTRONICALLY)
Appendix D
Related Santa Clara Scheme C
Noise Report
108104421.2
RELATED SANTA CLARA
Noise Technical Report
Prepared for October 2024
City of Sa nta Clara
RELATED SANTA CLARA
Noise Technical Report
Prepared for October 2024
City of Santa Clara
787 The Alameda
Suite 250
San José, CA 95126
408.660.4000
esassoc.com
Atlanta
Bend
Irvine
Los Angeles
Mobile
Oakland
Orlando
Palm Beach County
Pasadena
Pensacola
Petaluma
Portland
Rancho Cucamonga
Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco
San Jose
Santa Barbara
Sarasota
Seattle
Tampa
Thousand Oaks
201901172.02
OUR COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY | ESA helps a variety of public and private sector clients plan and prepare for climate change and emerging regulations that limit GHG emissions. ESA is a registered assessor with the California Climate Action Registry, a Climate Leader, and founding reporter for the Climate Registry. ESA is also a corporate member of the U.S. Green Building Council and the Business Council on Climate Change (BC3). Internally, ESA has adopted a Sustainability Vision and Policy Statement and a plan to reduce waste and energy within our operations. This document was produced using recycled paper.
Related Santa Clara Scheme C i ESA / D201901172.02
Noise Technical Report October 2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Related Santa Clara Noise Technical Report
Page
1 Introduction and Scheme C Project Description ................................................................... 1
1.1 Approved Project and CEQA Documents ......................................................................... 1
1.2 Revised Project / Scheme C ............................................................................................. 2
1.3 Scheme C Project Location .............................................................................................. 4 2 Characteristics of Noise and Vibration .................................................................................. 4
2.1 Noise Principles and Descriptors ...................................................................................... 4
2.2 Noise Exposure and Community Noise ............................................................................ 4
2.3 Noise Attenuation ............................................................................................................. 6 3 Effects of Noise on People ...................................................................................................... 7
3.2 Fundamentals of Vibration ................................................................................................ 8
4. Environmental Setting ............................................................................................................. 8
4.1 Existing Ambient Noise Levels .......................................................................................... 8
4.2 Existing Groundborne Vibration Levels ........................................................................... 11
4.3 Sensitive Receptors ........................................................................................................ 12
4.4 Regulatory Setting .......................................................................................................... 13
5. Impacts and Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................... 20
5.1 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................................................. 20
5.2 Methodology ................................................................................................................... 21
5.3 Project Impacts ............................................................................................................... 24 6 References ............................................................................................................................. 40
Appendix
A. Noise Monitoring Data and Noise Level Calculations
List of Figures
Figure 1 Scheme C Project Illustrative Plan ..................................................................................... 3 Figure 2 Effects of Noise on People ................................................................................................. 5 Figure 3 Noise Measurement Locations ......................................................................................... 10 Figure 4 Scheme C Parcels 1 and 2 Building Configurations ......................................................... 29 Table of Contents
Page
Related Santa Clara Scheme C ii ESA / D201901172.02
Noise Technical Report October 2024
List of Tables
Table 1 Background Noise Environments in the Project Vicinity ..................................................... 9 Table 2 Background Traffic Noise along Roads in the Project Vicinity .......................................... 11 Table 3 Generalized Vibration Levels from Locomotive-Powered Passenger or Freight Trains* (Vibration Decibels and Peak Particle Velocity) .............................................................. 12 Table 4 Existing Noise-Sensitive Receptors within 1,000 Feet of the Project Site ........................ 13 Table 5 Construction Vibration Damage Criteria ........................................................................... 14 Table 6 Community Noise Exposure (DNL or CNEL) .................................................................... 15 Table 7 Noise Compatibility Policies of the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission Comprehensive Land Use Plan .................................................................. 17 Table 8 City of Santa Clara 2010-2035 General Plan Noise Standards ........................................ 19 Table 9 Exterior sound limits for the City of Santa Clara ............................................................... 19 Table 10 Measures of a Substantial Increase in Transportation Noise Exposure ........................... 22 Table 11 HVAC Operational Noise .................................................................................................. 27 Table 12 Generator Testing Noise .................................................................................................. 28 Table 13 Semi-Trailer Truck Operations and Delivery..................................................................... 30 Table 14 Existing and Existing plus-Approved Project Noise Levels at Actual Distance to Off- Site Receptors along Potentially Significant Segments for the Approved Project ............. 33 Table 15 Traffic Noise Increases along Roads in the Project Vicinity ............................................. 34 Table 16 Existing and Existing plus-Project Noise Levels at Actual Distance to Off-Site Receptors along Potentially Significant Segments for the Approved Project ................... 34 Table 17 Nighttime Hour Traffic Noise Increases along Roads in the Project Vicinity ..................... 35 Table 18 Modeled Traffic Noise Levels Year 2035 with Weekday P.M. Full Buildout of Scheme C Project Mixed Uses ....................................................................................... 41 Table 19 Cumulative Year 2040 and Cumulative Year 2040 plus‐Approved Project Noise Levels at Actual Distance to Off‐Site Receptors Under the 2016 EIR .............................. 42
Related Santa Clara Scheme C 1 ESA / D201901172.02
Noise Technical Report October 2024
RELATED SANTA CLARA SCHEME C PROJECT
Noise Technical Report
1 Introduction and Scheme C Project Description
This technical report has been prepared to assess the potential noise and vibration impacts associated with the Related Santa Clara Revised Project (Scheme C) as a resource document in support of the revised project’s compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
1.1 Approved Project and CEQA Documents
The City Place Project analyzed in the 2016 EIR (Approved Project) includes conversion of 240-acres of City-owned property at 5155 Stars & Stripes Drive near Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, into a multi- phase, mixed-use development.1,2 As evaluated in the 2016 EIR, the Approved Project anticipates nearly
9.2 million gross square feet of development allocated over five parcels. Anticipated development includes 1,680 residential units; 700 hotel rooms; and approximately 5.4 million square feet of office space, 1.1 million square feet of retail uses, 250,000 square feet of food and beverage uses, 190,000 square feet of entertainment venues, and 96 acres of open space. The Approved Project building height limit across the project site is 219 feet above mean sea level (msl) which is approximately 17-stories considering the finished grade of the on-site streets.
3 Since EIR certification and project approval in 2016, the Phase 1 Development Area Plan (DAP) for Parcel 5 was approved by the City Council on March 24, 2020. An Addendum to the EIR was prepared for this DAP. The Community Development Director granted architectural review approval on March 5, 2021. The City Council approved the Phase 2 DAP for right-of-way improvements and five blocks on the southern portion of Parcel 4; completion of the Phase 2 DAP’s architectural approval process is in progress. An Addendum to the EIR was also prepared for this DAP. A CEQA Addendum was also prepared for the City Place Revised Soil Import and Earthwork Plans Project in 2021. Subsequent discretionary approvals are expected to be necessary for Approved Project build-out.
1 Although the City Place Santa Clara Project is now referred to as “Related Santa Clara,” this addendum uses “City Place Santa Clara” as that is consistent with the naming in the CEQA documents and the Master Community Plan. 2 For the purposes of this CEQA Addendum analysis, the City Place Santa Clara Project EIR (2016 EIR) for the City Place Santa Clara Project (City Place Project) comprises the City Place Santa Clara Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 2015 (DEIR); the City Place Santa Clara Final Environmental Impact Report, April 2016 (FEIR), and subsequent addenda to the EIR.
3 The maximum height of the Approved Project at 17 stories, or 190 feet, is measured against the finished grade of the on-site streets. This is within Federal Aviation Administration height limits; the proposed buildings would not exceed 219 feet above msl.
1 Introduction and Scheme C Project Description
Related Santa Clara Scheme C 2 ESA / D201901172.02
Noise Technical Report October 2024
1.2 Revised Project / Scheme C
Related now proposes changes to the Approved Project, including by: i) introducing a new use (i.e.,
1.6 million square feet of light industrial uses) in the northeastern area of the project site (Parcels 1 and 2), and ii) increasing the density of approved uses in the southwestern area of the site (Parcel 4/City Center). Scheme C would retain the total approved gross square footage (see Figure 1). However, the proposed changes would introduce a new land use classification and exceed the Master Community Plan’s density transfer provision allowing up to 20 percent deviation from the base entitlement.4 As a result, Scheme C would intensify the density of office development on Parcel 4 City Center by
1.626 million square feet within the existing parcel dimensions and, hence, the increase in building area would largely accommodated with additional height. As noted in Section 4.1 of the CEQA Addendum, the proposed Master Community Plan Scheme C Supplement would revise the formulation of the height limits to permit towers on Parcel 4 of up to approximately 10-12 stories, with a maximum building height consistent with ALUC regulations and Federal Aviation hazard limits pursuant to FAA Federal Aviation Regulations, FAR Part 77 criteria. Although this revision would remove the 219 feet above msl height limit on Parcel 4, the change is not anticipated to result in a notable change to final building heights proposed for Parcel 4 under the Approved Project. Further, the revised height limits would remain consistent with applicable General Plan Policy 5.10.5-P30 and General Plan Policy 5.10.5-P33 that require compatibility with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and Federal Aviation Administration Federal Aviation Regulations, FAR Par 77 criteria hazard height limits at San José Mineta International Airport, respectively.
