------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT
APPROXIMATE -------------------------------
ABBREVIATED DISTANCE MAXIMUM I PEAK JEST. SITE FAULT NAME I mi (km) JEARTHQUAKE1 SITE JINTENSITY MAG. (MW) I ACCEL. g JMOD.MERC.
ROSE CANYON 1 9.9( 16.0) 1 7.2 1 0.407 1 X NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) 1 10.3( 16.6) 1 7.1 1 0.374 1 IX ELSINORE (TEMECULA) 1 19.4( 31.2) 1 6.8 1 0.172 1 VIII ELSINORE (JULIAN) 1 19.4( 31.3) 1 7.1 1 0.209 1 VIII CORONADO BANK 1 25.9( 41.7) 1 7.6 1 0.221 1 IX ELSINORE (GLEN IVY) 1 32.1( 51.7) 1 6.8 1 0.103 1 VII SAN JOAQUIN HILLS 1 37.2( 59.9) 1 6.6 1 0.109 1 VII EARTHQUAKE VALLEY 1 39.1( 62.9) 1 6. 5 1 0.068 1 VI PALOS VERDES 1 40.1( 64. 5) 1 7. 3 1 0.115 I VII SAN JACINTO-ANZA 1 42.1( 67.8) 1 7.2 1 0.102 1 VII SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY 1 43.1( 69.4) 1 6.9 I 0.081 1 VII SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK 1 47.2( 76.0) 1 6.6 1 0.060 1 VI CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) 1 47.7( 76.7) 1 6.7 1 0.089 1 VII NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) 1 48.3( 77.8) 1 7.1 1 0.082 1 VII WHITTIER 1 51. 5( 82.9) 1 6.8 1 0.063 I VI ELSINORE (COYOTE MOUNTAIN) 1 54.0( 86.9) 1 6.8 1 0.060 1 VI SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO 1 57. 5( 92. 5) 1 6.7 1 0.052 1 VI SAN JACINTO - BORREGO 1 61. 5( 99.0) 1 6.6 1 0.045 1 VI SAN ANDREAS - Whole M-la 1 62.0( 99.7 ) 1 8.0 1 0.123 1 VII SAN ANDREAS - San Bernardino M-11 62.0( 99.7 ) 1 7. 5 1 0.085 1 VII SAN ANDREAS - SB-Coach. M-lb-2 1 62.0( 99.7 ) 1 7.7 1 0.098 1 VII SAN ANDREAS - SB-Coach. M-2b 1 62.0( 99.7 ) 1 7.7 1 0.098 1 VII PUENTE HILLS BLIND THRUST 1 62.3( 100.2) 1 7.1 1 0.090 1 VII -END OF SEARCH- 23 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS.
THE ROSE CANYON FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE.
IT IS ABOUT 9.9 MILES (16.0 km) AWAY.
LARGEST MAXIMUM-EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.4066 g
W.O. 8058-A-SC
PLATE C-2
CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP
Zoran Djordjevich
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100 ~��O
o
E
0 -100
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 W.O. 8058-A-SC
PLATE C-3
MAXIMUM EARTHQUAKES
Zoran Dj ordj evich
1 > x
x
x
xxxx
x�
L
U
CU
Q
.01
.001
. 1 1 10
Distance (mi)
W.O. 8058-A-SC
PLATE C-4
EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDES & DISTANCES
Zoran Dj ordj evich
8.00 •
7.75 •
•
7.50 •
75 •
_0 7.25
c�
7.00 •
6.75 6.50 •
. 1 1 10
Distance (mi)
W.O. 8058-A-SC
PLATE C-5
� E0SEARCH �
� Version 3.00 �
ESTIMATION OF
PEAK ACCELERATION FROM
CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE CATALOGS
30B NUMBER: 8058
DATE: 02-16-2021
308 NAME: Zoran Djordjevich
EARTHQUAKE-CATALOG-FILE NAME: ALL0UAKE.DAT
SITE COORDINATES:
SITE LATITUDE: ]].1854
SITE LONGITUDE: 117.2569
SEARCH DATES:
START DATE: 1800
END DATE: ZOZI
SEARCH RADIUS:
62.4 mi
100.4 km
ATTENUATION RELATION: IZ) Bnznrgnia Campbell Niazi (1999) Hnr.-Soft Rock-[or.
UNCERTAINTY (M~Median, S=Sigma) : S Number of Sigmas: 1.0 ASSUMED SOURCE TYPE: SS [SS=Strike-slip. DS=Reverse-slip, BT~8lind-thrust] 5[OND: 0 Depth Source: A
Basement Depth: 'IO km Campbell SSR: l Campbell SHR: 0
COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION
MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km) : 3.0
Page l
VV.O. 8O58'A'SC
PLATEC'8
-------------------------
EARTHQUAKE SEARCH RESULTS
-------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIME I I I SITE ISITEI APPROX.
FILES LAT. I LONG. I DATE I (UTC) IDEPTHIQUAKE1 ACC. I MM I DISTANCE CODE) NORTH I WEST I I H M Secl (km) l MAG. 1 g JINT. 1 mi [km] ----+-------+--------+----------+--------+-----+-----+-------+----+------------ DMG 133.00001117.3000111/22/180012130 0.01 0.01 6. 501 0.209 IvIIIj 13.0( 21.0) MGI 133.00001117.0000109/21/18561 730 0.01 0.01 5.001 0.055 1 vi 1 19.6( 31.6) MGI 132.80001117.1000105/25/18031 0 0 0.01 0.01 5.001 0.038 1 v 1 28.1( 45.2) DMG 133.20001116.7000101/01/19201 235 0.01 0.01 5.001 0.033 1 v 1 32.2( 51.8) DMG 132.70001117.2000105/27/1862120 0 0.01 0.01 5.901 0.054 1 VI 1 33.7( 54.2) T-A 132.67001117.1700112/00/18561 0 0 0.01 0.01 5.001 0.030 1 v 1 35.9( 57.8) T-A 132.67001117.1700105/24/18651 0 0 0.01 0.01 5.001 0.030 1 v 1 35.9( 57.8) T-A 132.67001117.1700110/21/18621 0 0 0.01 0.01 5.001 0.030 1 v 1 35.9( 57.8) DMG 133.70001117.4000104/11/19101 757 0.01 0.01 5.001 0.029 1 v 1 36. 5( 58.7) DMG 133.70001117.4000105/15/191011547 0.01 0.01 6.001 0.053 1 vi 1 36. 5( 58.7) DMG 133.70001117.4000105/13/19101 620 0.01 0.01 5.001 0.029 1 v 1 36. 5( 58.7) DMG 132.80001116.8000110/23/1894123 3 0.01 0.01 5.701 0.043 1 vi 1 37. 5( 60.4) MGI 133.20001116.6000110/12/192011748 0.01 0.01 5.301 0.033 1 v 1 38.0( 61.1) DMG 133.69901117.5110105/31/19381 83455.41 10.01 5. 501 0.037 1 v 1 38.4( 61.7) PAS 132.97101117.8700107/13/198611347 8.21 6.01 5.301 0.033 1 v 1 38.4( 61.8) DMG 133.71001116.9250109/23/19631144152.61 16. 51 5.001 0.026 1 v 1 41.0( 65.9) DMG 133.75001117.0000106/06/191812232 0.01 0.01 5.001 0.025 1 v 1 41.7( 67.1) DMG 133.75001117.0000104/21/19181223225.01 0.01 6.801 0.078 1 vIIj 41.7( 67.1) DMG 133.80001117.0000112/25/189911225 0.01 0.01 6.401 0.055 1 vi 1 44.9( 72.3) GSP 133. 52901116.5720106/12/20051154146. 51 14.01 5.201 0.026 1 v 1 46.1( 74.1) MGI 133.80001117.6000104/22/191812115 0.01 0.01 5.001 0.022 1 Iv 1 46.8( 75.3) GSG 133.42001116.4890107/07/20101235333. 51 14.01 5. 501 0.030 1 v 1 47.2( 75.9) PAS 133. 50101116.5130102/25/19801104738. 51 13.61 5. 501 0.029 1 v 1 48.1( 77.4) GSP 133. 50801116.5140110/31/20011075616.61 15.01 5.101 0.023 1 Iv 1 48.3( 77.7) DMG 133. 50001116.5000109/30/19161 211 0.01 0.01 5.001 0.022 1 Iv 1 48.8( 78. 5) DMG 133.00001116.4330106/04/194011035 8.31 0.01 5.101 0.022 1 Iv 1 49.3( 79.4) DMG 133.90001117.2000112/19/18801 0 0 0.01 0.01 6.001 0.039 1 v 1 49.4( 79.6) DMG 133. 57501117.9830103/11/19331 518 4.01 0.01 5.201 0.024 1 Iv 1 49.8( 80.1) GSP 133.43151116.4427106/10/20161080438.71 12.31 5.191 0.023 1 Iv 1 50.0( 80.4) DMG 133.61701117.9670103/11/19331 154 7.81 0.01 6.301 0.046 1 vi 1 50.6( 81. 5) DMG 133.61701118.0170103/14/1933119 150.01 0.01 5.101 0.021 1 Iv 1 53.0( 85.3) DMG 133.34301116.3460104/28/19691232042.91 20.01 5.801 0.031 1 v 1 53.7( 86.4) DMG 134.00001117.2500107/23/19231 73026.01 0.01 6.251 0.040 1 v 1 56.2( 90. 5) DMG 133.68301118.0500103/11/19331 658 3.01 0.01 5. 501 0.024 1 v 1 57.2( 92.0) DMG 133.40001116.3000102/09/1890112 6 0.01 0.01 6.301 0.040 1 v 1 57.2( 92.0) DMG 133.95001116.8500109/28/19461 719 9.01 0.01 5.001 0.018 1 Iv 1 57.7( 92.9) MGI 134.00001117.5000112/16/1858110 0 0.01 0.01 7.001 0.063 1 vi 1 58.0( 93.3) DMG 133.70001118.0670103/11/19331 51022.01 0.01 5.101 0.019 1 Iv 1 58.7( 94.4) DMG 133.70001118.0670103/11/19331 85457.01 0.01 5.101 0.019 1 Iv 1 58.7( 94.4) DMG 133.40801116.2610103/25/193711649 1.81 10.01 6.001 0.032 1 v 1 59. 5( 95.7) GSG 133.95301117.7610107/29/20081184215.71 14.01 5.301 0.020 1 Iv 1 60.4( 97.2) DMG 133.20001116.2000105/28/189211115 0.01 0.01 6.301 0.037 1 v 1 61.1( 98.3) DMG 133.75001118.0830103/11/19331 323 0.01 0.01 5.001 0.017 1 Iv 1 61. 5( 99.0) DMG 133.75001118.0830103/11/19331 230 0.01 0.01 5.101 0.018 1 Iv 1 61. 5( 99.0) DMG 133.75001118.0830103/11/19331 910 0.01 0.01 5.101 0.018 1 Iv 1 61. 5( 99.0) DMG 133.75001118.0830103/13/19331131828.01 0.01 5.301 0.020 1 Iv 1 61. 5( 99.0) DMG 133.75001118.0830103/11/19331 2 9 0.01 0.01 5.001 0.017 1 Iv 1 61. 5( 99.0) DMG 133.28301116.1830103/23/19541 41450.01 0.01 5.101 0.018 1 Iv 1 62.4(100.4) DMG 133.28301116.1830103/19/19541 95556.01 0.01 5.001 0.017 1 Iv 1 62.4(100.4)
W.O. 8058-A-SC
PLATE C-7
DMG 33.283O II6'I830 O] I954 IO2II7.0 0.01 5. 50 0.022 1 IV 1 62.4 I00.4 DMG 133.Z8301II5'l8]010]/19/19541 95429.01 0.01 6.201 0.034 1 V 1 62.4(100.4) -END OF SEARCH- 51 EARTHQUAKES FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH AREA.
TIME PERIOD OF SEARCH: I800 T0 ZOZl
LENGTH OF SEARCH TIME: 222 years
THE EARTHQUAKE CLOSEST TO THE SITE IS ABOUT 13.0 MILES (21'0 km) AWAY.
LARGEST EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE FOUND IN THE SEARCH RADIUS: 7'0 LARGEST EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION FROM THIS SEARCH: 0.209 g COEFFICIENTS FOR GUTENBERG & KI[HTER RECURRENCE RELATION:
a-value= 0.8I8
b-value= 0. 333
beta-value~ 0'766
------------------------------------
TABLE OF MAGNITUDES AND EX[EEDAN[ES:
------------------------------------
Earthquake Number of Times cumulative
Magnitude Exceeded No. / Year
-----------+-----------------+------------
4.0 51 0.23077
4. 5 51 0.23077
5.0 51 0.23077
5. 5 20 0.09050
6.0 12 0.05430
6. 5 ] 0.01357
7.0 I 0.00452
VV.O. 8O58-A-SC
PLATEC'8
EARTHQUAKE EPICENTER MAP
Zoran Djordjevich
1100
1000
900 \
800
700
600 \
\ 1
500
400
300 )
200
LEGEND
X M =4
100 O M = 5
AM 7
0 0 OM = 8 0
-100
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 W.O. 8058-A-SC
PLATE C-9
EARTHQUAKE RECURRENCE CURVE
Zoran Djordjevich
100
10 L
z
1 aD
>
Lu
4-
0 1
^L,
W
Z
W
.01
E
E
U
.001
3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 Magnitude (M)
W.O. 8058-A-SC
PLATE C-10
Number of Earthquakes (N) Above Magnitude (M)
Zoran Djordjevich
40 20
z
U)
c
w 10
0 $
L
Z 6
z
a�
c�
4 U
2 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 Magnitude (M)
W.O. 8058-A-SC
PLATE C-11
APPENDIX D
LABORATORY DATA
GeoSoils, Inc.
3000 Fail. Ult.
C, psf 274 155
�, deg 28.5 28.8
Tan( ) 0.54 0.55
�( 2000
� U)
� a
a
(6U)
CnU)
1000
L
0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Normal Stress, psf
1500 Sample No. 1 2 3
3 Water Content, % 10.4 10.4 10.4
1250 Dry Density, pcf 112.6 112.6 112.6 Saturation, % 54.4 54.6 54.4
Cn 1000 ` Void Ratio 0.5253 0.5242 0.5253 Cn
Diameter, in. 2.38 2.38 2.38
Height, in. 1.00 1.00 1.00
in 750 2 Water Content, % 18.0 17.6 17.2 Dry Density, pcf 112.8 113.3 113.5
U) 500 Saturation, % 94.8 93.8 92.4 Q Void Ratio 0.5222 0.5151 0.5131
Diameter, in. 2.38 2.38 2.38
250 Hei ht, in. 1.00 0.99 0.99 Normal Stress, psf 550 1100 2200
0 Fail. Stress, psf 537 925 1452
0 5 10 15 20 Strain, % 0.9 1.7 2.8 Strain, % Ult. Stress, psf 447 776 1360 Strain, % 8.5 10.0 7.8
Strain rate, in./min. 0.001 0.001 0.001
Sample Type: Remolded Client: Zoran Djordjevich
Description: Dark Brown Clayey Sand
Project: 1205 Melrose Way
Specific Gravity= 2.75 Source of Sample: B-2 Depth: 0-6 Remarks: Sample Number: B-2/B-3
Proj. No.: 8058-A-SC Date Sampled:
e " s,
Plate D-1
Tested By: TR Checked By: TR
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
60 Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
50 O
O4.
' G
40 -
X
w
o ;
30 '
U , '
g
20 O
10 CL-ML ML or OL MH or OH
i
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
LIQUID LIMIT
SOIL DATA
NATURAL
SAMPLE DEPTH WATER PLASTIC LIQUID PLASTICITY SYMBOL SOURCE USCS
NO. CONTENT LIMIT LIMIT INDEX
N N N N
• B-2 B-2 0-4 13 45 32 CL
Client: Zoran Djordjevich
e I S9 Project: 1205 Melrose Way
•
Project 8058-A-SC Plate D-2
N
Tested By: TR Checked By: TR
APPENDIX E
STORM WATER BMP CHECKLISTS/FORMS
GeoSoils, Inc.
Appendix C: Geotechnical and Groundwater Investigation requirements Worksheet C.4-1: Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition Categorization of Infiltration1 1 1 1 1 Part 1-Full Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of the full design volume be feasible from a physical perspective without any undesirable consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated?
Criteria Screening Question Yes No
Is the estimated reliable infiltration rate below proposed facility locations 1 greater than 0.5 inches per hour?The response to this Screening Question must X be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D.
Provide basis: The USDA indicates that the site is underlain by Bosanko Clay(BsD)and Placentia sandy loam (PeC2),which are noted to have infiltration rates varying from 0.00 to 0.06 inches/hour,and is categorized as Hydrologic Soil Group"D". Furthermore,a reasonable design infiltration rate(without application of correction/ safety factors)of 0.025 inches/hour is indicated for Hydrologic Soil Group"D"soils,which is less than 0.50 inches/hour.
Summarize findings of studies;provide reference to studies,calculations,maps,data sources,etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability.
Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing risk of geotechnical hazards(slope stability,groundwater mounding,utilities, 2 or other factors)that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response X to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2.
Provide basis: Given the fact that dense bedrock exists at relatively shallow depth at the site,storm water infiltration has the potential to create perched groundwater conditions that would migrate laterally,adversely affecting both onsite and offsite improvements,including underground utilities,and even slope stability.
Summarize findings of studies;provide reference to studies,calculations,maps,data sources,etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability.
I-3 February 26,2016
Appendix C: Geotechnical and Groundwater Investigation requirements Worksheet C.4-1: Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition Criteria Screening Question Yes No
Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing risk of groundwater contamination(shallow water table,storm water 3 pollutants or other factors)that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? X The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensible evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3.
Provide basis: Storm water infiltration could lead to perched groundwater conditions but measures can be incorporated into the proposed project for mitigation. Storm water pollutants such as leaking automotive fluids and brake dust are possible,however,subsurface exploration shows more than 10 feet of vertical separation between the infiltration surface elevation and the current groundwater table. Thus,there is low potential that storm water pollutants could impact groundwater quality.
Summarize findings of studies;provide reference to studies,calculations,maps,data sources,etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability.
Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without causing potential water balance issues such as a change of seasonality of ephemeral 4 streams or increased discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface X waters? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3.
Provide basis: The site is not located near a drainage course. Based on our geotechnical site exploration, groundwater appears to be greater than 50 feet below existing site grades,and likely at much lower elevations near sea level.Downstream water rights are considered a legal matter and typically do not fall within the purview of geotechnical engineering. However,GSI is not aware of any significant downstream water rights issues of concern on the adjoining properties. Given the slow soil infiltration rates onsite,infiltration should not significantly affect downstream water rights,from a geotechnical perspective.
Summarize findings of studies;provide reference to studies,calculations,maps,data sources,etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability.
Part 1 In the answers to rows 1-4 are"Yes"a full infiltration design is potentially feasible. The feasibility Result* screening category is Full Infiltration
If any answer from row 1-4 is"No",infiltration may be possible to some extent but would not X Y generally be feasible or desirable to achieve a"full infiltration"design.
Proceed to Part 2
*To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgement considering the definition of MEP in the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by Agency/Jurisdictions to substantiate findings.
I-4 February 26,2016
Appendix C: Geotechnical and Groundwater Investigation requirements Worksheet C.4-1: Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition Part 2- Partial Infiltration vs. No Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of water in an appreciable amount be physically feasible without any negative consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated?
Criteria Screening Question Yes No
Do soil and geologic conditions allow for infiltration in any appreciable 5 rate or volume? The response to this Screening Question shall be based X on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D.
Provide basis: The USDA indicates that the site is underlain by Bosanko Clay(BsD)and Placentia sandy loam (PeC2),which are noted to have infiltration rates varying from 0.00 to 0.06 inches/hour,and is categorized as Hydrologic Soil Group"D". Furthermore,a reasonable design infiltration rate(without application of correction/ safety factors)of 0.025 inches/hour is indicated for Hydrologic Soil Group"D"soils,which is less than 0.50 inches/hour.
Summarize findings of studies;provide reference to studies,calculations,maps,data sources,etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability.
Can infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without increasing risk of geotechnical hazards(slope stability,groundwater 6 mounding,utilities,or other factors)that cannot be mitigated to an X acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2.
Provide basis: Given the fact that dense bedrock exists at relatively shallow depth at the site,storm water infiltration has the potential to create perched groundwater conditions that would migrate laterally,adversely affecting both onsite and offsite improvements,including underground utilities,and even slope stability.
Summarize findings of studies;provide reference to studies,calculations,maps,data sources,etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability.
I-5 February 26,2016
Appendix C: Geotechnical and Groundwater Investigation requirements Worksheet C.4-1: Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition Criteria Screening Question Yes No
Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without posing significant risk for groundwater related concerns (shallow water table, 7 storm water pollutants or other factors)? The response to this Screening X Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3.
Provide basis: Storm water infiltration could lead to perched groundwater conditions but measures can be incorporated into the proposed project for mitigation. Storm water pollutants such as leaking automotive fluids and brake dust are possible,however,subsurface exploration shows more than 10 feet of vertical separation between the infiltration surface elevation and the current groundwater table. Thus,there is low potential that storm water pollutants could impact groundwater quality.
Summarize findings of studies;provide reference to studies,calculations,maps,data sources,etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability.
Can infiltration be allowed without violating downstream water rights? 8 The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive X evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3.
Provide basis: The site is not located near a drainage course. Based on our geotechnical site exploration, groundwater appears to be greater than 50 feet below existing site grades,and likely at much lower elevations near sea level.Downstream water rights are considered a legal matter and typically do not fall within the purview of geotechnical engineering. However,GSI is not aware of any significant downstream water rights issues of concern on the adjoining properties. Given the slow soil infiltration rates onsite,infiltration should not significantly affect downstream water rights,from a geotechnical perspective.
Summarize findings of studies;provide reference to studies,calculations,maps,data sources,etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability.
Part 2 If all answers from row 5-8 are yes then partial infiltration design is potentially feasible.
Result* The feasibility screening category is Partial Infiltration. �j If any answer from row 5-8 is no,then infiltration of any volume is considered to be X 1 infeasible within the drainage area. The feasibility screening category is No Infiltration.
*To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgement considering the definition of MEP in the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by Agency/Jurisdictions to substantiate findings.
I-6 February 26,2016
Appendix D: Approved Infiltration Rate Assessment Methods Worksheet D.5-1 : Factor of Safety and Design Infiltration Rate Worksheet Factorof Safety and Design InflitrationWorksheet
WorksheetRate
Factor Criteria Factor Description Assigned Factor Product(p) Weight(w) Value(v) p=w x v
Soil assessment methods 0.25 3 0.75
Predominant soil texture 0.25 3 0.75
A Suitability Site soil variability 0.25 2 0.50 Assessment
Depth to groundwater/impervious layer 0.25 1 0.25 Suitability Assessment Safety Factor,SA=Ep 2.25 Level of pretreatment/expected sediment loads 0.5
Redundancy/resiliency 0.25
B Design
Compaction during construction 0.25
Design Safety Factor,SB=Ep
Combined Safety Factor,Sto,a,=SA x SB
Observed Infiltration Rate,inch/hr,Kob,,,,d
(corrected for test-specific bias)
Design Infiltration Rate,in/hr.Kde$1ga=KobServea/S.. 0.025 in/hr (N RCS default) Supporting Data
Briefly describe infiltration test and provide reference to test forms:
Infiltration rate per USDA and design infiltration rate per NRCS soil type default design infiltration rate.
*Design Criteria has been left blank due to the fact that design plans for an infiltration basin have not been created yet.
1-7 February 26,2016
APPENDIX F
GENERAL EARTHWORK, GRADING GUIDELINES
AND PRELIMINARY CRITERIA
GeoSoils, Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK, GRADING GUIDELINES, AND PRELIMINARY CRITERIA General
These guidelines present general procedures and requirements for earthwork and grading as shown on the approved grading plans, including preparation of areas to be filled, placement of fill, installation of subdrains, excavations, and appurtenant structures or flatwork. The recommendations contained in the geotechnical report are part of these earthwork and grading guidelines and would supercedethe provisions contained hereafter in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations which could supersede these guidelines or the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. Generalized details follow this text.
The contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with provisions of the project plans and specifications and latest adopted code. In the case of conflict, the most onerous provisions shall prevail. The project geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist (geotechnical consultant), and/or their representatives, should provide observation and testing services, and geotechnical consultation during the duration of the project.
EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING
Geotechnical Consultant
Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant (soil engineer and engineering geologist) should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for general conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report(s), the approved grading plans, and applicable grading codes and ordinances.
The geotechnical consultant should provide testing and observation so that an evaluation may be made that the work is being accomplished as specified. It is the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultants and keep them apprised of anticipated work schedules and changes, so that they may schedule their personnel accordingly.
All remedial removals, clean-outs, prepared ground to receive fill, key excavations, and subdrain installation should be observed and documented bythe geotechnical consultant prior to placing any fill. It is the contractor's responsibility to notify the geotechnical consultant when such areas are ready for observation.
Laboratory and Field Tests
Maximum dry density tests to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with American Standard Testing Materials test method ASTM designation D-1557. Random or representative field compaction tests should be performed in GeoSoils, Inc.
accordance with test methods ASTM designation D-1556, D-2937 or D-2922, and D-3017, at intervals of approximately ±2 feet of fill height or approximately every 1,000 cubic yards placed. These criteria would vary depending on the soil conditions and the size of the project. The location and frequency of testing would be at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant.
Contractor's Responsibility
All clearing,site preparation,and earthwork performed on the project should be conducted by the contractor, with observation by a geotechnical consultant, and staged approval by the governing agencies, as applicable. It is the contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground surface to receive the fill, to the satisfaction of the geotechnical consultant, and to place, spread, moisture condition, mix, and compact the fill in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. The contractor should also remove all non-earth material considered unsatisfactory by the geotechnical consultant.
Notwithstanding the services provided by the geotechnical consultant, it is the sole responsibility of the contractorto provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in strict accordance with applicable grading guidelines, latest adopted codes or agency ordinances, geotechnical report(s), and approved grading plans. Sufficient watering apparatus and compaction equipment should be provided by the contractor with due consideration for the fill material, rate of placement, and climatic conditions. If, in the opinion of the geotechnical consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable weather, excessive oversized rock or deleterious material, insufficient support equipment, etc., are resulting in a quality of work that is not acceptable, the consultant will inform the contractor, and the contractor is expected to rectify the conditions, and if necessary, stop work until conditions are satisfactory.
During construction, the contractor shall properly grade all surfaces to maintain good drainage and prevent ponding of water. The contractor shall take remedial measures to control surface water and to prevent erosion of graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been installed.
SITE PREPARATION
All major vegetation, including brush, trees, thick grasses, organic debris, and other deleterious material, should be removed and disposed of off-site. These removals must be concluded prior to placing fill. In-place existing fill, soil, alluvium, colluvium, or rock materials, as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant as being unsuitable, should be removed prior to any fill placement. Depending upon the soil conditions, these materials may be reused as compacted fills. Any materials incorporated as part of the compacted fills should be approved by the geotechnical consultant.
Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipelines, or other structures not located prior to grading, are to be removed Mr. Zoran Djordjevich Appendix F
File:e:\wp12\8000\8058a.gep GeoSoils, Inc. Page 2
or treated in a manner recommended by the geotechnical consultant. Soft, dry, spongy, highly fractured, or otherwise unsuitable ground, extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition, should be overexcavated down to firm ground and approved by the geotechnical consultant before compaction and filling operations continue. Overexcavated and processed soils, which have been properly mixed and moisture conditioned, should be re-compacted to the minimum relative compaction as specified in these guidelines.
Existing ground, which is determined to be satisfactory for support of the fills, should be scarified (ripped) to a minimum depth of 6 to 8 inches, or as directed by the geotechnical consultant. After the scarified ground is brought to optimum moisture content, or greater and mixed, the materials should be compacted as specified herein. If the scarified zone is greater than 6 to 8 inches in depth, it may be necessary to remove the excess and place the material in lifts restricted to about 6 to 8 inches in compacted thickness.
Existing ground which is not satisfactory to support compacted fill should be overexcavated as required in the geotechnical report, or by the on-site geotechnical consultant. Scarification, disc harrowing, or other acceptable forms of mixing should continue until the soils are broken down and free of large lumps or clods, until the working surface is reasonably uniform and free from ruts, hollows, hummocks, mounds, or other uneven features, which would inhibit compaction as described previously.
Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical [h:v]), the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest bench, which will act as a key, should be a minimum of 15 feet wide and should be at least 2 feet deep into firm material, and approved by the geotechnical consultant. In fill-over-cut slope conditions, the recommended minimum width of the lowest bench or key is also 15 feet, with the key founded on firm material, as designated bythe geotechnical consultant. As a general rule, unless specifically recommended otherwise by the geotechnical consultant,the minimum width of fill keys should be equal to the height of the slope.
Standard benching is generally 4 feet (minimum) vertically, exposing firm, acceptable material. Benching may be used to remove unsuitable materials, although it is understood that the vertical height of the bench may exceed 4 feet. Pre-stripping may be considered for unsuitable materials in excess of 4 feet in thickness.
All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and the toes of fill benches, should be observed and approved by the geotechnical consultant prior to placement of fill. Fills may then be properly placed and compacted until design grades (elevations) are attained.
COMPACTED FILLS
Any earth materials imported or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill provided that each material has been evaluated to be suitable by the geotechnical Mr. Zoran Djordjevich Appendix F
File:e:\wp12\8000\8058a.gep GeoSoils, Inc. Page 3
consultant. These materials should be free of roots, tree branches, other organic matter, or other deleterious materials. All unsuitable materials should be removed from the fill as directed by the geotechnical consultant. Soils of poor gradation, undesirable expansion potential, or substandard strength characteristics may be designated by the consultant as unsuitable and may require blending with other soils to serve as a satisfactory fill material.
Fill materials derived from benching operations should be dispersed throughout the fill area and blended with other approved material. Benching operations should not result in the benched material being placed only within a single equipment width away from the fill/bedrock contact.
Oversized materials defined as rock, or other irreducible materials, with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches, should not be buried or placed in fills unless the location of materials and disposal methods are specifically approved by the geotechnical consultant. Oversized material should be taken offsite, or placed in accordance with recommendations of the geotechnical consultant in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. GSI anticipates that soils to be utilized as fill material for the subject project may contain some rock. Appropriately, the need for rock disposal may be necessary during grading operations on the site. From a geotechnical standpoint, the depth of any rocks, rock fills, or rock blankets, should be a sufficient distance from finish grade. This depth is generally the same as any overexcavation due to cut-fill transitions in hard rock areas, and generally facilitates the excavation of structural footings and substructures. Should deeper excavations be proposed (i.e., deepened footings, utility trenching,swimming pools, spas, etc.), the developer may consider increasing the hold-down depth of any rocky fills to be placed, as appropriate. In addition, some agencies/jurisdictions mandate a specific hold-down depth for oversize materials placed in fills. The hold-down depth, and potential to encounter oversize rock, both within fills, and occurring in cut or natural areas, would need to be disclosed to all interested/affected parties. Once approved by the governing agency, the hold-down depth for oversized rock (i.e., greater than 12 inches) in fills on this project is provided as 10 feet, unless specified differently in the text of this report. The governing agency may require that these materials need to be deeper, crushed, or reduced to less than 12 inches in maximum dimension, at their discretion.
To facilitate future trenching, rock (or oversized material), should not be placed within the hold-down depth feetfrom finish grade,the range of foundation excavations,future utilities, or underground construction unless specifically approved by the governing agency, the geotechnical consultant, and/or the developer's representative.
If import material is required for grading, representative samples of the materials to be utilized as compacted fill should be analyzed in the laboratory by the geotechnical consultant to evaluate it's physical properties and suitability for use onsite. Such testing should be performed three (3) days prior to importation. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, an appropriate analysis of this material should be conducted by the geotechnical consultant as soon as possible.
Mr. Zoran Djordjevich Appendix F
File:e:\wp12\8000\8058a.gep GeoSoils, Inc. Page 4
Approved fill material should be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near horizontal layers, that when compacted, should not exceed about 6 to 8 inches in thickness. The geotechnical consultant may approve thick lifts if testing indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness. Each layer should be spread evenly and blended to attain uniformity of material and moisture suitable for compaction.
Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum should be watered and mixed, and wet fill layers should be aerated by scarification, or should be blended with drier material.
Moisture conditioning, blending, and mixing of the fill layer should continue until the fill materials have a uniform moisture content at, or above, optimum moisture.
After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture conditioned, and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum density as evaluated by ASTM test designation D-1557, or as otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant. Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and should be specifically designed for soil compaction, or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified degree of compaction.
Where tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill, or portion thereof, is below the required relative compaction, or improper moisture is in evidence, the particular layer or portion shall be re-worked until the required density and/or moisture content has been attained. No additional fill shall be placed in an area until the last placed lift of fill has been tested and found to meet the density and moisture requirements, and is approved by the geotechnical consultant.
In general, per the latest adopted version of the California Building Code (CBC),fill slopes should be designed and constructed at a gradient of 2:1 (h:v), or flatter. Compaction of slopes should be accomplished by over-building a minimum of 3 feet horizontally, and subsequently trimming back to the design slope configuration. Testing shall be performed as the fill is elevated to evaluate compaction as the fill core is being developed. Special efforts may be necessary to attain the specified compaction in the fill slope zone. Final slope shaping should be performed by trimming and removing loose materials with appropriate equipment. A final evaluation of fill slope compaction should be based on observation and/or testing of the finished slope face. Where compacted fill slopes are designed steeper than 2:1 (h:v), prior approval from the governing agency, specific material types, a higher minimum relative compaction, special reinforcement, and special grading procedures will be recommended.
If an alternative to over-building and cutting back the compacted fill slopes is selected, then special effort should be made to achieve the required compaction in the outer 10 feet of each lift of fill by undertaking the following:
1. An extra piece of equipment consisting of a heavy, short-shanked sheepsfoot should be used to roll (horizontal) parallel to the slopes continuously as fill is placed. The sheepsfoot roller should also be used to roll perpendicular to the Mr. Zoran Djordjevich Appendix F
File:e:\wp12\8000\8058a.gep GeoSoils, Inc. Page 5
slopes, and extend out over the slope to provide adequate compaction to the face of the slope.
2. Loose fill should not be spilled out over the face of the slope as each lift is compacted. Any loose fill spilled over a previously completed slope face should be trimmed off or be subject to re-rolling.
3. Field compaction tests will be made in the outer (horizontal) ±2 to ±8 feet of the slope at appropriate vertical intervals, subsequent to compaction operations.
4. After completion of the slope, the slope face should be shaped with a small tractor and then re-rolled with a sheepsfoot to achieve compaction to near the slope face.
Subsequent to testing to evaluate compaction, the slopes should be grid-rolled to achieve compaction to the slope face. Final testing should be used to evaluate compaction after grid rolling.
5. Where testing indicates less than adequate compaction, the contractor will be responsible to rip, water, mix, and recompact the slope material as necessary to achieve compaction. Additional testing should be performed to evaluate compaction.
SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION
Subdrains should be installed in approved ground in accordance with the approximate alignment and details indicated by the geotechnical consultant. Subdrain locations or materials should not be changed or modified without approval of the geotechnical consultant. The geotechnical consultant may recommend and direct changes in subdrain line, grade, and drain material in the field, pending exposed conditions. The location of constructed subdrains, especially the outlets, should be recorded/surveyed by the project civil engineer. Drainage at the subdrain outlets should be provided by the project civil engineer.
EXCAVATIONS
Excavations and cut slopes should be examined during grading by the geotechnical consultant. If directed by the geotechnical consultant, further excavations or overexcavation and refilling of cut areas should be performed, and/or remedial grading of cut slopes should be performed. When fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, unless otherwise approved, the cut portion of the slope should be observed by the geotechnical consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope.
The geotechnical consultant should observe all cut slopes, and should be notified by the contractor when excavation of cut slopes commence.
Mr. Zoran Djordjevich Appendix F
File:e:\wp12\8000\8058a.gep GeoSoils, Inc. Page 6
If, during the course of grading, unforeseen adverse or potentially adverse geologic conditions are encountered,the geotechnical consultant should investigate, evaluate,and make appropriate recommendations for mitigation of these conditions. The need for cut slope buttressing or stabilizing should be based on in-grading evaluation by the geotechnical consultant, whether anticipated or not.
Unless otherwise specified in geotechnical and geological report(s), no cut slopes should be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies. Additionally, short-term stability of temporary cut slopes is the contractor's responsibility.
Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed bythe project civil engineer and should be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant.
ROCK PLACEMENT GUIDELINES
Rock Disposal
We anticipate that soils to be utilized as fill material for the subject tract may contain rock.
Appropriately, the need for rock disposal may be necessary during grading operations on the site. Generally, for the purpose of this report,the materials maybe described as either 8 inches or less, greater than 8 and less than 36 inches, and greater than 36 inches. These three categories set the basic dimensions for where and how the materials are to be placed. Consideration should be given to evaluating anticipated oversize volume and comparing that to the available volume for oversize materials.
Materials 8 Inches in Diameter or Less
Since imported rock fragments along with the overburden materials are anticipated to be a part of the materials used in the grading of the site, a criteria is needed to facilitate the placement of these materials within guidelines which would be workable during the rough grading, post-grading improvements, and serve as acceptable compacted fill.
1. Fines and rock fragments 8 inches or less in diameter may be placed as compacted fill cap materials within the building pads, slopes, and street areas as described below. The rock fragments and fines should be brought to at least optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557).
2. The purpose for the 8-inch diameter limits is to allow reasonable sized rock fragments into the fill under selected conditions (optimum moisture or above) surrounded with compacted fines. The 8-inch diameter size also allows a greater volume of the rock fragments to be handled during grading, while staying in Mr. Zoran Djordjevich Appendix F
File:e:\wp12\8000\8058a.gep GeoSoils, Inc. Page 7
reasonable limits for later onsite excavation equipment (backhoes and trenchers) to excavate footings and utility lines.
3. Fill materials 8 inches or less in diameter should be placed, but not limited to, within the upper 10 feet of proposed fill pads, the upper 5 feet of overexcavated cut areas of cut/fill transition pads, and the entire street right-of-way width, including the proposed overexcavated areas and replacement fill areas, from the depth of the lowest utility to subgrade, or to a depth of 10 feet below finish grade.
Overexcavation is discussed later in this report. Please note that some utility entities will require soil particles be restricted to significantly less than 8 inches in utility trench backfill, including 6 inch minus material for trenches less than 36 inches wide (current Greenbook edition), or more restrictive criteria, such as 3 inch minus material for water line backfill, per the Vista Irrigation District (VID, 2016), or any trench backfill within 12 inches of pavement subgrade (current Greenbook Edition).
The civil designer and developer may consider using a more restrictive criteria for soil particle size in streets to reduce the potential for import and/or additional fill particle crushing.
Materials Greater Than 8 inches and Less Than 36 Inches in Diameter
1. During the process of bedrock excavation, a significant amount of rock fragments or constituents larger than 8 inches in diameter may be generated. These significant amounts of oversized materials between greater than 8 and less than 36 inches in diameter may be incorporated into the fills utilizing a series of rock blankets.
2. Each rock blanket should consist of rock fragments of approximately greater than 8 and less than 36 inches in diameter along with fines generated from the proposed cuts and overburden materials from removal areas. The blankets should be limited to 24 to 36 inches in thickness and should be placed with granular fines which are flooded into and around the rock fragments.
3. Rock blankets should be restricted to areas which are at least 1 foot below the lowest utility invert within the street right-of-way, 10 feet below finish grade on the proposed fill lots, and a minimum of 20 horizontal feet from any fill slope surface.
4. Compaction may be achieved by utilizing wheel rolling methods with scrapers and water trucks, track-walking by bulldozers, and sheepsfoot tampers.
5. Each rock blanket should be completed with its surface compacted prior to placement of any subsequent rock blanket or rock windrow.
Mr. Zoran Djordjevich Appendix F
File:e:\wp12\8000\8058a.gep GeoSoils, Inc. Page 8
Materials Greater Than 36 Inches in Diameter
1. Oversize rock greater than 36 inches in diameter should be placed in single rock windrows. The windrows should be at least 15 feet or an equipment width apart, whichever is greatest, and at least 10 feet below final grade.
2. The void spaces between rocks in windrows should be filled with the more granular soils by flooding them into place.
3. A minimum vertical distance of 3 feet between soil fill and rock lift should be maintained. Also,the windrows should be staggered from lift to lift. Rock windrows should not be placed closer than 20 feet from the face of fill slopes.
4. Larger rocks too difficult to be placed into windrows may be individually placed into a dozer trench. Each trench should be excavated into the compacted fill or dense natural ground a minimum of 1 foot deeper than the size of the rock to be buried.
After the rocks are placed in the trench (not immediately adjacent to each other), granular fill material should be flooded into the trench to fill the voids.
5. The oversize rock trenches should be no closer together than 15 feet at a particular elevation and at least 20 feet from any slope face. Trenches at higher elevations should be staggered and there should be 4 feet of compacted fill between the top of one trench and the bottom of the next higher trench. Placement of rock into these trenches should be under the full-time inspection of the soils engineer.
6. Consideration should be given to using oversize materials in open space "green belt" areas that would be designated as non-structural fills.
COMPLETION
Observation, testing, and consultation by the geotechnical consultant should be conducted during the grading operations in order to state an opinion that all cut and fill areas are graded in accordance with the approved project specifications. After completion of grading, and after the geotechnical consultant has finished observations of the work, final reports should be submitted, and may be subject to review by the controlling governmental agencies. No further excavation or filling should be undertaken without prior notification of the geotechnical consultant or approved plans.
