Albright IS Attachments 1-4-Online VersionINITIAL STUDY – 90-160 ALBRIGHT WAY AND 14600 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD
ATTACHMENT 1
APPLICANT’S TREE PRESERVATION STATEMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
To: Geoff Bradley, Joel Paulson and Fletcher Parson, Town of Los Gatos
From: Mike Keaney
Date: 2/4/11
Subject: Albright Way, Tree Preservation
After visiting the site and reviewing the conceptual site plan we are proposing to use our best
efforts (we do not know for certain the impacts of grading and utilities on the existing trees) to
preserve trees in the following locations:
On the slope adjacent to the existing residential uses all of the trees behind the masonry wall
that is currently on the site can be preserved. This includes the following trees: 25, 26, 27,
28, 106, 107, 116, 115, 114, 113.
On the southern property line adjacent to the existing residential near Charter Oaks Drive we
will setback parking 15’ from the property line. This will allow for the preservation of the
majority of the trees along this edge of the project. This applies to the following trees: 124 –
132, 134 – 141.
Along the railroad right of way the majority of our improvements will be in areas of the site that
are already developed with parking and other improvements. This should allow for the
preservation of many trees in this area including: 324, 326-346.
Of course, if any of these trees must be removed, we will follow the tree mitigation
requirements.
INITIAL STUDY – 90-160 ALBRIGHT WAY AND 14600 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD
ATTACHMENT 2
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT
ALBRIGHT WAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
BY
RBF CONSULTING
MARCH 2011
Albright Way Development Project
AIR QUALITY & GREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT
Consultant:
RBF CONSULTING
14725 Alton Parkway
Irvine, California 92618
Contact: Mr. Eddie Torres, INCE, REA
Director of Technical Studies
949.855.3612
March 31, 2011
JN 40‐100419
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment i March 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................1
1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................3
1.1 Project Location................................................................................................................3
1.2 Project Characteristics......................................................................................................3
2.0 EXISTING AIR QUALITY SETTING......................................................................................8
2.1 Environmental Setting.....................................................................................................8
2.2 Regulatory Framework..................................................................................................11
2.3 Sensitive Receptors.........................................................................................................19
3.0 MONITORED AIR QUALITY................................................................................................21
4.0 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY......................................................27
4.1 Significance Criteria.......................................................................................................27
5.0 POTENTIAL AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACTS.............................30
6.0 REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................................62
6.1 List of Preparers..............................................................................................................62
6.2 Documents.......................................................................................................................62
6.3 Web Sites/Programs.......................................................................................................63
APPENDIX A – AIR MODELING DATA
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment ii March 2011
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 – Regional Vicinity....................................................................................................................5
Exhibit 2 – Site Vicinity ............................................................................................................................6
Exhibit 3 – Site Plan...................................................................................................................................7
Exhibit 4 – Phased Approach for Estimating Community Risks and Hazards...............................47
Exhibit 5 – Residential Development Limitations...............................................................................50
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 – National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards.................................................12
Table 2 – Sensitive Receptors..................................................................................................................20
Table 3 – Local Air Quality Levels.........................................................................................................21
Table 4 – BAAQMD Emissions Thresholds..........................................................................................27
Table 5 – BAAQMD GHG Thresholds..................................................................................................29
Table 6 – Construction Emissions..........................................................................................................33
Table 7 – Long‐Term Operational Air Emissions................................................................................38
Table 8 – Risk and Health Hazards from State Route 85....................................................................49
Table 9 – Scenario 1 Business as Usual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Projections............................54
Table 10 – Project Consistency With the BAAQMD Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures........55
Table 11 – Scenario 1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions With BAAQMD Sector Reductions.................57
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment iii March 2011
LIST OF ACRONYMS
μg/m3
micrograms per cubic meter
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
APS Alternative Planning Strategy
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BAU Business as Usual
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CARB California Air Resources Board
CAT Climate Action Team
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFCs Chlorofluorocarbons
CH4 Methane
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e CO2 equivalent
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
EAC Early Action Compact
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F Fahrenheit
FCAA Federal Clean Air Act
GHG greenhouse gas
GWP Global Warming Potential
H2O water vapor
HCFCs Hydrochlorofluorocarbons
HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons
IPCC International Panel for Climate Change
km kilometer
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
LOS level of service
LSTs Localized Significance Thresholds
MMT million metric tons
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
MTCO2eq metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents
N2O nitrous oxide
N/A Not Applicable
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NOA naturally occurring asbestos
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment iv March 2011
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOx nitrogen oxides
O3 ozone
OPR Office of Planning and Research
Pb lead
PFCs Perfluorocarbons
PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter
PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter
ppm parts per million
ppt parts per trillion
PST Pacific Standard Time
RCPG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide
RH relative humidity
ROG Reactive Organic Gasses
SB Senate Bill
SCS Sustainable Community Strategy
SF6 Sulfur hexafluoride
SIP State Implementation Plan
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SOx sulfur oxides
SRA source receptor area
UV‐B ultraviolet rays
VHT vehicle hours traveled
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 1 March 2011
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment is to evaluate potential short‐
and long‐term air quality and greenhouse gas impacts resulting from implementation of the
proposed Albright Way Development project (project). The project is located in the Town of
Los Gatos (Town), along Albright Way, southeast of the State Route 85 (SR‐85) and Winchester
Boulevard interchange.
The project proposes a Planned Development zoning that will allow for flexibility in the
ultimate mix of land uses on the project site. The project may consist of office alone or a mix of
office and high‐density /senior residential units. As currently proposed, the project could
include up to a maximum of 550,000 square feet of office space, or a combination of less office
space with residential uses. Residential uses could include up to a maximum of 516 high‐
density dwelling units or 600 senior residential uses. This Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
Assessment evaluates Scenario 1 as identified in the Albright Way Development Traffic Impact
Analysis (Traffic Impact Analysis), prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. on
March 17, 2011. Scenario 1 consists of the replacement of 250,000 square feet of existing office
park buildings with new office buildings totaling 550,000 square feet. Under Scenario 1, the
new office buildings would provide an additional 300,000 square feet of office space and result
in additional 3,126 daily vehicle trips. Three parking structures are also proposed under this
Scenario. As noted, the Planned Development zoning will provide flexibility for mixed use
scenarios, provided that the air quality and GHG impacts of those scenarios are not
substantially more severe than the air quality and GHG impacts of Scenario 1.
Construction activities would consist of demolition of existing buildings, site grading,
trenching, paving, building construction, and architectural coating. Staging for construction
equipment would occur within the boundaries of the project site.
Temporary Impacts. Based upon the results of the analysis, construction emissions would not
exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District thresholds with implementation of
recommended mitigation measures. Short‐term construction impacts would be considered less
than significant.
Long‐Term Impacts. The analysis has demonstrated that project implementation would result
in less than significant long‐term impacts. Carbon monoxide hot‐spots impacts would also be
less than significant with implementation of recommended mitigation within the project’s
Traffic Impact Analysis. The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts for all
long‐term operational emissions.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts. The proposed project would generate minimal amounts of
GHG emissions as a result of construction activities, and would result in a less than significant
impact. Long‐term operational greenhouse gas emissions would be less than significant with
implementation of the recommended mitigation measure.
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 2 March 2011
Cumulative Impacts. The proposed project would be consistent with the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District’s 2010 Clean Air Plan, as the proposed project complies with the goals and
policies of the General Plan and does not exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s
short‐ and long‐term significance criteria. The proposed project would result in a less than
significant impact for cumulative long‐ and short‐term operational emissions.
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 3 March 2011
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment is to evaluate potential short‐
and long‐term air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts resulting from implementation of
the proposed Albright Way Development project (project) in the Town of Los Gatos (Town).
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The project is located in the Town of Los Gatos, California; refer to Exhibit 1, Regional Vicinity.
Specifically, the project site is located along Albright Way, southeast of the State Route 85 (SR‐
85) and Winchester Boulevard interchange; refer to Exhibit 2, Local Vicinity Map.