Development of Parcels 1 and 2 under Scheme C would change from 1.6 million square feet of office to an equivalent amount of industrial/warehouse use. This analysis evaluates noise that may be associated with 24-hour truck operations assumed for the warehouse/distribution facilities, while also considering potential industrial uses. Operational noise from stationary sources, such as generators, loading and unloading, Transport Refrigeration Unit (TRU) operations and other mechanical equipment, are assessed for a single land use scenario assuming a combination of manufacturing, which would generate noise from operation of multiple generators, and warehouse/distribution facilities, which would generate noise from on-site truck traffic and loading/unloading activities.
Data used to prepare this analysis were obtained from the 2016 EIR as well as from the City of Santa Clara 2010-2035 General Plan; the City of Santa Clara (City) Municipal Code; Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA, 2018), and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (Caltrans, 2013), and by measuring and modeling existing and future noise levels at the project site and the surrounding land uses.
4 Densities shift when comparing DAP 2 with Scheme C for Blocks 4B (WE), 4D (WK, WL), 4E/F (WF, WG) and 4H(WH).
N
Related Santa Clara Scheme C
Figure 1
Scheme C Project Illustrative Plan
SOURCE: Related Santa Clara 20232019/D201901172.02 - Santa Clara Related Revised Land Use/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE/Illustrator 2 Characteristics of Noise and Vibration
Related Santa Clara Scheme C 4 ESA / D201901172.02
Noise Technical Report October 2024
1.3 Scheme C Project Location
The Scheme C project site is the same as the project site for the Approved Project. The project site is located on seven City-owned parcels (assessor’s parcel numbers [APNs] 104-03-036, 104-03-037, 104- 01-102, 097-01-039, 097-01-073, 104-03-038, and 104-03-039), totaling approximately 240 acres. The project site is generally located north of Tasman Drive, east of Great America Parkway and San Tomas Aquino Creek, west of the Guadalupe River, and south of Great America Way and State Route (SR) 237.
As noted above, under the 2016 EIR, the project site is divided into five development parcels and the Eastside Retention Basin.
2 Characteristics of Noise and Vibration
2.1 Noise Principles and Descriptors
Pressure waves traveling through air exert a force registered by the human ear as sound. Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Sound, traveling in the form of waves from a source, exerts a sound pressure level (referred to as sound level) that is measured in decibels (dB), which is the standard unit of sound amplitude measurement. The dB scale is a logarithmic scale that describes the physical intensity of the pressure vibrations that make up any sound, with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of human hearing and 120 to 140 dB corresponding to the threshold of pain.
Sound pressure fluctuations can be measured in units of hertz (Hz), which correspond to the frequency of a particular sound. Typically, sound does not consist of a single frequency, but rather a broad band of frequencies varying in levels of magnitude. When all the audible frequencies of a sound are measured, a sound spectrum is plotted consisting of a range of frequency spanning 20 to 20,000 Hz. The sound pressure level, therefore, constitutes the additive force exerted by a sound corresponding to the sound frequency/sound power level spectrum.
The typical human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies of the audible sound spectrum. As a consequence, when assessing potential noise impacts, sound is measured using an electronic filter that deemphasizes the frequencies below 1,000 Hz and above 5,000 Hz in a manner corresponding to the human ear’s decreased sensitivity to extremely low and extremely high frequencies. This method of frequency weighting is referred to as A-weighting and is expressed in units of A-weighted decibels (dBA). A-weighting follows an international standard methodology of frequency de-emphasis and is typically applied to community noise measurements. Some representative noise sources and their corresponding A-weighted noise levels are shown on Figure 2. All noise levels presented in this report are A-weighted unless otherwise stated.
2.2 Noise Exposure and Community Noise
An individual’s noise exposure is a measure of noise over a period of time. A noise level is a measure of noise at a given instant in time. The noise levels presented on Figure 2 are representative of measured noise at a given instant in time; however, they rarely persist consistently over a long period of time. 110
100
90 80
70 60
50 40
30 20
10 0
Rock Band
Inside Subway Train (New York)
Food Blender at 3 Ft.
Garbage Disposal at 3 Ft.
Shouting at 3 Ft.
Vacuum Cleaner at 10 Ft.
Large Business Office
Concert Hall (Background)
Broadcast and Recording Studio
Threshold of Hearing
Jet Flyover at 1000 Ft.
COMMON INDOOR
NOISE LEVELS
COMMON OUTDOOR
NOISE LEVELS
NOISE
LEVEL
(dBA, Leq)
Gas Lawn Mower at 3 Ft.
Diesel Truck at 50 Ft.
Noisy Urban Daytime
Gas Lawn Mower at 100 Ft.
Commercial Area
Heavy Traffic at 300 Ft.
Quiet Urban Nighttime
Quiet Suburban Nighttime
Quiet Rural Nighttime
Small Theater, Large
Conference Room (Background)
Library
Dishwasher Next Room Quiet Urban Daytime
Figure 2
Effects of Noise on People
Related Santa Clara Scheme CSOURCE: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 20132019/D201901172.02 - Santa Clara Related Revised Land Use/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE/Illustrator 2 Characteristics of Noise and Vibration
Related Santa Clara Scheme C 6 ESA / D201901172.02
Noise Technical Report October 2024
Rather, community noise varies continuously over a period of time with respect to the contributing sound sources of the community noise environment. Community noise is primarily the product of many distant noise sources, which constitute a relatively stable background noise exposure, with the individual contributors unidentifiable. The background noise level changes throughout a typical day, but does so gradually, corresponding with the addition and subtraction of distant noise sources such as traffic. What makes community noise variable throughout a day, besides the slowly changing background noise, is the addition of short-duration, single-event noise sources (e.g., aircraft flyovers, motor vehicles, sirens), which are readily identifiable to the individual.
These successive additions of sound to the community noise environment change the community noise level from instant to instant, requiring the measurement of noise exposure over a period of time to legitimately characterize a community noise environment and evaluate cumulative noise impacts. This time-varying characteristic of environmental noise is described using statistical noise descriptors. The following are the most frequently used noise descriptors:
• L
eq: The equivalent-continuous sound level, used to describe noise over a specified period of time in terms of a single numerical value. The Leq of a time-varying signal and that of a steady signal are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy over a given time. May also be referred to as the “average sound level.”
• Lmax: The maximum, instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time. • Lmin: The minimum, instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time. • Ldn: The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after 10 dB are added to noise levels measured between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. to account for nighttime noise sensitivity. Also referred to as the “day-night average noise level” (DNL), the Ldn is the metric used by the Noise Element of the City of Santa Clara General Plan (General Plan) for assessing the land use compatibility of non-aviation sources.
• CNEL: The community noise equivalent level. This is the average A-weighted noise level during a 24- hour day that is obtained after 5 dB are added to measured noise levels between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. and 10 dB are added to noise levels between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime, respectively. The CNEL is the metric generally used for assessment of aircraft noise. The result is normally about 0.5 dBA higher than Ldn using the same 24-hour data.5
2.3 Noise Attenuation
Stationary “point” sources of noise, including stationary mobile sources such as idling vehicles, attenuate (lessen) at a rate of 6 to 7.5 dBA per doubling of distance from the source, depending on the topography of the area and environmental conditions (e.g., atmospheric conditions and noise barriers, vegetative or manufactured). Widely distributed noise, such as that generated by a large industrial facility, spread over many acres, or by a street with moving vehicles (known as a “line” source), would typically attenuate at a lower rate—approximately 3 to 4.5 dBA each time the distance doubles from the source, which also depends on environmental conditions (Caltrans, 2009). Noise from large construction sites would exhibit characteristics of both “point” and “line” sources, and attenuation would therefore generally range between 4.5 and 7.5 dBA each time the distance doubles.
5 California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement, September 2013 3 Effects of Noise on People
Related Santa Clara Scheme C 7 ESA / D201901172.02
Noise Technical Report October 2024
3 Effects of Noise on People
Noise is generally loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired sound that is typically associated with human activity that is a nuisance or disruptive. The effects of noise on people can be placed into four general categories:
• Subjective effects (e.g., dissatisfaction, annoyance); • Interference effects (e.g., communication, sleep, and learning interference); • Physiological effects (e.g., startle response); and
• Physical effects (e.g., hearing loss).
Although exposure to high noise levels has been demonstrated to cause physical and physiological effects, the principal human responses to typical environmental noise exposure are related to subjective effects and interference with activities. Interference effects of environmental noise refer to those effects that interrupt daily activities and include interference with human communication activities, such as normal conversations, watching television, telephone conversations, and interference with sleep. Sleep interference effects can include both awakening and arousal to a lesser state of sleep. With regard to the subjective effects, the responses of individuals to similar noise events are diverse and are influenced by many factors, including the type of noise, the perceived importance of the noise, the appropriateness of the noise to the setting, the duration of the noise, the time of day and the type of activity during which the noise occurs, and individual noise sensitivity.
Overall, there is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise, or the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction on people. A wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance exists, and different tolerances to noise tend to develop based on an individual’s past experiences with noise. Thus, an important way of predicting a human reaction to a new noise environment is the way it compares to the existing environment to which one has adapted (i.e., comparison to the ambient noise environment). In general, the more a new noise level exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise level will be judged by those hearing it. With regard to increases in A-weighted noise level, the following relationships generally occur (Caltrans, 2013):
• Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dB cannot be perceived; • Outside of the laboratory, a 3 dB change in noise levels is considered to be a barely perceivable difference;
• A change in noise levels of 5 dB is considered to be a readily perceivable difference; and • A change in noise levels of 10 dB is subjectively heard as doubling of the perceived loudness.