All finished cut and fill slopes should be protected from erosion and/or be planted in accordance with the project specifications and/or as recommended by a landscape architect. Such protection and/or planning should be undertaken as soon as practical after completion of grading.
Mr. Zoran Djordjevich Appendix F
File:e:\wp12\8000\8058a.gep GeoSoils, Inc. Page 9
PRELIMINARY OUTDOOR POOL/SPA DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
The following preliminary recommendations are provided for consideration in pool/spa design and planning. Actual recommendations should be provided by a qualified geotechnical consultant, based on site specific geotechnical conditions, including a subsurface investigation, differential settlement potential, expansive and corrosive soil potential, proximity of the proposed pool/spa to any slopes with regard to slope creep and lateral fill extension, as well as slope setbacks per Code, and geometry of the proposed improvements. Recommendations for pools/spas and/or deck flatwork underlain by expansive soils, or for areas with differential settlement greater than 1/4-inch over 40 feet horizontally,will be more onerous than the preliminary recommendations presented below.
The 1:1 (h:v) influence zone of any nearby retaining wall site structures should be delineated on the project civil drawings with the pool/spa. This 1 :1 (h:v) zone is defined as a plane up from the lower-most heel of the retaining structure, to the daylight grade of the nearby building pad or slope. If pools/spas or associated pool/spa improvements are constructed within this zone,they should be re-positioned (horizontally or vertically)so that they are supported by earth materials that are outside or below this 1 :1 plane. If this is not possible given the area of the building pad, the owner should consider eliminating these improvements or allow for increased potential for lateral/vertical deformations and associated distress that may render these improvements unusable in the future, unless they are periodically repaired and maintained. The conditions and recommendations presented herein should be disclosed to all homeowners and any interested/affected parties.
General
1 . The equivalent fluid pressure to be used for the pool/spa design should be 60 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for pool/spa walls with level backfill, and 75 pcf for a 2:1 sloped backfill condition. In addition, backdrains should be provided behind pool/spa walls subjacent to slopes.
2. Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 150 pcf, to a maximum lateral earth pressure of 1,000 pounds per square foot (psf).
3. An allowable coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.30 may be used with the dead load forces.
4. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third.
5. Where pools/spas are planned near structures, appropriate surcharge loads need to be incorporated into design and construction by the pool/spa designer. This includes, but is not limited to landscape berms, decorative walls, footings, built-in barbeques, utility poles, etc.
Mr. Zoran Djordjevich Appendix F
File:e:\wp12\8000\8058a.gep GeoSoils, Inc. Page 10
6. All pool/spa walls should be designed as "free standing" and be capable of supporting the water in the pool/spa without soil support. The shape of pool/spa in cross section and plan view may affect the performance of the pool, from a geotechnical standpoint. Pools and spas should also be designed in accordance with the latest adopted Code. Minimally, the bottoms of the pools/spas, should maintain a distance H/3, where H is the height of the slope (in feet), from the slope face. This distance should not be less than 7 feet, nor need not be greater than 40 feet.
7. The soil beneath the pool/spa bottom should be uniformly moist with the same stiffness throughout. If a fill/cut transition occurs beneath the pool/spa bottom, the cut portion should be overexcavated to a minimum depth of 48 inches, and replaced with compacted fill, such that there is a uniform blanket that is a minimum of 48 inches below the pool/spa shell. If very low expansive soil is used for fill, the fill should be placed at a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction, at optimum moisture conditions. This requirement should be 90 percent relative compaction at over optimum moisture if the pool/spa is constructed within or near expansive soils. The potential for grading and/or re-grading of the pool/spa bottom, and attendant potential for shoring and/or slot excavation, needs to be considered during all aspects of pool/spa planning, design, and construction.
8. If the pool/spa isfounded entirely in compacted fill placed during rough grading,the deepest portion of the pool/spa should correspond with the thickest fill on the lot.
9. Hydrostatic pressure relief valves should be incorporated into the pool and spa designs. A pool/spa under-drain system is also recommended, with an appropriate outlet for discharge.
10. All fittings and pipe joints, particularly fittings in the side of the pool or spa, should be properly sealed to prevent water from leaking into the adjacent soils materials, and be fitted with slip or expandible joints between connections transecting varying soil conditions.
11 . An elastic expansion joint(flexible waterproof sealant)should be installed to prevent water from seeping into the soil at all deck joints.
12. A reinforced grade beam should be placed around skimmer inlets to provide support and mitigate cracking around the skimmer face.
13. In order to reduce unsightly cracking, deck slabs should minimally be 4 inches thick, and reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars at 18 inches on-center. All slab reinforcement should be supported to ensure proper mid-slab positioning during the placement of concrete. Wire mesh reinforcing is specifically not recommended.
Deck slabs should not be tied to the pool/spa structure. Pre-moistening and/or Mr. Zoran Djordjevich Appendix F
File:e:\wp12\8000\8058a.gep GeoSoils, Inc. Page 11
pre-soaking of the slab subgrade is recommended, to a depth of 12 inches (optimum moisture content), or 18 inches (120 percent of the soil's optimum moisture content, or 3 percent over optimum moisture content, whichever is greater), for very low to low, and medium expansive soils, respectively. This moisture content should be maintained in the subgrade soils during concrete placement to promote uniform curing of the concrete and minimize the development of unsightly shrinkage cracks. Slab underlayment should consist of a 1-to 2-inch leveling course of sand (S.E.>30) and a minimum of 4 to 6 inches of Class 2 base compacted to 90 percent. Deck slabs within the H/3 zone, where H is the height of the slope (in feet), will have an increased potential for distress relative to other areas outside of the H/3 zone. If distress is undesirable, improvements, deck slabs or flatwork should not be constructed closer than H/3 or 7 feet (whichever is greater) from the slope face, in order to reduce, but not eliminate, this potential.
14. Pool/spa bottom or deck slabs should be founded entirely on competent bedrock, or properly compacted fill. Fill should be compacted to achieve a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction, as discussed above. Prior to pouring concrete, subgrade soils below the pool/spa decking should be throughly watered to achieve a moisture content that is at least 2 percent above optimum moisture content, to a depth of at least 18 inches below the bottom of slabs. This moisture content should be maintained in the subgrade soils during concrete placement to promote uniform curing of the concrete and minimize the development of unsightly shrinkage cracks.
15. In order to reduce unsightly cracking, the outer edges of pool/spa decking to be bordered by landscaping, and the edges immediately adjacent to the pool/spa, should be underlain by an 8-inch wide concrete cutoff shoulder (thickened edge) extending to a depth of at least 12 inches below the bottoms of the slabs to mitigate excessive infiltration of water under the pool/spa deck. These thickened edges should be reinforced with two No. 4 bars, one at the top and one at the bottom.
Deck slabs may be minimally reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars placed at 18 inches on-center, in both directions. All slab reinforcement should be supported on chairs to ensure proper mid-slab positioning during the placement of concrete.
16. Surface and shrinkage cracking of the finish slab may be reduced if a low slump and water-cement ratio are maintained during concrete placement. Concrete utilized should have a minimum compressive strength of4,000 psi. Excessive water added to concrete prior to placement is likely to cause shrinkage cracking, and should be avoided. Some concrete shrinkage cracking, however, is unavoidable.
17. Joint and sawcut locations for the pool/spa deck should be determined by the design engineer and/or contractor. However, spacings should not exceed 6 feet on center.
18. Considering the nature of the onsite earth materials, it should be anticipated that Mr. Zoran Djordjevich Appendix F
File:e:\wp12\8000\8058a.gep GeoSoils, Inc. Page 12
caving or sloughing could be a factor in subsurface excavations and trenching.
Shoring or excavating the trench walls/backcuts at the angle of repose (typically 25 to 45 degrees), should be anticipated. All excavations should be observed by a representative of the geotechnical consultant, including the project geologist and/or geotechnical engineer, prior to workers entering the excavation or trench, and minimally conform to Cal/OSHA ("Type C" soils may be assumed), state, and local safety codes. Should adverse conditions exist, appropriate recommendations should be offered at that time by the geotechnical consultant. GSI does not consult in the area of safety engineering and the safety of the construction crew is the responsibility of the pool/spa builder.
19. It is imperative that adequate provisions for surface drainage are incorporated by the homeowners into their overall improvement scheme. Ponding water, ground saturation and flow over slope faces, are all situations which must be avoided to enhance long-term performance of the pool/spa and associated improvements,and reduce the likelihood of distress.
20. Regardless of the methods employed, once the pool/spa is filled with water, should it be emptied, there exists some potential that if emptied, significant distress may occur. Accordingly, once filled, the pool/spa should not be emptied unless evaluated by the geotechnical consultant and the pool/spa builder. 21 . For pools/spas built within (all or part) of the Code setback and/or geotechnical setback, as indicated in the site geotechnical documents, special foundations are recommended to mitigate the affects of creep, lateral fill extension, expansive soils and settlement on the proposed pool/spa. Most municipalities or County reviewers do not consider these effects in pool/spa plan approvals. As such, where pools/spas are proposed on 20 feet or more of fill, medium or highly expansive soils, or rock fill with limited "cap soils" and built within Code setbacks, or within the influence of the creep zone, or lateral fill extension, the following should be considered during design and construction:
OPTION A: Shallow foundations with or without overexcavation of the pool/spa "shell," such that the pool/spa is surrounded by 5 feet of very low to low expansive soils (without irreducible particles greater that 6 inches), and the pool/spa walls closer to the slope(s) are designed to be free standing. GSI recommends a pool/spa under-drain or blanket system (see attached Typical Pool/Spa Detail). The pool/spa builders and owner in this optional construction technique should be generally satisfied with pool/spa performance under this scenario; however, some settlement,tilting, cracking, and leakage of the pool/spa is likely over the life of the project.
OPTION B: Pier supported pool/spa foundations with or without overexcavation of the pool/spa shell such that the pool/spa is surrounded by 5 feet of very low to low expansive soils (without irreducible particles greater Mr. Zoran Djordjevich Appendix F
File:e:\wp12\8000\8058a.gep GeoSoils, Inc. Page 13
than 6 inches), and the pool/spa walls closer to the slope(s) are designed to be free standing. The need for a pool/spa under-drain system may be installed for leak detection purposes. Piers that support the pool/spa should be a minimum of 12 inches in diameter and at a spacing to provide vertical and lateral support of the pool/spa, in accordance with the pool/spa designers recommendations current applicable Codes. The pool/spa builder and owner in this second scenario construction technique should be more satisfied with pool/spa performance. This construction will reduce settlement and creep effects on the pool/spa; however, it will not eliminate these potentials, nor make the pool/spa "leak-free."
22. The temperature of the water lines for spas and pools may affect the corrosion properties of site soils, thus, a corrosion specialist should be retained to review all spa and pool plans, and provide mitigative recommendations, as warranted.
Concrete mix design should be reviewed by a qualified corrosion consultant and materials engineer.
23. All pool/spa utility trenches should be compacted to 90 percent of the laboratory standard, under the full-time observation and testing of a qualified geotechnical consultant. Utility trench bottoms should be sloped away from the primary structure on the property (typically the residence).
24. Pool and spa utility lines should not cross the primary structure's utility lines (i.e., not stacked, or sharing of trenches, etc.).
25. The pool/spa or associated utilities should not intercept, interrupt, or otherwise adversely impact any area drain, roof drain, or other drainage conveyances. If it is necessary to modify, move, or disrupt existing area drains, subdrains, or tightlines, then the design civil engineer should be consulted, and mitigative measures provided. Such measures should be further reviewed and approved by the geotechnical consultant, prior to proceeding with any further construction.
26. The geotechnical consultant should review and approve all aspects of pool/spa and flatwork design prior to construction. A design civil engineer should review all aspects of such design, including drainage and setback conditions. Prior to acceptance of the pool/spa construction, the project builder, geotechnical consultant and civil designer should evaluate the performance of the area drains and other site drainage pipes, following pool/spa construction.
27. All aspects of construction should be reviewed and approved by the geotechnical consultant, including during excavation, prior to the placement of any additional fill, prior to the placement of any reinforcement or pouring of any concrete.
28. Any changes in design or location of the pool/spa should be reviewed and approved by the geotechnical and design civil engineer prior to construction. Field Mr. Zoran Djordjevich Appendix F
File:e:\wp12\8000\8058a.gep GeoSoils, Inc. Page 14
adjustments should not be allowed until written approval of the proposed field changes are obtained from the geotechnical and design civil engineer.
29. Disclosure should be made to homeowners and builders, contractors, and any interested/affected parties, that pools/spas built within about 15 feet of the top of a slope, and/or H/3, where H is the height of the slope (in feet), will experience some movement or tilting. While the pool/spa shell or coping may not necessarily crack, the levelness of the pool/spa will likely tilt toward the slope, and may not be esthetically pleasing. The same is true with decking, flatwork and other improvements in this zone.
30. Failure to adhere to the above recommendations will significantly increase the potential for distress to the pool/spa, flatwork, etc.
31 . Local seismicity and/or the design earthquake will cause some distress to the pool/spa and decking or flatwork, possibly including total functional and economic loss.
32. The information and recommendations discussed above should be provided to any contractors and/or subcontractors,or homeowners, interested/affected parties,etc., that may perform or may be affected by such work.
JOB SAFETY
General
At GSI, getting the job done safely is of primary concern. The following is the company's safety considerations for use by all employees on multi-employer construction sites.
On-ground personnel are at highest risk of injury, and possible fatality, on grading and construction projects. GSI recognizes that construction activities will vary on each site,and that site safety is the rp ime responsibility of the contractor; however, everyone must be safety conscious and responsible at all times. To achieve our goal of avoiding accidents, cooperation between the client, the contractor, and GSI personnel must be maintained.
In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnical testing and observation, the following precautions are to be implemented for the safety of field personnel on grading and construction projects:
Safety Meetings: GSI field personnel are directed to attend contractor's regularly scheduled and documented safety meetings.
Safety Vests: Safety vests are provided for, and are to be worn by GSI personnel, at all times, when they are working in the field.
Mr. Zoran Djordjevich Appendix F
File:e:\wp12\8000\8058a.gep GeoSoils, Inc. Page 15
Safety Flags: Two safety flags are provided to GSI field technicians; one is to be affixed to the vehicle when on site, the other is to be placed atop the spoil pile on all test pits.
Flashing Lights: All vehicles stationary in the grading area shall use rotating or flashing amber beacons, or strobe lights, on the vehicle during all field testing.
While operating a vehicle in the grading area, the emergency flasher on the vehicle shall be activated.
In the event that the contractor's representative observes any of our personnel not following the above, we request that it be brought to the attention of our office.
Test Pits Location, Orientation, and Clearance
The technician is responsible for selecting test pit locations. A primary concern should be the technician's safety. Efforts will be made to coordinate locations with the grading contractor's authorized representative, and to select locations following or behind the established traffic pattern, preferably outside of current traffic. The contractor's authorized representative (supervisor, grade checker, dump man, operator, etc.) should direct excavation of the pit and safety during the test period. Of paramount concern should be the soil technician's safety, and obtaining enough tests to represent the fill.
Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away from oncoming traffic, whenever possible. The technician's vehicle is to be placed next to the test pit, opposite the spoil pile. This necessitates the fill be maintained in a driveable condition.
Alternatively, the contractor may wish to park a piece of equipment in front of the test holes, particularly in small fill areas or those with limited access.
A zone of non-encroachment should be established for all test pits. No grading equipment should enter this zone during the testing procedure. The zone should extend approximately 50 feet outward from the center of the test pit. This zone is established for safety and to avoid excessive ground vibration, which typically decreases test results.
When taking slope tests,the technician should park the vehicle directly above or below the test location. If this is not possible, a prominent flag should be placed at the top of the slope. The contractor's representative should effectively keep all equipment at a safe operational distance (e.g., 50 feet) away from the slope during this testing.
The technician is directed to withdraw from the active portion of the fill as soon as possible following testing. The technician's vehicle should be parked at the perimeter of the fill in a highly visible location, well away from the equipment traffic pattern. The contractor should inform our personnel of all changes to haul roads, cut and fill areas or other factors that may affect site access and site safety.
In the event that the technician's safety is jeopardized or compromised as a result of the contractor's failure to comply with any of the above,the technician is required, by company Mr. Zoran Djordjevich Appendix F
File:e:\wp12\8000\8058a.gep GeoSoils, Inc. Page 16
policy, to immediately withdraw and notify his/her supervisor. The grading contractor's representative will be contacted in an effort to affect a solution. However, in the interim, no further testing will be performed until the situation is rectified. Any fill placed can be considered unacceptable and subject to reprocessing, recompaction, or removal.
In the event that the soil technician does not comply with the above or other established safety guidelines,we request that the contractor bring this to the technician's attention and notify this office. Effective communication and coordination between the contractor's representative and the soil technician is strongly encouraged in order to implement the above safety plan.
Trench and Vertical Excavation
It is the contractor's responsibility to provide safe access into trenches where compaction testing is needed. Our personnel are directed not to enter any excavation or vertical cut which: 1) is 5 feet or deeper unless shored or laid back; 2) displays any evidence of instability, has any loose rock or other debris which could fall into the trench; or 3) displays any other evidence of any unsafe conditions regardless of depth.
All trench excavations or vertical cuts in excess of 5 feet deep, which any person enters, should be shored or laid back. Trench access should be provided in accordance with Cal/OSHA and/or state and local standards. Our personnel are directed not to enter any trench by being lowered or "riding down" on the equipment.
If the contractor fails to provide safe access to trenches for compaction testing, our company policy requires that the soil technician withdraw and notify his/her supervisor.
The contractor's representative will be contacted in an effort to affect a solution. All backfill nottested due to safety concerns or other reasons could be subject to reprocessing and/or removal.
If GSI personnel become aware of anyone working beneath an unsafe trench wall or vertical excavation, we have a legal obligation to put the contractor and owner/developer on notice to immediately correct the situation. If corrective steps are not taken, GSI then has an obligation to notify Cal/OSHA and/or the proper controlling authorities.
GeoSoils, Inc.
TYPE A
Natural grade Proposed grade
Colluvium and alluvium (remove)
Typical benching
Bedrock or
approved
native material
See Alternate Details
TYPE B
Natural grade Proposed grade
Colluvium and alluvium (remove.
�\
Typical benching
Bedrock or
approved
native material
See Alternate Details
Selection of alternate subdrain details, location, and extent of subdrains should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant during grading.
GI �*J C. CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL Plate F-1
6-inch minimum 12-inch minimum _ 6-inch minimum . . . . .:.:.:.:�. . �., 6-inch minimum \ /, / //\ 6-inch minimum
6-incf minimum
A-1 B-1
Filter material: Minimum volume of 9 cubic feet per
lineal foot of pipe. FILTER MATERIAL
Sieve Size Percent Passing
Perforated pipe: 6-inch-diameter ABS or PVC pipe or 1 inch 100 approved substitute with minimum 8 perforations 3/4 inch 90-100 (1/4-inch diameter) per lineal foot in 3/8 inch 40-100 bottom half of pipe (ASTM D-2751, SDR-35, or No. 4 25-40 ASTM D-1527, Schd. 40). No. 8 18-33
No. 30 5-15
For continuous run in excess of 500 feet, use No. 50 0-7 8-inch-diameter pipe (ASTM D-3034, SDR-35, or No. 200 0-3 ASTM D-1785, Schd. 40).
ALTERNATE 1: PERFORATED PIPE AND FILTER MATERIAL
6-inch minimum
i�� it �-6-inch minimum
**-.6-inch
1y minimum
6 inch
minimum
Filter fabric
Filter fabric
6-inch minimum 6-inch minimum 6-inch minimum
A-2 B-2
Gravel Material: 9 cubic feet per lineal foot.
Perforated Pipe: See Alternate 1
Gravel: Clean 3/4-inch rock or approved substitute.
Filter Fabric: Mirafi 140 or approved substitute.
ALTERNATE 2: PERFORATED PIPE, GRAVEL, AND FILTER FABRIC G Ll�nC. CANYON SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE DETAILS Plate F-2
N M
I
CO
O O C co
N cd c
c a� go
v
o
p
U' o -C o
cli
:.. O v o v N J
CO p N c co H
a� a
� v co E ca z
o � c E �
�' Gv z
� c \ = � � D Q
O @ ^ _o p U
c
O Cf) U
CO
+� LLI
E 0 O Q .0 H
m rn r coco 0 N Q
O
C N O U J
- - Q p E V Q
CL m O
� � Q
J
L°1J LL.
z
\\ j
N
UU / CO i LLI
CO ca \, j Q
/ O N co
CIJ
co O N co La
- U /' N 5 N CL
c t /� L" p N O
7 = c c J
O / co c N
N ca L. 0 JJ
C O O E cl
0)W LL N cd
L_ N
c6 L_
N -5 O C
Z - O
> t j U
— w _
7 v T c y
U U
co co cif L_
m -a -C
c
O
cd O0 co
I
Q -
E za > v
FL
Q
00 O •�
U — I E L
cd ;� p
J
cli
I O. \j aN w
CL
LL-
I - o
/ cd p
I /\ J
N \ O J_
co \i U L`
Q C�
a) C w
I = \ O
c ~
Cl) cd \� z
w
O E /\ Q
a
IL O
I \�' a
rn
N C \� J
� Q
I W \% O
\\ w
O I
0-
0 L
IL Iv
f�;7
��i
m a) a) E Q .C-� o 1
� N - N LL
E � O
OS 7N cd p �c � •N
: C CO .E � a) "- C -C D
L Q CLd C Q a) L a) co
U � EL
ca N O Q
U x co N -5 U
0 O a) O 0 0 .� C Co a)
� C N — >,.V
L - O a) 0),a N � N N >
U N LL O 0 O ? o O c
�_ U O N
i >+ E C N i 0 >> U
Can \\ ~ j Q cd coClj a)
a- ca a) co
N O �\ -C � � N > 0) O N0 N
EE
U C N , 0 i O� U > '—
N N
O
N i O w
0 0J
E _ W
:E a)— C 0
_ _ co
O (Dl C O 5 J
Cd 1 Q c 0 c CO �
>, (D — O
U > co N N
O O N Co ca CO
U W
\ / N Q cd a)/\ m cd s
E N
O m
_\ � U O— \ D
/ CO 0
E E= co O \
N O CO v\�
� E = /��
Ll
o
coo o CO ca > N
t o � J_
_ _ N
c N
c cc s
N 0 m \ E2rn J
U\ � \ E N Q L L L
O �' _
[L \ Q
N O O IL
\ C \ L
O
N
(D � C3) \_
U C
a Q
> �—O =o
N Uco
L- N 0
0 � Q
C �
T
�I ° Yroll—
N
/�rae / / / / LHIVU UJG: I I I I I 'ITIi cow u:� J I ,
MT 1 ►�OW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL III
I e r ,� / /1 (RESIDENTIAL) I R
CONCs I 9 26/29"W 1 3.
4 I N.A.P. I � � � 1111 �— r �C — 365.71 INV �" 1I f j, I I \\ III(±365.61 IN ———————————————————————— — �. . I I-4-4--J ,/ � I 1� 1 - �— X� ' � H�� WA 78 .0, /
EXISTING ACCESS DRIVE / N W / / 4368 sF I1111 N.A.P. I — LOT 7 I LOT 8 H Y r ---- - - ------------- I--I— — ¢ -- --- r � I I \ \ II111 MAP12195 MAP12195 I — x x �� — — —� / \ '*1 5 � . III I I
.Ms �/ 1 ,� r f me ��., I �:6 ��1111 0 N I N G:
8"VGPSS ZONINGi o , 1 ilw lull �� R-M I PER DWG. • I I , I E-1 I >_ e \ 365SF\o 1 (CONDOS l I� CONC SITE VS70-1 1 I I I / 1 W \ _ _ rlllll 1i f (RESIDENTIAL)' N w F Ha-4 II�11 ��- :g o ch 1111 _
lie `\\ TD=a' Lu �I,I�� �� LAND US �t ==_ .—�— —
MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAE
e
i I PORSW1l4 /n: / / / / i LAND/USE: M -- I I SEC 25 T11 S / / � � "' R4W SBM / LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL \ �. �` a \` "� " (COID.OS �� — , — —�"�-- I / ` - 3 attee \
N.A.P. MELE
co
RESIDENTIAL = Z ` �� — �, f OS WAY �u 4871 SF ' —-'- -' —
6.1 F_ \ .sae \— ''�`�._ - I i
_ W
-_ \\ 1 TOT LOT a QC01 WATER Q1J,l;► i'1` ,DENSE \\ \ \ ' Q _\_ Kt Rcoo
1 ±364.85 INV / / i 1 \\ I` N73°14,00 ' ` S - J, \ \\ \ \ J 1of, I I \ \ h' ?9,04, _ \ I HA-3 \ \ \
356.71 INV 1 ® \\ 6
356.61 INV ! TD=6' , o
3321 SF s 11 I ZONING.
I I ZONING: �6HURC*=
PCL\A E-1 I 10 _ 1 POR LOT 16, VICINITY M A P PM66�7 (RESIDENTIAL) o \ 3752SF \ SEC 25T11S � \ \ \ \ - R4W SBM NOT TO SCALE - -
/ —
1 w N.A.P.
X5 I I N.A.P. M 9 " LAND USE: SITE INFO 364.37 INV \
g 5474 SF \ / ,�:, \
I I I �, 1OW DENSITY RESIDENTI, APN: 166-184-10-00, 166-183-17-00 I 1\ •\\ \\ I LAND USE: \ \ #�1 (CHURCH) EXISTING ZONING: E-1 ESTATE RESIDENTIAL J \� `� LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ,\ C` - PROPOSED ZONING: R-1 im!7 \\ (RESIDENTIAL) °R 5618 SF s ' ' JJ ,g I ,,,� — GROSS ACREAGE: 2.57 AG JW4 NET ACREAGE: 2.22 AC 24' v .._ Aso-�0�...
5.5' 12' 12' S,5' mYea one `
J - - - - A LAND USE 7 F - _ _ - \ EXISTING USE: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(2 DU/AC) \ �s ` I \ \ \ S 5616 SIP ;� \ PROPOSED USE: MEDIUM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(5 DU/AC) arse HA-2
5 C°"c ins �1 \\ .7.6 �\ �. \ \ ` JF44 � — 3sa- � — o TOTAL: 15 LOTS I \ \ \ Xf 4 TD=5' 11- � I" I I I I L — — — J I , 6 co ' PROPOSED DE
- - - - �5-- 5614SF w � I PROPOS DENSITY \ M /, ' DENSITY BONUS CALCULATION \ \ n Z
!_ -11!4 \ \\ C QC01
2.57 GROSS ACRES-STREET= 2.22 NET ACRES
JM4 IN. SF Wf7,,,, J J Jras P4 B PCL C `` \ PCL D \� 'B I 2.22 AC 5 DU/AC= 11.10 DU'S J `I J PM 66117 PM 669 I \ PM 6697 I Kt . \\ Ij ` ,Fj, \ a \ — POR LOT 16 I 11.10 DU'S*0.30 BONUS=4 BONUS DU'S(rounded up) �` I (� � SEC 25 T11S o J I \ •••• _ �'g— II 4W SBM W Y �s ZONING: • •••• •••••••• L TOTAL DU'S 11 +4 = 15 OC � � — /7" 5609 SF • II ,.e \� E-1 — ,v— } II 3 e j f _ �s ) sra6 '� - - - \ �— �— • �� � rZO ING: I AFFORDABLE CALCULATION W Z J • I J —— \ srao `__ \ �R S..LD E.N ., X s • ��� \ IB DE l 173 \ _ I 2.22 AC*5 DU/AC= 11.10 DU'S me " I cans
\ J - \ ' 11.10 DU'S*0.09 AFFORDABLE= 1 VERY LOW INCOME(rounded up) I
U ` J — !' \ I'I /1 POOL �, , • 0 I \ , co J \ "SJ L f 12�i�f v/ 5607 SF •\ Q I I TOTAL UNIT COUNT= 15(1 VERY LOW INCOME) x—�.'�1 ) \ • \ 0 I
=5 Me .�
AN O USE,: cage / I I AfU • `� �Pw J 1 1 AAND USE:OW ENSITY RESIDENTIAL I \ 2 �_`_ ¢ LEGEND 4RE$,IDEI I 5605 SF W DENSITY RESID�NTIA _� NTIAL) \ J\ arse a I
�-C I HA-1 / We I RIGHT OF WAY LINE — � I `_ N.A.P.
• 1 ®I I LOT LINE
el \� � ♦ TD=3%2' NAP EASEMENT LINE ————————————— eAWN JM7
, S \ me \ nab _ \ ) \ 4 BUILDING SETBACK LINE I _ � \ \ — — i W� ,,A, �- „k, \ EX. "�' • _,' CENTERLINE Z _ -a sxar � �'d " --�,��_ '�,�c* _� " MELROSEWAY * I� _ X • o �` — - _- -- ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE I ——— ——— - EXISTING 8 SEWER MAIN
/ 7%_ s,as ° �_ RR9775 00' , � �;e This document or efile is not a part of the Construction +I / a GSI LEGEND _ / me \ \ S\` D6°15'40" ' 1 \ PROPOSED 8"SEWER MAIN S Documents and should not be relied upon as being an / / accurate depiction of design.
Icy —/ //� / / // iv�d CURB AND GUTTER V Afu - ARTIFICIAL FILL - UNDOCUMENTED �_ _ _ / /, / MELT O�WAY J We dp
QC01 — QUATERNARY-AGE COLLUOUM ZONING. ',,- _',� = _ —, ENC I -C-- e s9 • Kt — CRETACEOUS-AGE TONOLI TE - CIRCLED WHERE BURIED E-1 I / 7 (RESIDENTIAL) I M LAND USE.
� �r��T�i r�r��r�rw �r� w � V
HA-4 1205 MELROSE WAY ® — APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF HAND-AUGER BORING
TD=6' PRE-APPLICATION EXHIBIT GEOTECHNICAL MAP — APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT PASCO LARET SUITER • • • • • • — APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF BURIED GEOLOGIC CONTACT PLSA JOB NO.3334 40 20 0 40 80 120 SCALE 1"=40' & ASSOCIATES 0901-2020 Figure 2 NAP — NOT A PART OF THIS STUDY San Diego I Solana Beach I Orange County SHEET 1 2 0 SCALE: 1' = 40' Phone 858.259.8212 1 www.plsaengineering.com W.O. 8058 A-SC DATE: 03121 SCALE: 1 40'
2-foot
2-foot minimum
minimum 2-foot
F_ minimum
4-inch minimum 3 foot
pipe 2-inch minimum
. . . . . . . . . .
minimum . . '
__4i- - - - - - ' 4-inch
— — — — — — minimu 2-inch
pipe minimum
Filter Material: Minimum of 5 cubic feet per lineal foot of pipe or 4 cubic feet per lineal feet of pipe when placed in square cut trench.
Alternative in Lieu of Filter Material: Gravel may be encased in approved filter fabric.
Filter fabric shall be Mirafi 140 or equivalent. Filter fabric shall be lapped a minimum of 12 inches in all joints.
Minimum 4-Inch-Diameter Pipe: ABS-ASTM D-2751, SDR 35; or ASTM D-1527 Schedule 40, PVC-ASTM D-3034, SDR 35; or ASTM D-1785 Schedule 40 with a crushing strength of 1,000 pounds minimum, and a minimum of 8 uniformly-spaced perforations per foot of pipe. Must be installed with perforations down at bottom of pipe. Provide cap at upstream end of pipe. Slope at 2 percent to outlet pipe. Outlet pipe to be connected to subdrain pipe with tee or elbow.
Notes: 1. Trench for outlet pipes to be backfilled and compacted with onsite soil.
2. Backdrains and lateral drains shall be located at elevation of every bench drain. First drain located at elevation just above lower lot grade. Additional drains may be required at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant.
Filter Material shall be of the following Gravel shall be of the following specification or an approved equivalent. specification or an approved equivalent.
Sieve Size Percent Passing Sieve Size Percent Passing 1 inch 100 11/2 inch 100
3/4 inch 90-100 No. 4 50
3,$ inch 40-100 No. 200 8
No. 4 25-40
No. 8 18-33
No. 30 5-15
No. 50 0-7
No. 200 0-3
G `Ilnc. TYPICAL BUTTRESS SUBDRAIN DETAIL Plate F-6 L
O co
�
o N
a-
> N IL
U m c� C O
Vv 0
, I � a
CO
\V ° �
cd
ca
5 c� >
o E °o N UO C
cli N \\ cop
E cd U H
co co
co
N
CL
o J
\ L.L-
' cti U N J
U W
cn rn �
�V coco
co D
v'
I \ x o z
0 L CO l,J
wt O cn O
-------------- c
aci _ _ 'a�i ca c
\' I i .� m L N cd cca
al ` c L ,_•
Go\ I � \ 'EL a U J
3 —°� ctS co
co 0
I° ca i Q cli co
cco oco
O
cd Q Q L Q
o 5' L' � � � � � o
c O
ti U U ■
Z N U N N
-0 co Eo N7C3 C7C)
rl ji
o � > H � > H O 'f'�
cv .� co0 Zr Q N N ;`
\ 00
-
EO IL
N \ I •c I
i
co \\ o O
co
co
_\ 7C3co
-
rn \ �
y /
Eco
o �\ � o
\ L
L co cd U
cii U N
\ 3 > .S C C: O
N L > co L a)G / � o L U
m E o N
°oo � °� /\ W
c 9 5 O ca
� Z6 � � u F-
c y _ c LLJ
�° CO _ 'N 70
c cco
J
o c�
L \ ° N U LL
cli
------ \
Cd CEI
Q 1
0 \� � �' o
cd 0) CO)
C Ccd ctj � Y c a- L.
O U A ? i O O
U c� a) m Q
c �c cd
co
L
U ° � � rn \% ° > o �
_ co
0 c rn \\ N cdc p
L D O c \; m e 0 c
co U c co / O
3 x Q U
t
co `
C \ U i
a \ 0
N 0 U -�
no I Q
L O
4 0:)
= U
i9
cli
LL-
cli
N N N
Cd Q cd _ IL
'. :. : \ U O Cif O
.. o cd
0 :.. Q I � L C L Clf
ca Q
N CO)
. •. � � oo — o � CO
o W
a a O � —
co co N
cd C N
LLJ
N U E O C (%
Ol � N co LL
\ " V
L E � N U
cd O N 9 V C U Z
L O 04 —
W
\ E C N
U ca
5 Il
r O 5 O U N — X
' - U co 5 co c m CO 0 O W Ol V J
coco
Q
c000 s - .S
76 co ca cd ca
�.. \ - o W- \ ca J
L U
N m
\� (D
N Q
Cl)
ca co co z
L
Cw
LL-
o rn J
N `` \ N � N '� LL-
J_
Q \� cdu cd N
` \\� N O
H
\\\ co = a
L. CO O N N
cam '� m\ coLo - Q
\� cn N N
. .. \ � \\
a \/ r cy ■
' N rk
o E @ C6 o
L I 0
LL-
\ O cd
\\ O O N � �
L L > CL
m co c N
\\\\ U cd
L
C co
c�
co
E N
cd \jam\\\ Q p c C
co -0
c 0 O O
-leco 7 co coco N J
O C O 7 F-
cd E z° \ cd O
ct$ U
\ �:% \�i i CIJ
U O N O
CO
-0 N t T �-
Q caN
N -Q M
ca H
IL i > D Z
CLL-
''
Cf) U J
b. ctjLL-
v \\ = _ ctj
E
\ c /c _ o cC
C / _ co
O
U % 0 0 O 0 co
ctj O
cti
o C co N .0
o I
m
°1 O
«- N _0 O
L I..��
� Y I
Z
N
7-
N i U U-
IL I Cf) oCL
Ru
\ co .�
o c
c�
>
.E v ? co
co
Q N
\\ clj CO M /
m C
co
C_
O V ca
O O
ca
\ U O V J
Q � co Cd U co E
co O Q
U O
cd
O O N
z / -0 N co Q H
\ / co 0) a) OJ
� L
) c�
x��� C
CFJ-- '� �\ 07 N
O co
N \ � _0 co
CO
co ctj — 1
0 :�
a) .
\� a) a, co
� � U Q c Nco
a � � 00 I ::I . r . . . \\�, � L
0 coo
"—Ct$
coCA �.O .S > ct$ co cd . .
U ca m Nco
. ` \
cd x U N r N b
i \O E ca
N
O O oL •63 W
U N oY H
N 0
� co
Q
co
Natural grade
Proposed pad grade
Remove
unsuita �material /
Subgrade at 2 percent gradient, draining toward street
/ 3-to 7-foot minimum*
overexcavate and recompact
\ //\ Bedrock or per text of report
approved native
material
Typical benching
CUT LOT OR MATERIAL-TYPE TRANSITION
Natural grade
Proposed pad grade --
:
Subgrade at 2 percent gradient, draining toward street
\\ 3-to 7-foot minimum*
\\ overexcavate and recompact
Fte�`Oater\a\ \ per text of report
•ur Su�tab\e / / i
/ \ ' �\�` �\�\\\` Deeper overexcavation may be
�\ recommended by the geotechnical
Bedrock or consultant in steep cut-fill transition approved native areas, such that the underlying
Typical benching material topography is no steeper than 3:1 (H:V) (4-foot minimum)
CUT-FILL LOT (DAYLIGHT TRANSITION)
[Gqj;Ll�ne. TRANSITION LOT DETAILS Plate F-12
VIEW NORMAL TO SLOPE FACE
Proposed finish grade
(E)
70 Hold-down depth
/ Co C
(B)
/ cam 15 Icon d�
O minmum
(A)
/ W 15-foot —� CfJ (F)
minimum
5-foot Bedrock or approved
minimum native material
VIEW PARALLEL TO SLOPE FACE
' Proposed finish grade
I (B) I
(E) Hold-down depth 100-foot —
maximum _j_ (D)
\\ f 15-foot minimum — 3-foot minimum
t
\\\ 25-foot minimumfrom
\\\ anyon wall (F)
5-foot \\/ Bedrock or approved
minimum native material
NOTES:
A. One equipment width or a minimum of 15 feet between rows (or windrows).
B. Height and width may vary depending on rock size and type of equipment. Length of windrow shall be no greater than 100 feet.
C. If approved by the geotechnical consultant, windrows may be placed direclty on competent material or bedrock, provided adequate space is available for compaction.
D. Orientation of windrows may vary but should be as recommended by the geotechnical engineer and/or engineering geologist. Staggering of windrows is not necessary unless recommended.
E. Clear area for utility trenches, foundations, and swimming pools; Hold-down depth as specified in text of report, subject to governing agency approval.
F. All fill over and around rock windrow shall be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction or as recommended.
G. After fill between windrows is placed and compacted, with the lift of fill covering windrow, windrow should be proof rolled with a D-9 dozer or equivalent.
VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY AND MAY BE SUPERSEDED BY REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS OR CODE
ROCK SHOULD NOT TOUCH AND VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY FILLED G sill C. OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL Plate F-13
ROCK DISPOSAL PITS
Fill lifts compacted over
rock after embedment
F — — 7— — — — — Granular material
. . . . . . . .
— — — Large Rock -. . . .
-- Size of excavation to
Compacted Fill be commensurate
with rock size
ROCK DISPOSAL LAYERS
Granular soil to fill voids, densified by flooding Compacted fill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Layer one rock high _
Proposed finish grade
• Hold-down depth
PROFILE ALONG LAYER
Oversize layer \ \ — * Hold-down depth
� l
Compacted fill \
3-foot
minimum
Fill Slope l
1 ** Clear zone TOP VIEW
o —
o Layer one rock high
o 0 0 0 0
* Hold-down depth or below lowest utility as specified in text of report, subject to governing agency approval. * Clear zone for utility trenches, foundations, and swimming pools, as specified in text of report.
VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY AND MAY BE SUPERSEDED BY REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS OR CODE
ROCK SHOULD NOT TOUCH AND VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY FILLED IN G LIIC. ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL Plate F-14
Existing grade
\ \\ 5-foot-high
\� impact/debris wall METHOD 1
Pad grade
Existing grade
5-foot-high
impact/debris wall METHOD 2
Pad grade
Existing grade
5-foot-wide catchment area
5-foot-high METHOD 3
impact/debris wall
Pad grade
Existing grade
2:1 NO slope Fence
2:1 NO slope METHOD 4
Pad grade
NOT TO SCALE
G04*- :J�uc. DEBRIS DEVICE CONTROL METHODS DETAIL Plate F-15
II kox-A ii`l[k H
I Fs rcr lu I
iv, Vi 'r xXcA m�i Minoo ne of,r�
=y
i "-A IIYIv, f
II?rein Irodk
) € cllpx�,, t..(0) rr i�r�tc"k"�iES'JA
I
's V3�)C�V� V'/�� ,� • MJ II�C I\ NCO[ fl)f ,.I/\1I1 • ; lcalfl� 5
MAP VIEW
NOT TO SCALE Concrete cut-off wall D IF- 4-inch perforated SEE NOTES subdrain pipe
(transverse)
Pool
-------------------
Top of slope
El
Gravity-flow,
nonperforated subdrain
pipe (transverse)
Toe of slope Direction
of drainage
4-inch perforated D
subdrain pipe
(longitudinal)
5 feet Coping A' CROSS SECTION VIEW
LN NOT TO SCALE
SEE NOTES
Pool
Coping
2-inch-thick :--• - Pool encapsulated in 5-foot sand layer Y ` thickness of sand
Vapor retarder 6-inch-thick gravel layer
4-inch perforated subdrain pipe
B Coping
it f 5 feet
Outlet per design "-
civil engineer zone of Pool
Distress
" 6-inch-thick
gravel layer
....................................