1.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
The project proposes a Planned Development zoning that will all for flexibility in the ultimate
mix of land uses on the site. The project may consist of office alone or a mix of office and high‐
density /senior residential units. As currently proposed, the project could include up to a
maximum of 550,000 square feet of office space, or a combination of less office space with
residential uses. Residential uses could include up to a maximum of 516 high‐density dwelling
units or 600 senior residential uses. This Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment
evaluates Scenario 1 as identified in the Albright Way Development Traffic Impact Analysis (Traffic
Impact Analysis), prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. on March 17, 2011. An
evaluation of each of the potential land use scenarios indicates that the development of the
project site as all office uses would result in the greatest amount of traffic being added to the
roadway system.1
Therefore, as vehicle trips are typically largest source of air quality and
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for development projects, this analysis evaluates the “worst‐
case” project scenario consisting of the replacement of 250,000 square feet (s.f.) of existing office
park buildings with new buildings totaling 550,000 s.f.; refer to Exhibit 3, Site Plan.
As noted, the Planned Development zoning will provide flexibility for mixed use scenarios,
provided that the air quality and GHG impacts of those scenarios are not substantially more
severe than the air quality and GHG impacts of Scenario 1. The Town has developed the
following additional illustrative land uses scenarios:
• Scenario 1: Replacement of the 250,000 s.f. of existing office park buildings on the site with
new office buildings totaling 550,000 s.f.
• Scenario 2: Minimum of 200,000 s.f. new office plus 141,000 s.f. (remaining) office
• Scenario 3: 200,000 s.f. new office plus up to 516 high‐density units
• Scenario 4: 200,000 s.f. new office plus up to 600 senior units
1
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., Albright Way Development Traffic Impact Analysis, March 17,
2011.
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 4 March 2011
Because the office use would generate more daily and peak hour trips than would residential,
this study first presents the analysis of a proposed project scenario consisting of the replacement
of the 250,000 s.f. of existing office park buildings on the site with new office buildings totaling
550,000 s.f. Then, in order to determine whether the addition of residential uses would generate
any greater impacts than the 550,000 s.f. office scenario, supplemental analyses were completed
for the additional scenarios.
The project site is bound by Winchester Boulevard, a rail line and SR‐85 to the north and west, a
residential neighborhood and the Los Gatos Creek Trail to the east, and an office building to the
south. The design goals for future buildings on the project site are to fit into that transitional
environment and to provide adequate density for a transit oriented development to meet the
Townʹs goals. In order to work with the project site’s natural grades, the site design would
utilize walls, terraces, and landscaped steps in natural materials that would become an
extension of the building architecture, and create useful outdoor social gathering spaces.
Construction activities would consist of demolition of existing buildings, site grading,
trenching, paving, building construction, and architectural coating. Staging for construction
equipment would occur within the boundaries of the project site.
PACIFIC OCEAN
STANISLAUS
COUNTY
SANTA
CLARA
COUNTY
ALAMEDA
COUNTY
CONTRA
COSTA
COUNTY
SOLANO
COUNTY
NAPA
COUNTY
MARIN
COUNTY
SAN
JOAQUIN
COUNTY
SACRAMENTO
COUNTY
SONOMA
COUNTY
YOLO
COUNTY
SAN MATEO
COUNTY
SAN FRANCISCO
COUNTY
SANTA CRUZ
COUNTY
MONTEREY
COUNTY
SAN BENITO
COUNTY
5
5
580
580
280
680
680
205
5
80
236
183
152
152
156
156
156
129
132
104
120
113
116
121
121
116
160
160
220
238
82
82
92
87
35
25
25
17
24
37
92
84
84
84
85
12
1212
12
29
29
84
13
99
33
35
1
1
9
9
4
4
44
1
1
101
101
101
101
101
680
780
505
580
580
880
880
280
80
80
SanFrancisco
SanMateo
Half MoonBay
Fremont
Tracy
San Jose
Lathrop
StocktonConcord
Berkley
Oakland
Sausalito
Walnut Creek
Martinez
Lafayette
Hercules
Lodi
SanRafael
Novato
Sonoma
Vallejo
Benicia
Vacaville
Fairfield
Petaluma
Cotati
Sebastopol
RohnertPark
BodegaBay
Napa
RioVista
Richmond
Milpitas
Galt
SanLeandro
Antioch
LivermoreHayward
Union
City
Dublin
San Ramon
Orinda
Palo Alto
RedwoodCity
Millbrae
DalyCity
Hillsborough
Los
Altos Santa
Clara
Saratoga
Cupertino
LosGatos
CapitolaSantaCruz Gilroy
ScottsValley
Hollister
SalinasMarina
Watsonville
Morgan
Hill
Pacifica
Alameda
Newark
Pleasanton
Danville
Suisun City
1/26/11 JN 40-100419-17194 MASExhibit 1
Regional Vicinity
ALBRIGHT WAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT
Project
Site
01020 miles
APPROXIMATE
1/26/11 JN 40-100419-17194 MAS
Exhibit 2
Local Vicinitynot to scale
ALBRIGHT WAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT
Source: Google Earth aerial.
1/26/11 JN 40-100419-17194 MAS
Exhibit 3
Conceptual Site Layout
ALBRIGHT WAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT
Source: Form4 Architecture.
0160'
APPROXIMATE
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 8 March 2011
2.0 EXISTING AIR QUALITY SETTING
2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) divides the State into 15 air basins that share
similar meteorological and topographical features. The project site is located within the San
Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (Basin). This Basin comprises all of Alameda, Contra Costa,
Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties, the southern portion of
Sonoma, and the southwestern portion of Solano County. Air quality in this area is determined
by such natural factors as topography, meteorology, and climate, in addition to the presence of
existing air pollution sources and ambient conditions. These factors along with applicable
regulations are discussed below.
The Town of Los Gatos is located within the Santa Clara Valley climatological subregion of the
Basin. The Santa Clara Valley is bounded by the San Francisco Bay to the north and by
mountains to the east, south, and west.
The climate is dominated by the strength and location of a semi‐permanent, subtropical high‐
pressure cell. During the summer, the Pacific high pressure cell is centered over the
northeastern Pacific Ocean resulting in stable meteorological conditions and a steady
northwesterly wind flow. Upwelling of cold ocean water from below to the surface because of
the northwesterly flow produces a band of cold water off the California coast. The cool and
moisture‐laden air approaching the coast from the Pacific Ocean is further cooled by the
presence of the cold water band resulting in condensation and the presence of fog and stratus
clouds along the Northern California coast. In the winter, the Pacific high‐pressure cell
weakens and shifts southward resulting in wind flow offshore, the absence of upwelling, and
the occurrence of storms. Weak inversions coupled with moderate winds result in a low air
pollution potential.
Wind Patterns
During the summer, winds flowing from the northwest are drawn inland through the Golden
Gate and over the lower portions of the San Francisco Peninsula. Immediately south of Mount
Tamalpais, the northwesterly winds accelerate considerably and come more directly from the
west as they stream through the Golden Gate. This channeling of wind through the Golden
Gate produces a jet that sweeps eastward and splits off to the northwest toward Richmond and
to the southwest toward San Jose when it meets the East Bay hills.
Wind speeds may be strong locally in areas where air is channeled through a narrow opening,
such as the Carquinez Strait, the Golden Gate or the San Bruno gap. For example, the average
wind speed at San Francisco International Airport in July is about 17 knots (from 3:00 p.m. to
4:00 p.m.), compared with only seven knots at San Jose and less than six knots at the Farallon
Islands. The air flowing in from the coast to the Central Valley, called the sea breeze, begins
developing at or near ground level along the coast in late morning or early afternoon. As the
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 9 March 2011
day progresses, the sea breeze layer deepens and increases in velocity while spreading inland.
The depth of the sea breeze depends in large part upon the height and strength of the inversion.
If the inversion is low and strong, and hence stable, the flow of the sea breeze will be inhibited
and stagnant conditions are likely to result.