These relationships occur in part because of the logarithmic nature of sound and the decibel system. The human ear perceives sound in a non-linear fashion; hence the decibel scale was developed. Since the decibel scale is based on logarithms, two noise sources do not combine in a simple additive fashion, but rather logarithmically. For example, if two identical noise sources produce noise levels of 50 dB, the combined sound level would be 53 dB, not 100 dB.
4. Environmental Setting
Related Santa Clara Scheme C 8 ESA / D201901172.02
Noise Technical Report October 2024
3.2 Fundamentals of Vibration
As described in the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA, 2018), groundborne vibration can be a serious concern for nearby neighbors of a transit system route or maintenance facility, causing buildings to shake and rumbling sounds to be heard.
In contrast to airborne noise, groundborne vibration is not a common environmental problem. It is unusual for vibration from sources such as buses and trucks to be perceptible, even in locations close to major roads. Some common sources of groundborne vibration are trains, buses on rough roads, and construction activities such as blasting, pile-driving, and operation of heavy earth-moving equipment.
There are several different methods that are used to quantify vibration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. The PPV is most frequently used to describe vibration impacts to buildings. The root mean square (RMS) amplitude is most frequently used to describe the effect of vibration on the human body. The RMS amplitude is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. Decibel notation (VdB) is commonly used to measure RMS. The relationship of PPV to RMS velocity is expressed in terms of the “crest factor,” defined as the ratio of the PPV amplitude to the RMS amplitude. Peak particle velocity is typically a factor of 1.7 to 6 times greater than RMS vibration velocity (FTA, 2018). The decibel notation acts to compress the range of numbers required to describe vibration. Typically, groundborne vibration generated by human-made activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. Sensitive receptors for vibration include structures (especially older masonry structures), people (especially residents, the elderly, and sick), and vibration sensitive equipment.
The effects of groundborne vibration include movement of the building floors, rattling of windows, shaking of items on shelves or hanging on walls, and rumbling sounds. In extreme cases, the vibration can cause damage to buildings. Building damage is not a factor for most projects, with the occasional exception of blasting and pile-driving during construction. Annoyance from vibration often occurs when the vibration levels exceed the threshold of perception by only a small margin. A vibration level that causes annoyance will be well below the damage threshold for normal buildings. The FTA measure of the threshold of architectural damage for conventional sensitive structures is 0.2 in/sec PPV (FTA, 2018).
In residential areas, the background vibration velocity level is usually around 50 VdB (approximately
0.0013 in/sec PPV). This level is well below the vibration velocity level threshold of perception for humans, which is approximately 65 VdB. A vibration velocity level of 75 VdB is considered to be the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels for many people (FTA, 2018).
4. Environmental Setting
4.1 Existing Ambient Noise Levels
The project site is located on either side of Lafayette Street north of Taman Drive and south of Great America Way. Existing uses include a motocross track at the northern end of Parcel 1 and former Santa Clara Golf & Tennis Club on the remaining areas which is no longer in active use.
Surrounding uses include residential uses across the Guadalupe River, which forms the eastern boundary of Parcels 1 and 2. Additionally, newly constructed residential uses, some of which are in the final stage
4. Environmental Setting
Related Santa Clara Scheme C 9 ESA / D201901172.02
Noise Technical Report October 2024
of construction and currently unoccupied, are located on Calle del Mundo, south of Parcels 1 and 2.
A retention basin and office building along Great America Way are immediately north of Parcels 1 and 2 and Parcel 3, respectively. State Route (SR) 237 forms the northern border. San Tomas Aquino Creek is west of Parcel 4, across which lie Santa Clara Convention Center and office land uses.
The project site is surrounded by a network of regional transportation facilities that influence the local noise environment. Transit access is provided by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) which runs a light rail line along Tasman Drive. State Route (SR) 237 is 500 feet north of the northernmost portion of Parcel 1. Levi’s Stadium is 800 feet south of Parcel 4 and contributes occasional event noise inclusive of traffic increases.
The San José Mineta International Airport (Airport) is also located approximately 2.8 miles southeast of the site boundary. Portions of Parcel 4 and Parcel 5 are located within the 65 CNEL contour of the San José Mineta International Airport, as designated in the 2011 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the Airport. However, this is no longer the case for the recently adopted 2024 CLUP. Please refer to Section 4.4, Regulatory Setting, for more detail on the updated CLUP.
Long-term and short-term noise level measurements were conducted in the project vicinity in 2015 for the 2016 EIR. Additionally new long-term measurements were conducted in April of 2024 to establish existing noise environment and supplement/update the 2015 data. The 2024 noise surveys were conducted using Larson Davis Model LxT2 sound level meters that were calibrated before use and operated according to the manufacturer’s written specifications. These measurements included both weekdays and weekends. The measured average noise level (L
eq) during different averaging periods are shown in
Table 1. The measurement locations are identified on Figure 3.
TABLE 1
BACKGROUND NOISE ENVIRONMENTS IN THE PROJECT VICINITY
Long-Term (LT) Noise Monitoring
Location
Noise Levels (dBA)
Primary Noise Sources
Day-Night
Noise
Level
24-Hour
Leq
Daytimea
Hourly
Average Leq
Nighttimeb
Hourly
Average Leq
LT-1: Southern property line of Parcel
2, adjacent to the residences that
front Calle del Mundo.
61 56 58 53 Vehicle traffic and rail operations
on West Tasman Drive and
along Lafayette Street
LT-2: Eastern Property line of Parcel
1, approximately 400 feet from Oak
Crest Estates residences
62 58 61 54 Vehicle traffic on SR 237
LT-3: Merriweather Lane residences,
approximately 500 feet east of the
project site.
62 NA NA NA Distant vehicle traffic on SR 237
LT-4: Stonegate Apartments,
approximately 430 feet east of the
project site.
62 NA NA NA Vehicle traffic and rail operations
on West Tasman Drive along
Lafayette Street
Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibels; Leq = equivalent-continuous sound level; NA: Noise metrics not published in 2016 EIR or appendix.
Noise levels at LT-1 and LT-2 were monitored in 2024. Noise levels at LT-3 and LT-4 were monitored for the 2016 EIR and were collected in 2015. a. Daytime hours are considered to be 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. b. Nighttime hours are considered to be 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
SOURCE: Data compiled by Environmental Science Associates in 2024.
Gold St
Lafayette St
Stars and Stripes Dr
Holger Way
Great America Way
Great America Pkwy
Mountain View-Alviso Rd
Levi’s
Stadium
Bunker Hill Ln
Tasman Dr
Tasman Dr
Tasman Dr
Gold St
Lafayette St
Guadalupe River
Stars and Stripes Dr
Holger Way
Great America Way
Great America Pkwy
Mountain View-Alviso Rd
Levi’s
Stadium
Bunker Hill Ln
Tasman Dr
Tasman Dr
Tasman Dr
237
237
LT-2
LT-3
LT-4
LT-1
LT-2
LT-3
LT-4
LT-1
Figure 3
Noise Measurement Locations
Related Santa Clara Scheme CSOURCE: ESA, 2024; Google Earth, 20242019/D201901172.02 - Santa Clara Related Revised Land Use/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE/Illustrator 0 1000
FeetN
Noise Measurement Locations
Project Site
LT-#LT-#
4. Environmental Setting
Related Santa Clara Scheme C 11 ESA / D201901172.02
Noise Technical Report October 2024
Using data from the 2024 Related Santa Clara Traffic Analysis Memo (Scheme C Traffic Analysis), roadside noise levels along roadway segments near the project site were modeled for background 2018/2019 conditions to provide baseline weekday noise level estimates for the roadway segments near the project site. Although the 2016 EIR analyzed 2015 peak hour traffic volumes with and without the Approved Project, this analysis relies on the 2018/2019 background volumes utilized in the Scheme C Traffic Analysis, which is background data collected pre-pandemic. The 2015 peak hour volumes are greater than the 2018/2019 background volumes. Therefore, this analysis is suitably conservative because the use of 2018/2019 background volumes yields a greater delta when comparing noise levels of Scheme C plus background traffic volumes to those without Scheme C. The background 2018/2019 roadside noise levels during the weekday peak commute hour are presented in Table 2. These modeled noise levels reflect only the noise generated by traffic on the identified roadway segments; they do not include other sources in the area, such as rail and highway noise where these other sources are nearby.
TABLE 2
BACKGROUND TRAFFIC NOISE ALONG ROADS IN THE PROJECT VICINITY Roadway Segment Background Ldn (dBA)
Weekday Noise Levels
Lafayette Street North of Great America Way 65.9
Lafayette Street between Great America Way and Future Driveway to Parcel 1 67.5 Lafayette Street South of Future Driveway to Parcel 1 67.5 Tasman Drive west of Great America Parkway 67.6
Tasman Drive between Great America Parkway and Lick Mill Boulevard 68.7 Tasman Drive east of Lick Mill Boulevard 69.1
Lick Mill Boulevard south of Tasman Drive 64.4
Great America Parkway North of Great America Way 71.3
Great America Parkway between Great America Way and Mountain View-Alviso Road 70.8 Great America Parkway between Mountain View-Alviso Road and Tasman Drive 69.8 Great America Parkway south of Tasman Drive 71.3
SR 237 West of Great America Parkway 77.9
SR 237 East of Great America Parkway 77.0
NOTE: dBA = A-weighted decibels; Noise levels reflect a distance of 50 feet from the roadway center except for SR237 which is 160 feet from roadway center.