—2-inch-thick sand layer
Gravity-flow nonperforated Concrete Vapor retarder subdrain pipe cut-off wall
Perforated subdrain pipe
NOTES:
1. 6-inch-thick, clean gravel (3/4 to 1%2 inch) sub-base encapsulated in Mirafi 140N or equivalent, underlain by a 15-mil vapor retarder, with 4-inch-diameter perforated pipe longitudinal connected to 4-inch-diameter perforated pipe transverse. Connect transverse pipe to 4-inch-diameter nonperforated pipe at low point and outlet or to sump pump area.
2. Pools on fills thicker than 20 feet should be constructed on deep foundations; otherwise, distress (tilting, cracking, etc.) should be expected.
3. Design does not apply to infinity-edge pools/spas.
G4 �J� .0 TYPICAL POOL SPA DETAIL Plate F-17 J __
- 2-foot x 2-foot x 14-inch steel plate
Standard 34-inch pipe nipple
welded to top of plate
34-inch x 5-foot galvanized pipe,
standard pipe threads top and bottom;
extensions threaded on both ends and
added in 5-foot increments
3-inch schedule 40 PVC pipe sleeve, add
in 5-foot increments with glue joints
Proposed finish grade
'A
I I
I I
5 feet 5 feet
I I
I I
I 5 feet
�J l\
F— 2 feet // \\
Bottom of cleanout
t foot Provide a minimum 1-foot
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
bedding of compacted sand
NOTES:
1. Locations of settlement plates should be clearly marked and readily visible (red flagged) to equipment operators.
2. Contractor should maintain clearance of a 5-foot radius of plate base and withiin 5 feet (vertical) for heavy equipment. Fill within clearance area should be hand compacted to project specifications or compacted by alternative approved method by the geotechnical consultant (in writing, prior to construction).
3. After 5 feet (vertical) of fill is in place, contractor should maintain a 5-foot radius equipment clearance from riser.
4. Place and mechanically hand compact initial 2 feet of fill prior to establishing the initial reading.
5. In the event of damage to the settlement plate or extension resulting from equipment operating within the specified clearance area, contractor should immediately notify the geotechnical consultant and should be responsible for restoring the settlement plates to working order.
6. An alternate design and method of installation may be provided at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant.
�`S`c. SETTLEMENT PLATE AND RISER DETAIL Plate F-18
rn
I
LL-
a
CL
C
O
U �
C co
7 X X N
N —
co
O O N U
p
co
i N
U La
U
ca U Z
c: C i c :m
co co CO �M O z
"' U U O
H
Z
W
° o W
° o
o ° W
° LL-
N
J
0 Cl) a-
H
N
ca
i
w
LL
SIDE VIEW
Spoil pile r
GSI
Test pit
TOP VIEW
Flag Flag
Spoil pile Test pit
Light
Vehicle
50 feet 50 feet
100 feet
TEST PIT SAFETY DIAGRAM Plate F-20
cow
/ (OW DE I� RESIDE TI II II�8I I 1 I POR SW 114 I / 1 �I �� I _� .5 SEC2 T119 / I / , (RESIDENTIAL)R4W IU rl I I \ ellBM
r - - —1— —�
_ V
N.A.P.
I �.. 9°Zb 29°W 123.9
-- DEN.365.71INU365.61 IN ——————————————————————— -- - - --- uCn � 15 I — —N—.—A.P.
—�c
— I HIGHWY78
`EXISTING ACCESS DRIVE � w 4366 SF LOT 7 LOT 8 -- -- - - ------ ---- /
� I MAP12195 MAP12195
I ' J=4i (ZONING
:
n / /1 11 11 II R-M' ZONINGt .W�1,VCP ss r I - w s PER DWG. E-1 • > 365 SFv ti CONDOS— d \ --
—---
.
SITE
VS70-1 � _ M
(qESIDENT - o I _
o a I oW = -
, > MMEDIUM HIG D ESIBENTIACPORSW1/4mo SEC25T11S !US�
_
—
i R4WSBM ,LOW DENSITY RE IDENTIAL �` Z '`��\ �c (COIAO, �"`r� . \ 3 `\ \ N.A.P. - E Y �u
MEL�ROS co
(RESIDENTIAL) \ 12 \ _ _ _ \ W i 4130 SF ��^� ——
I I 1 4871 SIF _ --=_ I / CONC
N.A.Pw
K A LU
-f0T LOT QC01 \
WATER QUAL"ItY, � \ \ ^ rO r \ ,� \ \ C\ I N�3o \ W7 Kt �\ \\ `\ �±364.85 INV / / / I . \ �4, A \
2- C14
�.
356L71 INV \ ® V A \ \ \ 352d '`�/ 356. INS:.` ) 1 1 TD=6` I \ \ ZO N I I V�7��-- 3321 SF s I 1
/ / / �_
— / ' I DENSE ZONING: \ \ I s HURCHY I BRUSH/ I , �i PCL\4 � I 10 , POR LOT 16 VICINITY M A P PM6617 (RESIDENTIAL),/ o \ 3752SF \ \ 1 \ SkEC25T11S - R4W SBM NOT TO SCALE
/ \ N.A.P. - \ I ' N.A.P. co9 D°� SITE INFO � x \ �5 M .�id „,� LAN :J±364.37 INV 1 I I o �` i X» \ I 7.5d I I Z 5474 SF / X„ \ AND€N SIDENTI,
\/ \ APN: 166-184-10-00, 166-183-17-00
\ \ I�D USE:
r \ \ 1 mod(^""� ) EXISTING ZONING: E 1 ESTATE RESIDENTIAL Ix \� ind LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL _ „Q `\ �� PROPOSED ZONING: R-1 a JFf7 k \\ ar�d \ / (RES) ENTIAIL) 5618 S� "d 35' J GROSS ACREAGE: 2.57 AC I • �\ xW. � o \� 24' Aso-asc�` NET ACREAGE: 2.22 AC � '�' — _5.5' 12' 12' 5.5' dd
LAND USE
\ _ �� - - -_ 7 _- _ \ \ - \ EXISTING USE: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(2 DU/AC) 5616 SF \ a
\ ,=d / x I \ s d PROPOSED USE: MEDIUM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(5 DUTAC) \ it 5 CO NC %Ad �I \\ ��d \ .W. \ \ I \ 3�=. HA-1 �5 - TOTAL: 15 LOTS TD=5' - — \
I
I• I Lq
L
37R4
— — — — — \\ f v Id � �,`� \\ —\ 5614SF PROPOSED DENSITY Acd
\ I 1 �s d 0 1, I DENSITY BONUS CALCULATION z
— � 1� C 2.57 GROSS ACRES-STREET= 2.22 NET ACRES QC01
\ \ 5611 SF ' s I 2.22 AC*5 DU/AC= 11.10 DU'S \ I era. P0�B PCL C V PCL D v .i I '' I PM 66Q7 PM 6697 \ I \. PM 6697 • Kt """ \ x ( ,� ` •P0R COT,16 I 11.10 DU'S*0.30 BONUS=4 BONUS DU'S(rounded up) 10 o � W I ms \ J"�`� \ �� - --� I �'•U••••••�••••••••� I 4WSBM TOTAL DU'S(11 +4)= 15 > X /�� � ZONING. 5609 SF I I I I. I _� II
.! —°,d —
zd —\ d I grad ) sad �' ., \ E \\�ter— — • �� N : I AFFORDABLE CALCULATION I — • (RESIDENTIAL) �:d 0 — „ 0 G ":' `�, I srad �rx 'l IY, \ _1 I 2.22 AC*5 DU/AC= 11.10 DU'S f „
U Q I I \\ d 1 \ \\ )I =5 ��` � �' ' \c \\ , R H 11.10 DU'S*0.09 AFFORDABLE= 1 VERY LOW INCOME (rounded up) 0o I \ `\ dlrX I d >� `�I v/ 5607 SF 0\ O I I TOTAL UNIT COUNT= 15 (1 VERY LOW INCOME) I
I 3735 z ` Awe Afu
N�I USE.": �"c /
� I � v � �3 `�Q � � . SE: I _ I - , d v �dSITY ESIDENTIAL I vv 2 �� > LEGEND I L W DENSITY RESINTIA
�a — --► q -- -PRESIDENTIAL) I \ , ,\ 5sa5 SF oc — — *� \4 I \ �' — — — I \ CL CONC '�" • w I r a I RIGHT OF WAY LINE n
- — — N.A.P. �J LOT LINE �- I �� '' _ 1,12, Lam.: \ �\ • TD=3Y ' N.A.P. EASEMENT LINE -- - - - - -- - - - - - S ' ��_ ,xv ns� \ • \ xd + s �Ic �3 : ra7 I i ,mot 1 \ I „ BUILDING SETBACK LINE I JACd -- — I • \
I !' in? .�. ''---_ \ s \ \ EX.R/W • / / u i ?� — CENTERLINE — — _ „ E _�
Z \ — _ __ _ ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE mxd n1 Ziff
�� M"OSE wav , \ / N r. ti I vr- EXISTING 8"SEWER MAIN M �' Ar GSI LEGEND • i rrzd d - N A6.00 \ x.d This document or ehle is not a part of the Construction +i z _ I S\i D6 15 40 9 \ PROPOSED 8 SEWER MAIN S Documents and should not be relied upon as being an M ^' r' ' 1 \S 's"p accurate depiction of design. � 1' � / � /� / CURB AND GUTTER LO°' ARTIFICIAL FILL - UNDOCUMENTED X - —/ _ / / / QC01 — _ _-- _ - - _
Y J ---
QUATERNARY-AGE COLLUVIUM ZONING: - - \=' } �°"`_ ] -\ I CRETACEOUS-AGE TONOLITE - CIRCLED WHERE BURIED E-1 \ °i' � J (RESIDENTIAL) I � LAND USE. �I
HAS , ,„,T., �� ,��. ,T, . , 1205 MELROSE WAY ® — APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF HAND-AUGER BORING
CONO
1541
04 1777
TD=6' PRE-APPLICATION EXHIBIT GEOTECHNICAL MAP ���� — APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT' 0 40' 80' 1 • • • • PASCO• — APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF BURIED GEOLOGIC CONTACT LARET SUITER PLSA JOB NO.3334
20 40 20 SCALE 1 -40 & ASSOCIATES o9-oa_-zozo Plate 1 N.A.P. — NOT A PART OF THIS STUDY San Diego I Solana Beach I orange County SHEET 1 OF 1EW.
SCALE: 1 = 40 Phone 858.259.8212 1 www.plsaengineering.com8058-A-sc DATE: 03121 SCALE: 1 = 40'
1205 Melrose Way Project, City of Vista
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report
I I
� r
kj +, :a
�1 13�
�J, I la ,
I
.T„_.
1 �
---
n z
-
p Q ' - - •-_ _ - - --v - -- - -
Submitted to:
City of Vista
Planning Division
200 Civic Center Drive
Vista, CA 92084
Prepared by:
RCHGR00%UP
planning&environmental consulting
September 2021
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1205 MELROSE WAY PROJECT, CITY OF VISTA
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS TECHNICAL REPORT
Page
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Existing Conditions 1
1.3 Thresholds of Significance 8
1.4 Impact Analysis 10
1.4.1 Construction and Operational GHG Emissions 10
1.4.2 Consistency with Plans and Regulations 10
1.5 Conclusions 13
1.6 References 14
Table GHG-1— Estimated GHG Emissions (First Year of Operation —2025) 10 Table GHG-2— Estimated GHG Emissions (Year 2030) 12 Table GHG-3— Estimated GHG Emissions (Year 2050) 12 Appendix A
I. CaIEEMod Annual Emissions Output (Project Year 2025) II. CaIEEMod Annual Emissions Output (Future Year 2030) III. CaIEEMod Annual Emissions Output (Future Year 2050)
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS TECHNICAL REPORT
1205 MELROSE WAY PROJECT, CITY OF VISTA
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This report presents an analysis of potential greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts associated with the 1205 Melrose Way Project(the"Project")in the City of Vista,CA. The Project consists of the development of 15 new single-family homes on 2.55 acres. The Project would change the existing E-1 (Estates Residential)zoning to R-1 zoning(Single Family Residential). The Project would also require a General Plan Amendment to change the existing Low Density Residential (LD)designation to Medium Density Residential(MD), as well as a Density Bonus.
The 15 new single-family homes are estimated to be approximately 2,800 to 3,000 square feet each. Project construction would commence in January 2023 and would be completed in June 2024(approximately 18 months). Demolition would be required to remove the existing structures onsite. Site preparation and grading activities would follow and would require approximately 4,034 cubic yards of soil import,requiring approximately 252 haul truck round trips. Building construction,paving, and architectural coating phases would follow.
There are residences immediately north(multifamily apartments) and west(single-family homes) of the Project site. An existing church(Vista Samoan Seventh-Day Adventist Temple)is immediately east of the Project site. Breeze Hill Elementary School is approximately 350 feet east of eastern boundary of the Project site. Residences are also located to the south opposite of Melrose Way.
This report presents a background on GHG emissions, an overview of regulations applicable to the Project, and an analysis of potential GHG emissions impacts that would result from implementation of the Project. All GHG emissions impacts were found to be less than significant.
1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
1.2.1 BACKGROUND AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES
"Global warming"and"global climate change"are the terms used to describe the increase in the average temperature of the earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. Warming of the climate system is now considered to be unequivocal,with global surface temperature increasing approximately 1.33 degrees Fahrenheit(7) over the last 100 years. Continued warming is projected to increase global average temperature between 2 and 11°F over the next 100 years.
1205 Melrose Way Project 1 RCH Group Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report September 2021
Natural processes and human actions have been identified as the causes of this warming. The International Panel on Climate Change(IPCC)concludes that variations in natural phenomena such as solar radiation and volcanoes produced most of the warming from pre-industrial times to 1950 and had a small cooling effect afterward(IPCC,2014). After 1950,however, increasing GHG concentrations resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning, and deforestation have been responsible for most of the observed temperature increase. These basic conclusions have been endorsed by more than 45 scientific societies and academies of science, including all the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. Since 2007,no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion.
Increases in GHG concentrations in the earth's atmosphere are thought to be the main cause of human-induced climate change. The IPCC is now 95 percent certain that humans are the main cause of current global warming(IPCC,2014). GHG naturally trap heat by impeding the exit of solar radiation that has hit the earth and is reflected back into space. Some GHG occur naturally and are necessary for keeping the earth's surface inhabitable. However, increases in the concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere during the last 100 years have decreased the amount of solar radiation that is reflected back into space, intensifying the natural greenhouse effect and resulting in the increase of global average temperature.
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as GHG because they capture heat radiated from the sun as it is reflected back into the atmosphere,much like a greenhouse does. The accumulation of GHG has been implicated as the driving force for global climate change. The primary GHG are carbon dioxide(CO2),methane(CHa), and nitrous oxide(N2O), ozone, and water vapor.
While the presence of the primary GHG in the atmosphere are naturally occurring, CO2, CH4, and N2O are also emitted from human activities, accelerating the rate at which these compounds occur within earth's atmosphere. Emissions of CO2 are largely by-products of fossil fuel combustion, whereas methane results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices, coal mines, and landfills. Other GHG include hydrofluorocarbons,perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride, and are generated in certain industrial processes.
CO2 is the reference gas for climate change because it is the predominant GHG emitted. The effect that each of the aforementioned gases can have on global warming is a combination of the mass of their emissions and their global warming potential(GWP). GWP indicates, on a pound- for-pound basis,how much a gas is predicted to contribute to global warming relative to how much warming would be predicted to be caused by the same mass of CO2. CHa and N2O are substantially more potent GHG than CO2,with GWP of 28 and 265 times that of CO2, respectively(IPCC, 2014).
In emissions inventories, GHG emissions are typically reported in terms of pounds or metric tons Of CO2 equivalents (CO2e). CO2e are calculated as the product of the mass emitted of a given GHG and its specific GWP. While CHa and N2O have much higher GWP than CO2, CO2 is emitted in such vastly higher quantities that it accounts for the majority of GHG emissions in CO2e.
1205 Melrose Way Project 2 RCH Group Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report September 2021
1205 MELROSE WAY PROJECT,CITY OF VISTA
Fossil fuel combustion, especially for the generation of electricity and powering of motor vehicles,has led to substantial increases in CO2 emissions (and thus substantial increases in atmospheric concentrations of CO2). In pre-industrial times(c. 1860), concentrations of atmospheric CO2 were approximately 280 parts per million(ppm). By December 2020, atmospheric CO2 concentrations had increased to 414 ppm,48 percent above pre-industrial concentrations(NOAA,2021).
There is international scientific consensus that human-caused increases in GHGs have and will continue to contribute to global warming. Potential global warming impacts in California may include,but are not limited to, loss in snow pack, sea level rise,more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days,more large forest fires, and more drought years. Secondary effects are likely to include a global rise in sea level, impacts to agriculture, changes in disease vectors, and changes in habitat and biodiversity(CalEPA, 2006).
1.2.2 REGULATORY SETTING
State Regulations and Standards
State regulations and standards applicable to the Project are listed below. The Project would not generate vehicle trips,thus State regulations focused on motor vehicles are not discussed further.
Solid Waste Regulations
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, as modified by AB 341,requires each jurisdiction's source reduction and recycling element to include an implementation schedule that shows: (1) diversion of 25 percent of all solid waste by January 1, 1995,through source reduction,recycling, and composting activities; (2)diversion of 50 percent of all solid waste on and after January 1,2000; and(3) diversion of 75 percent of all solid waste on or after 2020, and annually thereafter. The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle)is required to develop strategies, including source reduction,recycling, and composting activities,to achieve the 2020 goal.
CalRecycle published a discussion document, entitled California's New Goal: 75 Percent Recycling, which identified concepts that would assist the State in reaching the 75 percent goal by 2020. Subsequently,in August 2015, CalRecycle released the AB 341 Report to the Legislature, which identifies five priority strategies for achievement of the 75 percent goal: (1)moving organics out of landfills; (2) expanding recycling/manufacturing infrastructure; (3) exploring new approaches for State and local funding of sustainable waste management programs; (4)promoting State procurement of post-consumer recycled content products; and, (5)promoting extended producer responsibility.
California Code of Regulations Title 24
Although not originally intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations,Part 6: California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings,were first established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow for the 1205 Melrose Way Project 3 RCH Group Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report September 2021
consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods.
Energy efficient buildings require less electricity,natural gas, and other fuels. Electricity production from fossil fuels and on-site fuel combustion(typically for water heating)results in GHG emissions. Therefore, increased energy efficiency results in decreased GHG emissions.
Accordingly, Title 24 in the CALGreen Building Code is now a part of the statewide strategy for reducing GHG emissions and is the only statewide plan for reduction of GHG emissions that every local agency must adopt in a public hearing by adopting the state building code. Consistent with CALGreen,the state recognized that GHG reductions would be achieved through buildings that exceed minimum energy-efficiency standards, decrease consumption of potable water,reduce sold waste during construction and operation, and incorporate sustainable materials. Compliance with Title 24 of the CALGreen Building Code is thus a vehicle to achieve statewide electricity and natural gas efficiency targets, and lower GHG emissions from waste and water transport sectors. The Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards were updated in 2019 and buildings whose permit application are dated on or after January 1,2020 must comply with the 2019 Standards.
Pavley Standards
California AB 1493 (Pavley) enacted on July 22, 2002,required the California Air Resource Board(CARB)to develop and adopt regulations that reduce greenhouse gases emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks for model years 2009-2016,which are often times referred to as the"Pavley I"standards. The CARB obtained a waiver from the USEPA that allows for implementation of these regulations notwithstanding possible federal preemption concerns.
Executive Order 5-3-05
Executive Order(EO) 5-3-05, signed by Governor Schwarzenegger on June 1, 2005, calls for a reduction in GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and for an 80 percent reduction in GHG emissions below 1990 levels by 2050. EO 5-3-05 also calls for the CalEPA to prepare biennial science reports on the potential impact of continued global climate change on certain sectors of the California economy. The first of these reports, "Our Changing Climate: Assessing Risks to California", and its supporting document"Scenarios of Climate Change in California: An Overview"were published by the California Climate Change Center in 2006.
Assembly Bill 32
In September 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill(AB) 32 into law. AB 32 required that,by January 1, 2008,the California Air Resources Board(CARB) shall determine what the statewide GHG emissions level was in 1990 and approve a statewide GHG emissions limit that is equivalent to that level,to be achieved by 2020. The CARB adopted its AB 32 Scoping Plan in December 2008,which provided estimates of the 1990 GHG emissions level and identified sectors for the reduction of GHG emissions. In 2011,the CARB developed a Supplement to the AB 32 Scoping Plan which updated the emissions inventory based on current projections and included adopted measures such as the Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards and 20 percent Renewable Portfolio Standard(RPS)requirement.
1205 Melrose Way Project 4 RCH Group Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report September 2021
1205 MELROSE WAY PROJECT,CITY OF VISTA
In 2014,the CARB published its First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan. This update indicated that the State is on target to meet the goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 level by 2020. The First Update tracks progress in achieving the goals of AB 32 and lays out a new set of actions that will move the State further along the path to achieving the 2050 goal of reducing emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. While the First Update discusses setting a mid-term target,the plan does not yet set a quantifiable target toward meeting the 2050 goal.
In January 2017,the CARB released the draft of The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update:
The Proposed Strategy for Achieving California's 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target(Second Update).
This update addresses the statewide emissions reduction target established pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 32 and Executive Order B-30-15, as discussed below. The major elements of the Second Update, as proposed in the CARB's January 2017 draft, include(but are not limited to)achieving the following milestones by 2030: a 50 percent Renewable Portfolio Standard(discussed below); a more stringent Low Carbon Fuel Standard(discussed below)that requires an 18 percent reduction in carbon intensity; deploying additional near-zero and zero emissions technologies in the transportation sectors; increasing the stringency of the SB 375 (discussed below)reduction targets for 2035; a 20 percent reduction in GHG emissions from the refinery sector; and, continued deployment of a declining emissions cap under the Cap-and-Trade Program.
Senate Bill 97
Senate Bill(SB) 97, enacted in 2007, amends the CEQA statute to clearly establish that GHG emissions and the effects of GHG emissions are appropriate subjects for CEQA analysis. SB 97 directed the Governor's Office of Planning and Research(OPR)to develop draft CEQA guidelines"for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of OPR published a technical advisory on CEQA and climate change on June 19,2008. The guidance did not include a suggested threshold but stated that the OPR had asked the CARB to"recommend a method for setting thresholds which will encourage consistency and uniformity in the CEQA analysis of greenhouse gas emissions throughout the state."
The OPR technical advisory does recommend that CEQA analyses include the following components:
• Identification of greenhouse gas emissions;
• Determination of significance; and
• Mitigation of impacts, as needed and as feasible.
On December 31,2009,the California Natural Resources Agency adopted the proposed amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines. These amendments became effective on March 18, 2010.
Senate BN 375
The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375)finds that GHG from autos and light trucks can be substantially reduced by new vehicle technology,but even so"it will 1205 Melrose Way Project 5 RCH Group Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report September 2021
be necessary to achieve significant additional GHG reductions from changed land use patterns and improved transportation. Without improved land use and transportation policy, California will not be able to achieve the goals of AB 32."Therefore, SB 375 requires that regions with metropolitan planning organizations adopt sustainable communities' strategies, as part of their regional transportation plans,which are designed to achieve certain goals for the reduction of GHG emissions from mobile sources.
SB 375 also includes CEQA streamlining provisions for"transit priority projects"that are consistent with an adopted sustainable communities' strategy. As defined in SB 375, a"transit priority project" shall: (1)contain at least 50 percent residential use,based on total building square footage and, if the project contains between 26 and 50 percent nonresidential uses, a floor area ratio of not less than 0.75; (2)provide a maximum net density of at least 20 dwelling units per acre; and(3)be within 0.5 mile of a major transit stop or high quality transit corridor.
Low Carbon Fuel Standard
Executive Order 5-1-07 requires a 10 percent or greater reduction in the average fuel carbon intensity for transportation fuels in California regulated by the CARB by 2020. In 2009,the CARB approved the Low Carbon Fuel Standard(LCFS)regulations,which became fully effective in April 2010. The regulations were subsequently re-adopted in September 2015 in response to related litigation.
Advanced Clean Cars Program
In 2012,the CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars(ACC)program, a new emissions-control program for model years 2017-2025. (This program is sometimes referred to as"Pavley II.")The program combines the control of smog, soot, and GHGs with requirements for greater numbers of zero-emission vehicles. By 2025,when the rules will be fully implemented,new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer GHGs.
Zero Emission Vehicles
Zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) include plug-in electric vehicles, such as battery electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles.
In 2012, Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-16-2012,which calls for the increased penetration of ZEVs into California's vehicle fleet in order to help California achieve a reduction of GHG emissions from the transportation sector equaling 80 percent less than 1990 levels by 2050. In furtherance of that statewide target for the transportation sector,the Executive Order also calls upon the GARB, CEC and the California Public Utilities Commission to establish benchmarks that will: (1) allow over 1.5 million ZEVs to be on California roadways by 2025, and (2)provide the State's residents with easy access to ZEV infrastructure.
The proliferation of zero emission vehicles is being supported in multiple ways. For example, California is incentivizing the purchase of ZEVs through implementation of the Clean Vehicle Rebate Project(CVRP),which is administered by a non-profit organization(The Center for Sustainable Energy) for the ARB and currently subsidizes the purchase of passenger near-zero 1205 Melrose Way Project 6 RCH Group Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report September 2021
1205 MELROSE WAY PROJECT,CITY OF VISTA
and zero emission vehicles. Additionally, CALGreen requires new residential and non-residential construction to be pre-wired to facilitate the future installation and use of electric vehicle chargers (see Section 4.106.4 and Section 5.106.5.3 of CALGreen Standards for the residential and non- residential pre-wiring requirements,respectively). As a final example, in January 2017, San Diego Gas&Electric Company(SDG&E)applied to the California Public Utilities Commission for authority to implement numerous programs intended to accelerate the electrification of the transportation sector. SDG&E's application includes,but is not limited to,proposals to: (i) install up to 90,000 charging stations at single-family homes throughout the company's service area; (ii) install charging infrastructure at various park-and-ride locations; (iii)provide incentives for electric taxis and shuttles; and, (iv)provide educational programs and financial incentives for the sale of electric vehicles.
Executive Order B-30-15
In April 2015, Governor Brown signed Executive Order B-30-15,which established the following GHG emission reduction goal for California:by 2030,reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels. This Executive Order also directed all state agencies with jurisdiction over GHG-emitting sources to implement measures designed to achieve the new interim 2030 goal, as well as the pre-existing, long-term 2050 goal identified in Executive Order S-3-05.
Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197
Enacted in 2016, SB 32 codifies the 2030 emissions reduction goal of Executive Order B-30-15 by requiring the CARB to ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. SB 32 was coupled with a companion bill: AB 197. Designed to improve the transparency of the CARB's regulatory and policy-oriented processes,AB 197 created the Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies,a committee with the responsibility to ascertain facts and make recommendations to the Legislature concerning statewide programs, policies and investments related to climate change. AB 197 also requires the CARB to make certain GHG emissions inventory data publicly available on its web site; consider the social costs of GHG emissions when adopting rules and regulations designed to achieve GHG emission reductions; and include specified information in all Scoping Plan updates for the emission reduction measures contained therein.
City of Vista Regulations and Standards
City of Vista General Plan 2030
In February 2012,the City of Vista(COV)adopted GP 2030(City of Vista, 2012a) and certified the accompanying Program EIR(PEIR) (City of Vista,2012b). The GP 2030 PEIR included Mitigation Measure MCC1,which required the COV to implement a quantified Climate Action Plan(CAP)within 24 months of adoption of GP 2030. GP 2030 includes a Resource Conservation and Sustainability Element,which includes the following: "RCS Goal 2: Reduce GHG emissions from community activities and municipal facilities and operations within the COV boundaries to support the State's efforts under AB 32, SB 375, and other State and federal mandates, and to mitigate the community's contributions to global climate change."The GP 2030 policy that applies to the project includes the following:
1205 Melrose Way Project 7 RCH Group Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report September 2021
RCS Policy 2.7: Through California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) documents, evaluate and disclose the contribution new projects could have on climate change and require mitigation measures as appropriate.
City of Vista Climate Action Plan
The COV adopted its CAP in 2013 to reduce GHG emissions in Vista in order to comply with AB 32. The CAP provided an estimate of business as usual emissions by the year 2020, and a projection of the amount of reductions needed to meet the COV's requirement to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels. The CAP estimated that a reduction of 27,187 metric tons of CO2e would be required. The CAP adopts climate action measures designed to provide the necessary reductions to meet the 2020 target. The measures that would apply to development projects include energy efficiency measures,transportation and land use measures designed to reduce vehicle miles traveled, and solid waste reduction measures.
1.2.3 PROJECT SITE
The Project site is at 1205 Melrose Way(APN 166-184-10-00, 166-183-17-00, and 166-184-09- 00) in Vista, CA. The Project consists of the development of 15 new single-family homes on 2.55 acres. The Project would change the existing E-1 (Estates Residential)zoning to R-1 zoning (Single Family Residential). The Project would also require a General Plan Amendment to change the existing Low Density Residential(LD) designation to Medium Density Residential (MD), as well as a Density Bonus. The Project would demolish the existing structures onsite.
There are residences immediately north(multifamily apartments) and west(single-family homes) of the Project site. An existing church(Vista Samoan Seventh-Day Adventist Temple)is immediately east of the Project site. Breeze Hill Elementary School is approximately 350 feet east of eastern boundary of the Project site. Residences are also to the south of Melrose Way.
1.3 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to the California Natural Resources Agency(July 2009),"due to the global nature of GHG emissions and their potential effects, GHG emissions will typically be addressed in a cumulative impacts analysis." Significance criteria were developed in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.
In the GP 2030 PEIR(City of Vista 2012b),the following criteria were used to establish the significance of GCC emissions:
The Project would have a significant impact if it would:
• Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,that may have a significant impact on the environment.
• Conflict with an applicable plan,policy,or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
1205 Melrose Way Project 8 RCH Group Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report September 2021
1205 MELROSE WAY PROJECT,CITY OF VISTA
• Expose property and persons to the physical effects of climate change, including but not limited to flooding,public health,wildfire risk or other impacts resulting from climate change.
The California Resources Agency adopted an Amendment to the State CEQA Guidelines to assist lead agencies in determining the significance of impact from GHG emissions. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4, CEQA Guidelines for Determining the Significance of Impacts from Greenhouse Gas Emissions, states the following:
a. The determination of the significance of greenhouse gas emissions calls for a careful judgment by the lead agency consistent with the provisions in section 15064. A lead agency should make a good-faith effort,based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data,to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project. A lead agency shall have discretion to determine, in the context of a particular project,whether to:
i. Use a model or methodology to quantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project, and which model or methodology to use. The lead agency has discretion to select the model or methodology it considers most appropriate provided it supports its decision with substantial evidence. The lead agency should explain the limitations of the particular model or methodology selected for use; and/or ii. Rely on a qualitative analysis or performance-based standards. b. A lead agency should consider the following factors, among others,when assessing the significance of impacts from greenhouse gas emissions on the environment:
i. The extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting;
ii. Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project;
iii. The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide,regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Such requirements must be adopted by the relevant public agency through a public review process and must reduce or mitigate the project's incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emissions. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the project.
The COV has not established a GHG significance threshold to date. Several lead agencies in California have adopted a screening threshold as recommended by the CAPCOA Report, CEQA and Climate Change—Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects 1205 Melrose Way Project 9 RCH Group Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report September 2021
Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act,which proposes a screening-level threshold of 900 metric tons of CO2e to evaluate whether a project must conduct further analysis.
Based on a review of projects within the city, a level of 1,185 metric tons of CO2e would capture 90 percent of the city's emissions that are attributable to development projects. Therefore, a "bright line"threshold of 1,185 metric tons of CO2e is an appropriate significance threshold for the COV. The Project's emissions were evaluated based on this threshold.
1.4 IMPACT ANALYSIS
1.4.1 CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS
GHG emissions associated with the Project were estimated for six categories of emissions: (1) construction; (2)area sources; (3) energy(electricity)use; (4)motor vehicles; (5)water and wastewater conveyance; and(6) solid waste disposal. The Project site currently generates GHG emissions associated with the existing residence,which is likely very minor. Therefore,this analysis conservatives assumes the existing baseline generates zero GHG emissions.
Construction Impacts
Construction GHG emissions include emissions from heavy construction equipment,haul trucks and worker trips. GHG emissions from construction of the Project were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model(CalEEMod). Construction of the Project would generate approximately 427 metric tons of CO2e over the approximately 18-month construction period. Per guidance from the SCAQMD(SCAQMD 2008),construction emissions are amortized over a 30- year period to account for the contribution of construction emissions over the lifetime of the project. Amortizing the emissions from construction of the Project over a 30-year period would result in an annual contribution of approximately 14 metric tons of CO2e. These emissions are added to operational emissions to account for the contribution of construction to GHG emissions for the lifetime of the Project.
Operational Impacts
The main source of Project operational GHG emissions would be vehicle trips and energy use, as well as other minor GHG emissions from areas sources (i.e., application of paints, cleaning chemicals, etc.),water/wastewater conveyance,and solid waste disposal. The Project would generate approximately 150 vehicle trips per day. Project operational GHG emissions assumed an operational year of 2025 and were modeled with CalEEMod as shown in Table GHG-1 and in Appendix A.
1205 Melrose Way Project 10 RCH Group Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report September 2021
1205 MELROSE WAY PROJECT,CITY OF VISTA
TABLE GHG-1 ESTIMATED GHG EMISSIONS(FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION-2025) EmissionsAnnual • • per year)
Emission •
Area Sources 0.2
Energy Use 46.3
Vehicle Trips 139.5
Solid Waste Disposal 8.9
Water/Wastewater Conveyance 6.1
Amortized Construction Emissions 14
Total CO2 Equivalent Emissions 215
Significance Threshold 1,150
Source:SCAQMD,2021.
1 Values may differ slightly from estimates shown in Appendix A due to rounding.
As shown in Table GHG-1, emissions would be below the annual bright line significance threshold. Therefore,the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact.
1.4.2 CONSISTENCY WITH PLANS AND REGULATIONS
Horizon Years 2030 and 2050
As described in Section 1.2,Executive Order B-30-15 established a statewide emissions reduction target of 40%below 1990 levels by 2030,which has been implemented by SB 32. This measure was identified to keep the state on a trajectory needed to meet the 2050 goal of reducing GHG emissions to 80%below 1990 levels by 2050 pursuant to Executive Order S-3-05.
Further analyses were conducted to provide information on future GHG emissions in the years 2030 and 2050. Tables GHG-2 and GHG-3 present estimated emissions for 2030 and 2050 for the Project. Because there is no information on additional plans and programs that may be implemented pursuant to SB 32, Tables GHG-2 and GHG-3 consider the following additional GHG measures beyond the year 2025 analysis:
• Implementation of the 60%Renewable Portfolio Standard by 2030, and net zero GHG emissions for SDG&E by 2045.
• Various state regulations that reduce GHG emissions from vehicle trips assumed within CalEEMod.
As shown in Tables GHG-2 and GHG-3, GHG emissions would be further reduced in 2030 and 2050 from the 2025 Project emissions shown in Table GHG-1 with further implementation of 1205 Melrose Way Project 11 RCH Group Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report September 2021
the Renewable Portfolio Standard and other statewide measures for reducing GHG emissions from motor vehicles. The Project would not conflict with the state's goals and regulations adopted for reducing GHG emissions. Therefore,the Project would result in a less-than- significant impact.
TABLE GHG-2 ESTIMATED GHG EMISSIONS(YEAR 2030)
EmissionsEmission Source Annual • • per year) Area Sources 0.2
Energy Use 34.4
Vehicle Trips 125.5
Solid Waste Disposal 8.9
Water/Wastewater Conveyance 4.2
Amortized Construction Emissions 14
Total CO2 Equivalent Emissions 187
Source:SCAQMD,2021.
1 Values may differ slightly from estimates shown in Appendix A due to rounding.
TABLE GHG-3 ESTIMATED GHG EMISSIONS(YEAR 2050)
SourceEmission EmissionsAnnual • •
Area Sources 0.2
Energy Use 1.4
Vehicle Trips 113.4
Solid Waste Disposal 8.9
Water/Wastewater Conveyance 1.3
Amortized Construction Emissions 14
Total CO2 Equivalent Emissions 139
Source:SCAQMD,2016.
1 Values may differ slightly from estimates shown in Appendix A due to rounding. 1205 Melrose Way Project 12 RCH Group Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report September 2021
1205 MELROSE WAY PROJECT,CITY OF VISTA
1.5 CONCLUSIONS
Emissions of GHGs were quantified for both construction and operation of the Project. The Project's GHG emissions would be below bright line significance threshold of 1,150 metric tons Of CO2e per year. Through the Renewable Portfolio Standard and other statewide measures for reducing GHG emissions from motor vehicles, GHG emissions would be reduced further for the Project to a level that is consistent with the goals of AB 32 and SB 32. Therefore,the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable global climate change impact. 1205 Melrose Way Project 13 RCH Group Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report September 2021
1.6 REFERENCES
California Environmental Protection Agency(Cal EPA). 2006.Final Climate Action Team Report to the Governor and Legislature. March 2006,
http:Hdocuments.ciiyofdavis.ora/Media/Ci!yCouncil/Documents/PDF/CDD/Plannin /g S visions/West-Davis-Active-Adult-Community/Reference-
Documents/CalEPA_2006_Climate_Action Team_Report_to Gov-and_Le,g PDF California Natural Resources Agency. 2009. Adopted Text of the CEQA Guidelines Amendments. December 2009.
htlp:Hceres.ca. og v/cega/docs/Adopted and Transmitted Text of SB97 CEQA Guideli nes_Amendments.pdf
California Public Utilities Commission(CPUC). 2016.Biennial RPS Program Update-In Compliance with Public Utilities Code Section 913.6.
hqp:// www.cpuc.ca.jzov/uploadedFiles/CPUC Website/Content/Utilities_and Industries/E neray/Reports_and_White_Papers/FINAL 12302015 Section913_6Report.pdf California Public Utilities Commission(CPUC). 2019. California Renewables Portfolio Standard.
City of Vista. 2012a. General Plan 2030 Update.
City of Vista. 2012b. General Plan 2030 Update Program EIR.
City of Vista. 2013. Climate Action Plan.
International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report.
Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2014.
hlt2s:// www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/ lMloads/2018/05/SYR AR5 FINAL full wcover.pdf National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA). Earth System Research Laboratory,Recent Monthly Mean CO2 at Mauna Loa,January 2021. www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD). 2008.Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans. December 2008.