In the winter, the Basin frequently experiences stormy conditions with moderate to strong
winds, as well as periods of stagnation with very light winds. Winter stagnation episodes are
characterized by nighttime drainage flows in coastal valleys. Drainage is a reversal of the usual
daytime air‐flow patterns; air moves from the Central Valley toward the coast and back down
toward the Bay from the smaller valleys within the Basin.
Temperature
Summertime temperatures in the Basin are determined in large part by the effect of differential
heating between land and water surfaces. Because land tends to heat up and cool off more
quickly than water, a large‐scale gradient (differential) in temperature is often created between
the coast and the Central Valley, and small‐scale local gradients are often produced along the
shorelines of the ocean and bays. The temperature gradient near the ocean is also exaggerated,
especially in summer, because of the upwelling of cold ocean bottom water along the coast. On
summer afternoons the temperatures at the coast can be 35 degrees Fahrenheit (ºF) cooler than
temperatures 15 to 20 miles inland. At night this contrast usually decreases to less than 10ºF. In
the winter, the relationship of minimum and maximum temperatures is reversed. During the
daytime the temperature contrast between the coast and inland areas is small, whereas at night
the variation in temperature is large.
Precipitation
The Basin is characterized by moderately wet winters and dry summers. Winter rains account
for about 75 percent of the average annual rainfall. The amount of annual precipitation can
vary greatly from one part of the Basin to another even within short distances. In general, total
annual rainfall can reach 40 inches in the mountains, but it is often less than 16 inches in
sheltered valleys. During rainy periods, ventilation (rapid horizontal movement of air and
injection of cleaner air) and vertical mixing are usually high, and thus pollution levels tend to be
low. However, frequent dry periods do occur during the winter where mixing and ventilation
are low and pollutant levels build up.
Air Pollution Potential
The potential for high pollutant concentrations developing at a given location depends upon the
quantity of pollutants emitted into the atmosphere in the surrounding area or upwind, and the
ability of the atmosphere to disperse the contaminated air. The topographic and climatological
factors discussed above influence the atmospheric pollution potential of an area. Atmospheric
pollution potential, as the term is used here, is independent of the location of emission sources
and is instead a function of factors described below.
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 10 March 2011
Wind Circulation
Low wind speed contributes to the buildup of air pollution because it allows more pollutants to
be emitted into the air mass per unit of time. Light winds occur most frequently during periods
of low sun (fall and winter, and early morning) and at night. These are also periods when air
pollutant emissions from some sources are at their peak, namely, commute traffic (early
morning) and wood burning appliances (nighttime). The problem can be compounded in
valleys, when weak flows carry the pollutants upvalley during the day, and cold air drainage
flows move the air mass downvalley at night. Such restricted movement of trapped air
provides little opportunity for ventilation and leads to buildup of pollutants to potentially
unhealthful levels.
Inversions
An inversion is a layer of warmer air over a layer of cooler air. Inversions affect air quality
conditions significantly because they influence the mixing depth, which is the vertical depth in
the atmosphere available for diluting air contaminants near the ground. The highest air
pollutant concentrations in the Basin generally occur during inversions.
There are two types of inversions that occur regularly in the Basin. One is more common in the
summer and fall, while the other is most common during the winter. The frequent occurrence
of elevated temperature inversions in summer and fall months acts to cap the mixing depth,
limiting the depth of air available for dilution. Elevated inversions are caused by subsiding air
from the subtropical high pressure zone, and from the cool marine air layer that is drawn into
the Basin by the heated low pressure region in the Central Valley.
The inversions typical of winter, called radiation inversions, are formed as heat quickly radiates
from the earthʹs surface after sunset, causing the air in contact with it to rapidly cool. Radiation
inversions are strongest on clear, low‐wind, cold winter nights, allowing the build‐up of such
pollutants as carbon monoxide and particulate matter. When wind speeds are low, there is little
mechanical turbulence to mix the air, resulting in a layer of warm air over a layer of cooler air
next to the ground. Mixing depths under these conditions can be as shallow as 50 to 100 meters,
particularly in rural areas. Urban areas usually have deeper minimum mixing layers because of
heat island effects and increased surface roughness. During radiation inversions downwind
transport is slow, the mixing depths are shallow, and turbulence is minimal, all factors which
contribute to ozone formation.
Although each type of inversion is most common during a specific season, either inversion
mechanism can occur at any time of the year. Sometimes both occur simultaneously.
Moreover, the characteristics of an inversion often change throughout the course of a day. The
terrain of the Basin also induces significant variations among subregions.
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 11 March 2011
Solar Radiation
The frequency of hot, sunny days during the summer months in the Basin is another important
factor that affects air pollution potential. It is at the higher temperatures that ozone is formed.
In the presence of ultraviolet sunlight and warm temperatures, reactive organic gases and
oxides of nitrogen react to form secondary photochemical pollutants, including ozone. Because
temperatures in many of the inland valleys are so much higher than near the coast, the inland
areas are especially prone to photochemical air pollution. In late fall and winter, solar angles
are low, resulting in insufficient ultraviolet light and warming of the atmosphere to drive the
photochemical reactions. Ozone concentrations do not reach significant levels in the Basin
during these seasons.
Sheltered Terrain
The hills and mountains in the Basin contribute to the high pollution potential of some areas.
During the day, or at night during windy conditions, areas in the lee sides of mountains are
sheltered from the prevailing winds, thereby reducing turbulence and downwind transport. At
night, when wind speeds are low, the upper atmospheric layers are often decoupled from the
surface layers during radiation conditions. If elevated terrain is present, it will tend to block
pollutant transport in that direction. Elevated terrain also can create a recirculation pattern by
inducing upvalley air flows during the day and reverse downvalley flows during the night,
allowing little inflow of fresh air.
The areas having the highest air pollution potential tend to be those that experience the highest
temperatures in the summer and the lowest temperatures in the winter. The coastal areas are
exposed to the prevailing marine air, creating cooler temperatures in the summer, warmer
temperatures in winter, and stratus clouds all year. The inland valleys are sheltered from the
marine air and experience hotter summers and colder winters. Thus, the topography of the
inland valleys creates conditions conducive to high air pollution potential.
2.2 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The EPA is responsible for implementing the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), which was first
enacted in 1955 and amended numerous times after. The FCAA established Federal air quality
standards known as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). These standards
identify levels of air quality for “criteria” pollutants that are considered the maximum levels of
ambient (background) air pollutants considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to
protect the public health and welfare. The criteria pollutants are ozone (O3), carbon monoxide
(CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2, which is a form of nitrogen oxides [NOx]), sulfur dioxide (SO2,
which is a form of sulfur oxides [SOx]), particulate matter less than 10 and 2.5 microns in
diameter (PM10 and PM2.5, respectively), and lead (Pb); refer to Table 1, National and California
Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 12 March 2011
Table 1
National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards
California1
Federal2
Pollutant Averaging Time Standard3
Attainment Status Standards4
Attainment Status
1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 μg/m3
) Nonattainment N/A5
N/A5
Ozone (O3) 8 Hours 0.07 ppm (137 μg/m3
) N/A 0.075 ppm (147 μg/m3
) Nonattainment
24 Hours 50 μg/m3
Nonattainment 150 μg/m3
Unclassified Particulate
Matter (PM10) Annual Arithmetic
Mean 20 μg/m3
Nonattainment N/A6
Unclassified
24 Hours No Separate State Standard 35 μg/m3
Nonattainment Fine Particulate
Matter
(PM2. 5) Annual Arithmetic
Mean 12 μg/m3
Nonattainment 15.0 μg/m3
Nonattainment
8 Hours 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3
) Attainment 9 ppm (10 mg/m3
) Unclassified/
Attainment Carbon
Monoxide (CO) 1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3
) Attainment 35 ppm (40 mg/m3
) Unclassified/
Attainment
Annual Arithmetic
Mean 0.030 ppm (57 μg/m3
) N/A 53 ppb (100 μg/m3
) Unclassified/
Attainment Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)7
1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 μg/m3
) Attainment 100 ppb (188 μg/m3
) N/A
30 days average 1.5 μg/m3
Attainment N/A N/A Lead (Pb) Calendar Quarter N/A N/A 1.5 μg/m3
N/A
24 Hours 0.04 ppm (105 μg/m3
) Attainment N/A Attainment
3 Hours N/A N/A N/A Attainment Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) 1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 μg/m3
) Attainment 75 ppb (196 μg/m3
) N/A
Visibility-
Reducing
Particles
8 Hours (10 a.m. to
6 p.m., PST)
Extinction coefficient =
0.23 km@<70% RH Unclassified
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 μg/m3
Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3
) Unclassified
Vinyl Chloride 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 μg/m3
) N/A
No
Federal
Standards
μg/m3
= micrograms per cubic meter; ppm = parts per million; ppb = parts per billion; km = kilometer(s); RH = relative humidity; PST = Pacific
Standard Time; N/A = Not Applicable
1. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1- and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate
matter-PM10 and visibility-reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California
ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. In 1990, the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) identified vinyl chloride as a toxic air contaminant, but determined that there was not sufficient available
scientific evidence to support the identification of a threshold exposure level. This action allows the implementation of health-protective control
measures at levels below the 0.010 parts per million ambient concentration specified in the 1978 standard.