SOURCES: Traffic data compiled by Arup in 2024 and noise modeling performed by Environmental Science Associates in 2024.
4.2 Existing Groundborne Vibration Levels
Sources of vibration in the project vicinity include Amtrak, Capital Corridor, and ACE diesel locomotive operations in the Union Pacific Railroad along Lafayette Street as well as VTA light rail along Tasman Drive. FTA has published generalized ground-surface vibration curves for locomotive-powered passenger and freight trains, which are presented in Table 3. It should be noted that many Amtrak trains stop at the Great America Station and that all VTA light rail on Tasman stop at the Santa Clara/Great America and Lick Mill stations and, hence, train speeds are generally in the range of 5 to 20 miles per hour when these stops occur.
4. Environmental Setting
Related Santa Clara Scheme C 12 ESA / D201901172.02
Noise Technical Report October 2024
TABLE 3
GENERALIZED VIBRATION LEVELS FROM LOCOMOTIVE-POWERED PASSENGER OR FREIGHT TRAINS* (VIBRATION
DECIBELS AND PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY)
Train
Speed
Distance from Tracks
30 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet 150 Feet 200 Feet
10 mph 74 VdB/0.051 PPV 71 VdB/0.040 PPV 62 VdB/0.019 PPV 60 VdB/0.016 PPV 58 VdB/0.013 PPV 20 mph 80 VdB/0.085 PPV 77 VdB/0.066 PPV 68 VdB/0.031 PPV 66 VdB/0.026 PPV 64 VdB/0.022 PPV 30 mph 84 VdB/0.12 PPV 81 VdB/0.092 PPV 72 VdB/0.043 PPV 70 VdB/0.037 PPV 68 VdB/0.03 PPV 50 mph 88 VdB/0.17 PPV 85 VdB/0.13 PPV 76 VdB/0.060 PPV 74 VdB/0.024 PPV 72 VdB/0.043 PPV NOTES: mph = miles per hour; PPV = peak particle velocity; VdB = vibration decibels * These levels reflect generalized diesel locomotive activity and do not reflect potential future reductions from electrification of Caltrain north of Diridon Station and increases from High-Speed Rail operations.
SOURCE: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.
The only other sources of groundborne vibration in the project site vicinity are heavy-duty vehicular travel (e.g., refuse trucks, haul trucks) on local roadways. Trucks traveling at a distance of 50 feet typically generate groundborne vibration velocity levels of around 63 VdB (approximately 0.006 in/sec PPV), and these levels could reach 72 VdB (approximately 0.016 in/sec PPV) where trucks pass over discontinuities in the roadway (FTA, 2018).
4.3 Sensitive Receptors
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to ambient noise levels than others due to the amount of noise exposure (in terms of both exposure duration and insulation from noise) and the types of activities typically involved. Residences, motels and hotels, schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, nursing homes, and auditoriums generally are more sensitive to noise than are commercial and industrial land uses.
Sensitive receptors in the study area
6 are described below and presented in Table 4, along with their approximate distance to the project site boundary.
• Noise-sensitive land uses in the project vicinity include the following:
Residential neighborhood south of Tasman Drive and east of Lafayette Street—the nearest residence is approximately 300 feet southeast of Parcels 4 and 5. • Newly constructed residential uses on the north side of Calle Del Mundo adjacent to Parcel 2. • Kathryn Hughes Elementary School and Hughes Preschool, approximately 800 feet southeast of Parcels 4 and 5 and the Great America Amtrak/Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) train station. • Residential neighborhood east of Guadalupe River Trail and south of State Route (SR) 237—the nearest residences are approximately 500 feet east of the Parcel 1 and 2 boundaries. • Mobile home community north of SR-237—the nearest residences are approximately 685 feet north of the Parcel 1 boundary.
6 The study area for noise impacts is the same as considered in the 2016 EIR and generally encompasses land uses within 2,000 feet of the City Place and Scheme C project footprints.
4. Environmental Setting
Related Santa Clara Scheme C 13 ESA / D201901172.02
Noise Technical Report October 2024
TABLE 4
EXISTING NOISE-SENSITIVE RECEPTORS WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF THE PROJECT SITE Type of Sensitive Receptor Location
Minimum Distance from
Project Site Boundaries
South of the Project Site
Multi- -family residences Calle Del Mundo 60 feet south of Parcel 2 Single-family residences Avenida de Los Alumnos 360 feet southeast of Parcel 5 Elementary School and Preschool 4949 Calle de Escuela 800 feet southeast of Parel 5 East of the Project Site
Oak Crest Estates residences East of Guadalupe River 400 feet east of Parcel 1 Merryweather Lane residences East of Guadalupe River 500 feet east of Parcel 1 and 2 Stonegate Apartments East of Guadalupe River 430 feet east of Parcel 2 North of the Project Site
Summerset mobile home community Channel Drive 685 feet north of Parcel 1 and across SR 237 SOURCES: Data compiled by Environmental Science Associates in 2024; Google Earth (imagery date September 11, 2017) for parcel data (address and distance to the site).
4.4 Regulatory Setting
Federal Noise Standards
Standards regarding noise exposure and workers are the primary federal noise standards that directly regulate noise related to the operation of the proposed project. The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) enforces regulations to safeguard the hearing of workers exposed to occupational noise. OSHA has established worker noise exposure limits that vary with the duration of the exposure and requires implementation of a hearing conservation program if employees are exposed to noise levels in excess of 85 dBA.
Federal regulations also establish noise limits for medium and heavy trucks (more than 4.5 tons, gross vehicle weight rating) under 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 205, Subpart B. The federal truck pass-by noise standard is 80 dB at 15 meters from the vehicle pathway centerline. These controls are implemented through regulatory controls on truck manufacturers.
Federal Transit Authority Vibration Standards
FTA has adopted vibration standards that are used to evaluate potential building damage impacts related to construction activities. The vibration damage criteria adopted by FTA are shown in Table 5.
4. Environmental Setting
Related Santa Clara Scheme C 14 ESA / D201901172.02
Noise Technical Report October 2024
TABLE 5
CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION DAMAGE CRITERIA
Building Category PPV (in/sec)
I. Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3
III. Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2
IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 NOTES: in/sec = inches per second; PPV = peak particle velocity SOURCE: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.
In addition, the FTA has also adopted standards associated with human annoyance for groundborne vibration impacts for the following three land-use categories:
• Category 1—High Sensitivity: Buildings where vibration would interfere with operations within the building, including vibration-sensitive research and manufacturing facilities, hospitals with vibration- sensitive equipment, and university research operations. Vibration-sensitive equipment includes, but is not limited to, electron microscopes, high-resolution lithographic equipment, and normal optical microscopes.
• Category 2—Residential: All residential land uses and any buildings where people sleep, such as hotels and hospitals.
• Category 3—Institutional: Land uses such as schools, churches, other institutions, and quiet offices that do not have vibration-sensitive equipment, but still have the potential for activity interference.
Under conditions where there are an infrequent number of events per day, FTA has established thresholds of 65 VdB for Category 1 buildings, 80 VdB for Category 2 buildings, and 83 VdB for Category 3 buildings.
7 Under conditions where there are an occasional number of events per day, FTA has established thresholds of 65 VdB for Category 1 buildings, 75 VdB for Category 2 buildings, and 78 VdB for Category 3 buildings.
8 No thresholds have been adopted or recommended for commercial and office uses.
California Department of Public Health Noise Standards
The California Department of Public Health has established guidelines for evaluating the compatibility of various land uses as a function of community noise exposure. These guidelines for land use and noise exposure compatibility are shown in Table 6. In addition, Section 65302(f) of the California Government Code requires each county and city in the state to prepare and adopt a comprehensive long-range general plan for its physical development, with Section 65302(g) requiring a noise element to be included in the general plan. The noise element must: (1) identify and appraise noise problems in the community; (2) recognize Office of Noise Control guidelines; and (3) analyze and quantify current and projected noise levels.
7 “Infrequent events” is defined by FTA as being fewer than 30 vibration events of the same kind per day. 8 “Occasional events” is defined by FTA as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day.
4. Environmental Setting
Related Santa Clara Scheme C 15 ESA / D201901172.02
Noise Technical Report October 2024
TABLE 6
COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE (DNL OR CNEL)
Land Use
Normally
Acceptablea
Conditionally
Acceptableb
Normally
Unacceptablec
Clearly
Unacceptabled
Single-Family Homes, Duplexes, Mobile Homes 50–60 55–70 70–75 above 75 Multifamily Homes 50–65 60–70 70–75 above 75
Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals,
Nursing Homes 50–70 60–70 70–80 above 80
Transient Lodging—Motels, Hotels 50–65 60–70 70–80 above 75 Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters — 50–70 — above 70 Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator Sports — 50–75 — above 75 Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 50–70 — 67–75 above 75
Golf Courses, Riding Stables,
Water Recreation, Cemeteries 50–75 — 70–80 above 80
Office Buildings, Business and Professional,
Commercial 50–70 67–77 above 75 —
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture 50–75 70–80 above 75 — NOTES:
CNEL = community noise equivalent level; DNL = day-night average noise level a. Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements. b. Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. c. Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. d. Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.