South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD). 2021. CalEEMod Model,Version 2020.4.0
1205 Melrose Way Project 14 RCH Group Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report September 2021
Appendix A
I. CalEEMod Annual Emissions Output (Project Year 2025) II. CalEEMod Annual Emissions Output (Future Year 2030) III. CalEEMod Annual Emissions Output (Future Year 2050)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:01 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 1205 Melrose Way
San Diego County, Annual
1.0 Project Characteristics
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Single Family Housing 15.00 Dwelling Unit 2.55 43,500.00 43
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed(m/s) 2.6 Precipitation Freq(Days) 40 Climate Zone 13 Operational Year 2025
Utility Company San Diego Gas&Electric
CO2Intensity 539.98 CH4Intensity 0.033 N20Intensity 0.004 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr)
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics -
Land Use- 15 homes approximately 2800-3000 sq ft each on 2.55 acre site Construction Phase- 1 to 2 years of construction -estimated at 18 months Demolition -existing structures to be demolished
Grading - import of 4,034 cubic yards and a 2.55 acre site Vehicle Trips - 10 trips per dwelling unit(Intersecting Metrics, 2021) Woodstoves- No woodstoves or fireplaces
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstruction Phase NumDays } 220.00 340.00 ----------------------------Y------------------------------{-----------------------------t-------------------------- tblConstruction Phase PhaseEndDate r 1/11/2024 6/28/2024 tblConstruction Phase PhaseEndDate 12/14/2023 5/30/2024
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:01 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied tblConstruction Phase PhaseEndDate 12/28/2023 6/14/2024 ----------------------------Y----------------------------- -----------------------------T-------------------------- tblConstruction Phase PhaseStartDate 12/29/2023 6/15/2024 i
tblConstruction Phase PhaseStartDate 12/15/2023 6/1/2024 i
tblFireplaces FireplaceDayYear } 82.00 0.00 tblFireplaces FireplaceHourDay } 3.00 0.00 tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass } 3,078.40 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberGas } 8.25 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace } 1.50 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood } 5.25 0.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading } 6.00 2.55 tblGrading AcresOfGrading } 4.50 2.55 tblGrading Material Imported } 0.00 4,034.00 tblLandUse Land UseSquareFeet } 27,000.00 43,500.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage } 4.87 2.55 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR } 9.54 10.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR } 8.55 10.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 9.44 10.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic } 0.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic } 0.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear } 82.00 0.00 ---------------------------- ------------------------------:------------------------------ -------------------------- tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWood Mass 3,019.20 0.00
2.0 Emissions Summary
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:01 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
2.1 Overall Construction
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Year tons/yr MT/yr
1 I I I I 1 I I I I 1
2023 •I 0.2216 I 1.8334 I 1.8486 13.5100e- I 0.0433 I 0.0807 I 0.1240 I 0.0152 I 0.0771 0.0922 0.0000 I 296.8602 1296.8602 I 0.0547 13.6300e- i 299.3090 003 I I 1 I I . I I I 1 003 I 1 I I I I 1 I I I- I I 1
2024 •I 0.7737 I 0.7509 I 0.8453 I 1.5100e- 13.5500e- I 0.0317 I 0.0352 19.6000e- I 0.0303 0.0312 0.0000 I 126.5951 1126.5951 I 0.0237 13.7000e- i 127.2989 003 I 003 I 1 1 004 I . I I I 1 004 I Maximum 0.7737 1.8334 1.8486 3.5100e- 0.0433 0.0807 0.1240 0.0152 0.0771 0.0922 0.0000 296.8602 296.8602 0.0547 3.6300e- 299.3090 003 003
Mitigated Construction
ROG I NOx CO I S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Year tons/yr MT/yr
I I 1 I 1 I I I I 1
2023 •I 0.2216 1 1 1.8334 I 1.8486 13.5100e- 1 0.0433 1 0.0807 1 0.1240 I 0.0152 1 0.0771 0.0922 � 0.0000 I 296.8599 1 296.8599 1 0.0547 13.6300e- i 299.3087 003 1 I I I I ■ I I I I 003 I ;� 1 I I I I 1 I I ■ I I I ...........■I-------J-------J-------J-------J-------J-------J-------J-------J--------....... .......I-------J-------J-------J-------*....... 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I
2024 •I 0.7737 1 0.7509 I 0.8453 11.5100e- 13.5500e- I 0.0317 1 0.0352 19.6000e- I 0.0303 0.0312 0.0000 I 126.5950 1126.5950 1 0.0237 13.7000e- i 127.2987 003 I 003 I I I 004 I 004 I I ■ I I 1
'1 1 I I I I 1 I I ■ I I I I I Maximum 0.7737 1.8334 1.8486 3.5100e- 0.0433 0.0807 0.1240 0.0152 0.0771 0.0922 0.0000 296.8599 296.8599 0.0547 3.6300e- 299.3087 003 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:01 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG+NOX(tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG+NOX(tons/quarter) 1 1-2-2023 4-1-2023 0.5407 0.5407
2 4-2-2023 7-1-2023 0.5021 0.5021 3 7-2-2023 10-1-2023 0.5076 0.5076 4 10-2-2023 1-1-2024 0.5074 0.5074 5 1-2-2024 4-1-2024 0.4724 0.4724
6 4-2-2024 7-1-2024 1.0387 1.0387 Highest 1.0387 1.0387
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:01 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational
ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive I Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area •i 0.2413 i 1.2800e- 0.1113 i 1.0000e- 6.2000e- i 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 0.0000 i 0.1819 0.1819 i 1.7000e- 0.0000 i 0.1863 •� 003 005 004 004 004 004 004 i Energy •i 1.7500e- i 0.0149 6.3500e- i 1.000Oe- 1.2100e- i 1.2100e- 1.2100e- 1.2100e- 0.0000 i 46.0581 46.0581 i 2.0900e- 5.3000e- 46.2682 003 003 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 004 i Mobile •i 0.0726 i 0.0807 0.6825 i 1.4500e- i 0.1602 1.1300e- i 0.1613 0.0428 i 1.0500e- 0.0438 0.0000 i 137.4383 137.4383 i 9.5800e- 6.0800e- 139.4910 i
•� � � � 003 003 003 003 003 i Waste 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.5787 i 0.0000 3.5787 i 0.2115 0.0000 8.8662 Water 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3101 i 4.7935 5.1035 i 0.0321 7.9000e- 6.1417 004L i
Total 0.3156 0.0969 0.8001 1.5600e- 0.1602 2.9600e- 0.1632 0.0428 2.8800e- 0.0456 3.8888 188.4718 192.3605 0.2555 7.4000e- 200.9534 003 003 003 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:01 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
2.2 Overall Operational
Mitigated Operational
ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive I Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area •i 0.2413 i 1.2800e- 0.1113 i 1.0000e- 6.2000e- i 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 0.0000 i 0.1819 0.1819 i 1.7000e- 0.0000 i 0.1863 •� 003 005 004 004 004 004 004 i Energy •i 1.7500e- i 0.0149 6.3500e- i 1.000Oe- 1.2100e- i 1.2100e- 1.2100e- 1.2100e- 0.0000 i 46.0581 46.0581 i 2.0900e- 5.3000e- 46.2682 003 003 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 004 i Mobile •i 0.0726 i 0.0807 0.6825 i 1.4500e- i 0.1602 1.1300e- i 0.1613 0.0428 i 1.0500e- 0.0438 0.0000 i 137.4383 137.4383 i 9.5800e- 6.0800e- 139.4910 i
•� � � � 003 003 003 003 003 i Waste 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.5787 i 0.0000 3.5787 i 0.2115 0.0000 8.8662 Water 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3101 i 4.7935 5.1035 i 0.0321 7.9000e- 6.1417 004L i
Total 0.3156 0.0969 0.8001 1.5600e- 0.1602 2.9600e- 0.1632 0.0428 2.8800e- 0.0456 3.8888 188.4718 192.3605 0.2555 7.4000e- 200.9534 003 003 003 003
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week
1 •Demolition 'Demolition i 1/2/2023 :1/27/2023 5: 20 + i
2 •Site Preparation 'Site Preparation 11/28/2023 12/1/2023 5: 3:
+ i _
3 'Grading •Grading T2/2/2023 T2/9/2023 5' 6'
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:01 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 4 ;Building Construction ;Building Construction •2/10/2023 •5/30/2024 5; 340; -------------------------------- ----------------------T------------T------------T--------T--------T------------------------- 5 •Paving 'Paving !6/1/2024 :6/14/2024 5: 10 + i i
6 •Architectural Coating :Architectural Coating •6/15/2024 •6/28/2024 5. 10• Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 2.55
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 2.55
Acres of Paving: 0
Residential Indoor: 88,088; Residential Outdoor: 29,363; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating—sgft)
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition 'Concrete/Industrial Saws ; 1! 8.00 81: 0.73 ---------------------------------------------------- ------------ ------------- -------------- Demolition 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 1y 8.00! 247: 0.40 ---------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------4-------------4-------------- Demolition +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 3 8.00! 97, 0.37 ---------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------ ------------- -------------- Site Preparation 'Graders ; 1 8.00! 187, 0.41 +
------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------- ------------ ---------------------------- Site Preparation 'Scrapers ; 1y 8.00! 367, 0.48 +
------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------- ------------ ---------------------------- Site Preparation +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 1y 7.00! 97, 0.37 ------------ ------------- --------------
Grading 'Graders ; 1 8.00! 187, 0.41 ------------ ------------- --------------
Grading 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 1 8.00! 247: 0.40 ----------------------------------------------------- ------------ ------------- -------------- Grading +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 21 7.00! 97, 0.37 ----------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------4------------- -------------- Building Construction 'Cranes ; 1 8.00! 231, 0.29 ----------------------------------------------------- ------------ ------------- -------------- Building Construction ',Forklifts ; 21 7.00! 89, 0.20 + __ _
Building Construction 'Generator Sets ; 1 8.00! 84, 0.74 ------------ ----------------------------
Building Construction +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 1 6.00! 97, 0.37 ------------ ------------- --------------
Building Construction 'Welders ; 3 8.00! 46, 0.45 ----------------------------------------------------- ------------ ------------- -------------- Paving 'Cement and Mortar Mixers ; 1 8.00! 9. 0.56 ----------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------4------------- -------------- Paving +Pavers ; 1 8.00! 130, 0.42 -------------------------------------------------------*-----------------F------------ ------------- -------------- Paving :Paving Equipment 1 8.00, 132, 0.36
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:01 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Paving •Rollers 2 8.00; 80: 0.38 -----------------------+Tractors/Loaders/ 1 8.00------es ; --------------- --------- ----------- - --------------Paving 1 0.37
-------------------------------*-- E------------ I Architectural Coating •Air Compressors 1 6.00, 78, 0.48 Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Demolition 5; 13.00- 0.00; 88.00: 10.80; 7.30; 20.00:LD_Mix IHDT_Mix (HHDT -------- ------------------------------------i----------=---------i--------------------------------------------- ----------T Site Preparation 1 3; 8.00- 0.00 i 0.00: 10.80: 7.30; 20.00;LD_Mix ;HDT_Mix I HHDT ---------------- ----------1---------i----------4----------I-------- - ---'----------- ---------- Grading 4; 10.00. 0.00i 504.00: 10.80: 7.30; 20.00,LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix ;HHDT -------------- --------------� I --------i ---------4----------------------------------'----------T---------- Building Construction 8; 5.00- 2.00: 0.001 10.80: 7.30; 20.00:LD_Mix iHDT_Mix (HHDT -------------- -- ------------ I --------i ---------4----------------------------------'----------- ---------- i------------ -
Paving 6; 15.00- 0.00: 0.001, 10.80: 7.30; 20.00:LD_Mix iHDT_Mix ;HHDT E
Architectural Coating ; 1• 1.00, 0.00, 0.00, 10.80, 7.30, 20.00,LD_Mix HDT_Mix ,HHDT
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
3.2 Demolition - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive I Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I I
Fugitive Dust ;i I , , , 9.6300e- , 0.0000 19.6300e- , 1.4600e- , 0.0000 ; 1.4600e- � 0.0000 � 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 i 0.0000 I I I I 003 I I 003 I 003 I 003 ■ I I I , I 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 I 1
Off-Road •I 0.0147 I 0.1432 , 0.1346 , 2.4000e- , , 6.7700e- 16.7700e- , , 6.3300e- ; 6.3300e- � 0.0000 1 21.0866 , 21.0866 , 5.3500e- , 0.0000 i 21.2202 004 I I 003 I 003 I I 003 003 ■ I I I 003 I I Total 0.0147 0.1432 0.1346 2.4000e- 9.6300e- 6.7700e- 0.0164 1.4600e- 6.3300e- 7.7900e 00.0000 21.0866 21.0866 5.3500e- 0.0000 21.2202 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:01 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.2 Demolition - 2023
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive I Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling •i 1.0000e- 5.9700e- 1.5900e- i 3.0000e- 7.5000e- i 5.0000e- 8.0000e- 2.1000e- i 5.0000e- 2.5000e- 0.0000 i 2.6406 2.6406 i 1.3000e- 4.2000e- i 2.7691 •� 004 003 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 .i � � i i i � i � � � i 004 i 004 Vendor .1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 3.5000e- 2.4000e- 2.9700e- i 1.000Oe- 1.0400e- i 1.000Oe- 1.0500e- 2.8000e- i 1.000Oe- 2.8000e- 0.0000 i 0.8353 0.8353 i 2.000Oe- 2.000Oe- i 0.8427 •� 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004.i � � i i i i � i � 005 i 005 Total 4.5000e- 6.2100e- 4.5600e- 4.000Oe- 1.7900e- 6.000Oe- 1.8500e- 4.9000e- 6.000Oe- 5.3000e- 0.0000 3.4759 3.4759 1.5000e- 4.4000e- 3.6118 004 003 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 004 004 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 9.6300e- i 0.0000 9.6300e- 1.4600e- i 0.0000 1.4600e- ■ 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 •� 003 003 003 003 i
Off-Road •i 0.0147 0.1432 0.1346 i 2.4000e- 6.7700e- 6.7700e- 6.3300e- 6.3300e- 0.0000 i 21.0865 21.0865 i 5.3500e- 0.0000 i 21.2202 •� 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Total 0.0147 0.1432 0.1346 2.4000e- 9.6300e- 6.7700e- 0.0164 1.4600e- 6.3300e- 7.7900e- 0.0000 21.0865 21.0865 5.3500e- 0.0000 21.2202 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:01 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.2 Demolition - 2023
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive I Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling •i 1.00OOe- 5.9700e- 1.5900e- i 3.00OOe- 7.5000e- i 5.00OOe- 8.00OOe- 2.1000e- i 5.00OOe- 2.5000e- 0.0000 i 2.6406 2.6406 i 1.3000e- : 4.2000e- i 2.7691 •� 004 003 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 .i i � i i i � � i � � i 004 004 Vendor �i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 3.5000e- 2.4000e- 2.9700e- i 1.00OOe- 1.0400e- i 1.00OOe- 1.0500e- 2.8000e- i 1.00OOe- 2.8000e- 0.0000 i 0.8353 0.8353 i 2.00OOe- 2.00OOe- i 0.8427 •� 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004.i � � i i i i � i � 005 i 005 Total 4.5000e- 6.2100e- 4.5600e- 4.00OOe- 1.7900e- 6.00OOe- 1.8500e- 4.9000e- 6.00OOe- 5.3000e- 0.0000 3.4759 3.4759 1.5000e- 4.4000e- 3.6118 004 003 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 004 004
3.3 Site Preparation - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 1.3500e- i 0.0000 1.3500e- 1.5000e- i 0.0000 1.5000e- ■ 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 •� 003 003 004 004 i
Off-Road •i 1.9500e- 0.0214 0.0147 i 4.00OOe- 8.1000e- 8.1000e- 7.5000e- 7.5000e- 0.0000 i 3.2317 3.2317 i 1.0500e- 0.0000 i 3.2578 •� 003 005 004 004 004 004 . 003 i Total 1.9500e- 0.0214 0.0147 4.00OOe- 1.3500e- 8.1000e- 2.1600e- 1.5000e- 7.5000e- 9.00OOe- 0.0000 3.2317 3.2317 1.0500e- 0.0000 3.2578 003 005 003 004 003 004 004 004 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:01 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.3 Site Preparation - 2023
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling �i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 3.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.7000e- i 0.0000 1.000Oe- i 0.0000 1.0000e- 3.000Oe- i 0.0000 3.000Oe- 0.0000 i 0.0771 0.0771 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0778 •� 005 005 004 004 004 005 005 i Total 3.000Oe- 2.000Oe- 2.7000e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 3.000Oe- 0.0000 3.0000e- 0.0000 0.0771 0.0771 0.0000 0.0000 0.0778 005 005 004 004 004 005 005 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 1.3500e- i 0.0000 1.3500e- 1.5000e- i 0.0000 1.5000e- ■ 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 •� 003 003 004 004 i
Off-Road •i 1.9500e- 0.0214 0.0147 i 4.000Oe- 8.1000e- 8.1000e- 7.5000e- 7.5000e- 0.0000 i 3.2317 3.2317 i 1.0500e- 0.0000 i 3.2578 •� 003 005 004 004 004 004 . 003 i Total 1.9500e- 0.0214 0.0147 4.000Oe- 1.3500e- 8.1000e- 2.1600e- 1.5000e- 7.5000e- 9.000Oe- 0.0000 3.2317 3.2317 1.0500e- 0.0000 3.2578 003 005 003 004 003 004 004 004 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:01 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.3 Site Preparation - 2023
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 3.00OOe- 2.00OOe- 2.7000e- i 0.0000 1.00OOe- i 0.0000 1.00OOe- 3.00OOe- i 0.0000 3.00OOe- 0.0000 i 0.0771 0.0771 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0778 •� 005 005 004 004 004 005 005 i Total 3.00OOe- 2.00OOe- 2.7000e- 0.0000 1.00OOe- 0.0000 1.00OOe- 3.00OOe- 0.0000 3.00OOe- 0.0000 0.0771 0.0771 0.0000 0.0000 0.0778 005 005 004 004 004 005 005
3.4 Grading - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0197 i 0.0000 0.0197 0.0101 i 0.0000 0.0101 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off-Road •i 4.00OOe- 0.0434 0.0261 i 6.00OOe- 1.8100e- 1.8100e- 1.6700e- 1.6700e- 0.0000 i 5.4312 5.4312 i 1.7600e- 0.0000 i 5.4751 •� 003 005 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Total 4.00OOe- 0.0434 0.0261 6.00OOe- 0.0197 1.8100e- 0.0215 0.0101 1.6700e- 0.0118 0.0000 5.4312 5.4312 1.7600e- 0.0000 5.4751 003 005 003 003 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:01 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.4 Grading - 2023
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive I Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling •i 5.6000e- 0.0342 9.1000e- i 1.5000e- 4.3200e- i 2.8000e- 4.6000e- 1.1900e- i 2.7000e- 1.4500e- 0.0000 i 15.1237 15.1237 i 7.6000e- 2.4100e- i 15.8594 •� 004 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003.i i � i i i � � i � � i 004 003 Vendor .1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 Worker •i 8.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 6.9000e- i 0.0000 2.4000e- i 0.0000 2.4000e- 6.000Oe- i 0.0000 7.000Oe- 0.0000 i 0.1928 0.1928 i 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 0.1945 i
•� 005 005 004 004 004 005 005 005 005 i Total 6.4000e- 0.0343 9.7900e- 1.5000e- 4.5600e- 2.8000e- 4.8400e- 1.2500e- 2.7000e- 1.5200e- 0.0000 15.3164 15.3164 7.7000e- 2.4200e- 16.0539 004 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 004 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0197 i 0.0000 0.0197 0.0101 i 0.0000 0.0101 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off-Road •i 4.000Oe- 0.0434 0.0261 i 6.000Oe- 1.8100e- 1.8100e- 1.6700e- 1.6700e- 0.0000 i 5.4312 5.4312 i 1.7600e- 0.0000 i 5.4751 •� 003 005 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Total 4.000Oe- 0.0434 0.0261 6.000Oe- 0.0197 1.8100e- 0.0215 0.0101 1.6700e- 0.0118 0.0000 5.4312 5.4312 1.7600e- 0.0000 5.4751 003 005 003 003 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:01 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.4 Grading - 2023
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive I Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling •i 5.6000e- 0.0342 9.1000e- i 1.5000e- 4.3200e- i 2.8000e- 4.6000e- 1.1900e- i 2.7000e- 1.4500e- 0.0000 i 15.1237 15.1237 i 7.6000e- 2.4100e- i 15.8594 •� 004 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003.i i � i i i � � i � � i 004 003 Vendor .1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 8.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 6.9000e- i 0.0000 2.4000e- i 0.0000 2.4000e- 6.000Oe- i 0.0000 7.000Oe- 0.0000 i 0.1928 0.1928 i 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 0.1945 •� 005 005 004 004 004 005 005 005 005 i Total 6.4000e- 0.0343 9.7900e- 1.5000e- 4.5600e- 2.8000e- 4.8400e- 1.2500e- 2.7000e- 1.5200e- 0.0000 15.3164 15.3164 7.7000e- 2.4200e- 16.0539 004 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 004 003
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG I NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road •i 0.1979 1.5736 1.6418 i 2.8900e- 0.0709 0.0709 0.0679 0.0679 ■ 0.0000 i 239.8959 239.8959 i 0.0454 0.0000 i 241.0301 003
Total 0.1979 1.5736 1.6418 2.8900e- 0.0709 0.0709 0.0679 0.0679 0.0000 1 239.8959 j 239.8959 j 0.0454 j 0.0000 241.0301 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:01 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 2.7000e- � 0.0103 � 3.6200e- i 5.0000e- � 1.5300e- i 6.000Oe- � 1.5900e- � 4.4000e- i 6.0000e- 5.000Oe- 0.0000 i 4.6350 � 4.6350 i 1.4000e- � 6.7000e- i 4.8387 •1 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 : 004 004 i Worker •i 1.5600e- 1.0800e- 0.0132 i 4.000Oe- 4.6300e- i 3.000Oe- 4.6600e- 1.2300e- i 2.000Oe- 1.2500e- 0.0000 i 3.7105 3.7105 i 1.1000e- 1.000Oe- i 3.7437 •� 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 004 i Total 1.8300e- 0.0113 0.0168 9.000Oe- 6.1600e- 9.000Oe- 6.2500e- 1.6700e- 8.000Oe- 1.7500e- 0.0000 8.3455 8.3455 2.5000e- 7.7000e- 8.5823 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 004 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG I NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road •i 0.1979 1.5736 1.6418 i 2.8900e- 0.0709 0.0709 0.0679 0.0679 ■ 0.0000 i 239.8956 239.8956 i 0.0454 0.0000 i 241.0298 003
Total 0.1979 1.5736 1.6418 2.8900e- 0.0709 0.0709 0.0679 0.0679 0.0000 1 239.8956 j 239.8956 j 0.0454 j 0.0000 241.0298 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:01 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 2.7000e- � 0.0103 � 3.6200e- i 5.00OOe- � 1.5300e- i 6.00OOe- � 1.5900e- � 4.4000e- i 6.00OOe- 5.00OOe- 0.0000 i 4.6350 � 4.6350 i 1.4000e- � 6.7000e- i 4.8387 •1 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 : 004 004 i Worker •i 1.5600e- 1.0800e- 0.0132 i 4.00OOe- 4.6300e- i 3.00OOe- 4.6600e- 1.2300e- i 2.00OOe- 1.2500e- 0.0000 i 3.7105 3.7105 i 1.1000e- 1.00OOe- i 3.7437 •� 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 004 i Total 1.8300e- 0.0113 0.0168 9.00OOe- 6.1600e- 9.00OOe- 6.2500e- 1.6700e- 8.00OOe- 1.7500e- 0.0000 8.3455 8.3455 2.5000e- 7.7000e- 8.5823 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 004
3.5 Building Construction - 2024
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road •i 0.0870 0.6989 0.7685 i 1.3600e- 0.0293 0.0293 0.0281 0.0281 ■ 0.0000 i 113.2041 113.2041 i 0.0211 0.0000 i 113.7312 003
Total 0.0870 0.6989 0.7685 1.3600e- 0.0293 0.0293 0.0281 0.0281 0.0000 1 113.2041 j 113.2041 j 0.0211 j 0.0000 113.7312 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:01 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.5 Building Construction - 2024
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 1.2000e- � 4.8100e- � 1.6700e- i 2.0000e- � 7.2000e- i 3.000Oe- � 7.5000e- � 2.1000e- i 3.000Oe- 2.4000e- 0.0000 i 2.1490 � 2.1490 i 7.0000e- � 3.1000e- i 2.2435 •� 004 003 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 : 005 004 i Worker •i 6.9000e- 4.6000e- 5.8300e- i 2.000Oe- 2.1900e- i 1.000Oe- 2.2000e- 5.8000e- i 1.000Oe- 5.9000e- 0.0000 i 1.7070 1.7070 i 5.000Oe- 5.000Oe- i 1.7216 •� 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004.i i � i i i i � i � � i 005 i 005 Total 8.1000e- 5.2700e- 7.5000e- 4.000Oe- 2.9100e- 4.000Oe- 2.9500e- 7.9000e- 4.000Oe- 8.3000e- 0.0000 3.8559 3.8559 1.2000e- 3.6000e- 3.9650 004 003 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 004 004 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road •i 0.0870 0.6989 0.7685 i 1.3600e- 0.0293 0.0293 0.0281 0.0281 ■ 0.0000 i 113.2040 113.2040 i 0.0211 0.0000 i 113.7311 003
Total 0.0870 0.6989 0.7685 1.3600e- 0.0293 0.0293 0.0281 0.0281 0.0000 1 113.2040 j 113.2040 j 0.0211 j 0.0000 113.7311 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:01 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.5 Building Construction - 2024
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 1.2000e- � 4.8100e- � 1.6700e- i 2.00OOe- � 7.2000e- i 3.00OOe- 7.5000e- 2.1000e- i 3.00OOe- 2.4000e- 0.0000 i 2.1490 2.1490 i 7.00OOe- 3.1000e- i 2.2435 •� 004 003 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 : 005 004 i Worker 6.9000e- 4.6000e- 5.8300e- i 2.00OOe- 2.1900e- i 1.00OOe- 2.2000e- 5.8000e- i 1.00OOe- 5.9000e- 0.0000 i 1.7070 1.7070 i 5.00OOe- 5.00OOe- i 1.7216 •� 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004.i i � i i i i � i � � i 005 i 005 Total 8.1000e- 5.2700e- 7.5000e- 4.00OOe- 2.9100e- 4.00OOe- 2.9500e- 7.9000e- 4.00OOe- 8.3000e- 0.0000 3.8559 3.8559 1.2000e- 3.6000e- 3.9650 004 003 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 004 004
3.6 Paving - 2024
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG I NOx I CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road •i 4.2100e- 0.0405 0.0585 i 9.00OOe- 1.9800e- 1.9800e- 1.8300e- 1.8300e- 0.0000 i 7.7574 7.7574 i 2.4600e- 0.0000 i 7.8188 •� 003 005 003 003 003 003 003 i Paving �i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total 4.2100e- 0.0405 0.0585 9.00OOe- 1.9800e- 1.9800e- 1.8300e- 1.8300e- 0.0000 7.7574 7.7574 2.4600e- 0.0000 7.8188 003 005 003 003 003 003 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:01 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.6 Paving - 2024
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker �i 1.9000e- 1.3000e- 1.6000e- i 1.0000e- 6.000Oe- i 0.0000 6.0000e- 1.6000e- i 0.0000 1.6000e- 0.0000 � 0.4698 0.4698 i 1.0000e- 1.0000e- i 0.4738 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 005 Total 1.9000e- 1.3000e- 1.6000e- 1.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 0.0000 6.0000e- 1.6000e- 0.0000 1.6000e- 0.0000 0.4698 0.4698 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.4738 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 005 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG I NOx I CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road •i 4.2100e- 0.0405 0.0585 i 9.000Oe- 1.9800e- 1.9800e- 1.8300e- 1.8300e- 0.0000 i 7.7573 7.7573 i 2.4600e- 0.0000 i 7.8188 •� 003 005 003 003 003 003 003 i Paving �i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total 4.2100e- 0.0405 0.0585 9.000Oe- 1.9800e- 1.9800e- 1.8300e- 1.8300e- 0.0000 7.7573 7.7573 2.4600e- 0.0000 7.8188 003 005 003 003 003 003 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:01 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.6 Paving - 2024
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker �i 1.9000e- 1.3000e- 1.6000e- i 1.0000e- 6.00OOe- i 0.0000 6.0000e- 1.6000e- i 0.0000 1.6000e- 0.0000 � 0.4698 0.4698 i 1.00OOe- 1.00OOe- i 0.4738 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 005 Total 1.9000e- 1.3000e- 1.6000e- 1.00OOe- 6.00OOe- 0.0000 6.00OOe- 1.6000e- 0.0000 1.6000e- 0.0000 0.4698 0.4698 1.00OOe- 1.0000e- 0.4738 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 005
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit.Coating •i 0.6805 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off-Road •i 9.00OOe- 6.0900e- 9.0500e- i 1.00OOe- 3.00OOe- 3.00OOe- 3.00OOe- 3.00OOe- 0.0000 i 1.2766 1.2766 i 7.00OOe- 0.0000 i 1.2784 •� 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 . 005 i Total 0.6814 6.0900e- 9.0500e- 1.00OOe- 3.00OOe- 3.00OOe- 3.00OOe- 3.00OOe- 0.0000 1.2766 1.2766 7.00OOe- 0.0000 1.2784 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 005
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:01 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling �i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.1000e- i 0.0000 4.000Oe- i 0.0000 4.0000e- 1.0000e- i 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 i 0.0313 0.0313 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0316 •� 005 005 004 005 005 005 005 i Total 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 1.1000e- 0.0000 4.0000e- 0.0000 4.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0313 0.0313 0.0000 0.0000 0.0316 005 005 004 005 005 005 005 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit.Coating •i 0.6805 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off-Road •i 9.000Oe- 6.0900e- 9.0500e- i 1.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 0.0000 i 1.2766 1.2766 i 7.000Oe- 0.0000 i 1.2784 •� 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 . 005 i Total 0.6814 6.0900e- 9.0500e- 1.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 0.0000 1.2766 1.2766 7.000Oe- 0.0000 1.2784 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 005
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:01 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.1000e- i 0.0000 4.0000e- i 0.0000 4.0000e- 1.0000e- i 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 i 0.0313 0.0313 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0316 •� 005 005 004 005 005 005 005 i Total 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 1.1000e- 0.0000 4.0000e- 0.0000 4.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0313 0.0313 0.0000 0.0000 0.0316 005 005 004 005 005 005 005
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:01 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tans/yr MT/yr
Mitigated •i 0.0726 0.0807 0.6825 i 1.4500e- 0.1602 i 1.1300e- i 0.1613 0.0428 i 1.0500e- 0.0438 • 0.0000 i 137.4383 137.4383 i 9.5800e- � 6.0800e- i 139.4910 003 003 003 003 003 i
Unmitigated 0.0726 0.0807 0.6825 - 1.4500e- 0.1602 1.1300e- - 0.1613 0.0428 1.0500e- 0.0438 0.0000 137.4383 • 137.4383 - 9.5800e- 6.0800e- 139.4910 003 003 003 003 003
4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Single Family Housing ; 150.00 150.00 150.00 428,296 428,296 Total 150.00 150.00 150.00 428,296 428,296
4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles Trip% Trip Purpose%
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Single Family Housing 10.80 7.30 7.50 41.60 18.80 39.60 86 11 3
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Single Family Housing 0.561854• 0.062428, 0.177046, 0.117565, 0.023832, 0.006317, 0.008949, 0.006298, 0.000705, 0.000577, 0.028723, 0.000955, 0.004751
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:01 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
5.0 Energy Detail
Historical Energy Use: N
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity N� i i � i � 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 28.7830 28.7830 1.7600e- i 2.1000e- i 28.8906 Mitigated ,� . i 003 004 i Electricity :1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 28.7830 28.7830 1.7600e- i 2.1000e- i 28.8906 Unmitigated ,� . i 003 004 i %-------'-------'-------'-------'-------'-------'-------'-------'---------- -- -------'-------'-------'--------------- NaturalGas 1.7500e- i 0.0149 i 6.3500e- 1.000Oe- i 1.2100e- 1.2100e- i 1.2100e- 1.2100e- 0.0000 1 17.2750 17.2750 3.3000e- i 3.2000e- i 17.3777 Mitigated ,� 003 003 : 004 003 : 003 003 003 . i004 1 004 NaturalGas •• 1.7500e- 0.0149 - 6.3500e- 1.000Oe- 1.2100e- 1.2100e- - 1.2100e- 1.2100e- 0.0000 17.2750 17.2750 3.3000e- - 3.2000e- 17.3777 Unmitigated 003 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:01 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Unmitigated
NaturalGa ROG NOx CO I S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Single Family � 323722 ■i 1.7500e- i 0.0149 � 6.3500e- � 1.0000e- i � 1.2100e- i 1.2100e- � � 1.2100e- 1.2100e- � 0.0000 i 17.2750 � 17.2750 i 3.3000e- i 3.2000e- i 17.3777 Housing 003 003 004 003 003 003 003 1 004 004 i Total 1.7500e- 0.0149 6.3500e- 1.000Oe- 1.2100e- 1.2100e- 1.21OOe- 1.21OOe- 0.0000 17.2750 17.2750 3.3000e- 3.2000e- 17.3777 003 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004 Mitigated
NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Single Family 323722 �i 1.7500e- i 0.0149 i 6.3500e- i 1.000Oe- 1.2100e- i 1.2100e- 1.2100e- 1.2100e- 0.0000 i 17.2750 i 17.2750 i 3.3000e- 3.2000e- i 17.3777 Housing 003 003 004 003 003 003 003 . i 004 004 i Total 1.7500e- 0.0149 6.3500e- 1.000Oe- 1.2100e- 1.21OOe- 1.21OOe- 1.21OOe- 0.0000 17.2750 17.2750 3.3000e- 3.2000e- 17.3777 11 003 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:01 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Unmitigated
Electricity Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e
Use
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Single Family 117515 ■i 28.7830 i 1.7600e- 2.1000e- 28.8906 Housing i ;� i 003 i 004
Total 28.7830 1.7600e- 2.1000e- 28.8906
003 004
Mitigated
Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Use
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Single Family 117515 •i 28.7830 i 1.7600e- i 2.1000e- 28.8906 Housing 003 004
Total 28.7830 1.7600e- 2.1000e- 28.8906
003 004
6.0 Area Detail
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:01 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
I I I I I I I I I I 1
Mitigated •I 0.2413 I 1.2800e- I 0.1113 I 1.0000e- I 16.2000e- 1 6.2000e- I 16.2000e- 6.2000e- • 0.0000 I 0.1819 I 0.1819 I 1.7000e- I 0.0000 I 0.1863 •I I 003 I I 005 I 1 004 I 004 I I 004 004 ; I I I 004 I '1 I I I I I I I I • I I I I Unmitigated 0.2413 1.2800e- 0.1113 1.000Oe- - 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 0.0000 0.1819 0.1819 - 1.7000e- • 0.0000 0.1863 003 005 004 004 004 004 004
6.2 Area by SubCategory
Unmitigated
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total SubCategory tans/yr MT/yr
I I I I I I I I I I 1
Architectural •I 0.0681 I I I I I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 Coating
___________•------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- --------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- I I I I 1 I I I I I I I
Consumer •1 0.1699 I I I I I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 Products
I I I I I I I I I I I
Hearth •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 'I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Landscaping •I 3.3400e- I 1.2800e- I 0.1113 I 1.000Oe- I 16.2000e- 16.2000e- I 16.2000e- 6.2000e- � 0.0000 1 0.1819 I 0.1819 I 1.7000e- I 0.0000 i 0.1863 •I 003 I 003 I I 005 I I 004 I 004 I I 004 004 1 I I 004 I I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Total 0.2413 1.2800e- 0.1113 1.000Oe- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 0.0000 0.1819 0.1819 1.7000e- 0.0000 0.1863 003 005 004 004 004 004 004
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:01 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
6.2 Area by SubCategory
Mitigated
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Subcategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural •i 0.0681 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 Coating '� . I i
Consumer •i 0.1699 i � i i � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 Products '1 1 i
Hearth •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 - 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping •i 3.3400e- i 1.2800e- 0.1113 i 1.000Oe- i 6.2000e- i 6.2000e- i 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 0.0000 i 0.1819 0.1819 i 1.7000e- 0.0000 0.1863 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 004 i Total 0.2413 1.2800e- 0.1113 1.000Oe- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 0.0000 0.1819 0.1819 1.7000e- 0.0000 0.1863 003 005 004 004 004 004 004
7.0 Water Detail
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:01 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated •i 5.1035 i 0.0321 7.9000e- i 6.1417 •� 004 i
}--"""------F""------""*-------
Unmitigated 5.1035 0.0321 7.9000e- 6.1417 004
7.2 Water by Land Use
Unmitigated
Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
door Use
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
11 Single Family 10.97731/ •i 5.1035 0.0321 7.9000e- 6.1417 Housing 0.61613 ;i 004
Total 5.1035 0.0321 7.9000e- 6.1417
004
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 30 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:01 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
7.2 Water by Land Use
Mitigated
Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
door Use
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Single Family 10.97731/ •i 5.1035 0.0321 7.9000e- 6.1417 Housing i 0.61613 ;i i 004
Total 5.1035 0.0321 7.9000e- 6.1417
004
8.0 Waste Detail
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Category/Year
Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated •i 3.5787 i 0.2115 i 0.0000 8.8662 -..----..- --------------F""------""}------""----*-..---- Unmitigated 3.5787 0.2115 0.0000 8.8662
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 31 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:01 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Unmitigated
Waste Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e
Disposed
Land Use tons MT/yr
Single Family 17.63 •i 3.5787 0.2115 i 0.0000 8.8662 Housing
Total 3.5787 0.2115 0.0000 8.8662
Mitigated
Waste Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Disposed
Land Use tons MT/yr
Single Family i 17.63 3.5787 0.2115 i 0.0000 i 8.8662 Housing
i i
Total 3.5787 0.2115 0.0000 8.8662
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 32 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:01 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
11.0 Vegetation
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:03 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 1205 Melrose Way
San Diego County, Annual
1.0 Project Characteristics
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Single Family Housing 15.00 Dwelling Unit 2.55 43,500.00 43
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed(m/s) 2.6 Precipitation Freq(Days) 40 Climate Zone 13 Operational Year 2030
Utility Company San Diego Gas&Electric
CO2Intensity 318.218 CH4Intensity 0.033 N20Intensity 0.004 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr)
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics -60% RPS by 2030
Land Use- 15 homes approximately 2800-3000 sq ft each on 2.55 acre site Construction Phase- 1 to 2 years of construction -estimated at 18 months Demolition -existing structures to be demolished
Grading - import of 4,034 cubic yards and a 2.55 acre site Vehicle Trips - 10 trips per dwelling unit(Intersecting Metrics, 2021) Woodstoves- No woodstoves or fireplaces
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstruction Phase NumDays } 220.00 340.00 ----------------------------Y------------------------------{-----------------------------t-------------------------- tblConstruction Phase PhaseEndDate r 1/11/2024 6/28/2024 tblConstruction Phase PhaseEndDate 12/14/2023 5/30/2024
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:03 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied tblConstruction Phase PhaseEndDate 12/28/2023 6/14/2024 ----------------------------Y----------------------------- -----------------------------T-------------------------- tblConstruction Phase PhaseStartDate 12/29/2023 6/15/2024 i
tblConstruction Phase PhaseStartDate 12/15/2023 6/1/2024 i
tblFireplaces FireplaceDayYear } 82.00 0.00 tblFireplaces FireplaceHourDay } 3.00 0.00 tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass } 3,078.40 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberGas } 8.25 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace } 1.50 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood } 5.25 0.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading } 6.00 2.55 tblGrading AcresOfGrading } 4.50 2.55 tblGrading Material Imported } 0.00 4,034.00 tblLandUse Land UseSquareFeet } 27,000.00 43,500.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage } 4.87 2.55 tblProjectCharacteristics CO21ntensityFactor } 539.98 318.218 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR } 9.54 10.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR } 8.55 10.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 9.44 10.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic } 0.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic } 0.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear } 82.00 0.00 ---------------------------- ------------------------------:------------------------------ -------------------------- tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWood Mass 3,019.20 0.00
2.0 Emissions Summary
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:03 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
2.1 Overall Construction
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Year tons/yr MT/yr
1 I I I I 1 I I I I 1
2023 •I 0.2216 I 1.8334 I 1.8486 13.5100e- I 0.0433 I 0.0807 I 0.1240 I 0.0152 I 0.0771 0.0922 0.0000 I 296.8602 1296.8602 I 0.0547 13.6300e- i 299.3090 003 I I 1 I I . I I I 1 003 I 1 I I I I 1 I I I- I I 1
2024 •I 0.7737 I 0.7509 I 0.8453 I 1.5100e- 13.5500e- I 0.0317 I 0.0352 19.6000e- I 0.0303 0.0312 0.0000 I 126.5951 1126.5951 I 0.0237 13.7000e- i 127.2989 003 I 003 I 1 1 004 I . I I I 1 004 I Maximum 0.7737 1.8334 1.8486 3.5100e- 0.0433 0.0807 0.1240 0.0152 0.0771 0.0922 0.0000 296.8602 296.8602 0.0547 3.6300e- 299.3090 003 003
Mitigated Construction
ROG I NOx CO I S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Year tons/yr MT/yr
I I 1 I 1 I I I I 1
2023 •I 0.2216 1 1 1.8334 I 1.8486 13.5100e- 1 0.0433 1 0.0807 1 0.1240 I 0.0152 1 0.0771 0.0922 � 0.0000 I 296.8599 1 296.8599 1 0.0547 13.6300e- i 299.3087 003 1 I I I I ■ I I I I 003 I ;� 1 I I I I 1 I I ■ I I I ...........■I-------J-------J-------J-------J-------J-------J-------J-------J--------....... .......I-------J-------J-------J-------*....... 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I
2024 •I 0.7737 1 0.7509 I 0.8453 11.5100e- 13.5500e- I 0.0317 1 0.0352 19.6000e- I 0.0303 0.0312 0.0000 I 126.5950 1126.5950 1 0.0237 13.7000e- i 127.2987 003 I 003 I I I 004 I 004 I I ■ I I 1