2. National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded
more than once a year. EPA also may designate an area as attainment/unclassifiable, if: (1) it has monitored air quality data that show that the
area has not violated the ozone standard over a three-year period; or (2) there is not enough information to determine the air quality in the area.
For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150
μg/m3
is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three
years, are equal to or less than the standard.
3. Concentration is expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference
temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 mm of mercury. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference
temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 mm of mercury (1,013.2 millibar); ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles
of pollutant per mole of gas.
4. National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health.
5. The Federal 1-hour ozone standard was revoked on June 15, 2005 in all areas except the 14 8-hour ozone nonattainment Early Action Compact
(EAC) areas.
6. The Environmental Protection Agency revoked the annual PM10 standard in 2006 (effective December 16, 2006).
7. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an area must not
exceed 0.100 ppm (effective January 22, 2010). Note that EPA standards are in units of ppb and California standards are in units of ppm.
Source: California Air Resources Board and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 8, 2010.
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 13 March 2011
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
CARB administers the air quality policy in California. The California Ambient Air Quality
Standards (CAAQS) were established in 1969 pursuant to the Mulford‐Carrell Act. These
standards, included with the NAAQS in Table 1, are generally more stringent and apply to
more pollutants than the NAAQS. In addition to the criteria pollutants, CAAQS have been
established for visibility reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide, and sulfates.
The California Clean Air Act (CCAA), which was approved in 1988, requires that each local air
district prepare and maintain an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) to achieve compliance
with CAAQS. These AQMP’s also serve as the basis for the preparation of the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State of California. Like the EPA, CARB also designates areas
within California as either attainment or nonattainment for each criteria pollutant based on
whether the CAAQS have been achieved. Under the CCAA, areas are designated as
nonattainment for a pollutant if air quality data shows that a State standard for the pollutant
was violated at least once during the previous three calendar years. Exceedances that are
affected by highly irregular or infrequent events are not considered violations of a State
standard, and are not used as a basis for designating areas as nonattainment.
BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the regional agency with
jurisdiction over the nine‐county region located in the Basin. The Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG), the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), county
transportation agencies, cities and counties, and various nongovernmental organizations also
join in the efforts to improve air quality through a variety of programs. These programs include
the adoption of regulations and policies, as well as implementation of extensive education and
public outreach programs.
The BAAQMD is responsible for attaining and/or maintaining air quality in the Basin within
Federal and State air quality standards. Specifically, the BAAQMD has the responsibility to
monitor ambient air pollutant levels throughout the Basin and to develop and implement
strategies to attain the applicable Federal and State standards.
In June 2010, the BAAQMD adopted its updated California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Air Quality Guidelines as a guidance document to provide lead government agencies,
consultants, and project proponents with uniform procedures for assessing air quality impacts
and preparing the air quality sections of environmental documents for projects subject to
CEQA. The CEQA Air Quality Guidelines include methodologies and thresholds for addressing
project and program level air quality and GHG emissions.
In March 2010, the BAAQMD, in cooperation with the MTC and ABAG, published the draft
2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan, which, supersedes the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. The 2010 Bay
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 14 March 2011
Area Clean Air Plan updates the 2005 Ozone Strategy in accordance with the requirements of the
CCAA to achieve the following:
• Implement all feasible measures to reduce ozone; provide a control strategy to reduce
ozone, particulate matter, toxic air contaminants, and GHGs in a single, integrated plan;
• Review progress in improving air quality in recent years; and
• Establish emission control measures to be adopted or implemented in the 2010 to 2012
time frame.
The control strategy includes stationary‐source control measures to be implemented through
BAAQMD regulations; mobile‐source control measures to be implemented through incentive
programs and other activities; and transportation control measures to be implemented through
transportation programs in cooperation with the MTC, local governments, transit agencies, and
others. The 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan also represents the Bay Area’s most recent triennial
assessment of the region’s strategy to attain the State one‐hour ozone standard.
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE REGULATORY PROGRAMS
Federal
The FCAA requires the EPA to define national ambient air quality standards (national
standards) to protect public health and welfare in the United States. The FCAA does not
specifically regulate GHG emissions; however, on April 2, 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court in
Massachusetts v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, determined that GHGs are pollutants that
can be regulated under the FCAA. The EPA adopted an endangerment finding and cause or
contribute finding for GHGs on December 7, 2009. Under the endangerment finding, the
Administrator found that the current and projected atmospheric concentrations of the six, key,
well‐mixed GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6) threaten the public health and welfare
of current and future generations. Under the cause of contribute finding, the Administrator
found that the combined emissions of these well‐mixed GHGs from new motor vehicles and
new motor vehicle engines contribute to the GHG pollution which threatens public health and
welfare.
Based on these findings, on April 1, 2010, the EPA finalized the light‐duty vehicle rule
controlling GHG emissions. This rule confirmed that January 2, 2011, is the earliest date that a
2012 model year vehicle meeting these rule requirements may be sold in the United States. On
May 13, 2010, the EPA issued the final GHG Tailoring Rule. This rule set thresholds for GHG
emissions that define when permits under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title
V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities.
Implementation of the Federal rules is expected to reduce the level of emissions from new
motor vehicles and large stationary sources.
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 15 March 2011
State
Various statewide and local initiatives to reduce California’s contribution to GHG emissions
have raised awareness that, even though the various contributors to and consequences of global
climate change are not yet fully understood, global climate change is occurring, and that there is
a real potential for severe adverse environmental, social, and economic effects in the long term.
Every nation emits GHGs and as a result makes an incremental cumulative contribution to
global climate change; therefore, global cooperation will be required to reduce the rate of GHG
emissions enough to slow or stop the human‐caused increase in average global temperatures
and associated changes in climatic conditions.
Executive Order S‐1‐07. Executive Order S‐1‐07 proclaims that the transportation sector is the
main source of GHG emissions in California, generating more than 40 percent of statewide
emissions. It establishes a goal to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels sold in
California by at least ten percent by 2020. This order also directs CARB to determine whether
this Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) could be adopted as a discrete early‐action measure as
part of the effort to meet the mandates in AB 32.
Executive Order S‐3‐05. Executive Order S‐3‐05 set forth a series of target dates by which
statewide emissions of GHGs would be progressively reduced, as follows:
• By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels;
• By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and
• By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
The Executive Order directed the secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency
(Cal/EPA) to coordinate a multi‐agency effort to reduce GHG emissions to the target levels. The
secretary will also submit biannual reports to the governor and California Legislature
describing the progress made toward the emissions targets, the impacts of global climate
change on California’s resources, and mitigation and adaptation plans to combat these impacts.