SOURCE: Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State of California General Plan Guidelines, Appendix D, 2017.
The State of California also establishes noise limits for vehicles licensed to operate on public roads. For heavy trucks, the state pass-by standard is consistent with the federal limit of 80 dB. The state pass-by standard for light trucks and passenger cars (less than 4.5 tons, gross vehicle rating) is also 80 dB at 15 meters from the centerline. These standards are implemented through controls on vehicle manufacturers and by legal sanction of vehicle operators by state and local law enforcement officials.
California Building Code
The California Building Code requires that walls and floor/ceiling assemblies separating dwelling units from each other, or from public or service areas, have a Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 50 dB for all common interior walls and floor/ceiling assemblies between adjacent dwelling units or between dwelling units and adjacent public area for multifamily units and transient lodging. 9 The code specifies a maximum
interior performance standard of 45 dBA. Title 24 standards are typically enforced by local jurisdictions through the building permit application process.
The state has also established noise insulation standards for new multifamily residential units, hotels, and motels that would be subject to relatively high levels of transportation-related noise. These requirements
9 The STC is used as a measure of a materials ability to reduce sound. The STC is equal to the number of decibels a sound is reduced as it passes through a material.
4. Environmental Setting
Related Santa Clara Scheme C 16 ESA / D201901172.02
Noise Technical Report October 2024
are collectively known as the California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24, California Code of Regulations). The noise insulation standards set forth an interior standard of 45 dB CNEL in any habitable room. They require an acoustical analysis demonstrating how dwelling units have been designed to meet this interior standard where such units are proposed in areas subject to noise levels greater than 60 dB CNEL. Title 24 standards are typically enforced by local jurisdictions through the building permit application process.
State Vibration Standards
No state vibration standards are applicable to the proposed project. Moreover, according to the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (Caltrans, 2020), there are no official Caltrans standards for vibration. However, this manual provides guidelines for assessing vibration damage potential to various types of buildings, ranging from 0.08 to
0.12 in/sec PPV for extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, and ancient monuments to 0.50 to 2.0 in/sec PPV for modern industrial/commercial buildings.
Santa Clara County 2011 Airport Land Use Commission Comprehensive Land Use Plan
The project site is located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA), as defined by the San José Mineta International Airport’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP), adopted by the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) on May 25, 2011 (SCALUC, 2011). The CLUP was revised in 2024 (see next sub-section below).
The AIA includes areas around the Airport that are affected by noise, height, and safety considerations.
The CLUP includes noise policies and standards for projects in the vicinity of the Airport, as summarized below.
Policy N-1: The CNEL method of representing noise levels shall be used to determine if a specific land use is consistent with the CLUP.
Policy N-2: In addition to the other policies herein, the Noise Compatibility Policies presented in Table 4-1 of the CLUP [Table 7] shall be used to determine if a specific land use is consistent with the CLUP, which shows residential uses are generally acceptable in 55–60 CNEL environments, conditionally acceptable in 60–65 CNEL environments, generally unacceptable in 65–70 CNEL environments, and unacceptable in 70+ CNEL environments. Transient lodging including motels and hotels are generally acceptable in 55–65 CNEL noise environments, conditionally acceptable in 65 to 70 CNEL noise environments, unacceptable at 70+ CNEL noise environments. Commercial uses are generally acceptable in 55-65 CNEL noise environments, conditionally acceptable in 65–70 CNEL noise environments, generally unacceptable in 70–75 noise environments, and unacceptable in 75+ CNEL noise environments.
Policy N-3: Noise impacts shall be evaluated according to the Aircraft Noise Contours presented on Figure 5 of the CLUP.
Policy N-4: No residential or transient lodging construction shall be permitted within the 65 dB CNEL contour boundary unless it can be demonstrated that the resulting interior sound levels will be less than 45 dB CNEL and there are no outdoor patios or outdoor activity areas associated with the residential portion of a mixed use residential project or a multi-unit residential project.
4. Environmental Setting
Related Santa Clara Scheme C 17 ESA / D201901172.02
Noise Technical Report October 2024
TABLE 7
NOISE COMPATIBILITY POLICIES OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE
COMMISSION COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN
Land Use Category
CNEL
55–60 60–65 65–70 70–75 75–80 80–85
Residential—low-density single-family, duplex, mobile homes GA CA GU U U U Residential—multifamily, condominiums, townhouses GA CA GU U U U Transient lodging—motels, hotels GA GA CA U U U
Schools, libraries, indoor religious assemblies, hospitals, nursing homes
GA GU U U U U
Auditoriums, concert halls, amphitheaters GA GU GU U U U Sports arena, outdoor spectator sports, parking GA GA GA CA GU U Playgrounds, neighborhood parks GA GA GU U U U
Golf courses, riding stables, water recreation, cemeteries GA GA GA CA GU U Office buildings, business commercial and professional, retail GA GA CA GU U U Industrial, manufacturing, utilities, agriculture GA GA GA GU GU U GA Generally
Acceptable
Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. Mobile homes may not be acceptable in these areas. Some outdoor activities might be adversely affected.
CA Conditionally
Acceptable
New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Outdoor activities may be adversely affected.
Residential: Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice.
GU Generally
Unacceptable
New construction or development should be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Outdoor activities are likely to be adversely affected.
U Unacceptable New construction or development shall not be undertaken.
NOTE: CNEL = community noise equivalent level
SOURCE: SCALUC, 2011
Policy N-5: All property owners within the Airport Influence Area who rent or lease their property for residential use shall include in their rental/lease agreement with the tenant, a statement advising that they (the tenants) are living within a high noise area and the exterior noise level is predicted to be greater than 65 dB CNEL in a manner that is consistent with current state law including AB2776 (2002).
Policy N-6: Noise level compatibility standards for other types of land uses shall be applied in the same manner as the above residential noise level criteria. Table 4-1 of the CLUP [Table 7, above], presents acceptable noise levels for other land uses in the vicinity of the Airport (refer to Policy N-2 to land uses proposed by the project) as established in Table 4-1 of the CLUP.
Policy N-7: Single-event noise levels (SENL) from single aircraft overflights are also to be considered when evaluating the compatibility of highly noise-sensitive land uses such as schools, libraries, outdoor theaters, and mobile homes. Single-event noise levels are especially important in the areas regularly overflown by aircraft, but which may not produce significant CNEL contours, such as the down-wind segment of the traffic pattern, and airport entry and departure flight corridors.
4. Environmental Setting
Related Santa Clara Scheme C 18 ESA / D201901172.02
Noise Technical Report October 2024
Santa Clara County 2024 Airport Land Use Commission Comprehensive Land Use Plan
In March 2024, the ALUC adopted an update to its CLUP. The updated CLUP that contains the same policies as outlined above for the 2011 CLUP. However, the updated CLUP contains revised Noise Contours for airport operations. Based on the 2024 contours contained in Figure 5 of the 2024 CLUP, the City Center parcels and Parcels 1 and 2 are no longer within the 65 CNEL noise contour for airport operations.
City of Santa Clara 2010-2035 General Plan
The Goals and Policies Chapter of the General Plan (City of Santa Clara, amended 2022) contains 11 policies regarding noise and vibration that are salient to the proposed project. Policies that are relevant to the Scheme C are included below. The General Plan also outlines the levels of exterior noise that are considered “compatible;” noise level exposure that requires design and insulation to maintain acceptable interior noise levels; and noise level exposure that is regarded as “incompatible” for residential, educational, recreational, commercial, industrial, and open space land uses (see Table 8). Land uses proposed for areas designated as incompatible require that the uses are entirely indoors and interior noise levels can be maintained at 45 dBA, Ldn.
Policy 5.8.7-P5. Require new development to implement appropriate measures to reduce the negative effects, such as noise and vibration, of rail and freight services.
Policy 5.10.6-P1. Review all land use and development proposals for consistency with the General Plan compatibility standards and acceptable noise exposure levels defined on Table 5.10 1.
Policy 5.10.6-P2. Incorporate noise attenuation measures for all projects that have noise exposure levels greater than General Plan “normally acceptable” levels, as defined on Table 5.10-1.
Policy 5.10.6-P3. New development should include noise control techniques to reduce noise to acceptable levels, including site layout (setbacks, separation and shielding), building treatments (mechanical ventilation system, sound-rated windows, solid-core doors, and baffling) and structural measures (earthen berms and soundwalls).
Policy 5.10.6-P4. Encourage the control of noise at the source through site design, building design, landscaping, hours of operation, and other techniques.
Policy 5.10.6-P5. Require noise-generating uses near residential neighborhoods to include solid walls and heavy landscaping along common property lines and to place compressors and mechanical equipment in sound-proof enclosures.
Policy 5.10.6-P6. Discourage noise-sensitive uses, such as residences, hospitals, schools, libraries, and rest homes, from areas with high noise levels, and discourage high noise-generating uses from areas adjacent to sensitive uses.
Policy 5.10.6-P7. Implement measures to reduce interior noise levels and restrict outdoor activities in areas subject to aircraft noise in order to make Office/Research and Development uses compatible with the Norman Y. Mineta San José International Airport land use restrictions.
Policy 5.10.6-P8. Continue to encourage safe and compatible land uses within the Norman Y. Mineta San José International Airport Noise Restriction Area.