'1 1 I I I I 1 I I ■ I I I I I Maximum 0.7737 1.8334 1.8486 3.5100e- 0.0433 0.0807 0.1240 0.0152 0.0771 0.0922 0.0000 296.8599 296.8599 0.0547 3.6300e- 299.3087 003 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:03 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG+NOX(tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG+NOX(tons/quarter) 1 1-2-2023 4-1-2023 0.5407 0.5407
2 4-2-2023 7-1-2023 0.5021 0.5021 3 7-2-2023 10-1-2023 0.5076 0.5076 4 10-2-2023 1-1-2024 0.5074 0.5074 5 1-2-2024 4-1-2024 0.4724 0.4724
6 4-2-2024 7-1-2024 1.0387 1.0387 Highest 1.0387 1.0387
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:03 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational
ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive I Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area •i 0.2413 i 1.2800e- 0.1111 i 1.0000e- 6.2000e- i 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 0.0000 i 0.1819 0.1819 i 1.7000e- 0.0000 i 0.1863 •� 003 005 004 004 004 004 004 i Energy •i 1.7500e- i 0.0149 6.3500e- i 1.000Oe- 1.2100e- i 1.2100e- 1.2100e- 1.2100e- 0.0000 i 34.2373 34.2373 i 2.0900e- 5.3000e- 34.4475 003 003 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 004 i Mobile •i 0.0613 i 0.0635 0.5872 i 1.2700e- i 0.1602 8.7000e- i 0.1611 0.0427 i 8.1000e- 0.0436 0.0000 i 123.7188 123.7188 i 8.3700e- 5.2900e- 125.5052 •� 003 004 004 003 003 i Waste 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.5787 i 0.0000 3.5787 i 0.2115 0.0000 8.8662 Water 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3101 i 2.8249 3.1349 i 0.0321 7.9000e- 4.1731 004L i
Total 0.3043 0.0797 0.7047 1.3800e- 0.1602 2.7000e- 0.1629 0.0427 2.6400e- 0.0454 3.8888 160.9629 164.8516 0.2543 6.6100e- 173.1781 003 003 003 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:03 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
2.2 Overall Operational
Mitigated Operational
ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive I Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area •i 0.2413 i 1.2800e- 0.1111 i 1.0000e- 6.2000e- i 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 0.0000 i 0.1819 0.1819 i 1.7000e- 0.0000 i 0.1863 •� 003 005 004 004 004 004 004 i Energy •i 1.7500e- i 0.0149 6.3500e- i 1.000Oe- 1.2100e- i 1.2100e- 1.2100e- 1.2100e- 0.0000 i 34.2373 34.2373 i 2.0900e- 5.3000e- 34.4475 003 003 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 004 i Mobile •i 0.0613 i 0.0635 0.5872 i 1.2700e- i 0.1602 8.7000e- i 0.1611 0.0427 i 8.1000e- 0.0436 0.0000 i 123.7188 123.7188 i 8.3700e- 5.2900e- 125.5052 •� 003 004 004 003 003 i Waste 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.5787 i 0.0000 3.5787 i 0.2115 0.0000 8.8662 Water 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3101 i 2.8249 3.1349 i 0.0321 7.9000e- 4.1731 004L i
Total 0.3043 0.0797 0.7047 1.3800e- 0.1602 2.7000e- 0.1629 0.0427 2.6400e- 0.0454 3.8888 160.9629 164.8516 0.2543 6.6100e- 173.1781 003 003 003 003
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week
1 •Demolition 'Demolition i 1/2/2023 :1/27/2023 5: 20 + i
2 •Site Preparation 'Site Preparation 11/28/2023 12/1/2023 5: 3:
+ i _
3 'Grading •Grading T2/2/2023 T2/9/2023 5' 6'
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:03 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 4 ;Building Construction ;Building Construction •2/10/2023 •5/30/2024 5; 340; -------------------------------- ----------------------T------------T------------T--------T--------T------------------------- 5 •Paving 'Paving !6/1/2024 :6/14/2024 5: 10 + i i
6 •Architectural Coating :Architectural Coating •6/15/2024 •6/28/2024 5. 10• Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 2.55
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 2.55
Acres of Paving: 0
Residential Indoor: 88,088; Residential Outdoor: 29,363; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating—sgft)
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition 'Concrete/Industrial Saws ; 1! 8.00 81: 0.73 ---------------------------------------------------- ------------ ------------- -------------- Demolition 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 1y 8.00! 247: 0.40 ---------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------4-------------4-------------- Demolition +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 3 8.00! 97, 0.37 ---------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------ ------------- -------------- Site Preparation 'Graders ; 1 8.00! 187, 0.41 +
------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------- ------------ ---------------------------- Site Preparation 'Scrapers ; 1y 8.00! 367, 0.48 +
------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------- ------------ ---------------------------- Site Preparation +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 1y 7.00! 97, 0.37 ------------ ------------- --------------
Grading 'Graders ; 1 8.00! 187, 0.41 ------------ ------------- --------------
Grading 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 1 8.00! 247: 0.40 ----------------------------------------------------- ------------ ------------- -------------- Grading +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 21 7.00! 97, 0.37 ----------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------4------------- -------------- Building Construction 'Cranes ; 1 8.00! 231, 0.29 ----------------------------------------------------- ------------ ------------- -------------- Building Construction ',Forklifts ; 21 7.00! 89, 0.20 + __ _
Building Construction 'Generator Sets ; 1 8.00! 84, 0.74 ------------ ----------------------------
Building Construction +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 1 6.00! 97, 0.37 ------------ ------------- --------------
Building Construction 'Welders ; 3 8.00! 46, 0.45 ----------------------------------------------------- ------------ ------------- -------------- Paving 'Cement and Mortar Mixers ; 1 8.00! 9. 0.56 ----------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------4------------- -------------- Paving +Pavers ; 1 8.00! 130, 0.42 -------------------------------------------------------*-----------------F------------ ------------- -------------- Paving :Paving Equipment 1 8.00, 132, 0.36
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:03 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Paving •Rollers 2 8.00; 80: 0.38 -----------------------+Tractors/Loaders/ 1 8.00------es ; --------------- --------- ----------- - --------------Paving 1 0.37
-------------------------------*-- E------------ I Architectural Coating •Air Compressors 1 6.00, 78, 0.48 Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Demolition 5; 13.00- 0.00; 88.00: 10.80; 7.30; 20.00:LD_Mix IHDT_Mix (HHDT -------- ------------------------------------i----------=---------i--------------------------------------------- ----------T Site Preparation 1 3; 8.00- 0.00 i 0.00: 10.80: 7.30; 20.00;LD_Mix ;HDT_Mix I HHDT ---------------- ----------1---------i----------4----------I-------- - ---'----------- ---------- Grading 4; 10.00. 0.00i 504.00: 10.80: 7.30; 20.00,LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix ;HHDT -------------- --------------� I --------i ---------4----------------------------------'----------T---------- Building Construction 8; 5.00- 2.00: 0.001 10.80: 7.30; 20.00:LD_Mix iHDT_Mix (HHDT -------------- -- ------------ I --------i ---------4----------------------------------'----------- ---------- i------------ -
Paving 6; 15.00- 0.00: 0.001, 10.80: 7.30; 20.00:LD_Mix iHDT_Mix ;HHDT E
Architectural Coating ; 1• 1.00, 0.00, 0.00, 10.80, 7.30, 20.00,LD_Mix HDT_Mix ,HHDT
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
3.2 Demolition - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive I Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I I
Fugitive Dust ;i I , , , 9.6300e- , 0.0000 19.6300e- , 1.4600e- , 0.0000 ; 1.4600e- � 0.0000 � 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 i 0.0000 I I I I 003 I I 003 I 003 I 003 ■ I I I , I 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 I 1
Off-Road •I 0.0147 I 0.1432 , 0.1346 , 2.4000e- , , 6.7700e- 16.7700e- , , 6.3300e- ; 6.3300e- � 0.0000 1 21.0866 , 21.0866 , 5.3500e- , 0.0000 i 21.2202 004 I I 003 I 003 I I 003 003 ■ I I I 003 I I Total 0.0147 0.1432 0.1346 2.4000e- 9.6300e- 6.7700e- 0.0164 1.4600e- 6.3300e- 7.7900e 00.0000 21.0866 21.0866 5.3500e- 0.0000 21.2202 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:03 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.2 Demolition - 2023
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive I Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling •i 1.0000e- 5.9700e- 1.5900e- i 3.0000e- 7.5000e- i 5.0000e- 8.0000e- 2.1000e- i 5.0000e- 2.5000e- 0.0000 i 2.6406 2.6406 i 1.3000e- 4.2000e- i 2.7691 •� 004 003 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 .i � � i i i � i � � � i 004 i 004 Vendor .1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 3.5000e- 2.4000e- 2.9700e- i 1.000Oe- 1.0400e- i 1.000Oe- 1.0500e- 2.8000e- i 1.000Oe- 2.8000e- 0.0000 i 0.8353 0.8353 i 2.000Oe- 2.000Oe- i 0.8427 •� 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004.i � � i i i i � i � 005 i 005 Total 4.5000e- 6.2100e- 4.5600e- 4.000Oe- 1.7900e- 6.000Oe- 1.8500e- 4.9000e- 6.000Oe- 5.3000e- 0.0000 3.4759 3.4759 1.5000e- 4.4000e- 3.6118 004 003 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 004 004 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 9.6300e- i 0.0000 9.6300e- 1.4600e- i 0.0000 1.4600e- ■ 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 •� 003 003 003 003 i
Off-Road •i 0.0147 0.1432 0.1346 i 2.4000e- 6.7700e- 6.7700e- 6.3300e- 6.3300e- 0.0000 i 21.0865 21.0865 i 5.3500e- 0.0000 i 21.2202 •� 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Total 0.0147 0.1432 0.1346 2.4000e- 9.6300e- 6.7700e- 0.0164 1.4600e- 6.3300e- 7.7900e- 0.0000 21.0865 21.0865 5.3500e- 0.0000 21.2202 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:03 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.2 Demolition - 2023
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive I Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling •i 1.00OOe- 5.9700e- 1.5900e- i 3.00OOe- 7.5000e- i 5.00OOe- 8.00OOe- 2.1000e- i 5.00OOe- 2.5000e- 0.0000 i 2.6406 2.6406 i 1.3000e- 4.2000e- i 2.7691 •� 004 003 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 .i i � i i i � � i � � i 004 004 Vendor .1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 3.5000e- 2.4000e- 2.9700e- i 1.00OOe- 1.0400e- i 1.00OOe- 1.0500e- 2.8000e- i 1.00OOe- 2.8000e- 0.0000 i 0.8353 0.8353 i 2.00OOe- 2.00OOe- i 0.8427 •� 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004.i � � i i i i � i � 005 i 005 Total 4.5000e- 6.2100e- 4.5600e- 4.00OOe- 1.7900e- 6.00OOe- 1.8500e- 4.9000e- 6.00OOe- 5.3000e- 0.0000 3.4759 3.4759 1.5000e- 4.4000e- 3.6118 004 003 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 004 004
3.3 Site Preparation - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 1.3500e- i 0.0000 1.3500e- 1.5000e- i 0.0000 1.5000e- ■ 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 •� 003 003 004 004 i
Off-Road •i 1.9500e- 0.0214 0.0147 i 4.00OOe- 8.1000e- 8.1000e- 7.5000e- 7.5000e- 0.0000 i 3.2317 3.2317 i 1.0500e- 0.0000 i 3.2578 •� 003 005 004 004 004 004 . 003 i Total 1.9500e- 0.0214 0.0147 4.00OOe- 1.3500e- 8.1000e- 2.1600e- 1.5000e- 7.5000e- 9.00OOe- 0.0000 3.2317 3.2317 1.0500e- 0.0000 3.2578 003 005 003 004 003 004 004 004 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:03 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.3 Site Preparation - 2023
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling �i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 3.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.7000e- i 0.0000 1.000Oe- i 0.0000 1.0000e- 3.000Oe- i 0.0000 3.000Oe- 0.0000 i 0.0771 0.0771 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0778 •� 005 005 004 004 004 005 005 i Total 3.000Oe- 2.000Oe- 2.7000e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 3.000Oe- 0.0000 3.0000e- 0.0000 0.0771 0.0771 0.0000 0.0000 0.0778 005 005 004 004 004 005 005 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 1.3500e- i 0.0000 1.3500e- 1.5000e- i 0.0000 1.5000e- ■ 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 •� 003 003 004 004 i
Off-Road •i 1.9500e- 0.0214 0.0147 i 4.000Oe- 8.1000e- 8.1000e- 7.5000e- 7.5000e- 0.0000 i 3.2317 3.2317 i 1.0500e- 0.0000 i 3.2578 •� 003 005 004 004 004 004 . 003 i Total 1.9500e- 0.0214 0.0147 4.000Oe- 1.3500e- 8.1000e- 2.1600e- 1.5000e- 7.5000e- 9.000Oe- 0.0000 3.2317 3.2317 1.0500e- 0.0000 3.2578 003 005 003 004 003 004 004 004 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:03 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.3 Site Preparation - 2023
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 3.00OOe- 2.00OOe- 2.7000e- i 0.0000 1.00OOe- i 0.0000 1.00OOe- 3.00OOe- i 0.0000 3.00OOe- 0.0000 i 0.0771 0.0771 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0778 •� 005 005 004 004 004 005 005 i Total 3.00OOe- 2.00OOe- 2.7000e- 0.0000 1.00OOe- 0.0000 1.00OOe- 3.00OOe- 0.0000 3.00OOe- 0.0000 0.0771 0.0771 0.0000 0.0000 0.0778 005 005 004 004 004 005 005
3.4 Grading - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0197 i 0.0000 0.0197 0.0101 i 0.0000 0.0101 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off-Road •i 4.00OOe- 0.0434 0.0261 i 6.00OOe- 1.8100e- 1.8100e- 1.6700e- 1.6700e- 0.0000 i 5.4312 5.4312 i 1.7600e- 0.0000 i 5.4751 •� 003 005 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Total 4.00OOe- 0.0434 0.0261 6.00OOe- 0.0197 1.8100e- 0.0215 0.0101 1.6700e- 0.0118 0.0000 5.4312 5.4312 1.7600e- 0.0000 5.4751 003 005 003 003 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:03 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.4 Grading - 2023
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive I Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling •i 5.6000e- 0.0342 9.1000e- i 1.5000e- 4.3200e- i 2.8000e- 4.6000e- 1.1900e- i 2.7000e- 1.4500e- 0.0000 i 15.1237 15.1237 i 7.6000e- 2.4100e- i 15.8594 •� 004 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003.i i � i i i � � i � � i 004 003 Vendor .1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 Worker •i 8.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 6.9000e- i 0.0000 2.4000e- i 0.0000 2.4000e- 6.000Oe- i 0.0000 7.000Oe- 0.0000 i 0.1928 0.1928 i 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 0.1945 i
•� 005 005 004 004 004 005 005 005 005 i Total 6.4000e- 0.0343 9.7900e- 1.5000e- 4.5600e- 2.8000e- 4.8400e- 1.2500e- 2.7000e- 1.5200e- 0.0000 15.3164 15.3164 7.7000e- 2.4200e- 16.0539 004 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 004 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0197 i 0.0000 0.0197 0.0101 i 0.0000 0.0101 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off-Road •i 4.000Oe- 0.0434 0.0261 i 6.000Oe- 1.8100e- 1.8100e- 1.6700e- 1.6700e- 0.0000 i 5.4312 5.4312 i 1.7600e- 0.0000 i 5.4751 •� 003 005 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Total 4.000Oe- 0.0434 0.0261 6.000Oe- 0.0197 1.8100e- 0.0215 0.0101 1.6700e- 0.0118 0.0000 5.4312 5.4312 1.7600e- 0.0000 5.4751 003 005 003 003 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:03 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.4 Grading - 2023
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive I Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling •i 5.6000e- 0.0342 9.1000e- i 1.5000e- 4.3200e- i 2.8000e- 4.6000e- 1.1900e- i 2.7000e- 1.4500e- 0.0000 i 15.1237 15.1237 i 7.6000e- 2.4100e- i 15.8594 •� 004 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003.i i � i i i � � i � � i 004 003 Vendor .1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 8.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 6.9000e- i 0.0000 2.4000e- i 0.0000 2.4000e- 6.000Oe- i 0.0000 7.000Oe- 0.0000 i 0.1928 0.1928 i 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 0.1945 •� 005 005 004 004 004 005 005 005 005 i Total 6.4000e- 0.0343 9.7900e- 1.5000e- 4.5600e- 2.8000e- 4.8400e- 1.2500e- 2.7000e- 1.5200e- 0.0000 15.3164 15.3164 7.7000e- 2.4200e- 16.0539 004 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 004 003
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG I NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road •i 0.1979 1.5736 1.6418 i 2.8900e- 0.0709 0.0709 0.0679 0.0679 ■ 0.0000 i 239.8959 239.8959 i 0.0454 0.0000 i 241.0301 003
Total 0.1979 1.5736 1.6418 2.8900e- 0.0709 0.0709 0.0679 0.0679 0.0000 1 239.8959 j 239.8959 j 0.0454 j 0.0000 241.0301 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:03 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 2.7000e- � 0.0103 � 3.6200e- i 5.0000e- � 1.5300e- i 6.000Oe- � 1.5900e- � 4.4000e- i 6.0000e- 5.0000e- 0.0000 i 4.6350 � 4.6350 i 1.4000e- � 6.7000e- i 4.8387 •1 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 : 004 004 i Worker •i 1.5600e- 1.0800e- 0.0132 i 4.000Oe- 4.6300e- i 3.000Oe- 4.6600e- 1.2300e- i 2.000Oe- 1.2500e- 0.0000 i 3.7105 3.7105 i 1.1000e- 1.000Oe- i 3.7437 •� 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 004 i Total 1.8300e- 0.0113 0.0168 9.000Oe- 6.1600e- 9.000Oe- 6.2500e- 1.6700e- 8.000Oe- 1.7500e- 0.0000 8.3455 8.3455 2.5000e- 7.7000e- 8.5823 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 004 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG I NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road •i 0.1979 1.5736 1.6418 i 2.8900e- 0.0709 0.0709 0.0679 0.0679 ■ 0.0000 i 239.8956 239.8956 i 0.0454 0.0000 i 241.0298 003
Total 0.1979 1.5736 1.6418 2.8900e- 0.0709 0.0709 0.0679 0.0679 0.0000 1 239.8956 j 239.8956 j 0.0454 j 0.0000 241.0298 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:03 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 2.7000e- � 0.0103 � 3.6200e- i 5.00OOe- � 1.5300e- i 6.00OOe- � 1.5900e- � 4.4000e- i 6.00OOe- 5.00OOe- 0.0000 i 4.6350 � 4.6350 i 1.4000e- � 6.7000e- i 4.8387 •1 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 : 004 004 i Worker •i 1.5600e- 1.0800e- 0.0132 i 4.00OOe- 4.6300e- i 3.00OOe- 4.6600e- 1.2300e- i 2.00OOe- 1.2500e- 0.0000 i 3.7105 3.7105 i 1.1000e- 1.00OOe- i 3.7437 •� 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 004 i Total 1.8300e- 0.0113 0.0168 9.00OOe- 6.1600e- 9.00OOe- 6.2500e- 1.6700e- 8.00OOe- 1.7500e- 0.0000 8.3455 8.3455 2.5000e- 7.7000e- 8.5823 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 004
3.5 Building Construction - 2024
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road •i 0.0870 0.6989 0.7685 i 1.3600e- 0.0293 0.0293 0.0281 0.0281 ■ 0.0000 i 113.2041 113.2041 i 0.0211 0.0000 i 113.7312 003
Total 0.0870 0.6989 0.7685 1.3600e- 0.0293 0.0293 0.0281 0.0281 0.0000 1 113.2041 j 113.2041 j 0.0211 j 0.0000 113.7312 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:03 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.5 Building Construction - 2024
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 1.2000e- � 4.8100e- � 1.6700e- i 2.0000e- � 7.2000e- i 3.000Oe- � 7.5000e- � 2.1000e- i 3.000Oe- 2.4000e- 0.0000 i 2.1490 � 2.1490 i 7.0000e- � 3.1000e- i 2.2435 •� 004 003 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 : 005 004 i Worker •i 6.9000e- 4.6000e- 5.8300e- i 2.000Oe- 2.1900e- i 1.000Oe- 2.2000e- 5.8000e- i 1.000Oe- 5.9000e- 0.0000 i 1.7070 1.7070 i 5.000Oe- 5.000Oe- i 1.7216 •� 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004.i i � i i i i � i � � i 005 i 005 Total 8.1000e- 5.2700e- 7.5000e- 4.000Oe- 2.9100e- 4.000Oe- 2.9500e- 7.9000e- 4.000Oe- 8.3000e- 0.0000 3.8559 3.8559 1.2000e- 3.6000e- 3.9650 004 003 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 004 004 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road •i 0.0870 0.6989 0.7685 i 1.3600e- 0.0293 0.0293 0.0281 0.0281 ■ 0.0000 i 113.2040 113.2040 i 0.0211 0.0000 i 113.7311 003
Total 0.0870 0.6989 0.7685 1.3600e- 0.0293 0.0293 0.0281 0.0281 0.0000 1 113.2040 j 113.2040 j 0.0211 j 0.0000 113.7311 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:03 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.5 Building Construction - 2024
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 1.2000e- � 4.8100e- � 1.6700e- i 2.00OOe- � 7.2000e- i 3.00OOe- 7.5000e- 2.1000e- i 3.00OOe- 2.4000e- 0.0000 i 2.1490 2.1490 i 7.00OOe- 3.1000e- i 2.2435 •� 004 003 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 : 005 004 i Worker 6.9000e- 4.6000e- 5.8300e- i 2.00OOe- 2.1900e- i 1.00OOe- 2.2000e- 5.8000e- i 1.00OOe- 5.9000e- 0.0000 i 1.7070 1.7070 i 5.00OOe- 5.00OOe- i 1.7216 •� 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004.i i � i i i i � i � � i 005 i 005 Total 8.1000e- 5.2700e- 7.5000e- 4.00OOe- 2.9100e- 4.00OOe- 2.9500e- 7.9000e- 4.00OOe- 8.3000e- 0.0000 3.8559 3.8559 1.2000e- 3.6000e- 3.9650 004 003 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 004 004
3.6 Paving - 2024
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG I NOx I CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road •i 4.2100e- 0.0405 0.0585 i 9.00OOe- 1.9800e- 1.9800e- 1.8300e- 1.8300e- 0.0000 i 7.7574 7.7574 i 2.4600e- 0.0000 i 7.8188 •� 003 005 003 003 003 003 003 i Paving �i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total 4.2100e- 0.0405 0.0585 9.00OOe- 1.9800e- 1.9800e- 1.8300e- 1.8300e- 0.0000 7.7574 7.7574 2.4600e- 0.0000 7.8188 003 005 003 003 003 003 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:03 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.6 Paving - 2024
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker �i 1.9000e- 1.3000e- 1.6000e- i 1.0000e- 6.000Oe- i 0.0000 6.0000e- 1.6000e- i 0.0000 1.6000e- 0.0000 � 0.4698 0.4698 i 1.0000e- 1.0000e- i 0.4738 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 005 Total 1.9000e- 1.3000e- 1.6000e- 1.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 0.0000 6.0000e- 1.6000e- 0.0000 1.6000e- 0.0000 0.4698 0.4698 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.4738 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 005 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG I NOx I CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road •i 4.2100e- 0.0405 0.0585 i 9.000Oe- 1.9800e- 1.9800e- 1.8300e- 1.8300e- 0.0000 i 7.7573 7.7573 i 2.4600e- 0.0000 i 7.8188 •� 003 005 003 003 003 003 003 i Paving �i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total 4.2100e- 0.0405 0.0585 9.000Oe- 1.9800e- 1.9800e- 1.8300e- 1.8300e- 0.0000 7.7573 7.7573 2.4600e- 0.0000 7.8188 003 005 003 003 003 003 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:03 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.6 Paving - 2024
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker �i 1.9000e- 1.3000e- 1.6000e- i 1.0000e- 6.00OOe- i 0.0000 6.0000e- 1.6000e- i 0.0000 1.6000e- 0.0000 � 0.4698 0.4698 i 1.00OOe- 1.00OOe- i 0.4738 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 005 Total 1.9000e- 1.3000e- 1.6000e- 1.00OOe- 6.00OOe- 0.0000 6.00OOe- 1.6000e- 0.0000 1.6000e- 0.0000 0.4698 0.4698 1.00OOe- 1.0000e- 0.4738 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 005
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit.Coating •i 0.6805 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off-Road •i 9.00OOe- 6.0900e- 9.0500e- i 1.00OOe- 3.00OOe- 3.00OOe- 3.00OOe- 3.00OOe- 0.0000 i 1.2766 1.2766 i 7.00OOe- 0.0000 i 1.2784 •� 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 . 005 i Total 0.6814 6.0900e- 9.0500e- 1.00OOe- 3.00OOe- 3.00OOe- 3.00OOe- 3.00OOe- 0.0000 1.2766 1.2766 7.00OOe- 0.0000 1.2784 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 005
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:03 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling �i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.1000e- i 0.0000 4.000Oe- i 0.0000 4.0000e- 1.0000e- i 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 i 0.0313 0.0313 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0316 •� 005 005 004 005 005 005 005 i Total 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 1.1000e- 0.0000 4.0000e- 0.0000 4.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0313 0.0313 0.0000 0.0000 0.0316 005 005 004 005 005 005 005 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit.Coating •i 0.6805 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off-Road •i 9.000Oe- 6.0900e- 9.0500e- i 1.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 0.0000 i 1.2766 1.2766 i 7.000Oe- 0.0000 i 1.2784 •� 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 . 005 i Total 0.6814 6.0900e- 9.0500e- 1.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 0.0000 1.2766 1.2766 7.000Oe- 0.0000 1.2784 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 005
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:03 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.1000e- i 0.0000 4.0000e- i 0.0000 4.0000e- 1.0000e- i 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 i 0.0313 0.0313 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0316 •� 005 005 004 005 005 005 005 i Total 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 1.1000e- 0.0000 4.0000e- 0.0000 4.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0313 0.0313 0.0000 0.0000 0.0316 005 005 004 005 005 005 005
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:03 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive I Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tans/yr MT/yr
Mitigated •i 0.0613 0.0635 0.5872 i 1.2700e- 0.1602 i 8.7000e- i 0.1611 0.0427 i 8.1000e- 0.0436 • 0.0000 i 123.7188 123.7188 i 8.3700e- � 5.2900e- 125.5052 003 004 004 003 003
Unmitigated 0.0613 0.0635 0.5872 - 1.2700e- 0.1602 8.7000e- - 0.1611 • 0.0427 8.1000e- 0.0436 0.0000 123.7188 • 123.7188 - 8.3700e- 5.2900e- 125.5052 003 004 004 003 003
4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Single Family Housing ; 150.00 150.00 150.00 428,296 428,296 Total 150.00 150.00 150.00 428,296 428,296
4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles Trip% Trip Purpose%
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Single Family Housing 10.80 7.30 7.50 41.60 18.80 39.60 86 11 3
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Single Family Housing 0.575453• 0.061728, 0.171227, 0.112384, 0.022882, 0.006522, 0.009800, 0.006298, 0.000679, 0.000623, 0.027611, 0.000857, 0.003936
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:03 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
5.0 Energy Detail
Historical Energy Use: N
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity N� i i � i � 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 16.9623 16.9623 1.7600e- i 2.1000e- i 17.0698 Mitigated ,� . i 003 004 i Electricity :1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 16.9623 16.9623 1.7600e- i 2.1000e- i 17.0698 Unmitigated ,� . i 003 004 i %-------'-------'-------'-------'-------'-------'-------'-------'---------- -- -------'-------'-------'--------------- NaturalGas 1.7500e- i 0.0149 i 6.3500e- 1.000Oe- i 1.2100e- 1.2100e- i 1.2100e- 1.2100e- 0.0000 1 17.2750 17.2750 3.3000e- i 3.2000e- i 17.3777 Mitigated ,� 003 003 : 004 003 : 003 003 003 . i004 1 004 NaturalGas •• 1.7500e- 0.0149 - 6.3500e- 1.000Oe- 1.2100e- 1.2100e- - 1.2100e- 1.2100e- 0.0000 17.2750 17.2750 3.3000e- - 3.2000e- 17.3777 Unmitigated 003 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:03 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Unmitigated
NaturalGa ROG NOx CO I S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Single Family � 323722 ■i 1.7500e- i 0.0149 � 6.3500e- � 1.0000e- i � 1.2100e- i 1.2100e- � � 1.2100e- 1.2100e- � 0.0000 i 17.2750 � 17.2750 i 3.3000e- i 3.2000e- i 17.3777 Housing 003 003 004 003 003 003 003 1 004 004 i Total 1.7500e- 0.0149 6.3500e- 1.000Oe- 1.2100e- 1.2100e- 1.21OOe- 1.21OOe- 0.0000 17.2750 17.2750 3.3000e- 3.2000e- 17.3777 003 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004 Mitigated
NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Single Family 323722 �i 1.7500e- i 0.0149 i 6.3500e- i 1.000Oe- 1.2100e- i 1.2100e- 1.2100e- 1.2100e- 0.0000 i 17.2750 i 17.2750 i 3.3000e- 3.2000e- i 17.3777 Housing 003 003 004 003 003 003 003 . i 004 004 i Total 1.7500e- 0.0149 6.3500e- 1.000Oe- 1.2100e- 1.21OOe- 1.21OOe- 1.21OOe- 0.0000 17.2750 17.2750 3.3000e- 3.2000e- 17.3777 11 003 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:03 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Unmitigated
Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Use
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Single Family 117515 •i 16.9623 i 1.7600e- 2.1000e- 17.0698 Housing i ;� i 003 i 004
Total 16.9623 1.7600e- 2.1000e- 17.0698
003 004
Mitigated
Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Use
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Single Family 117515 •i 16.9623 i 1.7600e- i 2.1000e- 17.0698 Housing 003 004
Total 16.9623 1.7600e- 2.1000e- 17.0698
003 004
6.0 Area Detail
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:03 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
I I I I I I I I I I 1
Mitigated •I 0.2413 I 1.2800e- I 0.1111 I 1.0000e- I 16.2000e- 1 6.2000e- I 16.2000e- 6.2000e- • 0.0000 I 0.1819 I 0.1819 I 1.7000e- I 0.0000 I 0.1863 •I I 003 I I 005 I 1 004 I 004 I I 004 004 ; I I I 004 I '1 I I I I I I I I • I I I I Unmitigated 0.2413 1.2800e- 0.1111 1.000Oe- - 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 0.0000 0.1819 0.1819 - 1.7000e- • 0.0000 0.1863 003 005 004 004 004 004 004
6.2 Area by SubCategory
Unmitigated
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total SubCategory tans/yr MT/yr
I I I I I I I I I I 1
Architectural •I 0.0681 I I I I I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 Coating
___________•------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- --------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- I I I I 1 I I I I I I I
Consumer •1 0.1699 I I I I I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 Products
I I I I I I I I I I I
Hearth •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 'I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Landscaping •I 3.3200e- I 1.2800e- I 0.1111 I 1.000Oe- I 16.2000e- 16.2000e- I 16.2000e- 6.2000e- � 0.0000 1 0.1819 I 0.1819 I 1.7000e- I 0.0000 i 0.1863 •I 003 I 003 I I 005 I I 004 I 004 I I 004 004 1 I I 004 I I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Total 0.2413 1.2800e- 0.1111 1.000Oe- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 0.0000 0.1819 0.1819 1.7000e- 0.0000 0.1863 003 005 004 004 004 004 004
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:03 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
6.2 Area by SubCategory
Mitigated
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Subcategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural •i 0.0681 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 Coating '� . I i
Consumer •i 0.1699 i � i i � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 Products '1 1 i
Hearth •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 - 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping •i 3.3200e- i 1.2800e- 0.1111 i 1.000Oe- i 6.2000e- i 6.2000e- i 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 0.0000 i 0.1819 0.1819 i 1.7000e- 0.0000 0.1863 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 004 i Total 0.2413 1.2800e- 0.1111 1.000Oe- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 0.0000 0.1819 0.1819 1.7000e- 0.0000 0.1863 003 005 004 004 004 004 004
7.0 Water Detail
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:03 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated •i 3.1349 i 0.0321 7.9000e- i 4.1731 •� 004 i
-----------r�'--------------}-----------------------------*------- Unmitigated 3.1349 0.0321 7.9000e- 4.1731 004
7.2 Water by Land Use
Unmitigated
Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
door Use
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
11 Single Family 10.97731/ •i 3.1349 0.0321 7.9000e- 4.1731 Housing 0.61613 ;i 004
Total 3.1349 j 0.0321 j 7.9000e- 4.1731
004
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 30 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:03 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
7.2 Water by Land Use
Mitigated
Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
door Use
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Single Family 10.97731/ •i 3.1349 0.0321 7.9000e- 4.1731 Housing i 0.61613 ;i i 004
Total 3.1349 0.0321 7.9000e- 4.1731
004
8.0 Waste Detail
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Category/Year
Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated •i 3.5787 i 0.2115 i 0.0000 8.8662 -..----..- --------------F""------""}------""----*-..---- Unmitigated 3.5787 0.2115 0.0000 8.8662
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 31 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:03 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Unmitigated
Waste Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e
Disposed
Land Use tons MT/yr
Single Family 17.63 •i 3.5787 0.2115 i 0.0000 8.8662 Housing
Total 3.5787 0.2115 0.0000 8.8662
Mitigated
Waste Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Disposed
Land Use tons MT/yr
Single Family i 17.63 3.5787 0.2115 i 0.0000 i 8.8662 Housing
i i
Total 3.5787 0.2115 0.0000 8.8662
9.0 Operational Off road
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 32 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:03 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
11.0 Vegetation
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:06 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 1205 Melrose Way
San Diego County, Annual
1.0 Project Characteristics
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Single Family Housing 15.00 Dwelling Unit 2.55 43,500.00 43
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed(m/s) 2.6 Precipitation Freq(Days) 40 Climate Zone 13 Operational Year 2050
Utility Company San Diego Gas&Electric
CO2Intensity 0 CH4Intensity 0 N20Intensity 0 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr)
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics - SDGE Net Zero by 2045
Land Use- 15 homes approximately 2800-3000 sq ft each on 2.55 acre site Construction Phase- 1 to 2 years of construction -estimated at 18 months Demolition -existing structures to be demolished
Grading - import of 4,034 cubic yards and a 2.55 acre site Vehicle Trips - 10 trips per dwelling unit(Intersecting Metrics, 2021) Woodstoves- No woodstoves or fireplaces
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstruction Phase NumDays } 220.00 340.00 ----------------------------Y------------------------------{-----------------------------t-------------------------- tblConstruction Phase PhaseEndDate r 1/11/2024 6/28/2024 tblConstruction Phase PhaseEndDate 12/14/2023 5/30/2024
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:06 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied tblConstruction Phase PhaseEndDate 12/28/2023 6/14/2024 ----------------------------Y----------------------------- -----------------------------T-------------------------- tblConstruction Phase PhaseStartDate 12/29/2023 6/15/2024 i
tblConstruction Phase PhaseStartDate 12/15/2023 6/1/2024 i
tblFireplaces FireplaceDayYear } 82.00 0.00 tblFireplaces FireplaceHourDay } 3.00 0.00 tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass } 3,078.40 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberGas } 8.25 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace } 1.50 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood } 5.25 0.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading } 6.00 2.55 tblGrading AcresOfGrading } 4.50 2.55 tblGrading Material Imported } 0.00 4,034.00 tblLandUse Land UseSquareFeet } 27,000.00 43,500.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage } 4.87 2.55 tblProjectCharacteristics CH41ntensityFactor } 0.033 0 tblProjectCharacteristics CO21ntensityFactor } 539.98 0 tblProjectCharacteristics N201ntensityFactor } 0.004 0 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR } 9.54 10.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR } 8.55 10.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 9.44 10.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic } 0.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic } 0.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear } 82.00 0.00 ---------------------------- ------------------------------:------------------------------ -------------------------- tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWood Mass 3,019.20 0.00
2.0 Emissions Summary
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:06 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
2.1 Overall Construction
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Year tons/yr MT/yr
1 I I I I 1 I I I I 1
2023 •I 0.2216 I 1.8334 I 1.8486 13.5100e- I 0.0433 I 0.0807 I 0.1240 I 0.0152 I 0.0771 0.0922 0.0000 I 296.8602 1296.8602 I 0.0547 13.6300e- i 299.3090 003 I I 1 I I . I I I 1 003 I 1 I I I I 1 I I I- I I 1
2024 •I 0.7737 I 0.7509 I 0.8453 I 1.5100e- 13.5500e- I 0.0317 I 0.0352 19.6000e- I 0.0303 0.0312 0.0000 I 126.5951 1126.5951 I 0.0237 13.7000e- i 127.2989 003 I 003 I 1 1 004 I . I I I 1 004 I Maximum 0.7737 1.8334 1.8486 3.5100e- 0.0433 0.0807 0.1240 0.0152 0.0771 0.0922 0.0000 296.8602 296.8602 0.0547 3.6300e- 299.3090 003 003
Mitigated Construction
ROG I NOx CO I S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Year tons/yr MT/yr
I I 1 I 1 I I I I 1
2023 •I 0.2216 1 1 1.8334 I 1.8486 13.5100e- 1 0.0433 1 0.0807 1 0.1240 I 0.0152 1 0.0771 0.0922 � 0.0000 I 296.8599 1 296.8599 1 0.0547 13.6300e- i 299.3087 003 1 I I I I ■ I I I I 003 I ;� 1 I I I I 1 I I ■ I I I ...........■I-------J-------J-------J-------J-------J-------J-------J-------J--------....... .......I-------J-------J-------J-------*....... 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I
2024 •I 0.7737 1 0.7509 I 0.8453 11.5100e- 13.5500e- I 0.0317 1 0.0352 19.6000e- I 0.0303 0.0312 0.0000 I 126.5950 1126.5950 1 0.0237 13.7000e- i 127.2987 003 I 003 I I I 004 I 004 I I ■ I I 1
'1 1 I I I I 1 I I ■ I I I I I Maximum 0.7737 1.8334 1.8486 3.5100e- 0.0433 0.0807 0.1240 0.0152 0.0771 0.0922 0.0000 296.8599 296.8599 0.0547 3.6300e- 299.3087 003 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:06 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG+NOX(tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG+NOX(tons/quarter) 1 1-2-2023 4-1-2023 0.5407 0.5407
2 4-2-2023 7-1-2023 0.5021 0.5021 3 7-2-2023 10-1-2023 0.5076 0.5076 4 10-2-2023 1-1-2024 0.5074 0.5074 5 1-2-2024 4-1-2024 0.4724 0.4724
6 4-2-2024 7-1-2024 1.0387 1.0387 Highest 1.0387 1.0387
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:06 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational
ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive I Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area •i 0.2413 i 1.2800e- 0.1109 i 1.0000e- 6.2000e- i 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 0.0000 i 0.1819 0.1819 i 1.7000e- 0.0000 0.1863 •� 003 005 004 004 004 004 004 i Energy •i 1.7500e- i 0.0149 6.3500e- i 1.000Oe- 1.2100e- i 1.2100e- 1.2100e- 1.2100e- 0.0000 i 17.2750 17.2750 i 3.3000e- 3.2000e- 17.3777 003 003 004 003 003 003 003 . 004 004 i Mobile •i 0.0476 i 0.0515 0.5019 i 1.1000e- i 0.1602 5.2000e- i 0.1608 0.0428 i 4.9000e- 0.0433 0.0000 i 111.8075 111.8075 i 7.1600e- 4.7900e- 113.4150 •� 003 004 004 003 003 i Waste 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.5787 i 0.0000 3.5787 i 0.2115 0.0000 8.8662 Water 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3101 i 0.0000 0.3101 i 0.0319 7.5000e- 1.3303 004L i
Total 0.2906 0.0677 0.6191 1.2100e- 0.1602 2.3500e- 0.1626 0.0428 2.3200e- 0.0451 3.8888 129.2645 133.1533 0.2510 5.8600e- 141.1754 003 003 003 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:06 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
2.2 Overall Operational
Mitigated Operational
ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive I Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area •i 0.2413 i 1.2800e- 0.1109 i 1.0000e- 6.2000e- i 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 0.0000 i 0.1819 0.1819 i 1.7000e- 0.0000 0.1863 •� 003 005 004 004 004 004 004 i Energy •i 1.7500e- i 0.0149 6.3500e- i 1.000Oe- 1.2100e- i 1.2100e- 1.2100e- 1.2100e- 0.0000 i 17.2750 17.2750 i 3.3000e- 3.2000e- 17.3777 003 003 004 003 003 003 003 . 004 004 i Mobile •i 0.0476 i 0.0515 0.5019 i 1.1000e- i 0.1602 5.2000e- i 0.1608 0.0428 i 4.9000e- 0.0433 0.0000 i 111.8075 111.8075 i 7.1600e- 4.7900e- 113.4150 •� 003 004 004 003 003 i Waste 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.5787 i 0.0000 3.5787 i 0.2115 0.0000 8.8662 Water 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3101 i 0.0000 0.3101 i 0.0319 7.5000e- 1.3303 004L i
Total 0.2906 0.0677 0.6191 1.2100e- 0.1602 2.3500e- 0.1626 0.0428 2.3200e- 0.0451 3.8888 129.2645 133.1533 0.2510 5.8600e- 141.1754 003 003 003 003
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week
1 •Demolition 'Demolition i 1/2/2023 :1/27/2023 5: 20 + i
2 •Site Preparation 'Site Preparation 11/28/2023 12/1/2023 5: 3:
+ i _
3 'Grading •Grading T2/2/2023 T2/9/2023 5' 6'
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:06 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 4 ;Building Construction ;Building Construction •2/10/2023 •5/30/2024 5; 340; -------------------------------- ----------------------T------------T------------T--------T--------T------------------------- 5 •Paving 'Paving !6/1/2024 :6/14/2024 5: 10 + i i
6 •Architectural Coating :Architectural Coating •6/15/2024 •6/28/2024 5. 10• Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 2.55
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 2.55
Acres of Paving: 0
Residential Indoor: 88,088; Residential Outdoor: 29,363; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating—sgft)
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition 'Concrete/Industrial Saws ; 1! 8.00 81: 0.73 ---------------------------------------------------- ------------ ------------- -------------- Demolition 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 1y 8.00! 247: 0.40 ---------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------4-------------4-------------- Demolition +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 3 8.00! 97, 0.37 ---------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------ ------------- -------------- Site Preparation 'Graders ; 1 8.00! 187, 0.41 +
------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------- ------------ ---------------------------- Site Preparation 'Scrapers ; 1y 8.00! 367, 0.48 +
------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------- ------------ ---------------------------- Site Preparation +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 1y 7.00! 97, 0.37 ------------ ------------- --------------
Grading 'Graders ; 1 8.00! 187, 0.41 ------------ ------------- --------------