To comply with the executive order, the secretary of Cal/EPA created the California Climate
Action Team (CAT), made up of members from various State agencies and commissions. The
team released its first report in March 2006. The report proposed to achieve the targets by
building on the voluntary actions of California businesses, local governments, and communities
and through State incentive and regulatory programs.
Executive Order S‐13‐08. Executive Order S‐13‐08 seeks to enhance the Stateʹs management of
climate impacts including sea level rise, increased temperatures, shifting precipitation, and
extreme weather events by facilitating the development of State’s first climate adaptation
strategy. This will result in consistent guidance from experts on how to address climate change
impacts in the State of California.
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 16 March 2011
Executive Order S‐14‐08. Executive Order S‐14‐08 expands the Stateʹs Renewable Energy
Standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. Additionally, Executive Order S‐21‐09
(signed on September 15, 2009) directs CARB to adopt regulations requiring 33 percent of
electricity sold in the State come from renewable energy by 2020. CARB adopted the
“Renewable Electricity Standard” on September 23, 2010, which requires 33 percent renewable
energy by 2020 for most publicly owned electricity retailers.
Executive Order S‐20‐04. Executive Order S‐20‐04, the California Green Building Initiative,
(signed into law on December 14, 2004), establishes a goal of reducing energy use in State‐
owned buildings by 20 percent from a 2003 baseline by 2015. It also encourages the private
commercial sector to set the same goal. The initiative places the California Energy Commission
(CEC) in charge of developing a building efficiency benchmarking system, commissioning and
retro‐commissioning (commissioning for existing commercial buildings) guidelines, and
developing and refining building energy efficiency standards under Title 24 to meet this goal.
Executive Order S‐21‐09. Executive Order S‐21‐09, 33 percent Renewable Energy for California,
directs CARB to adopt regulations to increase Californiaʹs Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)
to 33 percent by 2020. This builds upon SB 1078 (2002) which established the California RPS
program, requiring 20 percent renewable energy by 2017, and SB 107 (2006) which advanced the
20 percent deadline to 2010, a goal which was expanded to 33 percent by 2020 in the 2005
Energy Action Plan II.
Assembly Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006). California passed the
California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32; California Health and Safety Code
Division 25.5, Sections 38500 ‐ 38599). AB 32 establishes regulatory, reporting, and market
mechanisms to achieve quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions and establishes a cap on
statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990
levels by 2020. AB 32 specifies that regulations adopted in response to AB 1493 should be used
to address GHG emissions from vehicles. However, AB 32 also includes language stating that if
the AB 1493 regulations cannot be implemented, then CARB should develop new regulations to
control vehicle GHG emissions under the authorization of AB 32.
Assembly Bill 1493. AB 1493 (also known as the Pavley Bill) requires that CARB develop and
adopt, by January 1, 2005, regulations that achieve “the maximum feasible reduction of GHG
emitted by passenger vehicles and light‐duty trucks and other vehicles determined by CARB to
be vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation in the State.”
To meet the requirements of AB 1493, CARB approved amendments to the California Code of
Regulations (CCR) in 2004 by adding GHG emissions standards to California’s existing
standards for motor vehicle emissions. Amendments to CCR Title 13, Sections 1900 and 1961
and adoption of 13 CCR Section 1961.1 require automobile manufacturers to meet fleet‐average
GHG emissions limits for all passenger cars, light‐duty trucks within various weight criteria,
and medium‐duty weight classes for passenger vehicles (i.e., any medium‐duty vehicle with a
gross vehicle weight rating less than 10,000 pounds that is designed primarily to transport
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 17 March 2011
people), beginning with the 2009 model year. Emissions limits are reduced further in each
model year through 2016. When fully phased in, the near‐term standards will result in a
reduction of about 22 percent in GHG emissions compared to the emissions from the 2002 fleet,
while the mid‐term standards will result in a reduction of about 30 percent.
Assembly Bill 3018. AB 3018 established the Green Collar Jobs Council (GCJC) under the
California Workforce Investment Board (CWIB). The GCJC will develop a comprehensive
approach to address California’s emerging workforce needs associated with the emerging green
economy. This bill will ignite the development of job training programs in the clean and green
technology sectors.
Senate Bill 97. SB 97, signed in August 2007 (Chapter 185, Statutes of 2007; PRC Sections
21083.05 and 21097), acknowledges that climate change is a prominent environmental issue that
requires analysis under CEQA. This bill directs the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
(OPR), which is part of the State Natural Resources Agency, to prepare, develop, and transmit
to CARB guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions (or the effects of GHG
emissions), as required by CEQA.
OPR published a technical advisory recommending that CEQA lead agencies make a good‐faith
effort to estimate the quantity of GHG emissions that would be generated by a proposed
project. Specifically, based on available information, CEQA lead agencies should estimate the
emissions associated with project‐related vehicular traffic, energy consumption, water usage,
and construction activities to determine whether project‐level or cumulative impacts could
occur, and should mitigate the impacts where feasible. OPR requested CARB technical staff to
recommend a method for setting CEQA thresholds of significance as described in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.7 that will encourage consistency and uniformity in the CEQA analysis
of GHG emissions throughout the State.
The Natural Resources Agency adopted the CEQA Guidelines Amendments prepared by OPR,
as directed by SB 97. On February 16, 2010, the Office of Administration Law approved the
CEQA Guidelines Amendments, and filed them with the Secretary of State for inclusion in the
California Code of Regulations. The CEQA Guidelines Amendments became effective on
March 18, 2010.
Senate Bill 375. SB 375, signed in September 2008 (Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008), aligns regional
transportation planning efforts, regional GHG reduction targets, and land use and housing
allocation. SB 375 requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to adopt a sustainable
communities strategy (SCS) or alternative planning strategy (APS) that will prescribe land use
allocation in that MPOs regional transportation plan. CARB, in consultation with MPOs, will
provide each affected region with reduction targets for GHGs emitted by passenger cars and
light trucks in the region for the years 2020 and 2035. These reduction targets will be updated
every eight years but can be updated every four years if advancements in emissions
technologies affect the reduction strategies to achieve the targets. CARB is also charged with
reviewing each MPO’s SCS or APS for consistency with its assigned targets. If MPOs do not
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 18 March 2011
meet the GHG reduction targets, transportation projects may not be eligible for funding
programmed after January 1, 2012.
Senate Bills 1078 and 107. SB 1078 (Chapter 516, Statutes of 2002) requires retail sellers of
electricity, including investor‐owned utilities and community choice aggregators, to provide at
least 20 percent of their supply from renewable sources by 2017. SB 107 (Chapter 464, Statutes
of 2006) changed the target date to 2010.
Senate Bill 1368. SB 1368 (Chapter 598, Statutes of 2006) is the companion bill of AB 32 and was
signed into law in September 2006. SB 1368 required the California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) to establish a performance standard for baseload generation of GHG emissions by
investor‐owned utilities by February 1, 2007. SB 1368 also required the CEC to establish a
similar standard for local publicly owned utilities by June 30, 2007. These standards could not
exceed the GHG emissions rate from a baseload combined‐cycle, natural gas–fired plant.
Furthermore, the legislation states that all electricity provided to California, including imported
electricity, must be generated by plants that meet the standards set by CPUC and CEC.
CARB Scoping Plan
On December 11, 2008, CARB adopted its Scoping Plan, which functions as a roadmap to
achieve GHG reductions in California required by AB 32 through subsequently enacted
regulations. CARB’s Scoping Plan contains the main strategies California will implement to
reduce CO2eq emissions by 174 million metric tons (MT), or approximately 30 percent, from the
State’s projected 2020 emissions level of 596 million MT CO2eq2
under a business as usual
(BAU)3
scenario. This is a reduction of 42 million MT CO2eq, or almost ten percent, from 2002 to
2004 average emissions, but requires the reductions in the face of population and economic
growth through 2020.