4. Environmental Setting
Related Santa Clara Scheme C 19 ESA / D201901172.02
Noise Technical Report October 2024
Policy 5.10.6-P11. Develop and include noise reduction measures with improvements and extensions of City streets.
TABLE 8
CITY OF SANTA CLARA 2010-2035 GENERAL PLAN NOISE STANDARDS Land Use 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
Residential
Educational
Recreational
Commercial
Industrial
Open Space
Compatible
Require Design and insulation to reduce noise levels
Incompatible. Avoid land use except when entirely indoors and an interior noise level of 45 Ldn can be maintained
SOURCE: City of Santa Clara General Plan, 2010.
City of Santa Clara Municipal Code
Chapter 9.10 of the City Code applies to the regulation of noise and vibration. The purpose of the noise ordinance is to protect the public welfare by limiting unnecessary, excessive, and unreasonable noise or vibration. Section 9.10.040 specifies the exterior noise limits that apply to land use zones within the City.
Noise from construction activities is not subject to the City’s noise limits, provided that the activities occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction is not permitted within 300 feet of residentially zoned properties on holidays or Sundays. Table 9 shows the exterior noise limits of the City Code.
TABLE 9
EXTERIOR SOUND LIMITS FOR THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Receiving Zone
Zoning Category Time Period
Maximum Noise
Level (dBA)
Category 1
Single-family and duplex
residential (Rl, R2):
Commencing at 7:00 a.m. and ending at 1:00 p.m. that evening 55 Commencing at 10:00 p.m. and ending at 7:00 a.m. the following morning 50 Category 2
Multiple-family residential,
public space (R3, 8):
Commencing at 7:00 a.m. and ending at 10:00 p.m. that evening 55 Commencing at 10:00 p.m. and ending at 7:00 a.m. the following morning 50 Category 3
Commercial, Office (C, 0): Commencing at 7:00 a.m. and ending at 10:00 p.m. that evening 65 Commencing at 10:00 p.m. and ending at 7:00 a.m. the following morning 60
5. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Related Santa Clara Scheme C 20 ESA / D201901172.02
Noise Technical Report October 2024
Receiving Zone
Zoning Category Time Period
Maximum Noise
Level (dBA)
Category 4
Light Industrial (ML, MP): Anytime 70
Heavy Industrial (MH): Anytime 75
SOURCE: Section 9.10.040 of the City of Santa Clara Municipal Code
5. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The analysis in this section summarizes the impacts and findings of the certified 2016 EIR relating to noise and vibration. The analysis also provides a comparison of the Scheme C Project to the Approved Project analyzed in the 2016 EIR as well as a summary of the potential environmental impacts that may result from the Scheme C Project. It describes the methods used to determine the impacts of Scheme C and lists the thresholds used in the 2016 EIR to conclude whether an impact would be significant. All mitigation measures identified in the 2016 EIR that would apply to the Scheme C Project are listed.
5.1 Thresholds of Significance
Based on the thresholds of significance from the 2016 EIR, an impact related to noise and/or groundborne vibration project would be significant if implementing the proposed project would:
• Expose people to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; • Expose people to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; • Cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project;
• Cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project;
• For a project located within an airport land use plan area, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, in an area within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels; or • For a project located in the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
With respect to the last criterion regarding whether the project would be impacted by noise from a private airstrip, the 2016 EIR found that the project site is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip and would not expose people to excessive aircraft noise from a private airstrip. There would be no impact and the topic was not addressed further. Because this is still the case as of 2024, this topic is, likewise, not discussed in further in this technical Report.
Note that 2016 EIR impact statements NOI-3, Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Level, and NOI-4, Temporary or Periodic Increases in Ambient Noise Level, were determined to be addressed through the impact analysis under Impact NOI-1.
5. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Related Santa Clara Scheme C 21 ESA / D201901172.02
Noise Technical Report October 2024
5.2 Methodology
The following is a description of the methodology used to evaluate the impacts of the Scheme C Project relative to each of the significance thresholds cited above.
Substantial Increase in Noise
The first threshold of significance examines whether project construction and/or operations would generate noise in excess of established noise standards which are different for stationary, mobile, and construction noise sources. The evaluation of Scheme C relative to these thresholds is subdivided in sequence similar to the 2016 EIR. Impact 1a focuses on operational increases in ambient noise level from stationary sources, while Impact 1b focuses on the project’s contribution to localized increases in traffic-generated noise along roadways, while Impact 1c focuses on construction-related noise generated by the project.
Stationary-Source Noise
Operational noise from stationary sources such as generators, loading and unloading, TRU operations, and other mechanical equipment; are assessed for a hybrid land use scenario for Scheme C to account for the noisiest operations associated with both a warehouse use and an industrial use. This scenario assumes a combination of manufacturing, which would generate noise from the operation of multiple generators, and warehouse/distribution facilities, which would generate noise from on-site truck traffic and loading/ unloading activities. The analysis of stationary source noise relies on proxy equipment specifications for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment and backup generators, given that project- specific details are not available. The impacts of the Scheme C’s noise and vibration levels are determined relative to the thresholds from the 2016 EIR including City’s applicable noise level criteria in Section 9.10.040 of the City’s municipal code which limits noise levels for fixed noise sources and the noise standards of the General Plan.
For stationary noise sources, the 2016 EIR applied the City Code exterior noise limits of 55 and 50 dBA in residential areas for day and nighttime hours, respectively. The standards apply to the property line of any use other than the property from which the noise emanates. However, according to the City Noise Ordinance, if the measured ambient noise level at any given location differs from those levels set forth in City Code 9.10.040, Schedule A, the allowable noise exposure standard shall be adjusted in five dBA increments in each category as appropriate to encompass or reflect said ambient noise level. As shown in Table 1, the existing average nighttime hourly noise level monitored at the eastern and southern property lines adjacent to receptors was 53 to 54 dBA. Therefore, the applicable nighttime noise standard at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors would be 55 dBA.
Project-Generated Traffic Noise
Potential noise increases from changes in traffic volumes due to Scheme C operations are evaluated using revised passenger vehicle trip distribution for a single project scenario described above. Noise from 24- hour truck operations is estimated for the warehouse/distribution facilities using information provided by the transportation consultant (ARUP) and assumes truck distribution as determined in the 2024 Related Santa Clara Project Traffic Analysis Memo.
Significant operational traffic noise impacts were identified in the 2016 EIR because the Approved Project noise levels would exceed local land use noise standards for the affected land uses and the
5. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Related Santa Clara Scheme C 22 ESA / D201901172.02
Noise Technical Report October 2024
Approved Project would increase existing traffic noise levels by 3.0 dBA or more (3 dBA is the threshold level for most people to notice a change in noise). This threshold is consistent with the guidance on the significance of changes in ambient noise levels from transportation provided by the 1992 findings of the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON), which assessed the annoyance effects of changes in ambient noise levels caused by aircraft operations (FICON, 1992). The recommendations are based on studies that relate aircraft noise levels to the percentage of persons highly annoyed by the noise. The term “annoyance” summarizes the general adverse reaction of people to noise that interferes with speech, disturbs sleep, or interferes with the desire for a tranquil environment. Although the FICON recommendations were specifically developed to assess aircraft noise impacts, they apply to all sources of transportation noise described in terms of cumulative noise exposure metrics such as the DNL. The measures of a substantial increase in transportation noise exposure as recommended by FICON are presented in Table 10.
TABLE 10
MEASURES OF A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN TRANSPORTATION NOISE EXPOSURE Ambient Noise Level
without Project (DNL)
Significant Impact Assumed to Occur if Project
Site Development Increases Ambient Noise
Levels by:
<60 dB + 5.0 dB or more
60–65 dB + 3.0 dB or more
>65 dB + 1.5 dB or morea
NOTES: dB = decibels; DNL = day-night average noise level a. According to the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise report, the 1.5 A-weighted decibel (dBA) increase in environments that exceed 65 dBA is not necessarily a significant increase but, rather, an increase warranting further investigation.
SOURCE: Federal Interagency Committee on Noise, Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues, August 1992.
This analysis of traffic-related noise uses the traffic volumes developed for the 2024 Related Santa Clara Project Traffic Analysis Memo. The methodology for developing background and Scheme C traffic volumes is described in the traffic analysis memo.10
Traffic noise levels were modeled using the algorithms of the Federal Highway Administration’s Traffic Noise Model for the background and background plus project and cumulative plus project scenarios. The resulting noise levels were then compared to the noise levels predicted for the Approved Project in the 2016 EIR.
Additionally, because the Scheme C Project could include a warehouse facility that could operate 24- hours per day, a nighttime roadway noise analysis was conducted that compares a background nighttime traffic noise to a background plus project scenario. For consistency with the 2016 EIR analysis, this nighttime analysis applies the 3 dBA increase that was used in the 2016 EIR as the threshold of significance. This is a reasonable threshold because Caltrans considers a 3 dBA to be a barely perceptible increase in transportation noise (Caltrans, 2013).
10 See the 2024 Related Santa Clara Traffic Analysis Memo prepared by Arup for the Project Applicant and peer reviewed by Hexagon for the City of Santa Clara. See Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use CEQA Checklist/Addendum Appendix B.
5. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Related Santa Clara Scheme C 23 ESA / D201901172.02
Noise Technical Report October 2024
Construction Noise and Vibration
The approach to assessment of impacts from changes in noise and vibration from construction assumes that the construction footprints between the Approved Project and Scheme C would not change substantially and that because the increase in density in Parcel 4 would likely be accommodated primarily by building height, construction noise and vibration impacts would be similar to those identified in the 2016 EIR. The changes in construction-related noise would result primarily from an increased duration of the overall construction timeline to accommodate the added density in the southwestern area of the site. The same equipment would be used and the same distance to receptors analyzed in the 2016 EIR would occur.
While there could be a greater duration of construction activity, this would not affect the magnitude of the noise levels experienced at nearby receptors and would not result in a further temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels. Therefore, quantitative analysis of construction-related noise and vibration is not warranted.
Exposure of People to Excessive Noise Levels
As discussed above, a portion of the project site is within the 65 CNEL noise contour of San José Mineta International Airport. CEQA requires the analysis of potential adverse effects of a project on the environment; however, the California Supreme Court ruled in BIA v. BAAQMD that the potential effects of the environment on the project are legally not required to be analyzed or mitigated under CEQA, except where the project’s impacts would exacerbate the existing conditions. However, the ruling provided several exceptions to this general rule including if the project’s occupants are exposed to potential noise and safety impacts because of the project site’s proximity to an airport (Public Resources Code Section 21096). In addition, Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines continues to identify a project’s exposure to airport noise as an impact under CEQA. Therefore, this analysis uses the future noise exposure estimates provided in the CLUP for the Airport to assess the potential for proposed land uses to be adversely affected by aircraft noise.
Non-CEQA Planning Considerations
Noise and vibration impacts on proposed future project development from the existing environment, such as existing roadway noise, existing noise-generating land uses, existing railway noise, and existing railway vibration; have been determined to not be subject to CEQA. However, the City has policies and regulations that address existing conditions affecting a proposed project, and General Plan Policy 5.10.6- P1 provides standards for noise exposure for new land uses. Consequently, this report contains a discussion of the land use compatibility of the Scheme C Project, similar to what was done in the 2016 EIR.
Cumulative Impacts
As stated above, for construction noise, the same equipment would be used and the same distance to receptors analyzed in the 2016 EIR would occur. While there could be a greater duration of construction activity, this would not affect the magnitude of the noise levels experienced at nearby receptors and would not result in a further temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels which is the CEQA threshold. Therefore, the cumulative impacts from construction would be the same as identified in the 2016 EIR. While there is existing cumulative construction occurring along Calle del Mundo that was not envisioned in the 2016 EIR, this construction will be complete by the time construction under Scheme C commences. Therefore, there would be no new cumulative construction noise impacts.
5. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Related Santa Clara Scheme C 24 ESA / D201901172.02
Noise Technical Report October 2024
Cumulative noise impacts from operations would occur if new sources were to be developed within 800 feet of project elements.11 While there will be new residential land uses becoming occupied along Calle del Mundo that were not envisioned in the 2016 EIR, residential uses are generally not considered to be noise generating land uses.
12 The significance of cumulative impacts related to traffic noise levels is determined using a two-step process. First, similar to the project-level assessment of traffic impacts, the increase in noise levels between cumulative (2035) conditions13 with the Scheme C Project and background conditions is compared to an incremental 3 dBA threshold. If the roadside noise levels were to exceed this incremental threshold, a significant cumulative noise impact would be identified.
The second step of the analysis of cumulative roadside noise impacts (if a significant cumulative noise impact is predicted based on the above methodology) is to evaluate whether the contribution of the project to roadside noise levels would be cumulatively considerable. This second step (if necessary) involves assessing whether the project’s contribution to roadside noise levels (i.e., the difference between cumulative conditions and cumulative plus project conditions) would exceed a 1 dBA incremental contribution as was applied in the 2016 EIR. Such an increase is a reasonable criterion to use for assessing a cumulatively considerable increase because decibels are logarithmic metrics and a 1 dBA contribution to a significant 3 dBA or greater increase represents less than 30 percent contribution and is a contribution well below the threshold of perception.
5.3 Project Impacts
Impact 1: Would the revised project expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies?
Impact NOI‐1a: Construction Noise Impacts on Off‐Site Land Uses Approved Project
Under the Approved Project, Parcel 1 was to be developed with 1.2 million square feet (sf) of office space while Parcel 2 was to be developed with 2.16 million sf of office space. The 2016 EIR found that noise levels resulting from construction of the project would temporarily exceed the City Code noise limits at sensitive land uses during non-exempt hours and that construction noise impacts on off-site land uses would be significant. Mitigation Measure NOI-1.1 was identified to require the development of a construction noise control plan that would ensure that construction activities would comply with the City Code and the resulting impact would be less than significant with mitigation.
11 This 800-foot distance is applied in the 2016 EIR. Assuming that surrounding uses are in compliance with the City of Santa Clara Noise Ordinance, noise levels at a heavy industrial property line could be as high as 75 dBA (see Table 9). At a distance of 800 feet, this noise level would be attenuated to 54 dBA which is the existing nighttime hourly average noise level monitored at the property line of the project site (see Table 1). 12 The background vibration velocity level in residential areas is usually 50 VdB or lower (FTA, 2018). 13 Cumulative No Project volumes are derived from the 2035 City of Santa Clara (CSC) model based on a model run with Related Santa Clara land uses removed from the model.
5. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Related Santa Clara Scheme C 25 ESA / D201901172.02
Noise Technical Report October 2024
Scheme C
It is assumed that the construction footprints between the Approved Project and Scheme C would not change substantially and that, because the increase in density in Parcel 4 would likely be accommodated by building height, construction noise and vibration impacts would be similar to those indicated in the 2016 EIR with the changes primarily resulting in an increased duration of the overall construction timeline to accommodate the increased density in the southwestern area of the project site. The same equipment would be used and the same distance to receptors analyzed in the 2016 EIR would occur.
While there could be a greater duration of construction activity, this would not affect the magnitude of the noise levels experienced at nearby receptors and would not result in a further temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels. Therefore, construction-related noise impacts associated with the Scheme C would also be less than significant with mitigation and additional quantitative analysis of construction-related noise and vibration is not warranted.
Impact NOI-1b: Construction Noise Impacts on On-Site Land Uses The same reasoning applied above for the assessment of construction noise impacts to off-site land uses also applied to on-site receptors proposed by the project.
Impact NOI-1c: Operational Noise Impacts on Off-Site Land Uses Stationary Noise Sources
Approved Project
Under the Approved Project, Parcel 1 was to be developed with 1.2 million square feet (sf) of office space while Parcel 2 was to be developed with 2.16 million sf of office space. The 2016 EIR found that, because the Approved Project would locate commercial uses adjacent to residential uses, stationary sources associated with commercial uses could result in noise levels that would exceed the City Code exterior noise limits of 55 and 50 dBA in future project residential areas for day and nighttime hours, respectively.
The noise impact associated with the exposure of future project residences to stationary sources of noise was, therefore, identified as significant. Potential stationary source noise impacts to off-site receptors was not addressed in the 2016 EIR. Mitigation Measure NOI-1.3 was identified to ensure that potential noise impacts to on-site uses would be addressed through design and would reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level.
NOI-1.3: Prepare and Implement a Noise Control Plan to Reduce Interior Noise at Sensitive Land Uses. The Project Developer shall conduct a design-level acoustic study that identifies exterior noise levels for residential and commercial uses on the Project site. This study shall take into account existing airport noise, Project, and reasonably foreseeable future noise sources (such as proposed increases in passenger rail service along the Lafayette Street corridor). Where this study finds that the exterior noise level would exceed the residential compatibility standard of 55 dBA Ldn or the commercial incompatibility standard of 65 dBA Ldn, the Project Developer shall prepare a design-level operational noise control plan to provide acceptable interior noise levels. This plan shall identify all Project features and treatments that will be implemented to ensure that the Project is in compliance with the interior noise standards listed in the City’s General Plan and City Code as well as the standards specified for new construction within the CLUP for SJC.
5. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Related Santa Clara Scheme C 26 ESA / D201901172.02
Noise Technical Report October 2024
The study and plan shall be developed by an acoustical design professional. Design features and treatments will be identified to ensure that interior noise levels at new proposed uses are in compliance with the noise standards. The report shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits for the Project. Depending on the noise exposure for a particular site, such treatments may include, but are not limited to, those listed below, as recommended by the acoustical design professional. • Construction of enclosures around noise-generating mechanical equipment at commercial uses.
• Use of setbacks from noise sources to maximum attenuation of noise over distance. • Installation of noise-reducing treatments in new buildings, including:
– High-performance, sound-rated double-glazed windows,
– Sound-rated doors,
– Sound-rated exterior wall construction,
– Special acoustical details for vents,
– Acoustical caulking at all exterior façade penetrations, – Sound-rated roof and ceiling constructions, and
– Adequate mechanical ventilation so that windows and doors may be kept closed at the discretion of the building occupants to control environmental noise intrusion.
Scheme C Project
Scheme C would replace the office land uses proposed under the Approved Project with approximately
1.6 million sf of warehouse or manufacturing uses. These land uses would generate additional stationary source noise considerations. First, both land uses would require HVAC systems. The 17-story towers proposed under the Approved Project would require large, packaged HVAC equipment on the rooftops.