Grading 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 1 8.00! 247: 0.40 ----------------------------------------------------- ------------ ------------- -------------- Grading +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 21 7.00! 97, 0.37 ----------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------4------------- -------------- Building Construction 'Cranes ; 1 8.00! 231, 0.29 ----------------------------------------------------- ------------ ------------- -------------- Building Construction ',Forklifts ; 21 7.00! 89, 0.20 + __ _
Building Construction 'Generator Sets ; 1 8.00! 84, 0.74 ------------ ----------------------------
Building Construction +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 1 6.00! 97, 0.37 ------------ ------------- --------------
Building Construction 'Welders ; 3 8.00! 46, 0.45 ----------------------------------------------------- ------------ ------------- -------------- Paving 'Cement and Mortar Mixers ; 1 8.00! 9. 0.56 ----------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------4------------- -------------- Paving +Pavers ; 1 8.00! 130, 0.42 -------------------------------------------------------*-----------------F------------ ------------- -------------- Paving :Paving Equipment 1 8.00, 132, 0.36
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:06 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Paving •Rollers 2 8.00; 80: 0.38 -----------------------+Tractors/Loaders/ 1 8.00------es ; --------------- --------- ----------- - --------------Paving 1 0.37
-------------------------------*-- E------------ I Architectural Coating •Air Compressors 1 6.00, 78, 0.48 Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Demolition 5; 13.00- 0.00; 88.00: 10.80; 7.30; 20.00:LD_Mix IHDT_Mix (HHDT -------- ------------------------------------i----------=---------i--------------------------------------------- ----------T Site Preparation 1 3; 8.00- 0.00 i 0.00: 10.80: 7.30; 20.00;LD_Mix ;HDT_Mix I HHDT ---------------- ----------1---------i----------4----------I-------- - ---'----------- ---------- Grading 4; 10.00. 0.00i 504.00: 10.80: 7.30; 20.00,LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix ;HHDT -------------- --------------� I --------i ---------4----------------------------------'----------T---------- Building Construction 8; 5.00- 2.00: 0.001 10.80: 7.30; 20.00:LD_Mix iHDT_Mix (HHDT -------------- -- ------------ I --------i ---------4----------------------------------'----------- ---------- i------------ -
Paving 6; 15.00- 0.00: 0.001, 10.80: 7.30; 20.00:LD_Mix iHDT_Mix ;HHDT E
Architectural Coating ; 1• 1.00, 0.00, 0.00, 10.80, 7.30, 20.00,LD_Mix HDT_Mix ,HHDT
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
3.2 Demolition - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive I Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I I
Fugitive Dust ;i I , , , 9.6300e- , 0.0000 19.6300e- , 1.4600e- , 0.0000 ; 1.4600e- � 0.0000 � 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 i 0.0000 I I I I 003 I I 003 I 003 I 003 ■ I I I , I 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 I 1
Off-Road •I 0.0147 I 0.1432 , 0.1346 , 2.4000e- , , 6.7700e- 16.7700e- , , 6.3300e- ; 6.3300e- � 0.0000 1 21.0866 , 21.0866 , 5.3500e- , 0.0000 i 21.2202 004 I I 003 I 003 I I 003 003 ■ I I I 003 I I Total 0.0147 0.1432 0.1346 2.4000e- 9.6300e- 6.7700e- 0.0164 1.4600e- 6.3300e- 7.7900e 00.0000 21.0866 21.0866 5.3500e- 0.0000 21.2202 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:06 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.2 Demolition - 2023
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive I Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling •i 1.0000e- 5.9700e- 1.5900e- i 3.0000e- 7.5000e- i 5.0000e- 8.0000e- 2.1000e- i 5.0000e- 2.5000e- 0.0000 i 2.6406 2.6406 i 1.3000e- 4.2000e- i 2.7691 •� 004 003 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 .i � � i i i � i � � � i 004 i 004 Vendor .1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 3.5000e- 2.4000e- 2.9700e- i 1.000Oe- 1.0400e- i 1.000Oe- 1.0500e- 2.8000e- i 1.000Oe- 2.8000e- 0.0000 i 0.8353 0.8353 i 2.000Oe- 2.000Oe- i 0.8427 •� 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004.i � � i i i i � i � 005 i 005 Total 4.5000e- 6.2100e- 4.5600e- 4.000Oe- 1.7900e- 6.000Oe- 1.8500e- 4.9000e- 6.000Oe- 5.3000e- 0.0000 3.4759 3.4759 1.5000e- 4.4000e- 3.6118 004 003 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 004 004 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 9.6300e- i 0.0000 9.6300e- 1.4600e- i 0.0000 1.4600e- ■ 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 •� 003 003 003 003 i
Off-Road •i 0.0147 0.1432 0.1346 i 2.4000e- 6.7700e- 6.7700e- 6.3300e- 6.3300e- 0.0000 i 21.0865 21.0865 i 5.3500e- 0.0000 i 21.2202 •� 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Total 0.0147 0.1432 0.1346 2.4000e- 9.6300e- 6.7700e- 0.0164 1.4600e- 6.3300e- 7.7900e- 0.0000 21.0865 21.0865 5.3500e- 0.0000 21.2202 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:06 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.2 Demolition - 2023
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive I Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling •i 1.00OOe- 5.9700e- 1.5900e- i 3.00OOe- 7.5000e- i 5.00OOe- 8.00OOe- 2.1000e- i 5.00OOe- 2.5000e- 0.0000 i 2.6406 2.6406 i 1.3000e- : 4.2000e- i 2.7691 •� 004 003 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 .i i � i i i � � i � � i 004 004 Vendor �i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 3.5000e- 2.4000e- 2.9700e- i 1.00OOe- 1.0400e- i 1.00OOe- 1.0500e- 2.8000e- i 1.00OOe- 2.8000e- 0.0000 i 0.8353 0.8353 i 2.00OOe- 2.00OOe- i 0.8427 •� 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004.i � � i i i i � i � 005 i 005 Total 4.5000e- 6.2100e- 4.5600e- 4.00OOe- 1.7900e- 6.00OOe- 1.8500e- 4.9000e- 6.00OOe- 5.3000e- 0.0000 3.4759 3.4759 1.5000e- 4.4000e- 3.6118 004 003 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 004 004
3.3 Site Preparation - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 1.3500e- i 0.0000 1.3500e- 1.5000e- i 0.0000 1.5000e- ■ 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 •� 003 003 004 004 i
Off-Road •i 1.9500e- 0.0214 0.0147 i 4.00OOe- 8.1000e- 8.1000e- 7.5000e- 7.5000e- 0.0000 i 3.2317 3.2317 i 1.0500e- 0.0000 i 3.2578 •� 003 005 004 004 004 004 . 003 i Total 1.9500e- 0.0214 0.0147 4.00OOe- 1.3500e- 8.1000e- 2.1600e- 1.5000e- 7.5000e- 9.00OOe- 0.0000 3.2317 3.2317 1.0500e- 0.0000 3.2578 003 005 003 004 003 004 004 004 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:06 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.3 Site Preparation - 2023
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling �i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 3.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.7000e- i 0.0000 1.000Oe- i 0.0000 1.0000e- 3.000Oe- i 0.0000 3.000Oe- 0.0000 i 0.0771 0.0771 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0778 •� 005 005 004 004 004 005 005 i Total 3.000Oe- 2.000Oe- 2.7000e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 3.000Oe- 0.0000 3.0000e- 0.0000 0.0771 0.0771 0.0000 0.0000 0.0778 005 005 004 004 004 005 005 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 1.3500e- i 0.0000 1.3500e- 1.5000e- i 0.0000 1.5000e- ■ 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 •� 003 003 004 004 i
Off-Road •i 1.9500e- 0.0214 0.0147 i 4.000Oe- 8.1000e- 8.1000e- 7.5000e- 7.5000e- 0.0000 i 3.2317 3.2317 i 1.0500e- 0.0000 i 3.2578 •� 003 005 004 004 004 004 . 003 i Total 1.9500e- 0.0214 0.0147 4.000Oe- 1.3500e- 8.1000e- 2.1600e- 1.5000e- 7.5000e- 9.000Oe- 0.0000 3.2317 3.2317 1.0500e- 0.0000 3.2578 003 005 003 004 003 004 004 004 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:06 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.3 Site Preparation - 2023
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 3.00OOe- 2.00OOe- 2.7000e- i 0.0000 1.00OOe- i 0.0000 1.00OOe- 3.00OOe- i 0.0000 3.00OOe- 0.0000 i 0.0771 0.0771 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0778 •� 005 005 004 004 004 005 005 i Total 3.00OOe- 2.00OOe- 2.7000e- 0.0000 1.00OOe- 0.0000 1.00OOe- 3.00OOe- 0.0000 3.00OOe- 0.0000 0.0771 0.0771 0.0000 0.0000 0.0778 005 005 004 004 004 005 005
3.4 Grading - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0197 i 0.0000 0.0197 0.0101 i 0.0000 0.0101 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off-Road •i 4.00OOe- 0.0434 0.0261 i 6.00OOe- 1.8100e- 1.8100e- 1.6700e- 1.6700e- 0.0000 i 5.4312 5.4312 i 1.7600e- 0.0000 i 5.4751 •� 003 005 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Total 4.00OOe- 0.0434 0.0261 6.00OOe- 0.0197 1.8100e- 0.0215 0.0101 1.6700e- 0.0118 0.0000 5.4312 5.4312 1.7600e- 0.0000 5.4751 003 005 003 003 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:06 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.4 Grading - 2023
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive I Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling •i 5.6000e- 0.0342 9.1000e- i 1.5000e- 4.3200e- i 2.8000e- 4.6000e- 1.1900e- i 2.7000e- 1.4500e- 0.0000 i 15.1237 15.1237 i 7.6000e- 2.4100e- i 15.8594 •� 004 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003.i i � i i i � � i � � i 004 003 Vendor .1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 Worker •i 8.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 6.9000e- i 0.0000 2.4000e- i 0.0000 2.4000e- 6.000Oe- i 0.0000 7.000Oe- 0.0000 i 0.1928 0.1928 i 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 0.1945 i
•� 005 005 004 004 004 005 005 005 005 i Total 6.4000e- 0.0343 9.7900e- 1.5000e- 4.5600e- 2.8000e- 4.8400e- 1.2500e- 2.7000e- 1.5200e- 0.0000 15.3164 15.3164 7.7000e- 2.4200e- 16.0539 004 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 004 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0197 i 0.0000 0.0197 0.0101 i 0.0000 0.0101 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off-Road •i 4.000Oe- 0.0434 0.0261 i 6.000Oe- 1.8100e- 1.8100e- 1.6700e- 1.6700e- 0.0000 i 5.4312 5.4312 i 1.7600e- 0.0000 i 5.4751 •� 003 005 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Total 4.000Oe- 0.0434 0.0261 6.000Oe- 0.0197 1.8100e- 0.0215 0.0101 1.6700e- 0.0118 0.0000 5.4312 5.4312 1.7600e- 0.0000 5.4751 003 005 003 003 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:06 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.4 Grading - 2023
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive I Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling •i 5.6000e- 0.0342 9.1000e- i 1.5000e- 4.3200e- i 2.8000e- 4.6000e- 1.1900e- i 2.7000e- 1.4500e- 0.0000 i 15.1237 15.1237 i 7.6000e- 2.4100e- i 15.8594 •� 004 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003.i i � i i i � � i � � i 004 003 Vendor .1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 8.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 6.9000e- i 0.0000 2.4000e- i 0.0000 2.4000e- 6.000Oe- i 0.0000 7.000Oe- 0.0000 i 0.1928 0.1928 i 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 0.1945 •� 005 005 004 004 004 005 005 005 005 i Total 6.4000e- 0.0343 9.7900e- 1.5000e- 4.5600e- 2.8000e- 4.8400e- 1.2500e- 2.7000e- 1.5200e- 0.0000 15.3164 15.3164 7.7000e- 2.4200e- 16.0539 004 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 004 003
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG I NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road •i 0.1979 1.5736 1.6418 i 2.8900e- 0.0709 0.0709 0.0679 0.0679 ■ 0.0000 i 239.8959 239.8959 i 0.0454 0.0000 i 241.0301 003
Total 0.1979 1.5736 1.6418 2.8900e- 0.0709 0.0709 0.0679 0.0679 0.0000 1 239.8959 j 239.8959 j 0.0454 j 0.0000 241.0301 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:06 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 2.7000e- � 0.0103 � 3.6200e- i 5.0000e- � 1.5300e- i 6.000Oe- � 1.5900e- � 4.4000e- i 6.0000e- 5.000Oe- 0.0000 i 4.6350 � 4.6350 i 1.4000e- � 6.7000e- i 4.8387 •1 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 : 004 004 i Worker •i 1.5600e- 1.0800e- 0.0132 i 4.000Oe- 4.6300e- i 3.000Oe- 4.6600e- 1.2300e- i 2.000Oe- 1.2500e- 0.0000 i 3.7105 3.7105 i 1.1000e- 1.000Oe- i 3.7437 •� 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 004 i Total 1.8300e- 0.0113 0.0168 9.000Oe- 6.1600e- 9.000Oe- 6.2500e- 1.6700e- 8.000Oe- 1.7500e- 0.0000 8.3455 8.3455 2.5000e- 7.7000e- 8.5823 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 004 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG I NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road •i 0.1979 1.5736 1.6418 i 2.8900e- 0.0709 0.0709 0.0679 0.0679 ■ 0.0000 i 239.8956 239.8956 i 0.0454 0.0000 i 241.0298 003
Total 0.1979 1.5736 1.6418 2.8900e- 0.0709 0.0709 0.0679 0.0679 0.0000 1 239.8956 j 239.8956 j 0.0454 j 0.0000 241.0298 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:06 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 2.7000e- � 0.0103 � 3.6200e- i 5.00OOe- � 1.5300e- i 6.00OOe- � 1.5900e- � 4.4000e- i 6.00OOe- 5.00OOe- 0.0000 i 4.6350 � 4.6350 i 1.4000e- � 6.7000e- i 4.8387 •1 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 : 004 004 i Worker •i 1.5600e- 1.0800e- 0.0132 i 4.00OOe- 4.6300e- i 3.00OOe- 4.6600e- 1.2300e- i 2.00OOe- 1.2500e- 0.0000 i 3.7105 3.7105 i 1.1000e- 1.00OOe- i 3.7437 •� 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 004 i Total 1.8300e- 0.0113 0.0168 9.00OOe- 6.1600e- 9.00OOe- 6.2500e- 1.6700e- 8.00OOe- 1.7500e- 0.0000 8.3455 8.3455 2.5000e- 7.7000e- 8.5823 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 004
3.5 Building Construction - 2024
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road •i 0.0870 0.6989 0.7685 i 1.3600e- 0.0293 0.0293 0.0281 0.0281 ■ 0.0000 i 113.2041 113.2041 i 0.0211 0.0000 i 113.7312 003
Total 0.0870 0.6989 0.7685 1.3600e- 0.0293 0.0293 0.0281 0.0281 0.0000 1 113.2041 j 113.2041 j 0.0211 j 0.0000 113.7312 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:06 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.5 Building Construction - 2024
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 1.2000e- � 4.8100e- � 1.6700e- i 2.0000e- � 7.2000e- i 3.000Oe- � 7.5000e- � 2.1000e- i 3.000Oe- 2.4000e- 0.0000 i 2.1490 � 2.1490 i 7.0000e- � 3.1000e- i 2.2435 •� 004 003 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 : 005 004 i Worker •i 6.9000e- 4.6000e- 5.8300e- i 2.000Oe- 2.1900e- i 1.000Oe- 2.2000e- 5.8000e- i 1.000Oe- 5.9000e- 0.0000 i 1.7070 1.7070 i 5.000Oe- 5.000Oe- i 1.7216 •� 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004.i i � i i i i � i � � i 005 i 005 Total 8.1000e- 5.2700e- 7.5000e- 4.000Oe- 2.9100e- 4.000Oe- 2.9500e- 7.9000e- 4.000Oe- 8.3000e- 0.0000 3.8559 3.8559 1.2000e- 3.6000e- 3.9650 004 003 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 004 004 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road •i 0.0870 0.6989 0.7685 i 1.3600e- 0.0293 0.0293 0.0281 0.0281 ■ 0.0000 i 113.2040 113.2040 i 0.0211 0.0000 i 113.7311 003
Total 0.0870 0.6989 0.7685 1.3600e- 0.0293 0.0293 0.0281 0.0281 0.0000 1 113.2040 j 113.2040 j 0.0211 j 0.0000 113.7311 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:06 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.5 Building Construction - 2024
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 1.2000e- � 4.8100e- � 1.6700e- i 2.00OOe- � 7.2000e- i 3.00OOe- 7.5000e- 2.1000e- i 3.00OOe- 2.4000e- 0.0000 i 2.1490 2.1490 i 7.00OOe- 3.1000e- i 2.2435 •� 004 003 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 : 005 004 i Worker 6.9000e- 4.6000e- 5.8300e- i 2.00OOe- 2.1900e- i 1.00OOe- 2.2000e- 5.8000e- i 1.00OOe- 5.9000e- 0.0000 i 1.7070 1.7070 i 5.00OOe- 5.00OOe- i 1.7216 •� 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004.i i � i i i i � i � � i 005 i 005 Total 8.1000e- 5.2700e- 7.5000e- 4.00OOe- 2.9100e- 4.00OOe- 2.9500e- 7.9000e- 4.00OOe- 8.3000e- 0.0000 3.8559 3.8559 1.2000e- 3.6000e- 3.9650 004 003 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 004 004
3.6 Paving - 2024
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG I NOx I CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road •i 4.2100e- 0.0405 0.0585 i 9.00OOe- 1.9800e- 1.9800e- 1.8300e- 1.8300e- 0.0000 i 7.7574 7.7574 i 2.4600e- 0.0000 i 7.8188 •� 003 005 003 003 003 003 003 i Paving �i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total 4.2100e- 0.0405 0.0585 9.00OOe- 1.9800e- 1.9800e- 1.8300e- 1.8300e- 0.0000 7.7574 7.7574 2.4600e- 0.0000 7.8188 003 005 003 003 003 003 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:06 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.6 Paving - 2024
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker �i 1.9000e- 1.3000e- 1.6000e- i 1.0000e- 6.000Oe- i 0.0000 6.0000e- 1.6000e- i 0.0000 1.6000e- 0.0000 � 0.4698 0.4698 i 1.0000e- 1.0000e- i 0.4738 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 005 Total 1.9000e- 1.3000e- 1.6000e- 1.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 0.0000 6.0000e- 1.6000e- 0.0000 1.6000e- 0.0000 0.4698 0.4698 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.4738 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 005 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG I NOx I CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road •i 4.2100e- 0.0405 0.0585 i 9.000Oe- 1.9800e- 1.9800e- 1.8300e- 1.8300e- 0.0000 i 7.7573 7.7573 i 2.4600e- 0.0000 i 7.8188 •� 003 005 003 003 003 003 003 i Paving �i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total 4.2100e- 0.0405 0.0585 9.000Oe- 1.9800e- 1.9800e- 1.8300e- 1.8300e- 0.0000 7.7573 7.7573 2.4600e- 0.0000 7.8188 003 005 003 003 003 003 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:06 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.6 Paving - 2024
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker �i 1.9000e- 1.3000e- 1.6000e- i 1.0000e- 6.00OOe- i 0.0000 6.0000e- 1.6000e- i 0.0000 1.6000e- 0.0000 � 0.4698 0.4698 i 1.00OOe- 1.00OOe- i 0.4738 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 005 Total 1.9000e- 1.3000e- 1.6000e- 1.00OOe- 6.00OOe- 0.0000 6.00OOe- 1.6000e- 0.0000 1.6000e- 0.0000 0.4698 0.4698 1.00OOe- 1.0000e- 0.4738 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 005
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit.Coating •i 0.6805 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off-Road •i 9.00OOe- 6.0900e- 9.0500e- i 1.00OOe- 3.00OOe- 3.00OOe- 3.00OOe- 3.00OOe- 0.0000 i 1.2766 1.2766 i 7.00OOe- 0.0000 i 1.2784 •� 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 . 005 i Total 0.6814 6.0900e- 9.0500e- 1.00OOe- 3.00OOe- 3.00OOe- 3.00OOe- 3.00OOe- 0.0000 1.2766 1.2766 7.00OOe- 0.0000 1.2784 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 005
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:06 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling �i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.1000e- i 0.0000 4.000Oe- i 0.0000 4.0000e- 1.0000e- i 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 i 0.0313 0.0313 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0316 •� 005 005 004 005 005 005 005 i Total 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 1.1000e- 0.0000 4.0000e- 0.0000 4.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0313 0.0313 0.0000 0.0000 0.0316 005 005 004 005 005 005 005 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit.Coating •i 0.6805 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off-Road •i 9.000Oe- 6.0900e- 9.0500e- i 1.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 0.0000 i 1.2766 1.2766 i 7.000Oe- 0.0000 i 1.2784 •� 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 . 005 i Total 0.6814 6.0900e- 9.0500e- 1.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 0.0000 1.2766 1.2766 7.000Oe- 0.0000 1.2784 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 005
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:06 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.1000e- i 0.0000 4.0000e- i 0.0000 4.0000e- 1.0000e- i 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 i 0.0313 0.0313 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0316 •� 005 005 004 005 005 005 005 i Total 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 1.1000e- 0.0000 4.0000e- 0.0000 4.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0313 0.0313 0.0000 0.0000 0.0316 005 005 004 005 005 005 005
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:06 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive I Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tans/yr MT/yr
Mitigated •i 0.0476 0.0515 0.5019 i 1.1000e- 0.1602 i 5.2000e- i 0.1608 0.0428 i 4.9000e- 0.0433 • 0.0000 i 111.8075 111.8075 i 7.1600e- � 4.7900e- 113.4150 003 004 004 003 003
Unmitigated 0.0476 0.0515 0.5019 - 1.1000e- 0.1602 5.2000e- - 0.1608 0.0428 - 4.9000e- 0.0433 0.0000 111.8075 • 111.8075 - 7.1600e- 4.7900e- 113.4150 003 004 004 003 003
4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Single Family Housing ; 150.00 150.00 150.00 428,296 428,296 Total 150.00 150.00 150.00 428,296 428,296
4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles Trip% Trip Purpose%
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Single Family Housing 10.80 7.30 7.50 41.60 18.80 39.60 86 11 3
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Single Family Housing 0.584721• 0.061219, 0.165591, 0.108994, 0.022611, 0.007030, 0.011356, 0.006685, 0.000606, 0.000664, 0.026637, 0.000823, 0.003063
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:06 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
5.0 Energy Detail
Historical Energy Use: N
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity �� i i � i � 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Mitigated
%i-------'-------'-------'-------'-------'-------'-------'-------'---------- --� i-------'-------'-------'-------- Electricity �� i i � i � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Unmitigated
%-------'-------'-------'-------'-------'-------'------------------------------- -------'-------'-------'------- NaturalGas �� 1.7500e- i 0.0149 i 6.3500e- 1.000Oe- 1.2100e- 1.2100e- 1.2100e- 1.2100e- 0.0000 i 17.2750 17.2750 3.3000e- i 3.2000e- i 17.3777 Mitigated ,� 003 003 004 003 003 003 003 . i004 004 NaturalGas •• 1.7500e- 0.0149 - 6.3500e- 1.000Oe- 1.2100e- 1.2100e- - 1.2100e- 1.2100e- 0.0000 17.2750 17.2750 3.3000e- - 3.2000e- 17.3777 Unmitigated 003 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:06 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Unmitigated
NaturalGa ROG NOx CO I S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Single Family � 323722 ■i 1.7500e- i 0.0149 � 6.3500e- � 1.0000e- i � 1.2100e- i 1.2100e- � � 1.2100e- 1.2100e- � 0.0000 i 17.2750 � 17.2750 i 3.3000e- i 3.2000e- i 17.3777 Housing 003 003 004 003 003 003 003 1 004 004 i Total 1.7500e- 0.0149 6.3500e- 1.000Oe- 1.2100e- 1.2100e- 1.21OOe- 1.21OOe- 0.0000 17.2750 17.2750 3.3000e- 3.2000e- 17.3777 003 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004 Mitigated
NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Single Family 323722 �i 1.7500e- i 0.0149 i 6.3500e- i 1.000Oe- 1.2100e- i 1.2100e- 1.2100e- 1.2100e- 0.0000 i 17.2750 i 17.2750 i 3.3000e- 3.2000e- i 17.3777 Housing 003 003 004 003 003 003 003 . i 004 004 i Total 1.7500e- 0.0149 6.3500e- 1.000Oe- 1.2100e- 1.21OOe- 1.21OOe- 1.21OOe- 0.0000 17.2750 17.2750 3.3000e- 3.2000e- 17.3777 11 003 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:06 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Unmitigated
Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Use
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Single Family 117515 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Housing •i i i i
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated
Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Use
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Single Family 117515 �i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Housing
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
6.0 Area Detail
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:06 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Total Category tons/yr MT/yr
I I I I I I I I I I 1
Mitigated •I 0.2413 I 1.2800e- I 0.1109 I 1.0000e- I 16.2000e- 1 6.2000e- I 16.2000e- 6.2000e- • 0.0000 I 0.1819 I 0.1819 I 1.7000e- I 0.0000 I 0.1863 •I I 003 I I 005 I 1 004 I 004 I I 004 004 ; I I I 004 I '1 I I I I I I I I • I I I I Unmitigated 0.2413 1.2800e- 0.1109 1.000Oe- - 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 0.0000 0.1819 0.1819 - 1.7000e- • 0.0000 0.1863 003 005 004 004 004 004 004
6.2 Area by SubCategory
Unmitigated
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total SubCategory tans/yr MT/yr
I I I I I I I I I I 1
Architectural •I 0.0681 I I I I I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 Coating
___________•------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- --------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- I I I I 1 I I I I I I I
Consumer •1 0.1699 I I I I I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 Products
I I I I I I I I I I I
Hearth •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 'I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Landscaping •I 3.3200e- I 1.2800e- I 0.1109 I 1.000Oe- I 16.2000e- 16.2000e- I 16.2000e- 6.2000e- � 0.0000 1 0.1819 I 0.1819 I 1.7000e- I 0.0000 i 0.1863 •I 003 I 003 I I 005 I I 004 I 004 I I 004 004 1 I I 004 I I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Total 0.2413 1.2800e- 0.1109 1.000Oe- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 0.0000 0.1819 0.1819 1.7000e- 0.0000 0.1863 003 005 004 004 004 004 004
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:06 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
6.2 Area by SubCategory
Mitigated
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Subcategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural •i 0.0681 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 Coating '� . I i
Consumer •i 0.1699 i � i i � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 Products '1 1 i
Hearth •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 - 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping •i 3.3200e- i 1.2800e- 0.1109 i 1.000Oe- i 6.2000e- i 6.2000e- i 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 0.0000 i 0.1819 0.1819 i 1.7000e- 0.0000 0.1863 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 004 i Total 0.2413 1.2800e- 0.1109 1.000Oe- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 0.0000 0.1819 0.1819 1.7000e- 0.0000 0.1863 003 005 004 004 004 004 004
7.0 Water Detail
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:06 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated •i 0.3101 i 0.0319 i 7.5000e- i 1.3303 •� 004 i
-----------r�'--------------}-----------------------------*------- Unmitigated 0.3101 0.0319 7.5000e- 1.3303 004
7.2 Water by Land Use
Unmitigated
Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
door Use
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
11 Single Family 10.97731/ •i 0.3101 0.0319 7.5000e- 1.3303 Housing 0.61613 ;i 004
Total 0.3101 j 0.0319 j 7.5000e- 1.3303
004
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 30 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:06 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
7.2 Water by Land Use
Mitigated
Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
door Use
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Single Family 10.97731/ •i 0.3101 0.0319 7.5000e- 1.3303 Housing i 0.61613 ;i i 004
Total 0.3101 0.0319 7.5000e- 1.3303
004
8.0 Waste Detail
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Category/Year
Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated •i 3.5787 i 0.2115 i 0.0000 8.8662 -..----..- --------------F""------""}------""----*-..---- Unmitigated 3.5787 0.2115 0.0000 8.8662
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 31 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:06 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Unmitigated
Waste Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e
Disposed
Land Use tons MT/yr
Single Family 17.63 •i 3.5787 0.2115 i 0.0000 8.8662 Housing
Total 3.5787 0.2115 0.0000 8.8662
Mitigated
Waste Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Disposed
Land Use tons MT/yr
Single Family i 17.63 3.5787 0.2115 i 0.0000 i 8.8662 Housing
i i
Total 3.5787 0.2115 0.0000 8.8662
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 32 of 32 Date: 9/23/2021 3:06 PM 1205 Melrose Way- San Diego County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
11.0 Vegetation
HYDROLOGY STUDY
FOR
1205 MELROSE WAY
APN: 166-184-10-00, 166-183-17-00, 166-184-09-00
CITY OF VISTA, CA
PREPARED FOR:
Zoran Djordjevich
551 Lynwood Dr
Encinitas, CA 92024
PREPARED BY:
PASCO LARET SUITER &ASSOCIATES, INC.
27127 Calle Arroyo, Suite 1904
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
949-661-6695
Prepared: March 2021
Revised: June 2021
Revised: September 2021
Revi ed: January 2022
01-13-2022
William J. Sui er, RCE 68964 DATE
J:\Active Jobs\3334 MELROSE WAY\CIVIL\REPORTS\HYDROLOGY\3334_HYDRO REPORT JANUARY 2022.doc
PLSA 3334
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
Executive Summary 1.0
Introduction 1.1
Existing Conditions 1.2
Proposed Project 1.3
Conclusions 1.4
References 1.5
Methodology 2.0
Rational Method 2.1
County of San Diego Criteria 2.2
AES Rational Method Computer Model 2.3
Hydrologic Analysis 3.0
Existing Condition Hydrologic Model Output (100-Year Event) 3.1 Proposed Undetained Condition Hydrologic Model Output (100-Year Event) 3.2 Detention Analysis (100-Year Event) 3.3
Proposed Detained Condition Hydrologic Model Output (100-Year Event) 3.4 Hydromodification Management 3.5
Storm Water Pollutant Control 3.6
Hydraulic Methodology 4.0
Normal Depth Calculation 4.1
Appendices
Appendix A: Hydrology Support Material
Appendix B: Detention Support Material
Appendix C: Existing and Proposed Condition Drainage Exhibits Appendix D: Brow Ditch Calculations
J:\Active Jobs\3334 MELROSE WAY\CIVIL\REPORTS\HYDROLOGY\3334_HYDRO REPORT JANUARY 2022.doc
PLSA 3334
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction
This Hydrology Study for the proposed development has been prepared to analyze the hydrologic characteristics of the existing and proposed project site. This report presents both the methodology and the calculations used for determining the storm water runoff from the project site in the pre-developed (existing) conditions and the post-developed (proposed) conditions produced by the 100-year, 6-hour storm event. In addition, this report will propose the sizing of all necessary storm drain facilities and storm drain piping necessary for the storm drain system to safely convey the runoff from the 100-year rainfall event.
1.2 Existing Conditions
The subject property is located on Melrose Way in the City of Vista. The site is on the west side of Melrose Drive and approximately 1 mile South of CA-78 freeway.
Vicinity Map
N
W E -
5 .� 0 F V S
� T
G 9
O
w
O 1
a
eR`cFz �
FLU �MLC ROAD
On
U
MELROSE Wqy PROJECT SITE
L� Pe
C / N T Y 0
J:\Active Jobs\3334 MELROSE WAY\CIVIL\REPORTS\HYDROLOGY\3334_HYDRO REPORT JANUARY 2022.doc
PLSA 3334
The existing site has one single-family residence with an asphalt paved driveway. The remainder of the project site is undeveloped land. The site is surrounded by single-family residential homes to the west and south, a church to the east, and a condominium complex to the north.
The site is approximately 2.57-acres. In the existing condition, the northwesterly portion of the site sheet flows southwest to northeast to a concrete ditch on the adjacent property that runs along the property line and flows to the north (Node 160 on the Existing Condition Drainage Exhibit in Appendix C). The remaining portion of the site generally slopes from south to north toward the northeasterly corner to a concrete ditch on the adjacent property and flows to the east (Node 110 on the Existing Condition Drainage Exhibit in Appendix C). Both ditches ultimately drain to a storm drain that flows north and ultimately into existing storm drain infrastructure in Breeze Hill Rd that continues flowing to the north through the County Complex to Melrose Drive. The storm drain continues to flow northerly in Melrose Drive where it outfalls into Buena Vista Creek located north of Hacienda Drive. Buena Vista Creek outlets into Buena Vista Lagoon, and ultimately the Pacific Ocean.
There is no existing underground storm drain pipe available in Melrose Way in front of the project site. Per the City of Vista GIS Storm Water Atlas, the nearest underground storm drain system is located approximately 265' east of the site on the adjacent property.
Per the United States Department of Agriculture Web Soil Survey, the project site is underlain with Hydrologic Soil Group D. Refer to Appendix A for soil information.
Area weighted runoff coefficients were calculated using the methodology described in section
3.2.1 of the San Diego County Hydrology Manual and Table 3-1 Runoff Coefficients for Urban Areas. Using the Rational Method Procedure outlined in the San Diego County Hydrology Manual, a peak flow rate was calculated for the existing condition 100-year, 6-hour storm event. For the existing condition, Node 110 and 160 peak flow rates for the 100-year, 6-hour storm were determined to be 3.49 cfs and 1.04 cfs for the project site, respectively. The adjacent westerly properties drain onto our project site at Node 205 and Node 220 with peak flow rates for the 100-year, 6-hour storm were determined to be 14.49 cfs and 12.75 cfs. The combined existing Q outleting to Node 110 with the addition of the adjacent westerly runon (Node 220) is 16.27 cfs. The combined existing Q outleting to Node 160 with the addition of the adjacent westerly runon (Node 205) is 15.53 cfs. (Refer to the existing condition hydrologic calculations included in section 3.1 of this report for detailed analysis.
1.3 Proposed Project
The project proposes to demolish the existing residence and associated hardscape improvements and construct 15 single-family detached residences, new private street, tot lot, curb & gutter, sidewalk, graded pads, drainage appurtenances, landscape, hardscape, associated utilities, and a biofiltration area designed for stormwater treatment, hydromodification management, and to mitigate for the 100-year 6-hour storm event.
J:\Active Jobs\3334 MELROSE WAY\CIVIL\REPORTS\HYDROLOGY\3334_HYDRO REPORT JANUARY 2022.doc
PLSA 3334
Offsite improvements to Melrose way include removal and replacement of the half-width of asphalt, construction of curb & gutter and sidewalk along the property frontage. Additional gravel paving to be provided at the northwest corner to connect the property to the existing access drive and will be utilized for emergency vehicle access only.
In the proposed condition, onsite storm water runoff will be collected via curb inlets or grated inlets and flow through proposed storm drain pipes towards the proposed HMP Biofiltration basin (BMP). A majority of the site will ultimately drain to the northeast corner of the site and into BMP-1. BMP-1 will be designed with hydromodification flow control to discharge its treated flows and peak flows to a proposed storm drain outlet pipe which will discharge into an existing concrete ditch with a 3.83 cfs, as it does in the existing drainage condition (Node 165 on the Proposed Condition Drainage Exhibit). Refer to Appendix B for the 100-year storm event detention analysis.
The runon from the westerly properties will be captured in proposed brow ditches (Node 205 and Node 220 on the Proposed Condition Drainage Map) and bypassed via storm drain through the project site and ultimately outlet to the adjacent brow ditches (Node 230— 14.26 cfs and Node 225— 12.75 cfs).
Offsite drainage on Melrose Way will be collected via two tree wells. The tree wells are sized for the proposed widening and curb, gutter, & sidewalk and satisfy pollutant control treatment, hydromodification management, and volume retention requirements. For detailed calculations refer to the report titled "Priority Development Project Storm Water Quality Management Plan for 1205 Melrose Way, Vista, CA" dated March 2021, prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates.
The BMPs will provide hydromodification management flow control and storm water pollutant control to meet the requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region municipal storm water permit (Order No. R9-2013-0001, referred to as MS4 Permit). For detailed pollutant control and HMP calculations refer to the report titled "Priority Development Project Storm Water Quality Management Plan for 1205 Melrose Way, Vista, CA" dated March 2021, prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates. The BMPs will also provide mitigation for the 100-year storm event peak discharge. Refer to Section 3.3, 3.4 and Appendix B of this report for detailed detention calculations.
Area weighted runoff coefficients were calculated using the methodology described in section
3.2.1 of the San Diego County Hydrology Manual and Table 3-1 Runoff Coefficients for Urban Areas. Using the Rational Method Procedure outlined in the San Diego County Hydrology Manual, a peak flow rate was calculated for the post-development 100-year, 6-hour storm event. For the proposed condition, the peak flow rate for the 100-year, 6-hour storm was determined to 3.83 cfs. Refer to the proposed hydrologic calculations included in Section 3.2 and 3.4 of this report for detailed analysis.
J:\Active Jobs\3334 MELROSE WAY\CIVIL\REPORTS\HYDROLOGY\3334_HYDRO REPORT JANUARY 2022.doc
PLSA 3334
A self-mitigating slope located in the northeast corner of the site will drain toward an existing concrete ditch that flows north, as it does in the existing drainage condition.
Off-site drainage that flows on-site will be captured in proposed brow ditches, routed via storm drain piping through the site and have flows outlet to the two existing concrete ditches along the east sides of the property.
1.4 Conclusions
Based upon the analyses included in this report, the proposed HMP Biofiltration basin is sized to accommodate the increase in peak runoff in the proposed condition and is designed to meet the requirements of the MS4 Permit for both pollutant control and hydromodification management.
1.5 References
"San Diego County Hydrology Manual", revised June 2003, County of San Diego, Department of Public Works, Flood Control Section.
Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov .
J:\Active Jobs\3334 MELROSE WAY\CIVIL\REPORTS\HYDROLOGY\3334_HYDRO REPORT JANUARY 2022.doc
PLSA 3334
2.0 METHODOLOGY
Pursuant to the San Diego County Hydrology Manual dated June 2003, the Rational Method is recommended for analyzing the runoff response from drainage areas up to approximately 1 square mile in size. The proposed project and associated watershed basins are less than 1 square mile, therefore the Rational Method was used to analyze the project's hydrologic characteristics in the existing and proposed conditions.
2.1 Rational Method
The Rational Method (RM) formula estimates the peak rate of runoff based on the variables of area, runoff coefficient, and rainfall intensity. The rainfall intensity (1) is equal to:
= 7.44 x P6 x D-0.645
Where:
I = Intensity (in/hr)
P6 = 6-hour precipitation (in)
D = duration (min —use Tc)
Using the Time of Concentration (Tc) is the time required for a given element of water that originates at the most remote point of the basin being analyzed to reach the point at which the runoff from the basin is being analyzed, the RM equation determines the storm water runoff rate (Q) for a given basin in terms of flow (typically in cubic feet per second (cfs). The RM equation is as follows:
Q= CIA
Where:
Q= flow (cfs)
C = runoff coefficient, ratio of rainfall that produces storm water runoff(runoff vs. infiltration/evaporation/absorption/etc) I = average rainfall intensity for a duration equal to the Tc for the Area (in/hr)
A= drainage area contributing to the basin (ac)
The RM equation assumes that the storm event being analyzed delivers precipitation to the entire basin uniformly, and therefore the peak discharge rate will occur when a raindrop that falls at the most remote portion of the basin arrives at the point of analysis. The RM also assumes that the fraction of rainfall that becomes runoff or the runoff coefficient C is not affected by the storm intensity, I, or the precipitation zone number.
2.2 County of San Diego Criteria
The County of San Diego has developed its own tables, nomographs, and methodologies for analyzing storm water runoff for areas within the County. The County has also developed J:\Active Jobs\3334 MELROSE WAY\CIVIL\REPORTS\HYDROLOGY\3334_HYDRO REPORT JANUARY 2022.doc
PLSA 3334
precipitation isopluvial contour maps that show even lines of rainfall anticipated from a given storm event (i.e. 100-year, 6-hour storm). The 100-year 6-hour storm event rainfall isopluvial map is included in Appendix A.
One of the variables of the RM equation is the runoff coefficient C which is dependent only upon land use and soil type. The County of San Diego has developed a table of Runoff Coefficients for Urban Areas to be applied to basins located within the County of San Diego. The table categorizes the land use, the associated development density (dwelling units per acre) and the percentage of impervious area. Each of the categories listed has an associated runoff coefficient C for each soil type class.
The County has also illustrated in detail the methodology for determining the time of concentration, in particular the initial time of concentration. The County has adopted the Federal Aviation Agency's (FAA) overland time of flow equation. This equation essentially limits the flow path length for the initial time of concentration to lengths of 100 feet or less, and is dependent on land use and slope.
2.3 AES Rational Method Computer Model
The Rational Method computer program developed by Advanced Engineering Software (AES) satisfies the County of San Diego design criteria, therefore it is the computer model used for this study. The AES hydrologic model is capable of creating independent node-link models of each interior drainage basin and linking these sub-models together at confluence points to determine peak flow rates. The program utilizes base information input by the user to perform calculations for up to 15 hydrologic processes. The required base information includes drainage basin area, storm water facility locations and sizes, land uses, flow patterns, and topographic elevations. The hydrologic conditions were analyzed in accordance with the 2003 County of San Diego Hydrology Manual criteria as follows:
Design Storm 100-year, 6-hour
100-year, 6-hour Precipitation 3.1 inches
Rainfall Intensity Based on the 2003 County of San Diego Hydrology Manual criteria
Runoff Coefficient* Pervious D soil C = 0.35
Impervious D soil C = 0.90
Soil Type D
*Weighted runoff coefficients were calculated where appropriate. Refer to Appendix A.