CARB’s Scoping Plan calculates 2020 BAU emissions as the emissions that would be expected to
occur in the absence of any GHG reduction measures. The 2020 BAU emissions estimate was
derived by projecting emissions from a past baseline year using growth factors specific to each
of the different economic sectors (e.g., transportation, electrical power, commercial and
residential, industrial, etc.). CARB used three‐year average emissions, by sector, for 2002 to
2004 to forecast emissions to 2020. At the time CARB’s Scoping Plan process was initiated, 2004
was the most recent year for which actual data was available. The measures described in
CARB’s Scoping Plan are intended to reduce the projected 2020 BAU to 1990 levels, as required
by AB 32. However, the San Francisco Superior Court has recently issued a tentative ruling,
that if issued as proposed, would suspend the implementation of the Scoping Plan pending
additional CEQA review.
2
Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2eq) ‐ A metric measure used to compare the emissions from various
greenhouse gases based upon their global warming potential.
3
“Business as Usual” refers to emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of GHG reductions.
See http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/forecast.htm. Note that there is significant controversy as to what BAU
means. In determining the GHG 2020 limit, CARB used the above as the “definition.” It is broad enough to allow for
design features to be counted as reductions.
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 19 March 2011
In Association of Irritated Residents, et al. v. California Air Resources Board, et al., the Superior
Court of California for the County of San Francisco (Superior Court) issued a ʺtentative
statement of decisionʺ (Tentative Decision) that prevents CARB from implementing a state‐wide
GHG regulatory program under AB 32 until the agency complies with the requirements of
CEQA. The Tentative Decision partially grants a petition for a writ of mandate brought by a
coalition of environmental justice organizations (Petitioners) that alleged that CARBʹs Scoping
Plan violated both AB 32 and CEQA. Although the Superior Court denied all claims related to
AB 32, the court found that CARB: 1) failed to adequately discuss and analyze the impacts of
alternatives in its proposed Scoping Plan as required by its CEQA implementing regulations;
and 2) improperly approved the Scoping Plan prior to completing the environmental review
required by CEQA. In upholding the Petitionersʹ challenge on these two CEQA issues, the
Superior Court issued a Peremptory Writ of Mandate and enjoined CARB from further
implementation of the Scoping Plan until it complies with all CEQA requirements. Parties to
the case had 15 days from the issuance of the Tentative Decision to file objections before the
Superior Court issued a final decision in the case.
On March 18, 2011, the Superior Court issued its Final Statement of Decision, which is
substantially similar to the Tentative Decision. The Superior Court ruled in favor of CARB
concerning AB 32 mandates and how to best reach the GHG reduction goals set by AB 32.
However, the Superior Court determined that CARB failed to conduct adequate CEQA review
for the Scoping Plan. Specifically, the Superior Court concluded that CARB failed to consider
adequate alternatives to the mix of measures adopted in the Scoping Plan, including especially
alternatives to cap‐and‐trade measures, and that CARB improperly began implementing the
Scoping Plan measures before its CEQA review process was complete. Therefore, the Superior
Court has suspended any further implementation of the measures contained in the Scoping
Plan until the State has complied with CEQA.
2.3 SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Sensitive populations are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than is the general
population. Sensitive populations (sensitive receptors) that are in proximity to localized
sources of toxics and CO are of particular concern. Land uses considered sensitive receptors
include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, long‐term health care facilities,
rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. Table 2, Sensitive Receptors,
lists the distances and locations of sensitive receptors within the project vicinity.
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 20 March 2011
Table 2
Sensitive Receptors
Type Name Distance from Project
Site (feet) Direction from Project Site
475 North
875 Northeast
230 East
1,660 Southeast
Adjoining East/South
1,200 South
900 Southwest
130 West
Residential Residential Uses
600 Northwest
Schools Yavneh Day School 820 Southeast
Los Gatos Swim and Racquet Club 1,000 East Parks/Recreation Courtside Club 350 Southwest
Addison Penzack Jewish Community Center 820 Southeast
First Assembly of God 1,400 South Places of Worship
Congregation Tsemach Adonai 1,450 South
Hospitals El Camino Hospital Los Gatos 1,900 Northwest
Source: Google Earth 2010.
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 21 March 2011
3.0 MONITORED AIR QUALITY
CARB monitors ambient air quality at approximately 250 air monitoring stations across the
state. Air quality monitoring stations usually measure pollutant concentrations ten feet
aboveground level; therefore, air quality is often referred to in terms of ground‐level
concentrations. The closest air monitoring station to the project site is the Los Gatos Monitoring
Station, which monitors eight‐hour ozone only. Therefore, the remaining data was collected
from the San Jose‐Jackson Street Monitoring Station (next closest station to the project site).
Local air quality data from 2007 to 2009 is provided in Table 3, Local Air Quality Levels. This
table lists the monitored maximum concentrations and number of exceedances of Federal/State
air quality standards for each year.
Table 3
Local Air Quality Levels
Pollutant California
Standard
Federal
Standard Year Maximum1
Concentration
Days (Samples)
State/Federal
Std. Exceeded
Ozone (O3)
(1-Hour) 3
0.09 ppm
for 1 hour NA
2007
2008
2009
0.084 ppm
0.122
0.102
0/NA
2/NA
3/NA
Ozone (O3)
(8-Hour) 3
0.07 ppm
for 8 hours
0.075 ppm
for 8 hours
2007
2008
2009
0.065 ppm
0.097
0.082
0/0
2/6
4/8
Carbon Monoxide
(CO) (1-Hour) 2
20 ppm
for 1 hour
35 ppm
for 1 hour
2007
2008
2009
3.51 ppm
3.32
3.43
0/0
0/0
0/0
Carbon Monoxide
(CO) (8-Hour) 2
9.0 ppm
for 8 hours
9.0 ppm
for 8 hours
2007
2008
2009
2.71 ppm
2.48
2.50
0/0
0/0
0/0
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2) 2,4
0.18 ppm
for 1 hour
0.100 ppm
for 1 hour
2007
2008
2009
0.065 ppm
0.080
0.069
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
Particulate Matter
(PM10) 2,5,6
50 µg/m3
for 24 hours
150 µg/m3
for 24 hours
2007
2008
2009
69.1 μg/m3
57.3
43.3
3/0
1/0
0/0
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5) 2,5,6
No Separate State
Standard
35 µg/m3
for 24 hours
2007
2008
2009
57.5 μg/m3
41.9
35.0
NA/9
NA/5
NA/0
ppm = parts per million; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less; NM = not measured; μg/m3
= micrograms per cubic meter;
PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less; NA = not applicable.
Notes:
1. Maximum concentration is measured over the same period as the California Standards.
2. San Jose-Jackson Street Monitoring Station located at 158 East Jackson Street, San Jose, CA.
3. Los Gatos Monitoring Station located at 306 University Avenue, Los Gatos, CA.
4. The United States Environmental Protection Agency revoked the Federal 1-hour Standard in June of 2005.
5. PM10 exceedances are based on State thresholds established prior to amendments adopted on June 20, 2002.
6. PM10 and PM2.5 exceedances are derived from the number of samples exceeded, not days.
Source: Aerometric Data Analysis and Measurement System (ADAM), summaries from 2007 to 2009, http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam.
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 22 March 2011
CARBON MONOXIDE (CO)
CO is an odorless, colorless toxic gas that is emitted by mobile and stationary sources as a result
of incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon‐based fuels. In cities, automobile
exhaust can cause as much as 95 percent of all CO emissions. At high concentrations, CO can
reduce the oxygen‐carrying capacity of the blood and cause headaches, dizziness, and
unconsciousness.
OZONE (O3)
O3 occurs in two layers of the atmosphere. The layer surrounding the earthʹs surface is the
troposphere. The troposphere extends approximately 10 miles above ground level, where it
meets the second layer, the stratosphere. The stratospheric (the “good” ozone) layer extends
upward from about ten to 30 miles and protects life on earth from the sunʹs harmful ultraviolet
rays (UV‐B). “Bad” ozone is a photochemical pollutant, and needs VOCs, NOX and sunlight to
form. Therefore, VOCs and NOX are ozone precursors. VOCs and NOX are emitted from
various sources throughout the Town. Significant ozone formation generally requires an
adequate amount of precursors in the atmosphere and several hours in a stable atmosphere
with strong sunlight. High ozone concentrations can form over large regions when emissions
from motor vehicles and stationary sources are carried hundreds of miles from their origins.