Similarly, industrial uses would also likely require large, packaged HVAC units and the rooftops would be at a lower level. However, building heights on Parcels 1 and 2 would be reduced from the 17-story towers assumed in the 2016 EIR. Buildings on Parcels 1 and 2 would be roughly one to two high-bay levels, or 60 feet in height. While up to half of buildings may reach a height of up to 90 feet to accommodate upper-level commercial or light industrial uses, this analysis conservatively assumes that all buildings would be 60 feet in height which could allow direct line of sight with some elevated off-site receptors in residential towers being constructed in Calle del Mundo, unlike a 90-foot building height assumption.
Second, the industrial/warehouse uses under Scheme C would potentially require back-up diesel generators. Like the Approved Project, taller buildings across the Project site would also have required back-up diesel generators for emergency egress.14
14 As noted in Section 4.1 of the CEQA Addendum, the proposed Master Community Plan Scheme C Supplement would revise the formulation of the height limits to permit towers on Parcel 4 of up to approximately 10-12 stories, with a maximum building height consistent with ALUC regulations and Federal Aviation hazard limits pursuant to FAA Federal Aviation Regulations, FAR Part 77 criteria. Although this revision would remove the 219 feet above msl height limit on Parcel 4, the revised height limits would remain consistent with applicable General Plan Policy 5.10.5-P30 and General Plan Policy
5.10.5-P33 that require compatibility with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and Federal Aviation Administration Federal Aviation Regulations, FAR Par 77 criteria hazard height limits at San José Mineta International Airport, respectively.
5. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Related Santa Clara Scheme C 27 ESA / D201901172.02
Noise Technical Report October 2024
Potential warehouse uses under Scheme C could result in truck maneuvering and operation of transportation refrigeration units (TRUs) within the project site that would be the sources of on-site stationary noise that were not a consideration in the 2016 EIR. Loading and unloading activities would also likely necessitate the use of forklifts. Both trucks and forklifts would need to operate back-up alarms to ensure worker safety, but forklifts would generally operate within the interior of the warehouse. Each of these sources is considered below and an estimate of the aggregate noise levels resulting from all sources is then considered.
Overall, while the square footage of development on the project site would remain generally the same as under the Approved Project, the industrial/warehouse uses on Parcels 1 and 2 would include different stationary noise sources and could operate 24 hours per day and hence increase operational noise levels during the more sensitive nighttime hours.
Noise from HVAC Systems
As discussed above, the 2016 EIR considered stationary source impacts from HVAC systems on adjacent on-site receptors and identified the impact as potentially significant because of the potential to exceed the City residential compatibility standard of 55 dBA Ldn or the commercial incompatibility standard of 65 dBA Ldn. A recent analysis of HVAC noise from industrial uses estimated that with five pieces of equipment to be operating simultaneously at any time during a 24-hour period, which would represent worst-case conditions, the total potential noise generated by the mechanical equipment would be up to 69 dBA Leq and 75 dBA DNL at 20 feet (Illingworth and Rodkin, 2023).
The eastern extent of the building rooftops on Parcels 1 and 2 would be approximately 750 feet from residences to the east on Shorewood Lane and at Oakcrest Estates mobile home park. The southern extent of the building rooftops would be approximately 500 feet from residences to the south on Calle del Mundo. It should be noted that the nearest proposed on-site receptor would be future project residential uses on Block WL which would be approximately 900 feet to the west and further away than the off-site receptors.
Table 11 shows noise levels associated with HVAC at a reference distance of 20 feet. The table also presents the noise level from HVAC at the distance of the nearest noise sensitive receptors. The noise levels predicted in Table 11 are noise levels attenuated with distance and do not take into account the shielding provided by enclosures or parapets. As can be seen from Table 11, operational noise from HVAC at the nearest receptors would be well below the applicable nighttime noise standard of 55 dBA.
TABLE 11
HVAC OPERATIONAL NOISE
Scenario
Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (Leq), in dBA
20 Feet
(Reference
distance)
500 Feet
(Calle del Mundo
residences at 77 feet tall)
750 feet
(Shorewood Lane
residences at 5 feet tall)
5 Industrial HVAC packages 69 48 45
City of Santa Clara Nighttime Noise Standard (adjusted) -- 55 55 NOTES: dBA = A-weighted decibels
SOURCE: Illingworth and Rodkin, 2023 and ESA. 2024 (Appendix A)
5. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Related Santa Clara Scheme C 28 ESA / D201901172.02
Noise Technical Report October 2024
Generators
One emergency generator could be located in each of the 10 proposed buildings for Scheme C. The generators are assumed to be rated for up to 500 kilowatts. Except for emergency conditions, all of these generators would be tested for maintenance approximately once a week for less than one hour, up to a maximum of 50 hours per year as restricted by the applicable air quality permit. Maintenance testing is typically conducted either by a professional technician during normal work (e.g., daytime) hours or on a programmed basis.
A 500 kilowatt generator has a sound pressure rating of 75 dBA at 3 feet (Cummins, 2018). It is unlikely that all 10 generators would be tested simultaneously. Using a conservative approach, this analysis assumed that six generators could be tested at the eastern edge of the six buildings that would form along the eastern side of Parcels 1 and 2 (see Figure 4). Table 12 shows noise levels associated with six generators at a reference distance of 23 feet as well as the noise level from generators at the distance of the nearest noise sensitive receptors. The noise levels predicted in Table 12 are noise levels attenuated with distance and do not take into account the shielding provided by intervening structures. As can be seen from Table 12, operational noise from generator testing at the nearest receptors would be well below the applicable daytime noise standard of 55 dBA.
TABLE 12
GENERATOR TESTING NOISE
Scenario
Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (Leq), in dBA
3 Feet
(Reference distance)
500 Feet
(Calle del Mundo
residences at 77 feet tall)
750 feet
(Shorewood Lane
residences at 5 feet tall)
6 Generators (500 KvA) 83 39 35
City of Santa Clara Daytime Noise Standard -- 55 55
NOTES: dBA = A-weighted decibels
SOURCE: Cummins, 2018 and ESA. 2024 (Appendix A)
Truck movements
Preliminary drawings of the proposed buildings on Parcels 1 and 2 indicate that there would be four building clusters to the north and two additional buildings on the southern end. The four building clusters are designed to have loading docks within the interior of the building clusters. Ingress and egress openings would be located at the northern and southern ends of the three southern clusters, and in the western and eastern ends if the northern cluster (see Figure 4). In this design scheme, the proposed buildings would serve as a barrier to noise within the loading dock areas where trucks would back into the docks. This design scheme would also facilitate a single direction truck route within the parcels which would largely minimize the need for back-up alarms except when backing into the loading docks.
The southernmost buildings are designed with loading docks exposed on the northern side of the building.
In this configuration, the buildings would serve as a noise barrier for the residential uses on Calle del Mundo to the south.
N
Parcel 1
Parcel 2
Related Santa Clara Scheme C
Figure 4
Scheme C Parcels 1 and 2 Building Con/f_igurations
SOURCE: Related Santa Clara 20232019/D201901172.02 - Santa Clara Related Revised Land Use/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE/Illustrator
5. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Related Santa Clara Scheme C 30 ESA / D201901172.02
Noise Technical Report October 2024
Operation of the proposed loading docks would increase ambient noise levels in the immediate vicinity primarily through the on-site movement of trucks and the occasional operation of TRUs and operation of forklifts. The eastern extent of the loading dock areas would be approximately 750 feet from residences to the east on Shorewood Lane and at Oakcrest Estates mobile home park. The southern extent of the loading dock areas would be approximately 500 feet from residences to the south on Calle del Mundo.
As discussed above, the proposed buildings would serve as a barrier to noise within the loading dock areas where trucks would back into the docks. The Barrier Performance Module developed by the department of Housing and Urban Development was used to estimate the degree of acoustical shielding provided by the proposed 60-foot structures
15, as they would apply to elevated receptors of the 7-story residential tower on Calle del Mundo. Module output indicates a net noise reduction of 16 dBA, conservatively assuming an off-site receptor at a seventh story height (77 feet).
Table 13 shows noise levels associated with semi-trailer truck maneuvering including operation of TRUs (ESA, 2008). This table indicates that the highest noise levels generated during a semi-trailer truck operation would be 66 dBA at 50 feet, as it maneuvers into a parking space. Once a truck is parked, the TRU could continue to operate, generating noise level of 62 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. The table also presents the noise level from truck maneuvering at the distance of the nearest noise sensitive receptors.
The noise levels predicted in Table 13 apply a 16 dBA reduction for attenuation afforded by the proposed 60-foot structures. As can be seen from Table 13, operational noise from a single truck maneuvering at the nearest receptors would be below the applicable nighttime noise standard of 50 dBA.
TABLE 13
SEMI-TRAILER TRUCK OPERATIONS AND DELIVERY
Scenario
Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (Leq), in dBA
50 Feet
(Reference
distance)
500 Feet
(Calle del Mundo
residences)
750 feet
(Shorewood Lane
residences)
Truck Maneuvering into Loading Area with Operating TRU 65.9 30 26 TRU On with Engine at Idle 65.5 30 28
TRU On with Engine Off 61.7 26 22
Five trucks Maneuvering into Loading Area with Operating TRU N/A 37 33 City of Santa Clara Nighttime Noise Standard -- 55 55
NOTES: dBA = A-weighted decibels
SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates, Fresh and Easy Distribution Truck Noise Study, December 3, 2008