J:\Active Jobs\3334 MELROSE WAY\CIVIL\REPORTS\HYDROLOGY\3334_HYDRO REPORT JANUARY 2022.doc
PLSA 3334
3.0 HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS
Table 1 below summarizes the hydrologic calculations provided in Sections 3.1, 3.2 and 3.4.
Table 1: Summary of 100-Year Peak Discharge Rates
Pre-Project Post-Project
Discharge Area Q100 Discharge Area Q100 (cfs) Node (ac) (cfs Node ac
North 160 0.5 1.04 175 0.05 0.10 (un-mitigated) Basin
South 110 2.0 3.49 165 2.5 3.83 (mitigated)
Basin
J:\Active Jobs\3334 MELROSE WAY\CIVIL\REPORTS\HYDROLOGY\3334_HYDRO REPORT JANUARY 2022.doc
PLSA 3334
3.1 Existing Condition Hydrologic Model Output (100-Year Event) JAACTIVE JOBS\3334 MELROSE WAY\CIVIL\REPORTS\HYDROLOGY\3334_HYDRO REPORT.doc PLSA 3334
****************************************************************************
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
2003,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-2016 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 23.0 Release Date: 07/01/2016 License ID 1452
Analysis prepared by:
PASCO LARET SUITER &ASSOCIATES
27127 Calle Arroyo, Suite 1904, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 ph 949.661.6695
plsaengineering.com
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY *************************** * 1205 MELROSE WAY
* 100-YR PRE-DEVELOPMENT
* *
************************************************************************** FILE NAME: 100PRE.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 13:21 08/31/2021
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 3.100
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 8.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL)TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE =0.90 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL"C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: USE MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURES FOR CONFLUENCE ANALYSIS *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING
WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- /OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR N0. (FT) (FT) SIDE/SIDE/WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) --- ----- --------- ----------------- ------ ----- ------ ----- ------- --- ----- --------- ----------------- ------ ----- ----------- ------- 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0313 0.167 0.0150 2 12.0 1.0 0.020/0.020/0.020 0.50 1.50 0.0313 0.125 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:
1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.50 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)
2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint= 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 105.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS«« COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW«« TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA(EXISTING ELEMENT)«« RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .3500
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 75.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 363.60
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 360.60
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 3.00
SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 7.365
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.362
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.27
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.12 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.27 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 155.00 TO NODE 160.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW«« TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA(EXISTING ELEMENT)«« RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .4900
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 75.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 372.30
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 369.20
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 3.10
SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 5.925
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 7.320
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.18
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.05 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.18 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 185.00 TO NODE 190.00 IS CODE = 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA«« (STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)«« RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««<
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .4500
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 75.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 376.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 375.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.00
SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 9.206
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.509
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.30
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.12 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.30 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 215.00 TO NODE 220.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW«« TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA(EXISTING ELEMENT)«« COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW«« TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA(EXISTING ELEMENT)««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 382.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 360.80 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 322.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0658 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 10.00 "Z" FACTOR= 20.000
MANNING'S FACTOR =0.013 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.544
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .4800
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 13.87 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.13 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.15 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.75 Tc(MIN.) = 12.41
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.03 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.25 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= 0.496
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 14.49 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.15 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.45
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 210.00 TO NODE 205.00= 974.00 FEET. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.4 TC(MIN.) = 12.41
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 14.49
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
3.2 Proposed Undetained Condition Hydrologic Model Output (100-Year Event) JAACTIVE JOBS\3334 MELROSE WAY\CIVIL\REPORTS\HYDROLOGY\3334_HYDRO REPORT.doc PLSA 3334
****************************************************************************
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
2003,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-2016 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 23.0 Release Date: 07/01/2016 License ID 1452
Analysis prepared by:
PASCO LARET SUITER &ASSOCIATES
535 NORTH HIGHWAY 101, STE A
SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075
858-259-8212
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * 1205 MELROSE WAY
* 100-YR POST-DEVELOPMENT
* *
************************************************************************** FILE NAME: 100POST.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 11:02 09/02/2021
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 3.100
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 6.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL)TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE =0.90 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL"C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: USE MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURES FOR CONFLUENCE ANALYSIS *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING
WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- /OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR N0. (FT) (FT) SIDE/SIDE/WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) --- ----- --------- ----------------- ------ ----- ------ ----- ------- --- ----- --------- ----------------- ------ ----- ----------- ------- 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0313 0.167 0.0150 2 12.0 1.0 0.020/0.020/0.020 0.50 1.50 0.0313 0.125 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:
1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.50 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)
2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint= 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 105.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS«« COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA«« (STREET TABLE SECTION # 2 USED)««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 367.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 360.50 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 537.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 12.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 1.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0150 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 2.97 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.27
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 7.40
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.23
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.61
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 4.02 Tc(MIN.) = 10.29 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.128
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .6300
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= 0.615
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.67 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.39 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.8 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 5.61 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) =0.32 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 9.92 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.54 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.83 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 110.00= 612.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 110.00 TO NODE 115.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA«« USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)«« DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE«« RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .6200
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 74.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 364.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 362.40
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.60
SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 5.748
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 7.465
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.42
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.09 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.42 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 125.00 TO NODE 130.00 IS CODE = 62 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA«« (STREET TABLE SECTION # 2 USED)««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 362.40 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 361.30 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 192.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 12.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 1.00 INSIDE STREET CROSS FALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSS FALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0150 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.89 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.22
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 4.88
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.26
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.28
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.55 Tc(MIN.) = 8.30 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.892
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .8100
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= 0.751
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.20 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.95 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.3 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.28 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) =0.25 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 5.99 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.35 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.33 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 120.00 TO NODE 130.00= 266.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 130.00 TO NODE 115.00 IS CODE = 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
»»>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA«« USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)«« DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE«« AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.33
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.88
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.29
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE= 1.28
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 5.61 10.31 5.121 1.78
2 1.28 8.33 5.876 0.29
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 5.81 8.33 5.876
2 6.73 10.31 5.121
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.73 Tc(MIN.) = 10.31
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.1
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 115.00= 624.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 115.00 TO NODE 160.00 IS CODE = 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
»»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE«« RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS«« COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA«« (STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 362.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 362.10 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 77.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 12.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 1.00 INSIDE STREET CROSS FALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSS FALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.95 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.23
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 5.17
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.23
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.28
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.05 Tc(MIN.) = 6.44 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.936
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .7500
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= 0.697
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.16 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.83 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.3 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.31 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) =0.25 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 6.21 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.29 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.32 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 140.00 TO NODE 150.00= 152.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 150.00 TO NODE 155.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA«« USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)«« DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE«« AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 3 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.58
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 6.24
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.27
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE= 1.31
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 6.73 10.31 5.121 2.07
3 1.31 7.58 6.245 0.27
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 3 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 6.25 7.58 6.245
2 7.80 10.31 5.121
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 7.80 Tc(MIN.) = 10.31
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.7
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 160.00= 624.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 160.00 TO NODE 160.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW«« COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA«« USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 352.90 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 352.80 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 7.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 10.6 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.19
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 7.80
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.02 Tc(MIN.) = 10.33
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 165.00= 631.00 FEET. ****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 170.00 TO NODE 175.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS«« RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS«« COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA«« (STREET TABLE SECTION # 2 USED)««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 369.10 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 364.90 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 124.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 12.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 1.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0150 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.62 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.16
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 1.50
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.47
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.54
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.60 Tc(MIN.) = 3.48 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 8.168
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .8900
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= 0.855
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.08 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.58 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.1 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.91 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) =0.16 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 1.50 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.47 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.54 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 180.00 TO NODE 190.00= 199.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 210.00 TO NODE 215.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS«« COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW«« TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA(EXISTING ELEMENT)««<
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 375.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 361.20 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 577.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0239 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 10.00 "Z" FACTOR= 20.000
MANNING'S FACTOR =0.013 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.731
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .5000
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 6.58 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.92 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.13 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.45 Tc(MIN.) = 11.66
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 5.28 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 12.49 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= 0.499
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 12.75 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.19 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.93
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 210.00 TO NODE 220.00= 652.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 220.00 TO NODE 225.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA«« USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)«« COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW«« TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA(EXISTING ELEMENT)««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 382.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 362.60 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 322.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0602 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 10.00 "Z" FACTOR= 20.000
MANNING'S FACTOR =0.013 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.473
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .4800
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 13.85 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.12 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.15 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.75 Tc(MIN.) = 12.72
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.03 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.21 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= 0.496
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 14.26 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.16 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.00
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 210.00 TO NODE 205.00= 1192.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 205.00 TO NODE 230.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA«« USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 359.10 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 354.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 166.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 12.9 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 10.56
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES= 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 14.26
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.26 Tc(MIN.) = 12.98
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 210.00 TO NODE 230.00= 1358.00 FEET. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.4 TC(MIN.) = 12.98
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 14.26
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
3.3 Detention Analysis (100-Year Event)
The HMP Biofiltration basin (BMP) provides pollutant control, hydromodification management flow control and mitigation of the 100-year storm event peak flow rate. The 100-year storm event detention analysis was performed using HydroCAD Stormwater Modeling software. The inflow runoff hydrographs to the BMPs were modeled using RatHydro which is a Rational Method Design Storm Hydrograph software that creates a hydrograph using the results of the Rational Method calculations. HydroCAD has the ability to route the 100-year 6-hour storm event inflow hydrograph through the BMP considering dynamic tailwater effects. Based on the BMP cross sectional geometry, stage storage and outlet structure data, HydroCAD calculates the detained peak flow rate and detained time to peak.
The BMP consists of a basin with 18 inches of engineered soil and Permavoid drainage system with a heigh of 38.4 inches. Runoff will be biofiltered through the engineered soil and Permavoid layers, collected within the Permavoid layer and directed to a catch basin located in the BMP where runoff will be mitigated via a small HMP orifice to comply with HMP requirements. In larger storm events, runoff not filtered through the engineered soil and Permavoid layers will be conveyed via an overflow outlet structure. Runoff conveyed via the outlet structure will bypass the small HMP orifice and be conveyed directly to the proposed storm drain discharge pipe. Refer to Appendix B for cross-sections of each BMP.
BMP-1 will discharge via proposed storm drain to the existing concrete brow ditch at the northeast corner of the project site.
For the proposed detained hydrologic analysis, the effects of the detention provided by BMP-1, was incorporated into the AES analysis. This was done by inserting the results from the HydroCAD analysis, detained peak flow rate and detained time to peak, into the proposed undetained condition AES model to create the proposed detained condition model. Refer to Section 3.4 for the detained AES output.
Based on the results of the HydroCAD analysis, mitigation for the 100-year storm event peak flow rate is provided, detaining the peak flow rate in the proposed condition to 3.83 cfs. With the north, un-mitigated basin area producing a peak flow rate of 0.10 cfs in the proposed condition, the combined peak flow rate of 3.9312 cfs is below the site's combined existing condition QQioo flow rate of 4.53 cfs (1.04 cfs for North Basin and 3.49 cfs for South Basin). Refer to Appendix B for the HydroCAD detention detailed output.
J:\Active Jobs\3334 MELROSE WAY\CIVIL\REPORTS\HYDROLOGY\3334_HYDRO REPORT JANUARY 2022.doc
PLSA 3334
3.4 Proposed Detained Condition Hydrologic Model Output (100-Year Event) J:\Active Jobs\3334 MELROSE WAY\CIVIL\REPORTS\HYDROLOGY\3334_HYDRO REPORT JANUARY 2022.doc
PLSA 3334
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROGRAPH PROGRAM
COPYRIGHT 1992,2001 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY
RUN DATE 9/1/2021
HYDROGRAPH FILE NAME Text1
TIME OF CONCENTRATION 10 MIN.
6 HOUR RAINFALL 3.1 INCHES
BASIN AREA 2.5 ACRES
RUNOFF COEFFICIENT 0.6246
PEAK DISCHARGE 7.98 CFS
TIME(MIN)= 0 DISCHARGE(CFS)= 0
TIME(MIN)= 10 DISCHARGE(CFS)= 0.3
TIME(MIN)= 20 DISCHARGE(CFS)= 0.3
TIME(MIN)= 30 DISCHARGE(CFS)= 0.3
TIME(MIN)= 40 DISCHARGE(CFS)= 0.3
TIME(MIN)= 50 DISCHARGE(CFS)= 0.3
TIME(MIN)= 60 DISCHARGE(CFS)= 0.3
TIME(MIN)= 70 DISCHARGE(CFS)= 0.3
TIME(MIN)= 80 DISCHARGE(CFS)= 0.4
TIME(MIN)= 90 DISCHARGE(CFS)= 0.4
TIME(MIN)= 100 DISCHARGE(CFS)= 0.4
TIME(MIN)= 110 DISCHARGE(CFS)= 0.4
TIME(MIN)= 120 DISCHARGE(CFS)= 0.4
TIME(MIN)= 130 DISCHARGE(CFS)= 0.5
TIME(MIN)= 140 DISCHARGE(CFS)= 0.5
TIME(MIN)= 150 DISCHARGE(CFS)= 0.5
TIME(MIN)= 160 DISCHARGE(CFS)= 0.5
TIME(MIN)= 170 DISCHARGE(CFS)= 0.6
TIME(MIN)= 180 DISCHARGE(CFS)= 0.6
TIME(MIN)= 190 DISCHARGE(CFS)= 0.7
TIME(MIN)= 200 DISCHARGE(CFS)= 0.8
TIME(MIN)= 210 DISCHARGE(CFS)= 1
TIME(MIN)= 220 DISCHARGE(CFS)= 1.1
TIME(MIN)= 230 DISCHARGE(CFS)= 1.6
TIME(MIN)= 240 DISCHARGE(CFS)= 2.5
TIME(MIN)= 250 DISCHARGE(CFS)= 7.98
TIME(MIN)= 260 DISCHARGE(CFS)= 1.3
TIME(MIN)= 270 DISCHARGE(CFS)= 0.9
TIME(MIN)= 280 DISCHARGE(CFS)= 0.7
TIME(MIN)= 290 DISCHARGE(CFS)= 0.6
TIME(MIN)= 300 DISCHARGE(CFS)= 0.5
TIME(MIN)= 310 DISCHARGE(CFS)= 0.4
TIME(MIN)= 320 DISCHARGE(CFS)= 0.4
TIME(MIN)= 330 DISCHARGE(CFS)= 0.4
TIME(MIN)= 340 DISCHARGE(CFS)= 0.3
TIME(MIN)= 350 DISCHARGE(CFS)= 0.3
TIME(MIN)= 360 DISCHARGE(CFS)= 0.3
TIME(MIN)= 370 DISCHARGE(CFS)= 0
3.5 Hydromodification Management
To satisfy the requirements of the MS4 Permit, a hydromodification management strategy has been developed for the project based on the Final Hydromodification Management Plan dated March 2011, (Final HMP). A continuous simulation model, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) version 5.1, was selected to size mitigation measures. The SWMM model is capable of modeling hydromodification management facilities to mitigate the effects of increased runoff from the post-development conditions and use changes that may cause negative impacts (i.e. erosion) to downstream channels. For HMP calculations refer to the report titled "Priority Development Project Storm Water Quality Management Plan for 1205 Melrose Way" dated March 2021, prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates.
3.6 Storm Water Pollutant Control
To meet the requirements of the MS4 Permit, the HMP Biofiltration facility is designed to treat onsite storm water pollutants contained in the volume of runoff from a 24-hour, 851" percentile storm event by slowly infiltrating runoff through an engineered soil layer and Permavoid layer.
For detailed pollutant control calculations refer to the report titled "Priority Development Project Storm Water Quality Management Plan for 1205 Melrose Way" dated March 2021, prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter&Associates.
4.0 HYDRAULIC METHODOLOGY
4.1 Normal Depth Calculation
A normal depth calculation was conducted for the existing brow ditch at POC-1 to determine if the adjacent existing brow ditch can handle the increase of peak flow in the proposed design condition.The depth in the brow ditch is 0.4 ft for the Post-Project Q100 at 3.83 cfs (mitigated).
The existing depth of the brow ditch is 0.7 ft and therefore can handle the increase of peak flow. Refer to Appendix D for Brow Ditch Calculations.
J:\Active Jobs\3334 MELROSE WAY\CIVIL\REPORTS\HYDROLOGY\3334_HYDRO REPORT JANUARY 2022.doc
PLSA 3334
APPENDIX A
Hydrology Support Material
JAACTIVE JOBS\3334 MELROSE WAY\CIVIL\REPORTS\HYDROLOGY\3334_HYDRO REPORT.doc PLSA 3334
1205 Melrose Way (3334)
8/31/2021
Pre-Project Drainage
Soil D Soil D
Total Impervious Pervious Weighted
Area Area Area % % Runoff Coef
Basin ID (ac) (sq-ft) (sq-ft) Impervious Pervious C:
1.0 0.11 551 4147 11% 87% 0.41
1.1 1.92 4786 78,885 6% 94% 0.38
2.0 0.12 0 5214 0% 100% 0.35
2.1 0.42 0 18,341 0% 100% 0.35
4.0 0.05 604 1,527 28% 70% 0.49
4.1 0.08 1786 1791 51% 51% 0.64
5.0 0.12 819 4615 16% 88% 0.45
5.1 5.28 56939 173022 25% 75% 0.49
6.0 1.03 10829 34173 24% 1 76% 1 0.48 Total 9.13 1.75 7.39
Runoff Coefficient Table
Soil Type D
Impervious 0.9
Pervious (LS) 0.35
J:\Active Jobs\3334 MELROSE WAY\CIVIL\REPORTS\HYDROLOGY\Appendix A- Hydrology Support\3334_drn_calcs.xlsx
1205 Melrose Way (3334)
8/31/2021
Post-Project Drainage
Soil D Soil D
Total Impervious Pervious Weighted
Area Area Area % % Runoff Coef
Basin ID (ac) (sq-ft) (sq-ft) Impervious Pervious C:
1.0 0.11 151 4838 3% 101% 0.38
1.1 1.67 37312 35442 51% 49% 0.63
1.2 0.16 0 7119 0% 102% 0.36
2.0 0.09 1805 2274 46% 58% 0.62
2.1 0.20 7259 1591 83% 18% 0.81
3.0 0.11 2306 2552 48% 53% 0.62
3.1 0.16 5271 1436 76% 21% 0.75
3.2 0.05 0 1717 0% 79% 0.28
4.0 0.05 1820 312 84% 14% 0.80
4.1 0.08 3350 227 96% 7% 0.89
5.0 0.12 819 4615 16% 88% 0.45
5.1 5.28 56939 173022 25% 75% 0.49
6.0 1.03 10829 34173 24% 76% 0.48
Total 9.11 2.94 6.18
J:\Active Jobs\3334 MELROSE WAY\CIVIL\REPORTS\HYDROLOGY\Appendix A- Hydrology Support\3334_drn_calcs.xlsx
77-1
County of San Diego
Hydrology Manual
+r— #---- --
un
C
• Rainfall Isopluvials
,
100 Year Rainfall Event-6 Hours
-
• Is p a (inches)
D
LSBAD ',
N I ITS �
e
O AB A
E
Ll
- v -
,
•'' - - - DPW
;-GIS SMGIS
° en`a ucr�Hexs We Havi�San Diego C;rncicd!
a
N r THIS MAP IS PROVIDED WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY II EITHER EXPRESS '- - OR IMPLIED INCLUDING IBUT NOT LIMITED TO THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. hl SenGIS.All Ri his Reserved.
G pyng g
This pmducts may contain inlonnation from the SANDAG Regional �' Information System which cannot Im reproduced without the wrdien permission of SANDAG.
Thie product may contain information which has been reproduced with permission greeted by Thomas Brothers Maps.
_ _ S
3 0 3 Miles
Hydrologic Soil Group—San Diego County Area,California 3 (1205 Melrose Way)
475940 47-IOM 476000 476030 476060 476090 476120 33'11'11"N I 33°11'11"N
Bs
raft
� s �
a
it ot'be�vali��l t i
IS
33°11'3"N � i. 5 330 11'3"N
475940 475970 476000 476030 47M 476090 476120 3 3
Map Scale:1:1,220 if printed on A portrait(8.5"x 11")sheet Meters N
0 15 30 60 9D
Feet
0 50 100 200 300
Map projection:Web Mentor Comer coordinates:WG584 Edge tics:UTM Zone 11N WGS84 U}DA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 12/28/2020 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 4
Hydrologic Soil Group—San Diego County Area,California
(1205 Melrose Way)
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest(AOI) p C The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at Area of Interest(AOI) 0 C/D 1:24,000.
Soils D Warning:Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Soil Rating Polygons �
A p Not rated or not available Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil 0 A/D Water Features line placement.The maps do not show the small areas of Streams and Canals contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed 0 B scale.
Transportation
0 B/D
Rails Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map 0 C measurements.
'.,,r Interstate Highways
0 C/D US Routes Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL:
0 D Major Roads Coordinate System: Web Mercator(EPSG:3857) Not rated or not available Local Roads
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator Soil Rating Lines Background projection,which preserves direction and shape but distorts q distance and area.A projection that preserves area,such as the ® Aerial Photography Albers equal-area conic projection,should be used if more • A/D accurate calculations of distance or area are required. +'* B This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as B/D of the version date(s)listed below.
x C Soil Survey Area: San Diego County Area,California Survey Area Data: Version 15, May 27,2020
P1 0 C/D
Soil map units are labeled(as space allows)for map scales * r D 1:50,000 or larger.
r Not rated or not available Date(s)aerial images were photographed: Jan 24,2020—Feb Soil Rating Points 12,2020
p A The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background p A/D imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor B shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
B/D
UU� Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 12/28/2020 � Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 4
Hydrologic Soil Group—San Diego County Area,California 1205 Melrose Way Hydrologic Soil Group
Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI BsD Bosanko clay,9 to 15 D 0.2 6.9% percent slopes
PeC2 Placentia sandy loam,5 D 2.5 93.1% to 9 percent slopes,
eroded
Totals for Area of Interest 2.6 100.0%
Description
Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms.
The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D)and three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows:
Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential)when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission.
Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture.
These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission.
Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission.
Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential)when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.
If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes. usDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 12/28/2020 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 4
Hydrologic Soil Group—San Diego County Area,California 1205 Melrose Way Rating Options
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff.-None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Higher
usDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 12/28/2020 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 4
APPENDIX B
Detention Support Material
JAACTIVE JOBS\3334 MELROSE WAY\CIVIL\REPORTS\HYDROLOGY\3334_HYDRO REPORT.doc PLSA 3334
23L 26P
BMP-1 Inflow BMP-1 100-YR Alt 4
Hydrograph
Subcat Reach Pon Link Routing Diagram for 3334 Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter&Associates, Printed 9/1/2021 HydroCAD®10.10-6a s/n 10097 ©2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
3334
Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates Printed 9/1/2021 HydroCAD® 10.10-6a s/n 10097 ©2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 14 Summary for Link 23L: BMP-1 Inflow Hydrograph
Inflow = 7.97 cfs @ 4.17 hrs, Volume= 0.401 of Primary = 7.97 cfs @ 4.17 hrs, Volume= 0.401 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routed to Pond 26P : BMP-1 100-YR Alt 4
Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.001 hrs DISCHARGE Imported from RatHydro.csv
Link 23L: BMP-1 Inflow Hydrograph
Hydrograph
l i i i i l l l i l l i i i i l i i i i t ■Inflow
7.97 ots ........——�—-- —�--I — — a———�—— — — ——� — --i— ■Primary
7.97 cs
$ —=ii
-HA
7 ---------------- I u; ,e;
6 Cj
CfiO . S
w 5
w i t
O 4 i i t I I I i i i i i t i i I I i i i i i i i i
3 i
2 1
I I I I i i
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 Time (hours)
3334
Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates Printed 9/1/2021 HydroCADO 10.10-6a s/n 10097 ©2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 15 Summary for Pond 26P: BMP-1 100-YR Alt 4
Inflow = 7.97 cfs @ 4.17 hrs, Volume= 0.401 of Outflow = 3.83 cfs @ 4.27 hrs, Volume= 0.400 af, Atten= 52%, Lag= 6.2 min Primary = 3.83 cfs @ 4.27 hrs, Volume= 0.400 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.001 hrs Peak Elev= 101.65' @ 4.27 hrs Surf.Area= 2,993 sf Storage= 12,030 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 674.7 min calculated for 0.400 of (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 674.5 min ( 890.9 - 216.4 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 95.30' 14,748 cf Biofiltration Basin (Conic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Voids Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (sq-ft) (%) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) (sq-ft)
95.30 2,300 0.0 0 0 2,300
98.50 2,300 95.0 6,992 6,992 2,844
100.00 2,300 20.0 690 7,682 3,099
101.00 2,713 100.0 2,504 10,186 3,548
101.50 2,929 100.0 1,410 11,596 3,784
102.00 3,151 100.0 1,520 13,115 4,027
102.50 3,380 100.0 1,632 14,748 4,277
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 95.30' 12.00" Round Outlet
L= 10.0' RCP, groove end projecting, Ke= 0.200
Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 95.30'/95.20' S= 0.0100 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 0.79 sf
#2 Device 1 95.30' 1.45"Vert. Orifice C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Device 1 101.00' 6.00"W x 6.00" H Vert. Orifice X 2.00 C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads
#4 Device 1 101.50' 36.00"x 36.00" Horiz. Grate C= 0.600 in 36.00" x 36.00" Grate (100% open area)
Limited to weir flow at low heads
#5 Device 2 95.30' 5.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area below 100.00' Primary OutFlow Max=3.83 cfs @ 4.27 hrs HW=101.65' (Free Discharge) L1=Outlet (Passes 3.83 cfs of 11.43 cfs potential flow) 2=Orifice (Orifice Controls 0.14 cfs @ 12.07 fps)
L5=Exfiltration (Passes 0.14 cfs of 0.27 cfs potential flow) 3=Orifice (Orifice Controls 1.49 cfs @ 2.98 fps)
4=Grate (Weir Controls 2.20 cfs @ 1.25 fps)
3334
Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates Printed 9/1/2021 HydroCAD® 10.10-6a s/n 10097 ©2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 16 Pond 26P: BMP-1 100-YR Alt 4
Hydrograph
I i
? i i i i i 1 Inflow
t
--—-- —�--i - -I---�—- -4---_i , +---a —�-—...... ❑Primary
7.97 cfs 1 ' i 1 i — 1 1 i ---i -1 I—i i 1 i-- I I I i I i I i I I i I i i I '
7 1 i i i i i
i
I I i
6 ---t—a---1-—i --i -—1-------t—---4—---a—-i-- - i
i i i i i i i i
w 5 --(--+----+---- -- -- +-- ---j—-j ----a -- — +---+--- — --+ - i i 0 4 3.83 cfs
LL ........_»....F.....»....{............}..........}...........4----------f---------4----------A---------.IF-..».....4----------{......»...a-.....»....{.........»i.........»-11-..........i............14---------{.
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I i i i I I I i i i
I i I i i I I i i i I 1 i
1 f-----T-----i i i 1 i i 1 i
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 Time (hours)
APPENDIX C
Existing and Proposed Condition Drainage Exhibits
JAACTIVE JOBS\3334 MELROSE WAY\CIVIL\REPORTS\HYDROLOGY\3334_HYDRO REPORT.doc PLSA 3334
{DENSE
s5B2- ITRRESI 347
BRUSH I I 1
37Q6 / , , / / 1 I CONC 1 I I: �' ICI I / T CONC I 347.4 I II I/ / '•.I I / I I I I I I: c� I yjt;` Illl�l I -�\ 1_� I % II I•._ I / 35B/ m
DENT EBRUJH \ ; \ I { I J
J7151 r -ter
GONG .i
- / 37Q5 / x :I I db, 1 1111 DENSE----s . c\ C ..i_ r Po - I , NODE 160 ill mEES--- --�h�- -+--- - 1 ----- - ------
3656 I DENSE - .• -
i 90 ) I I BRUSH I ELEV(35 _•y4.4) �5;
'' ,-•�• ,-,�. --1�.._'-.. n '" I I { I. DECK ' :I$ I LPLOC�':_:EXISTING ACCESS DRIVE -�----------------------- I
.. I....••'''�\ \\\ �6:5 `\ j ill I' I 1=
III I I I 1II I I II { NODE 200 ////// 6.0 j I1 \'II\II•,11'370.5 //3/!/6 9/4 1 )II1 I I I II_T6f.71365.E 36Q 6ELEV(382.0) II1jIII`I
I
1DENSE366.5 6 3575 TREES
377E ._•:.IIII;.;;'
DCEOCNKC • , -�i _ ;IjIr' III/ -�# -u /-J--l------_-----# 1
�� E 3595 CONC 1
a
�1s9d
J�L4bMk!
6L 3-47.-4
L 3479
365.6 05 4sB'NODE o ELEV(360.8 L I -_
364E 36f.B -
366.5 J59.5 . i ECK 48------------ I_e 34B4 LPH C(7T7V_p-I DENSE , i 3485 34B:4 (T7x6 \\ @RUSH ASPH - -IIrtI I
/
`. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
L - _ _ _ /II 1I 1 / I-� - _ ����� ,•••'•;/,I/ / �//,// '//�1�„,,./././/....,,, r,I1//` •`•' m11'11 1 1 . I\\1 1 1I \ \\\\ \ NODE 15x\5 -- '-------liII• 1 p ELEV(360.6) J51.8
-^
-C-_--�- ----\-\-4 ...........
516
ENSE DENSE
BRU l --- ---------
-
335 EES -
--- '-------------
�NC D�A _
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Z=MdgJ_U I _ -_ _ - - // 'IIII III I I/// / /�I///'fV//nn/////////•�'I•!//����///�//i-//5C//G./)0�/_/.�1/1 4/'//`/�\/-�///i_//-/ \�/--I\-\-E�L E\V(3750)\ II I_III III I-\IIIJ I-I I\II I I-I\III I_I�II I 1I I " �736-�_\`I--% 5\�x��\L�I1 1�\\\/37 5`�\��_\3 6\\\9/_`I5\11\i1/�II rt\I\Ii\\�I\\I �III\%I'/5I i�/I\Io\1+,I-�1 I/I\1/I'I,I IIIiIII J�`xI I-_\\/II_g__/III.I./I-II.I'I�_\(/I1\1(\�•,'i./�j3\/7\\(\\y-`\1(1!\-I-\X. .\\-),-\\'\\�'\-\'\\\\•\\g\•\H\\\\\\\\\I i\i 1 \1\/`\\\\\-\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\I\\\•/`'-\\•f•\\I3\'\�6\�6 1 IIE JI\,\I\ 10 63_5 6`5•_5•3;0-E•'\-•3,•-6`_3•-•E_-\\,_\---"�-_�--\�\/`\1\\:\\//\\cR\\\\qI l,�c`\\`\/�I�\I\j]\=\I/\1�\/r\\3III I�7`"0`I.`3-\3/6\T\I/\%\6:\.••\\\x/\\-\\\-\7\�\.I-`\\\/\'\// (II \\\3_\65\-\5---\3-/6I-�-6/�5/_\\s\5 \-\�Y\\\\\\1.V II S�__\\3\\`\'I 36I_I9\6v\/�B^`-\\`\--$\\3\-,6�\1\���'1-E_\,,\\•',\`�,-/\"_�/1_�`'\\``\3 s 5'\�\ s\/\=`1\.I'\•\/
1\E\
\\/•�\1--.;-r
/\\-'•-\./1 I7
I I
`/IIIIh-\III
�
\o\
1x3--i
\5 II\\o
\\I{
I B
--,
--
-
_
;
-.
-II I_
•
\-4
l-
,-
I
•(-
I'II
II - - - - ---_ - ----- - -- ---_.-T 3614 .� ODE110
-T595 ELEV(352.6) DENSE ...........
%� 0. TREES
36,.7
ELEV(363.6) \
35�9-
360E �5 SH\ \NODE 220 BRUSH ELEV(361.2) 1 1 I
T845 35F5
...........
.... y DENSE
BRUSH 5
BRUSH
3607 360.2 5
DENSE M 4
TREES
36%5 36Q6
335 DENSE366.5 360.BRUSH E TREES 3sx5 3sz7
x7 361E 3B5 6
DENSE 359.3
36B7 1..
363 \\ . \\\ I
369.3 367E TREES 360.55.1 ROCKS 3623 30E ASP
ROCKS
3664 - - - - -
36F6 J.90 3.BRUSH
364.4
BRUSH 4
36%6
J676 66_ I
37o 3655 364.6 z
36s.4 r
377..4 370.4 3647
368.7 --__------ _-----
3s4B377E \ I/ - -'I 3 366.5 0) w 3675 6.
LU
? -IJ77.4 J718 ................ ., '
37Q6 i0Q -_-�___-- '_--- - 3715 365
0 � 3723 373NODE 215 / CONC/ 3726 Q i 3705
0.12 I Mco367.4U 172. NODE 105 171.5
O 373 6 ELEV(368.4) 965.3 TI 0 40
4)
80 120`a \ ;NODE210 SCALE: 1" = 0' 36'9ELEV 376 � 36%8 CDaELSF
7REESf MAJOR BASIN BOUNDARY .8
36B610DENSE
375..6 ...... 0.1 3652 (0 • MINOR BASIN BOUNDARY F- • 362 .7 374.
0 . ASPH 3767 XE w FLOW PATH35 9 3767 376.4 EL6. 5O 3765 • / 375.7 ROSE �YDE 100
376.8 ' NODE 1603765SIGN MELROSEMELRO ^Y - - - - - - - - W I 363.E
HYDROLOGIC NODE
37� 374.4 ELEV(371.8) CONC - - - - - - - - - 37 365 ____--- -
3QzwJNNO1
- I � \ \\
ELEVATION AT NODE ELEV.0
354 4
.
��T� ROCK
1I 373.5 4.7ROCK 2.
5. HYDROLOGIC SUB-BASIN N' 10 J74. UMBER LU
37z5 s NODE 180 364 _V4.2 HYDROLOGIC AREA(ACRES) 0377. DNOE 185IE(372.3) 37L7M IE (364.9) 46 ' IMPERVIOUS AREA 0.17 AC (7,727 SF) NODE 190L
IE 36xB
321 COCc ------ -
\ -- 363.EW �' � 36\ PERVIOUS AREA 2.51 AC(109,061 SF)a7. CG-C �
4.3 TREES'_'. Z ADJACENT LOTS EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA wU_ EXISTING CONDITION DRAINAGE EXHIBIT PASCO LARET SUITERw0 1205 MELROSE WAY o ASSIGUATES a VISTA, CA t SCALE: 1'=40' San Diego I Solana Beach I Orange County w DATE:AUGUST 2021 Phone 858.259.82121 www.pisaengineering.com w SHEET 1 OF 1
oSE
�.770.6 / /� / / I ----�--_- I"••_ I : ITR�ES I `\ I I 377.5 I I I I I 3582 I I : I 1 I I e/ 347 ---- -
BRUSH
3579 I I { I / --- - - - - - - - - - J 37Q.8 / : / I I CONC I I C IQI I -,/ T CONC I 347.4 I I, / :
/ `'�., � � � i i 356 / i �' �i I I: Idol I /\ I• � --I ---- ---- I-
- m I R I I:
DEN§E
___ __ : I ___-J 1 BRUSH I I, NODE 170 I I
� x ----��-r- / ... / /'•. / / � /' ,' / •\ uj iI I I IE 364.5 I 365.7 `` •` / / ./ / ,(D 1 .+''' , / , \ I I CONC / / it i // I �� / 1 4Oli -_ NODE 230 = / 3705 I^ x ,I - ------ IE 354.5 �_EoNC _-
FLADENSE
III I -TREES •' �'o-- i1_
---
__ I L=75 / I 3.2 �------ - ---- 9 / Y 366.6 3656 NODE 145 B U3H m 1\ i. / m III
/ I ELEV 362.5; / i I I I 3"� .0 III _DECK- - i= __-Epn- -----------------------
EXISTING ACCESS DRIVE
------------------------ 7-�
/ . =;_ i LU
I
NODE 200 I I I oo. 6 .626I36,� ^ I \ NELEV(382.0) \ I / I I - I ELEV364.5 II III \ 366.5 /l 3636 I I I I I \ I III DENSE35x5 -i7" I I III TREESCONC-� --•. -� -� LII , I \I INODE 175 � 34F4 / I I I I' � III 1 IE 357.8 I F - L1365.6 NODE 205 I I \ I� I 348,.ro 346 / I ELEV 362.E • - - x -- - I I I ------ - � a I � ,: / � / / II I i;III I�•r....: � I I I II __--z�_----------------- ``""` l / / 3646 IE 359.1 I 1 DECK __- --_ _ ---- -- / I 1p / /366.5 / - - __ --1 �� 1 I DENSE CONC ' 3484
6.0 I / / / I I I 11 \ .,,,, LPH I m / / 1 1 I NODE 120 - I� •. --z 11-" I 3485 34B4 I - I I7x.6 i I l l i 1 i ELEV 364.0 \\ I Illu \\ BRUSH i I`: _ i ASPH I I 1.03 i/ �/ M55 NODE 150 I y\ II \\y \\\I\ ... -- / / �i•,.. ,, m ELEV 362.1 1 ' �.\_��\`�:N'� I - - ------------- -- --�oN�__-- `"``'/ / "9 / /'',•, 1 I� 2.0 ha..\i\�\\\\\ 62 N --_ 3497 r-------------- I i l l l 1 :5 IE 360.1 I 36Q6 I II+•,\ \\\\`, \`\ 3 ODE 155 DEN I 0.09 ��\\\\\ ELEV 357.6' NODE 225
36.6 / 1 3624 BRU I -\\ 4 �___-_--_-_- \-- ------- _ �IE 352.8 1 x'S - D�AIP
/� ,,....,, „ •",,.., 111 1 \\\ ��� \` - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ NODE 125 / .16 \\ \\ 1 \ NODE 160 �' ••. ELEV 362.495 352.9 DENSE NODE 165 `'"" TREES IE 352.8 \\\
L=192 NODE1A
\ 2. I / NODE 130 _ ----
ELEV 361.3 \ 358.4
DENSE \\ \ - \ ELEV 357.6
/ / \ BRUSH ,,.t ......... \ 0.20 \ \ IE 359.3 96 \
t° 1 I \ 1 ( 36Q6 \\ \ \ \ 5 \\ ASPH m ` I \ NODE 220 I 1 \ 1 \ I � BRUSH \ �\ - \ ELEV(361.2) \\ I NODE 110 \I II \\\ \\ \ 1 \
364, 1 IE 362.5 I........
'` \ - - 360.3 ELEV 360.5 I I - / 1 I \ - I I \\ 3sx5 \ \ r 1\ \ IE 358.0 1 I\ 35x5 \ I
/ // /' / .........).t,. l DENSE I BRUSH I I I \ \ 1 • .. �. \\ BRUSH \\ 3555 II•, I \\•` 3653 / //' DENSE \\ 36Q.4 \\ \ \\\ J55.5 _ r \ I J \ I TREES -\- - I \ ' \ \\ 36%5 / I \\ \ \ -3s0.6 `� - ,� \ \ 368 4 367.2 3635 -
/ 366.5 \ I / \ I BRUSH /' c 36Q.6 z TREES ` J5 5 35X 3
36Z7 \ I 365.6 I 11 I ,' 36x.4 \ \ .�x7 \\ \\ I \ \\
I 1 \ \\ 1 \ 361.6 \ I 364.5 3585 -
I \ \\ \ I \iJ \ - \\ 3586 - I \\\ j
I ,ter" \\ \\
I \\ \ T� \ i6ss -359---- 1 \ I �\ I I = I L& 3687 \\ \\ Il / 36%3 I DENSE \ 36%.B I I 359.3 ... 1 369.3 \ 36%6 1 I / I TREES \\ Lr \I .4 \ 1 I .....,. / \�� N I 1 1 5.1 ---- -- \
J . 1 KU-
ASPH 360.6
3sx4 I \ 1
1.67 f -, ------- -
1 \ \ \ ROCKS \ 36 5 " I I 3695 \ \ \ 9-- 36x4 I � O /\\ 3636 J � - -\ -- 36X6 \ 3664 \ _ -� -- BRUSH i x \ / J IT 1 \
!�-` 1369.3I I \ \\\ \\ I 3644 ----- IT � ..4 I / II Me.5 \I \\\ 36x4 f �.� I BRUSH I I I-
I L - - 36 I I \ \ \ \ I \
II /
I 370.E3655 3655 I I 364.6 \\ IJ
\\ s
\\ 1 i �...., I M9.4
.............
' ----- -- 365.7 5..7 I I - I J64..6 •365.6 I I L---f-- -T---I I
1 371.4 \ 1 370.4 `-�\ \ z L Mt.7 \ I \\ \.