Many respiratory ailments, as well as cardiovascular disease, are aggravated by exposure to
high O3 levels. O3 also damages natural ecosystems (such as forests and foothill plant
communities) and damages agricultural crops and some man‐made materials (such as rubber,
paint and plastics). Societal costs from ozone damage include increased healthcare costs, the
loss of human and animal life, accelerated replacement of industrial equipment and reduced
crop yields.
NITROGEN DIOXIDE (NO2)
NOX are a family of highly reactive gases that are a primary precursor to the formation of
ground‐level O3, and react in the atmosphere to form acid rain. NO2 (often used
interchangeably with NOX) is a reddish‐brown gas that can cause breathing difficulties at high
levels. Peak readings of NO2 occur in areas that have a high concentration of combustion
sources (e.g., motor vehicle engines, power plants, refineries, and other industrial operations).
NO2 can irritate and damage the lungs, and lower resistance to respiratory infections such as
influenza. The health effects of short‐term exposure are still unclear. However, continued or
frequent exposure to NO2 concentrations that are typically much higher than those normally
found in the ambient air may increase acute respiratory illnesses in children and increase the
incidence of chronic bronchitis and lung irritation. Chronic exposure to NO2 may aggravate
eyes and mucus membranes and cause pulmonary dysfunction.
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 23 March 2011
COARSE PARTICULATE MATTER (PM10)
PM10 refers to suspended particulate matter, which is smaller than ten microns or ten one‐
millionths of a meter. PM10 arises from sources such as road dust, diesel soot, combustion
products, construction operations, and dust storms. PM10 scatters light and significantly
reduces visibility. In addition, these particulates penetrate the lungs and can potentially
damage the respiratory tract. On June 19, 2003, CARB adopted amendments to the statewide
24‐hour particulate matter standards based upon requirements set forth in the Children’s
Environmental Health Protection Act (SB 25).
FINE PARTICULATE MATTER (PM2.5)
Due to recent increased concerns over health impacts related to fine particulate matter
(particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less), both State and Federal PM2.5 standards have
been created. Particulate matter impacts primarily affect infants, children, the elderly, and
those with pre‐existing cardiopulmonary disease. In 1997, the EPA announced new PM2.5
standards. Industry groups challenged the new standard in court and the implementation of
the standard was blocked. However, upon appeal by the EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court
reversed this decision and upheld the EPA’s new standards.
On June 20, 2002, CARB adopted amendments for statewide annual ambient particulate matter
air quality standards. These standards were revised/established due to increasing concerns by
CARB that previous standards were inadequate, as almost everyone in California is exposed to
levels at or above the current State standards during some parts of the year, and the statewide
potential for significant health impacts associated with particulate matter exposure was
determined to be large and wide‐ranging.
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCs or Reactive Organic Gases [ROG])
Hydrocarbons are organic gases that are formed solely of hydrogen and carbon. There are
several subsets of organic gases including ROGs and VOCs. Both ROGs and VOCs are emitted
from the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon‐based fuels. The major
sources of hydrocarbons are combustion engine exhaust, oil refineries, and oil‐fueled power
plants; other common sources are petroleum fuels, solvents, dry cleaning solutions, and paint
(via evaporation).
LEAD (Pb)
In the Basin, atmospheric lead is generated almost entirely by the combustion of leaded gasoline
and contributes less than one percent of the material collected as total suspended particulate.
Atmospheric lead concentrations have been reduced substantially in recent years due to the
lowering of average lead content in gasoline. Exceedances of the State air quality standard for
lead (monthly average concentration of 1.50 μg/m3
) now are confined to densely populated
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 24 March 2011
areas, where vehicle traffic is greatest. Lead was not monitored at the nearby monitoring
locations. The Basin has achieved attainment for lead under both State and Federal standards.
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE GASES
The natural process through which heat is retained in the troposphere is called the “greenhouse
effect.”4
The greenhouse effect traps heat in the troposphere through a three‐fold process,
summarized as follows: short wave radiation emitted by the Sun is absorbed by the Earth; the
Earth emits a portion of this energy in the form of long wave radiation; and GHGs in the upper
atmosphere absorb this long wave radiation and emit this long wave radiation into space and
toward the Earth. This “trapping” of the long wave (thermal) radiation emitted back toward
the Earth is the underlying process of the greenhouse effect.
The most abundant GHGs are water vapor and carbon dioxide. Many other trace gases have
greater ability to absorb and re‐radiate long wave radiation; however, these gases are not as
plentiful. For this reason, and to gauge the potency of GHGs, scientists have established a
Global Warming Potential (GWP) for each GHG based on its ability to absorb and re‐radiate
long wave radiation. The GWP of a gas is determined using carbon dioxide as the reference gas
with a GWP of one (1).
GHGs normally associated with the proposed project include the following:5
• Water Vapor (H2O). Although water vapor has not received the scrutiny of other
GHGs, it is the primary contributor to the greenhouse effect. Natural processes, such
as evaporation from oceans and rivers, and transpiration from plants, contribute 90
percent and 10 percent of the water vapor in our atmosphere, respectively. The
primary human related source of water vapor comes from fuel combustion in motor
vehicles; however, this is not believed to contribute a significant amount (less than
one percent) to atmospheric concentrations of water vapor. The Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has not determined a GWP for water vapor.
• Carbon Dioxide (CO2). CO2 is primarily generated by fossil fuel combustion in
stationary and mobile sources. Due to the emergence of industrial facilities and
mobile sources in the past 250 years, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has
increased 36 percent.6
CO2 is the most widely emitted GHG and is the reference gas
(GWP of 1) for determining GWPs for other GHGs.
4
The troposphere is the bottom layer of the atmosphere, which varies in height from the Earth’s surface to 10
to 12 kilometers.
5
All Global Warming Potentials are given as 100 year GWP. Unless noted otherwise, all Global Warming
Potentials were obtained from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change (Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change, The Science of Climate Change – Contribution of Working Group I to the Second
Assessment Report of the IPCC, 1996).
6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of United States Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to
2008, April 2010.
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 25 March 2011
• Methane (CH4). CH4 is emitted from biogenic sources, incomplete combustion in
forest fires, landfills, manure management, and leaks in natural gas pipelines. In the
United States, the top three sources of CH4 are landfills, natural gas systems, and
enteric fermentation. CH4 is the primary component of natural gas, which is used for
space and water heating, steam production, and power generation. The GWP of CH4
is 21.
• Nitrous Oxide (N2O). N2O is produced by both natural and human related sources.
Primary human related sources include agricultural soil management, animal
manure management, sewage treatment, mobile and stationary combustion of fossil
fuel, adipic acid production, and nitric acid production. The GWP of N2O is 310.
• Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). HFCs are typically used as refrigerants for both
stationary refrigeration and mobile air conditioning. The use of HFCs for cooling
and foam blowing is growing, as the continued phase out of chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) gains momentum. The GWP of
HFCs range from 140 for HFC‐152a to 11,700 for HFC‐23.7
• Perfluorocarbons (PFCs). PFCs are compounds consisting of carbon and fluorine.
They are primarily created as a byproduct of aluminum production and semi
conductor manufacturing. PFCs are potent GHGs with a GWP several thousand
times that of CO2, depending on the specific PFC. Another area of concern regarding
PFCs is their long atmospheric lifetime (up to 50,000 years).8
The GWP of PFCs
range from 6,500 to 9,200.
• Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). SF6 is a colorless, odorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It
is most commonly used as an electrical insulator in high voltage equipment that
transmits and distributes electricity. SF6 is the most potent GHG that has been
evaluated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change with a GWP of 23,900.