II I 1 x� \ 368.7 \ \• 386.5 \ `----- \ ------o© --___ a 36� - W \�- \� I \36+7.5 --- � 36s.4 I I\ 3648 I II II - 366.5 I I
/// -- --\\ I I L--- �� I LJ_ \ ... .......... --- I I 36p5 I I W I - / 1371.41 377.E \ ,.... \ c� -_- ^� \ �\ 37Q6 \� \\ -3g7"'- L ICI I / 1 z \c12 1 0 1 --` \\.I... 30. z - \� 3s75 36X9
5.0 NODE 215 I \ 1�,}� 3xi -----r fir' - - / 3726 CONC
W I /Q� � ELEV(375.0) I \\ \� •' \ \ II 3705 370.3 �� I � \ M V 0.12 ' I // - / I----�-1- I -� \L 3651 - I --I U � \ 1 G• - .'- \ 'j � `\ ��-- j \\ \�� x I III I m I7251 \ \\ \ , I I I 367 1 `-• I i II ,
C I 1 37x 5
1 \ ` -
CU
3683 ixi - I 0 40 80 120 I 1/ 3745 -1 Q YET _I_ I- a / 1 \-- If- I I 367. 3i c _ z � � 1 � I I 5 qf1 --NN I � SCALE: 1" =40' NODE 210 - ,4 37;3 1 0 \' 36930\�11 1` ELEV(376.0) - _ - - - - _ _ I �I \` ------- I.,•'I I ANWAR 5dR - I 36;9
MAJOR BASIN BOUNDARY
/
0 �- 1 -� -� 375.8 -- I I \ \ } - - �� - g DENSE -- ��� 1 `, � 686 I r - 37z�--� 37Q.51 J \ : I `
� _ -5-5-5-5 _ � _,__-___ 3756 - -\ I- I11 • I L� 1 NODE 105 74� ' j / 365.2 36xB 3642 r'� MINOR BASIN BOUNDARY -W� 3767 '� 374B I I• 1 ELEV 367.5 �/ x dw�w�w- -w 1 - • ASPH 376.7 \ x -' --�- I �: I,• ..I \ .��` /i•"w x 376.5 z� _ \ I J756 -\�•�-�� , -� ` =J - "••"• II FLOW PATH W W w�wT�w- 376.7 s�s�s\\ MELROSE \\ 3x35 \. \ •/y"- .\ I /� \ ,' / q .... ... .. •r w-wow- 376.4 -s- •T/FL �/ \, \ �+ - .. .... . _ - _ - 375.7 -S- NODE 100 "` _ _ _ . pSE -
3765 176.8 �__ s-5 WAY / M \ �, ° / x /' - - HYDROLOGIC NODE 160 x x MELROSE yygy ELEV 371.8 ° - slcN 37x 4 \ • o. _ - ° -�-�' -- --- CONC / - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ELEVATION AT NODE ELOEVE(354.4) LU
o � �• \\ _ 3735 372.E \ `\ :l`\\� ' _ .1 647 " :B I HYDROLOGIC SUB BASIN NUMBER 1.0 ITII' OEMw_ / •\ �\ W / ' 3772 \ \ 37;3 of 0 373.6 w s / I - /- � NODE 180 w` -,�s -'\s s 7 3642 `, 3N75 I \ 376.6 \ of s s 377.3 = \ \ I \ - of OE \ / W- '�° "S'�'s' HYDROLOGIC AREA(ACRES) 0.60 ch � \ I l �`�DOE IE (372.3) w� NODE 185, . " ,� , co I I:' - -�- _ _ of 37L7 IE 369.1 WTw� 1 ,' �/' NODE 190 -W-W w _ W-W-W-w-W-"- e- _ _ _
_ _ _
`�`` �E - 46
_ ''-w '�_ W W ' WW W W W W W w IMPERVIOUS AREA 1.36 A 74 S 4�
coNc \`} ----__- is4.4 i o ��¢\ I /' CON - - - - - - - - \ x Z 1 � OE-OE - OE_- E76.36 OE�E `/ PERVIOUS AREA 1.32 AC(57,508 SF)
\ - - ENSE``'• --__ - a
TREES_ \ -''�`��` ••.I Z a : I I / r3".•cT'��,"- Q ADJACENT LOTS EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA z
W
J
LL
t
N
N
O
CD
Uj
W
0 PROPOSED CONDITION DRAINAGE EXHIBIT PASCO 1ARET SUITER 419
El 1205 MELROSE WAY o A° ss��0ATES N VISTA, CA San Diego I Solana Beach I Orange County CD
SCALE: = Phone 858.259.82121 www.pisaengineering.com w DATE:AUGUST GUSST 2021
w SHEET 1 OF 1 Q
APPENDIX D
Brow Ditch Calculations
J:\Active Jobs\3334 MELROSE WAY\CIVIL\REPORTS\HYDROLOGY\3334_HYDRO REPORT JANUARY 2022.doc
PLSA 3334
Hydraulic Analysis Report
Project Data
Project Title: 3334 Melrose
Project Date: Monday, January 3, 2022
Channel Analysis: Existing Brow Ditch at POC-1
Input Parameters
Channel Type: Circular
Pipe Diameter: 3.0000 ft
Longitudinal Slope: 0.0500 ft/ft
Manning's n: 0.0190
Flow: 3.8300 cfs
Result Parameters
Depth: 0.3972 ft
Area of Flow: 0.5545 ft^2
Wetted Perimeter: 2.2344 ft
Hydraulic Radius: 0.2482 ft
Average Velocity: 6.9069 ft/s
Top Width: 2.0335 ft
Froude Number: 2.3309
Critical Depth: 0.6108 ft
Critical Velocity: 3.7094 ft/s
Critical Slope: 0.0085 ft/ft
Critical Top Width: 2.42 ft
Calculated Max Shear Stress: 1.2392 Ib/ft"2
Calculated Avg Shear Stress: 0.7743 Ib/ft^2
1205 Melrose Way Project, City of Vista
Noise Technical Report
I I
r
kj +, :a
1 13_j
-
_
1 `Tr _1-©Y
� x-- -
Submitted to:
City of Vista
Planning Division
200 Civic Center Drive
Vista, CA 92084
Prepared by:
RCHGR90%U
planning&environmental consulting
September 2021
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1205 MELROSE WAY PROJECT, CITY OF VISTA
NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT
Page
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Setting 1
1.3 Thresholds of Significance 8
1.4 Impact Analysis 9
1.4.1 Consistency with City Noise Standards 9
1.4.2 Construction Vibration Impacts 12
1.4.3 Aircraft Noise Impacts 13
1.5 References 14
Table NOI-1— Interior and Exterior Noise Guidelines 3 Table NOI-2—Applicable Exterior Property Line Noise Limits 4 Table NOI-3— Maximum Sound Levels (Impulsive) 5 Table NOI-4— Existing Noise Levels 7
Table NOI-5—Construction Equipment Noise Levels 10 Figure 1— Noise Measurement Locations 6
NOISE APPENDIX
I. Long-term Noise Measurements for Site 1 and Site 2
II. Construction Noise Modeling (RCNM Noise Modeling Results)
NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT
1205 MELROSE WAY PROJECT, CITY OF VISTA
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This report presents an analysis of potential noise impacts associated with the 1205 Melrose Way Project(the"Project")in the City of Vista, CA. The Project consists of the development of 15 new single-family homes on 2.55 acres. The Project would change the existing E-1 (Estates Residential)zoning to R-1 zoning(Single Family Residential). The Project would also require a General Plan Amendment to change the existing Low Density Residential(LD)designation to Medium Density Residential(MD), as well as a Density Bonus.
The Project would include development of 15 new single-family homes. Project construction would commence in January 2023 and would be completed in June 2024(approximately 18 months). Demolition would be required to remove the existing structures onsite.
There are residences immediately north(multifamily apartments) and west(single-family homes) of the Project site. An existing church(Vista Samoan Seventh-Day Adventist Temple) is immediately east of the Project site. Breeze Hill Elementary School is approximately 350 feet east of eastern boundary of the Project site. Residences are also located to the south opposite of Melrose Way.
This report presents an overview of existing noise conditions at the Project site, an overview of noise background information,noise regulatory setting, and an analysis of potential noise impacts of the Project. All noise impacts were found to be less than significant with mitigation.
1.2 SETTING
1.2.1 NOISE SETTING
Noise Descriptors
Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves through a medium such as air.Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Sound pressure level has become the most common descriptor used to characterize the"loudness"of an ambient sound level. Sound pressure level is measured in decibels(dB),with zero dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of human hearing, and 120 to 140 dB corresponding to the threshold of pain. Decibels are measured using different scales, and it has been found that A-weighting of sound levels best reflects the human ear's reduced sensitivity to low frequencies, and correlates well with human perceptions of the annoying aspects of noise. The A-weighted decibel scale(dBA) is cited in most noise criteria. All references to decibels (dB) in this report will be A-weighted unless noted otherwise.
City of Vista 1205 Melrose Way Project 1 RCH Group Noise Technical Report September 2021
Several time-averaged scales represent noise environments and consequences of human activities.
The most commonly used noise descriptors are the equivalent A—weighted sound level over a given time period(Leq)'; average day—night 24-hour average sound level(Ldn)2 with a nighttime increase of 10 dB to account for sensitivity to noise during the nighttime; and community noise equivalent level(CNEL)3, also a 24-hour average that includes both an evening and a nighttime sensitivity weighting.
Noise Attenuation
Stationary point sources of noise, including construction equipment, attenuate(lessen) at a rate of 6 to 7.5 dB per doubling of distance from the source,depending on ground absorption. Soft sites attenuate at 7.5 dB per doubling because they have an absorptive ground surface such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees. Hard sites have reflective surfaces(e.g.,parking lots or smooth bodies of water)and therefore have less attenuation(6.0 dB per doubling). A street or roadway with moving vehicles(known as a"line"source),would typically attenuate at a lower rate, approximately 3 to 4.5 dB each time the distance doubles from the source,which also depends on ground absorption(CalTrans, 1998). Physical barriers located between a noise source and the noise receptor, such as berms or sound walls,will increase the attenuation that occurs by distance alone.
1.2.2 REGULATORY SETTING
City of Vista General Plan, Noise Element
The Noise Element of the City of Vista(COV) GP 2030 includes a noise/land use compatibility matrix for assessing the suitability of different categories of planned land uses based on exterior noise level exposure (Table NE-3 from the COV's GP 2030). For Single Family Residential land use,the Noise Element specifies exterior noise levels up to 65 dB, CNEL as normally acceptable and up to 70 dB, CNEL as conditionally acceptable.Noise levels exceeding 70 dB, CNEL are generally unacceptable for Single Family residential uses.
In addition,the COV defines specific maximum noise levels that shall not be exceeded for both interior and exterior use areas.A proposed project shall not generate noise levels that exceed these standards. The COV extends the provisions of the State of California Noise Insulation Standards(Title 24),limiting interior noise levels to 45 dB CNEL for Single Family residential development. Table N0I-1,Interior and Exterior Noise Guidelines,provides Maximum Noise Level limits for various types of land uses.
1 The Equivalent Sound Level(Leq)is a single value of a constant sound level for the same measurement period duration,which has sound energy equal to the time—varying sound energy in the measurement period. 2 Ldn is the day—night average sound level that is equal to the 24-hour A-weighted equivalent sound level with a 10-decibel penalty applied to night between 10:00 p.m.and 7:00 a.m.
3 CNEL is the average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day,obtained by addition of 5 decibels in the evening from 7:00 to 10:00 p.m.,and an addition of a 10—decibel penalty in the night between 10:00 p.m.and 7:00 a.m.
City of Vista 1205 Melrose Way Project 2 RCH Group Noise Technical Report September 2021
1205 MELROSE WAY PROJECT,CITY OF VISTA
TABLE NOI-1 INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR NOISE GUIDELINES
Maximum Noise Level
d: •
interior' Exterior
Residential—Single Family,Multi-family,Duplex 45 653 Residential—Nursing Homes,Hospital 45 653
Private Offices, Church Sanctuaries, Libraries, Board Rooms, Conference Rooms, Theaters, Auditoriums, Concert Halls, 45 - Meeting Halls,etc.
Schools 45 654
General Offices,Reception,Clerical,etc. 50 - Bank Lobby,Retail Store,Restaurant,Typing Pool,etc. 60 - Manufacturing,Kitchen,Warehousing,etc. 65 -
Parks,Playgrounds,etc. - 654
Golf Courses, Outdoor Spectator Sports, Amusement Parks, _ 704 etc.
Notes:
I Noise standard with windows closed. Mechanical ventilation shall be provided per UBC requirements to provide a habitable environment.
2 Indoor environment excluding bathrooms,toilets,closets,and corridors. 3 Outdoor environment limited to rear yard of single family homes,multi family patios and balconies(with a depth of 6 feet or more) and common recreation areas.
4 Outdoor environment limited to playground areas,picnic areas,and other areas offrequent human use.
LDN=Day-Night Level;CNEL=Community Noise Equivalent Level;dBA=A-weighted decibel City of Vista Noise Ordinance (Municipal Code, Chapter 8.32, Noise Control) Sections 8.32.010 through 8.32.060 of the City of Vista Municipal Code pertain to City noise requirements and enforcement of violations. The City has adopted the County of San Diego Noise Ordinance for the purpose of controlling excessive noise levels, including noise from construction activities.
Table N0I-2,Applicable Exterior Property Line Noise Limits, lists the applicable exterior property line noise limits. This table is specific to the City of Vista and replaces the table in Section 36.404 of the County noise ordinance. It is unlawful for any person to cause or allow the creation of any noise to the extent that the one-hour average sound level at any point on or beyond the boundaries of the property exceeds these limits. The sound level limit at a location on a boundary between two zones is the arithmetic mean of the respective limits for the two zones.
City of Vista 1205 Melrose Way Project 3 RCH Group Noise Technical Report September 2021
TABLE NOI-2 APPLICABLE EXTERIOR PROPERTY LINE NOISE LIMITS Zone Time Applicable
SoundAverage d:
A-1,E-1,O,OSR 7:00 a.m.—10:00 p.m. 50
R-113,MHP 10:00 p.m.—7:00 a.m. 45
R-M 7:00 a.m.— 10:00 p.m. 55
10:00 p.m.—7:00 a.m. 50
C-1,C-2,0-3,C-T,OP,M-U and 7:00 a.m.— 10:00 p.m. 60 Downtown Specific Plan 10:00 p.m.—7:00 a.m. 55
M-1,I-P,all areas of the Vista Business Any time 70 Park Specific Plan and Specific Plan 14
Source:City of Vista Municipal Code Section 8.32.40
A-1=Agricultural;C-1=Commercial;C-2=Commercial;C-T=Commercial Transient;E-1=Estate;I-P=Industrial; MHP=Mobile Home Park;M-U=Mixed Use;O=Open Space;0-3=Office Park;OP=Office Professional; OSR=Open Space Residential;R-1B=Residence;R-M=Multi-Residential As discussed above,the Project site would be re-zoned to R-1,therefore,the applicable exterior property line noise limits are 50 dB (one-hour average from 7:00 am to 10:00 p.m.)and 45 dB (one-hour average from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.).
The adopted County of San Diego Noise Ordinance also stipulates controlling construction noise.
San Diego County Code Sections 36.408 and 36.409, Construction Equipment, state that, except for emergency work, it shall be unlawful for any person to operate or cause to be operated, construction equipment:
a. Between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
b. On Sunday or a holiday. For the purposes of this section, a holiday means January 1,the last Monday in May,July 4,the first Monday in September,December 25, and any day appointed by the President as a special national holiday or the Governor of the State as a special State holiday.A person may,however, operate construction equipment on a Sunday or holiday between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. at the person's residence or for the purpose of construction of a residence for himself or herself, provided that the operation of construction equipment is not carried out for financial consideration or other consideration of any kind and does not violate the limits in Sections 36.409 and 36.410.
c. Except for emergency work,it shall be unlawful for any person to operate construction equipment or cause construction equipment to be operated,that exceeds an average sound level of 75 dBA for an 8-hour period,between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.,when measured at the boundary line of the property where the noise source is located or on any occupied property where the noise is being received.
Section 36.410 of the County ordinance provides additional limitation on construction equipment beyond Section 36.404 pertaining to impulsive noise. Except for emergency work or work on a public road project,no person shall produce or cause to be produced an impulsive noise that City of Vista 1205 Melrose Way Project 4 RCH Group Noise Technical Report September 2021
1205 MELROSE WAY PROJECT,CITY OF VISTA
exceeds the maximum sound level shown in Table N0I-3, Maximum Sound Levels (Impulsive), when measured at the boundary line of the property where the noise source is located or on any occupied property where the noise is received, for 25 percent of the minutes in the measurement period.
TABLE NOI-3 MAXIMUM SOUND LEVELS(IMPULSIVE)
PropertyOccupied 1 C
Residential,village zoning or civic use 82
Agricultural,commercial or industrial use 85
Source:County of San Diego Municipal Code Section 36.410
1.2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
To quantify existing ambient noise levels,RCH Group conducted two long-term(72-hour) and several short-term(I 0-minutenoise measurements) at the Project site. Long-term noise measurements were made using Metrosonics db308 Sound Level Meters calibrated before and after the measurements. Short-term measurements were made using a Larson Davis SoundTrack LxT Sound Level Meter calibrated before and after the measurements. Table N0I4,Existing Noise Levels, summarizes the locations and results of the noise measurements. Figure 1 shows the measurement locations on a map.
The Noise Appendix includes 24-hour noise plots for Site 1 and Site 2 and hourly measurements results. Based on observations from the short-term measurements,the main source of noise in the Project vicinity is traffic noise from Melrose Way. Additional noise sources include dogs, ambulance sirens, aircraft,yard work, and birds.
City of Vista 1205 Melrose Way Project 5 RCH Group Noise Technical Report September 2021
FIGURE 1: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
t fl
! r i +a Legend
Project Site
Site
!y +
=Noise Measurement
4,
Location
JIM
•IPA. I
kl
..:ILK
.f
Ii
1 S
i • l _
r
RCHGR,N P Source:RCH Group and Google Earth,2021.
City of Vista 1205 Melrose Way Project 6 RCH Group Noise Technical Report September 2021
1205 MELROSE WAY PROJECT,CITY OF VISTA
TABLE NOI-4 EXISTING NOISE LEVELS
Location od Noise Levels(dB) Noise
Site 1: South property August 31,2021 12:00 Hourly Leq's ranged Unattended noise line of the Project Site, a.m.through from: measurements do approximately 25 feet September 2, 11:59 42-61 not identify noise north of the centerline p.m. sources.
of Melrose Way. Tuesday—Thursday CNELs: 58,58,59 72-hour measurement.
Site 1: South property Monday August 30, 5-minute Leq's: Cars passing on line of the Project Site, 2021 55,53 Melrose Way 66-69 approximately 25 feet 1:38 p.m.to 1:48 p.m. dB,neighbors doing north of the centerline yard work 65 dB,
of Melrose Way. birds 55 dB.
Site 1: South property Friday September 3, 5-minute Leq's: Cars passing on line of the Project Site, 2021 58,50 Melrose Way 66-72 approximately 25 feet 11:24 a.m.to 11:34 dB,birds on trees north of the centerline a.m. nearby 60 dB. of Melrose Way.
Site 2:West area of the August 31,2021 12:00 Hourly Leq's ranged Unattended noise Project site. a.m.through from: measurements do September 2, 11:59 44-51 not identify noise p.m. sources.
Tuesday—Thursday CNELs: 52,52,52
72-hour measurement.
Site 2:West area of the Monday August 30, 5-minute Leq's: Quiet Area. Sirens Project site. 2021 51,44 from ambulance on
1:52 p.m.to 2:02 p.m. Melrose Way 60 dB,
birds,airplane
overhead 59 dB.
Site 2:West area of the Friday September 3, 5-minute Leq's: Quiet Area.Plane Project site. 2021 49,42 overhead 58 dB.
11:42 a.m.to 11:52
a.m.
Site 3:North area of Monday August 30, 5-minute Leq's: Quiet Area. the Project site, 2021 48,49 Motorcycle 55 dB, approximately 75 feet 2:04 p.m.to 2:14 p.m. birds 53 dB. west of nearby
residences.
Site 3:North area of Friday September 3, 5-minute Leq's: Quiet Area. the Project site, 2021 42,43 Neighbors talking at approximately 75 feet 11:54 a.m.to 12:04 a distance 45 dB. west of nearby p.m.
residences.
Site 4: South property Monday August 30, 5-minute Leq's: Cars passing on line of adjacent church, 2021 56,55 Melrose Way 66-71 approximately 80 feet 2:17 p.m.to 2:27 p.m. dB,Neighbors dogs east of Project site, barking 53 dB.
approximately 30 feet
north of the centerline
of Melrose Way.
City of Vista 1205 Melrose Way Project 7 RCH Group Noise Technical Report September 2021
Site 5:Northeast Monday August 30, 5-minute Leq's: Cars passing on corner of Melrose Way 2021 55,44 Melrose Way 64-70 and Centennial Drive, 2:27 p.m.to 2:37 p.m. dB,neighbors dogs approximately 25 feet barking 54 dB.
south of the centerline
of Melrose Way.
Site 6:Approximately Monday August 30, 5-minute Leq's: Traffic on S. 65 feet west of the 2021 64,64 Melrose Drive 69- centerline of S. 2:51 p.m.to 3:01 p.m. 76 dB.
Melrose Drive
Source:RCH Group 2021. RCHGR=:::UP
1.2.4 SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Noise-sensitive land uses are land uses that may be subject to stress and/or interference from excessive noise, including residences,hospitals, churches, schools,hotels,resorts, libraries, sensitive wildlife habitat, or similar facilities where quiet is an important attribute of the environment. There are residences immediately north and west of the Project site. The Vista Samoan Seventh-Day Adventist Temple is immediately east of the Project site. Breeze Hill Elementary School is approximately 350 feet east of the eastern boundary of the Project site.
Residences are also located to the south opposite of Melrose Way.
1.3 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The significance of potential impacts was determined based on State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G. Using Appendix G evaluation thresholds,the Project would be considered to have significant noise impacts if it results in:
A. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; • Impacts would be significant if the Project would expose proposed residential uses to levels exceeding 65 dB, CNEL or interior noise levels exceeding 45 dB, CNEL, as described in the COV GP Noise Element.
• Per the COV Noise Ordinance, impacts would be significant if the Project would generate noise levels at a common property line with a multi-family residential zone that would exceed the following one-hour average exterior noise levels: 50 dB from 7:00 a.m.to 10:00 p.m. and 45 dB from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
• For traffic related noise,impacts are considered significant where existing traffic noise is less than 65 dB,CNEL and implementation of a Project would result in an increase of the noise level by 5 dB, CNEL or more.
City of Vista 1205 Melrose Way Project 8 RCH Group Noise Technical Report September 2021
1205 MELROSE WAY PROJECT,CITY OF VISTA
• Construction activity would be considered significant for nearby residences if it exceeds an 8-hour average exterior noise level of 75 dB, or a maximum impulsive noise level of 82 dB,Lmax on an occupied residential use. The ordinance prohibits construction and building work between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the next day, on Sundays, or on a holiday.
B. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; or i. If Project construction vibration exceeds Caltrans structural damage thresholds for structures on adjacent properties.
C. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
i. The Project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport,thus this impact is not addressed further.
1.4 IMPACT ANALYSIS
1.4.1 CONSISTENCY WITH CITY NOISE STANDARDS
Construction Noise Impacts
Project construction activities would include demolition of the existing residence on-site and construction of the Project. Construction activities would occur during the construction hours contained in the adopted County of San Diego Noise Ordinance Sections 36.408 and 36.409 between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday.No construction is permitted on Sundays or on holidays.
Demolition and construction activities would require the use of numerous pieces of noise- generating equipment, such as excavating machinery(e.g.,backhoes, excavators, front loaders, etc.) and other construction equipment(e.g.,compactors,pavers, concrete mixers,trucks, etc.).
The noise levels generated by construction equipment would vary greatly depending upon factors such as the type and specific model of the equipment,the operation being performed, the condition of the equipment. The nearest receptors to the construction would be the adjacent residential properties to the west,north, and northwest and the adjacent church to the east(80 feet away) and Breeze Hill Elementary School to the east(400 feet away). These are the distances from the center of the Project site to the receptor property lines. The maximum noise levels at 80 and 400 feet for various types of construction equipment that could be used during construction are provided in Table N0I-5.
City of Vista 1205 Melrose Way Project 9 RCH Group Noise Technical Report September 2021
TABLE NOI-5 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS
Construction Equipment I feet :I II
Backhoe 78 73 55
Compactor(ground) 83 78 60
Compressor 78 73 55
Concrete Mixer Truck 79 74 56
Concrete Saws 90 85 65
Dozer 82 77 59
Dump Truck 76 71 53
Excavator 74 69 51
Flat Bed Truck 77 72 54
Front End Loader 76 71 53
Generator 80 75 57
Grader 81 76 58
Jackhammer 81 76 58
Paver 85 80 62
Roller 80 75 57
Tractor 84 79 61
Vibratory Concrete Mixer 79 74 56
Welder 73 68 50
Source:Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)Roadway Construction Noise Model User's Guide,2006.
Notes:
1 This is the distance from the center of the Project site to the nearest residential and church property lines. 2 This is the distance from the center of the Project site to the nearest school property line.
Construction equipment would not all operate at the same time or location. Furthermore, construction equipment would not be in constant use during the 8-hour operating day. A dozer and an excavator may be working on the Project site simultaneously but would not be working in close proximity to one another at a given time due to the nature of their respective operations.An excavator, loader, and dump truck were analyzed together for construction noise impacts(due to their likelihood of being used in conjunction with one another)using the Federal Highway Administration's(FHWA's)Roadway Construction Noise Model(RCNM Version 1.1) (See Appendix A for construction noise modeling). Based on these assumptions, grading operations using an excavator, loader,and dump truck at the nearest residential or church property line would be 75.8 dB,Leq at 80 feet(See Noise Appendix for construction noise modeling). These noise levels could potentially exceed the COV's Noise Ordinance standard of 75 dB, Leq(8-hour standard).As a result,Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would be required to reduce noise levels from Project construction to a less-than-significant impact.
City of Vista 1205 Melrose Way Project 10 RCH Group Noise Technical Report September 2021
1205 MELROSE WAY PROJECT,CITY OF VISTA
Mitigation Measure N0I-1: Construction Noise Management Plan:Noise levels from Project-related demolition, grading, and construction activities shall not exceed the noise limit specified in San Diego County Code (adopted by City of Vista) Sections 36.408 and
36.409 of 75 dBA(8-hour average),when measured at the boundary line of the property where the noise is located or any occupied property where noise is being received. A Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to the City of Vista Planning Division for approval prior to issuance of the Grading Permit. The following measures may be included to reduce construction/demolition noise:
• Construction equipment shall be properly outfitted and maintained with manufacturer-recommended noise-reduction devices.
• Diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and equipped with factory-recommended mufflers.
• Mobile or fixed "package" equipment (e.g., arc-welders and air compressors) shall be equipped with shrouds and noise control features that are readily available for that type of equipment.
• Electrically powered equipment shall be used instead of pneumatic or internal-combustion powered equipment,where feasible.
• Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines (e.g., in excess of 5 minutes) shall be prohibited.
• Material stockpiles and mobile equipment staging, parking, and maintenance areas shall be located as far as practicable from noise sensitive receptors.
• The use of noise-producing signals,including horns,whistles,alarms,and bells, shall be used for safety warning purposes only.
• No project-related public address or music system shall be audible at any adjacent sensitive receptor.
• Prior to construction activities, designate a "Construction Noise Coordinator"who shall be responsible for responding to local complaints about construction noise. The Construction Noise Coordinator shall determine the cause of the complaint and shall require that reasonable measures be warranted to correct the problem be implemented(potentially including temporary noise barriers). The telephone number for the Construction Noise Coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site.
• Prior to construction activities, notify the adjacent church and residences of the construction schedule in writing and provide them with the contact information of the Construction Noise Coordinator.
City of Vista 1205 Melrose Way Project 11 RCH Group Noise Technical Report September 2021
Operational Noise Impacts
Potential Noise Impacts of Project Residences
As shown in Table N0I4, existing 24-hour noise levels at Site 1 are 58-59 dB, CNEL and 52 dB, CNEL at Site 2. Therefore,the Project site is less than 65 dB and would be within the Normally Acceptable range for Single Family Residential uses. Interior noise levels would be considered significant if they exceed 45 dB CNEL.Residential building facades typically provide a minimum exterior-to-interior noise reduction of 25 dB with windows closed(Caltrans, 2002).
Interior noise levels would be well below the 45 dB, CNEL threshold for interior noise standards in the General Plan. Therefore,the Project would be compatible with Normally acceptable exterior and interior noise level planning criteria. In summary,the Project site is noise appropriate for single family residential use. The effect of existing noise on the Project would result in a less- than-significant impact.
Traffic Impacts on Project Residences
A doubling of sound energy results in a 3 dB increase in sound,which means that a doubling of sound energy(e.g., doubling the volume of traffic on a road)would result in a barely perceptible change in sound level. Traffic noise from Melrose Way at the Project site is about 58 dB, CNEL based on noise measurement results at Site 1 (see Table N0I-4). As discussed above, a 5 dB increase would be considered a significant increase since traffic noise along Melrose Way is below 65 dB, CNEL. The existing traffic volumes on Melrose Way are 1,952 average daily traffic (ADT)(City of Vista, 2017). The Project would result in approximately 150 vehicle trips per day.
The Project would not double the existing traffic volumes on Melrose Way and would result in a negligible increase in operational traffic noise. Thus,traffic volumes from Project operations would result in a less-than-significant impact.
Stationary Equipment Impacts on Project Residences
The Project would include rooftop mounted mechanical equipment including heating,ventilating and air conditioning equipment(HVAC).Noise generated by HVAC varies significantly depending on the equipment type, capacity, location and enclosure design.Noise levels up to 60 dBA at a distance of 15 feet are typical for HVAC equipment(Illigworth and Rodkin,Inc. 2009).
Final Project design and development review would comply with the City's Exterior Property Line Noise limits outlined in Section 8.32.40 and would implement design features for mechanical equipment to not exceed the City's noise limits. Final design of the HVAC equipment would need to meet the most conservative threshold,which is the maximum nighttime(10:00 p.m.7:00 a.m.)outdoor noise level of 45 dBA as measured at the adjacent receiving property.
Therefore,noise impacts from stationary equipment from the Project would result in a less-than- significant impact.
1.4.2 CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION IMPACTS
Construction activities have the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary ground vibration,depending on the specific construction equipment used and operations involved. At the highest levels of vibration, damage to structures is primarily architectural and rarely results in any City of Vista 1205 Melrose Way Project 12 RCH Group Noise Technical Report September 2021
1205 MELROSE WAY PROJECT,CITY OF VISTA
structural damage. A peak particle velocity(ppv)threshold of 0.5 inches per second or less is sufficient to avoid structural damage (Caltrans, 2013). Project construction would utilize typical construction equipment and would not generate significant sources of vibration such as pile driving and/or blasting. Vibrational effects from typical construction activities are only a concern within 25 feet of existing structures(Caltrans,2002). Construction would not occur within 25 feet of an existing off-site structure. Thus,the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact.
1.4.3 AIRCRAFT NOISE IMPACTS
The Project site is subject to some distant aircraft noise,though the Project site is not within the vicinity of a public airport or private airstrip, or within an airport land use plan. The nearest airport is the McClellan-Palomar Airport, located approximately six miles to the southwest. At this distance, airport noise impacts would be a less than significant.
City of Vista 1205 Melrose Way Project 13 RCH Group Noise Technical Report September 2021
1.5 REFERENCES
California Department of Transportation(Caltrans). 2002. Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations, February.
California Department of Transportation(Caltrans). 2013. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, Environmental Engineering, Hazardous Waste,Air, Noise, Paleontology Office. September.
California Natural Resources Agency. 2009.Adopted Text of the CEQA Guidelines Amendments.
December 30.
City of Vista. Various. 2017.Average Daily Traffic Volumes (Vista ADT Map). Available on-line, https://www.cityofvista.com/home/showpublisheddocument/14687/63656455481583000 0 City of Vista. Various.Municipal Code and Development Code. Available on-line, http://www.cityofvista.com/city-services/city-departments/community- development/common-questions/municipal-development-codes Federal Highway Administration(FHWA), 2006.Roadway Construction Noise Model User's Guide, 2006.
Federal Highway Administration(FHWA), 2017.Roadway Construction Noise Model(RCNM Version 1.1)Available on-line,
https:ll www..jhwa.dot.govlenvironmentlnoiselconstruction_noiselrcnml Illingworth and Rodkin,2009. Walmart Expansion, Williamson Ranch Plaza, Environmental Noise Assessment. 2009.
City of Vista 1205 Melrose Way Project 14 RCH Group Noise Technical Report September 2021
Noise Appendix
Long Term Noise Measurement Graphs for Site 1 and Site 2 Construction Noise Modeling - RCNM Noise Modeling Results RCHGR . *UP
planning&environmental consulting
100
90 Q 80
m
a
N 70
N
9 U
N
Q 60
50 40
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 Hour
+Leq-Equivalent Sound Level —Lmax-Maximum Sound Level During Hour — 1-10 L90 Site 1:South property line of the Project Site,approximately 25 feet north of the centerline of Melrose Way Tuesday August 31,2021
Lmax-Maximum
Sound Level During
Hour Leg-Equivalent Sound Level Hour L10 L90 0 43 67 41 41
100 43 68 41 41
200 45 72 41 41
300 42 63 41 41
400 45 70 41 41
500 51 74 41 41
600 55 75 53 41
700 61 79 65 42
800 59 80 63 41
900 55 74 55 41
1000 56 74 59 41
1100 55 75 56 41
1200 57 81 57 41
1300 54 72 56 41
1400 58 79 62 44
1500 59 82 62 43
1600 58 86 59 41
1700 58 78 61 41
1800 58 86 56 41
1900 54 75 53 41
2000 53 77 51 41
2100 51 72 44 41
2200 49 72 41 41
2300 48 73 41 41
CNEL 58
100
90 Q 60
m
a
y 70
m
a
U
0)
p 60
50 40
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 Hour
t Leq-Equivalent Sound Level -Lmax-Maximum Sound Level During Hour -L10 -L90 Site 1:South property line of the Project Site,approximately 25 feet north of the centerline of Melrose Way Wednesday September 1,2021
Lmax-Maximum
Sound Level During
Hour Leg-Equivalent Sound Level Hour L10 L90 0 44 66 41 41
100 42 65 41 41
200 42 54 41 41
300 43 65 41 41
400 47 73 41 41
500 49 72 41 41
600 55 77 53 41
700 60 80 65 41
800 57 75 60 41
900 55 76 55 41
1000 55 77 55 41
1100 56 76 56 41
1200 56 75 57 41
1300 56 83 57 41
1400 59 85 62 43
1500 58 81 61 43
1600 57 77 60 43
1700 57 75 61 41
1800 56 76 58 41
1900 54 73 55 41
2000 53 73 53 41
2100 50 72 47 41
2200 50 74 47 41
2300 47 70 41 41
CNEL: 58
100
90 Q 80
m
y 70
4)
a
U
N
Q 60
50 40 �= I
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 Hour
t Leq-Equivalent Sound Level —Lrn--Maximum Sound Level During Hour — L10 L90 Site 1:South property line of the Project Site,approximately 25 feet north of the centerline of Melrose Way Thursday September 2,2021
Lmax-Maximum
Sound Level During
Hour Leg-Equivalent Sound Level Hour L10 L90 0 43 68 41 41
100 42 44 41 41
200 42 42 41 41
300 56 91 41 41
400 44 68 41 41
500 51 72 41 41
600 55 79 52 41
700 60 75 65 42
800 58 77 62 42
900 60 86 58 42
1000 60 89 57 41
1100 55 76 56 41
1200 55 74 57 41
1300 55 72 59 41
1400 58 76 61 45
1500 56 73 59 42
1600 57 78 61 43
1700 56 74 58 42
1800 55 74 58 41
1900 54 73 54 41
2000 51 73 45 41
2100 51 72 48 41
2200 47 69 41 41
2300 48 72 41 41
CNEL: 59
100
90 Q 80
00 a
CO 70
m
a
U
N
Q 60
50 40
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 Hour
+Leq-Equivalent Sound Level —Lmax-Maximum Sound Level During Hour — 1-10 — L90 Site 2:West area of the Project Site
Tuesday August 31,2021
Lmax-Maximum
Sound Level During
Hour Leg-Equivalent Sound Level Hour L10 L90 0 44 56 43 43
100 44 44 43 43
200 44 43 43 43
300 44 52 43 43
400 44 55 43 43
500 44 58 43 43
600 50 70 52 43
700 49 64 50 43
800 51 70 51 43
900 47 65 46 43
1000 45 60 46 43
1100 48 66 47 43
1200 50 71 49 43
1300 50 72 51 43
1400 46 61 48 43
1500 45 60 46 43
1600 46 61 47 43
1700 47 65 47 43
1800 44 54 44 43
1900 44 55 45 43
2000 45 59 44 43
2100 44 49 43 43
2200 45 63 43 43
2300 44 51 43 43
CNEL 52
100
90 Q 60
m
a
y 70
m
a
U
0)
p 60
50 40
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 Hour
t Leq-Equivalent Sound Level -Lmax-Maximum Sound Level During Hour -L10 -L90 Site 2:West area of the Project Site
Wednesday September 1,2021
Lmax-Maximum
Sound Level During
Hour Leg-Equivalent Sound Level Hour L10 L90 0 44 58 43 43
100 44 44 43 43
200 44 51 43 43
300 44 52 43 43
400 44 56 43 43
500 45 60 43 43
600 50 66 50 43
700 49 65 47 43
800 48 64 48 43
900 48 67 47 43
1000 48 66 45 43
1100 46 64 46 43
1200 47 65 46 43
1300 48 67 47 43
1400 48 65 48 43
1500 47 64 48 43
1600 49 65 50 43
1700 47 65 46 43
1800 45 61 45 43
1900 44 56 43 43
2000 48 69 43 43
2100 44 59 43 43
2200 44 51 43 43
2300 44 47 43 43
CNEL: 52
100
90 Q 80
m
y 70
0)
a
U
0)
Q 60
50 40
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 Hour
t Leq-Equivalent Sound Level —Lrn--Maximum Sound Level During Hour — L10 L90 Site 2:West area of the Project Site
Thursday September 2,2021
Lmax-Maximum
Sound Level During
Hour Leg-Equivalent Sound Level Hour L10 L90 0 44 44 43 43
100 44 44 43 43
200 44 44 43 43
300 44 44 43 43
400 44 56 43 43
500 45 60 43 43
600 49 67 50 43
700 50 64 51 45
800 49 65 50 43
900 50 64 53 44
1000 48 63 48 43
1100 46 62 47 43
1200 48 66 48 43
1300 47 65 48 43
1400 48 62 49 43
1500 48 64 49 43
1600 49 67 48 43
1700 47 67 48 43
1800 46 66 46 43
1900 45 63 44 43
2000 44 48 43 43
2100 44 59 43 43
2200 44 58 43 43
2300 44 47 43 43
CNEL: 52
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report date: 09/28/2021
Case Description: 1205 Melrose Way - Construction Analysis for COV's 75 dB Threshold
**** Receptor #1 ****
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night ----------- -------- ------- ------- ----- 1205 Melrose Way Residential 57.0 55.0 50.0 Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device M (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) ----------- ------ ----- ----- ----- -------- --------- Excavator No 40 80.7 80.0 0.0
Front End Loader No 40 79.1 80.0 0.0 Dump Truck No 40 76.5 80.0 0.0
Results
Noise Limits (dBA)
Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
Calculated (dBA) Day Evening
Night Day Evening Night
---------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- Equipment Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
---------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ Excavator 76.6 72.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Front End Loader 75.0 71.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dump Truck 72.4 68.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 76.6 75.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
1205 Melrose Way
CONTENTS
ENGINEER OF WORK CERTIFICATION STATEMENT..............................................................................................................3 PROJECT OWNER CERTIFICATION STATEMENT...................................................................................................................4 CITY OF VISTA STAFF REVIEW.............................................................................................................................................5 PROJECT VICINITY MAP......................................................................................................................................................7 FORM 1—PROJECT CATEGORY DETERMINATION CHECKLIST.............................................................................................8 FORM2—PROJECT OVERVIEW...........................................................................................................................................9 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS......................................................................................................................10 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING SITE DRAINAGE PATTERNS........................................................................................................12 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT...............................................................................................................13 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED SITE DRAINAGE PATTERNS.....................................................................................................15 POTENTIAL POLLUTANT SOURCE AREAS..............................................................................................................................17 IDENTIFICATION AND NARRATIVE OF RECEIVING WATER AND POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN...............................................18 HYDROMODIFICATION MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS....................................................................................................19 CRITICAL COARSE SEDIMENT YIELD AREAS..........................................................................................................................20 FLOW CONTROL FOR POST-PROJECT RUNOFF.....................................................................................................................21 OTHER SITE REQUIREMENTS AND CONSTRAINTS................................................................................................................22 FORM 3—SOURCE CONTROL BMPS FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS...........................................................................23 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION&SOURCE CONTROLS................................................................................................................23 FORM 4—SITE DESIGN BMPS FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS....................................................................................27 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION....................................................................................................................................................27 FORM 5—STRUCTURAL POLLUTANT CONTROL AND HYDROMODIFICATION MANAGEMENT BMPS................................29 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION....................................................................................................................................................29 PDPStructural BMPs............................................................................................................................................................29 FORM 6—STORMWATER BMP MAINTENANCE MECHANISM...........................................................................................30 PROJECTI DENTI FI CATION....................................................................................................................................................30 MaintenanceRequirements.................................................................................................................................................30 attachment 1—POLLUTANT CONTROLS:SUPPORT DOCUMENT AND CHECKLIST.............................................................31 attachment 1a—DMA EXHIBIT CHECKLIST........................................................................................................................32 attachment 2—hydromodification management CONTROLS:SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION &CHECKLIST.......................33 attachment 2a—hydromodification management exhibit...............................................................................................34 ATTACHMENT 3-BMP MAINTENANCE information.........................................................................................................35 Attachment 3a—maintenance plan requirements...........................................................................................................36 attachment 3b—Maintenance agreement.......................................................................................................................37 ATTACHMENT 4-REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION PLANS.......................................................................................38