However, its global warming contribution is not as high as the GWP would indicate
due to its low mixing ratio compared to carbon dioxide (4 parts per trillion [ppt] in
1990 versus 365 parts per million [ppm], respectively).9
In addition to the six major GHGs discussed above (excluding water vapor), many other
compounds have the potential to contribute to the greenhouse effect. Some of these substances
were previously identified as stratospheric O3 depletors; therefore, their gradual phase out is
currently in effect. The following is a listing of these compounds:
• Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). HCFCs are solvents, similar in use and chemical
composition to CFCs. The main uses of HCFCs are for refrigerant products and air
conditioning systems. As part of the Montreal Protocol, all developed countries that
adhere to the Montreal Protocol are subject to a consumption cap and gradual phase
out of HCFCs. The United States is scheduled to achieve a 100 percent reduction to
7
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, High GWP Gases and Climate Change, June 22, 2010.
8
Ibid.
9
Ibid.
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 26 March 2011
the cap by 2030. The GWPs of HCFCs range from 93 for HCFC‐123 to 2,000 for
HCFC‐142b.10
• 1,1,1 trichloroethane. 1,1,1 trichloroethane or methyl chloroform is a solvent and
degreasing agent commonly used by manufacturers. The GWP of methyl
chloroform is 110 times that of CO2.11
• Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). CFCs are used as refrigerants, cleaning solvents, and
aerosols spray propellants. CFCs were also part of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency’s (EPA) Final Rule (57 FR 3374) for the phase out of O3 depleting
substances. Currently, CFCs have been replaced by HFCs in cooling systems and a
variety of alternatives for cleaning solvents. Nevertheless, CFCs remain suspended
in the atmosphere contributing to the greenhouse effect. CFCs are potent GHGs
with GWPs ranging from 4,600 for CFC 11 to 14,000 for CFC 13.12
10
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Global Warming Potential for
Ozone Depleting Substances, November 7, 2006.
11
Ibid.
12
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Class I Ozone Depleting Substances, March 7, 2006.
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 27 March 2011
4.0 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY
4.1 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
BAAQMD THRESHOLDS
Under CEQA, the BAAQMD is a commenting responsible agency on air quality within its
jurisdiction or impacting its jurisdiction. The BAAQMD reviews projects to ensure that they
would: (1) support the primary goals of the latest Air Quality Plan; (2) include applicable
control measures from the Air Quality Plan; and (3) not disrupt or hinder implementation of
any Air Quality Plan control measures.
As described above, the BAAQMD adopted their CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to assist lead
agencies in evaluating air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed in the Basin. The
CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provide BAAQMD‐recommended procedures for evaluating
potential air quality and GHG impacts during the environmental review process consistent with
CEQA requirements. In addition to providing new thresholds for GHG emissions, the 2010
CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provide updated significance thresholds for criteria pollutants and
supersede the BAAQMD’s previous CEQA guidance titled BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines:
Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans (1999).
If the project proposes development in excess of the established thresholds, as illustrated in
Table 4, BAAQMD Emission Thresholds, a significant air quality impact may occur and additional
analysis is warranted to fully assess the significance of impacts.
Table 4
BAAQMD Emissions Thresholds
Pollutant/Precursor Maximum Annual Emissions (tpy) Average Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
(Construction and Operational)
ROG 10 54
NOX 10 54
PM10 15 82
PM2.5 10 54
tpy = tons per year; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less;
lb/day = pounds per day; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 micrometers or less;
NOX = oxides of nitrogen; ROG = reactive organic gases.
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, June 2010.
Localized CO Thresholds
The BAAQMD screening criteria provides that the proposed project would result in a less‐than‐
significant impact to localized CO concentrations if the following are met:
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 28 March 2011
• Project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by
the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional
transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans.
• The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more
than 44,000 vehicles per hour.
• The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more
than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially
limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon,
below‐grade roadway).
If none of the above criteria are met, then the project would require a quantitative analysis that
would compare emissions to the CAAQS.
Health Risk Screening Thresholds
The BAAQMD has developed methods whereby local community risk and hazard impacts from
projects for both new sources and new receptors can be determined based on comparison with
applicable thresholds of significance and screening criteria and (2) to recommend mitigation
measures for these impacts. The screening methods are provided in the BAAQMD guidance
document entitled Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards (May
2010). The BAAQMD guidance provides screening tables to determine whether emissions
would create a significant health hazard impact based on project size and receptor distance.
Additionally, the BAAQMD recommends that all toxic sources are identified within a 1,000 foot
radius of the project site to determine any risk and health hazards. It is noted that the
BAAQMD has revised the effective date for the risk and hazards thresholds for new receptors
from January 1, 2011 to May 1, 2011 to allow lead agencies to become fully prepared to
implement the risk and hazards thresholds.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS
Under CEQA, the BAAQMD is a commenting responsible agency on air quality and GHG
emissions within its jurisdiction or impacting its jurisdiction. The BAAQMD’s approach to
developing a threshold of significance for GHG emissions is to identify the emissions level for
which a project would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California
legislation adopted to reduce statewide GHG emissions needed to move us towards climate
stabilization. If a project would generate GHG emissions above the threshold level, it would be
considered to contribute substantially to a cumulative impact, and would be considered
significant.
Stationary‐source projects include land uses that would accommodate processes and equipment
that emit GHG emissions and would require an Air District permit to operate. If annual
emissions of operational‐related GHGs exceed these levels, the proposed project would result in
a cumulatively considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively significant
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 29 March 2011
impact to global climate change. Table 5, BAAQMD GHG Thresholds presents the June 2010
adopted project‐level thresholds for GHG emissions.
Table 5
BAAQMD GHG Thresholds
Project Type Construction-Related Operational-Related
Projects other than Stationary Sources1
None
Compliance with Qualified Climate Action Plan
OR
1,100 MTCO2eq/yr
OR
4.6 MTCO2eq/SP2
/yr
Stationary Sources1
None 10,000 MTCO2eq/yr
MTCO2eq/yr = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year
Notes:
1: According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, a stationary source project is one that includes land uses that would accommodate processes
and equipment that emit GHG emissions and would require a BAAQMD permit to operate. Projects other than stationary sources are land
use development projects including residential, commercial, industrial, and public uses that do not require a BAAQMD permit to operate.
2: SP = service population (residents + employees)
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, June 2010.
The BAAQMD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction‐related
GHG emissions. However, the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommend
quantification and disclosure of construction GHG emissions. The BAAQMD also recommends
that the Lead Agency should make a determination on the significance of these construction
generated GHG emission impacts in relation to meeting AB 32 GHG reduction goals, as
required by the Public Resources Code, Section 21082.2. The Lead Agency is encouraged to
incorporate best management practices to reduce GHG emissions during construction, as
feasible and applicable.
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 30 March 2011
5.0 POTENTIAL AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACTS
CEQA THRESHOLDS
The environmental analysis in this section is patterned after the Initial Study Checklist
recommended by the CEQA Guidelines, as amended. The issues presented in the Initial Study
Checklist have been utilized as thresholds of significance in this section. Accordingly, a project
may create a significant environmental impact if it causes one or more of the following to occur:
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan (refer to
Impact Statement AQ‐1);
• Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation (refer to Impact Statement AQ‐2);
• Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is in nonattainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for
O3 precursors) (refer to Impact Statement AQ‐3);
• Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (refer to Impact
Statement AQ‐4);
• Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people (refer to Impact
Statement AQ‐5);
• Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment (refer to Impact Statement GHG‐1); and/or
• Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases (refer to Impact Statement GHG‐2).
Based on these standards and thresholds, the effects of the proposed project have been
categorized as either a “less than significant impact” or a “potentially significant impact.”
Mitigation measures are recommended for potentially significant impacts.
AQ‐1 CONFLICT WITH OR OBSTRUCT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
APPLICABLE AIR QUALITY PLAN?
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant.
Scenario 1
The most recently adopted air quality plan in the Basin is the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan (Clean
Air Plan). This Clean Air Plan outlines how the San Francisco Bay Area will attain air quality
standards, reduce population exposure and protect public health, and reduce GHG emissions.
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 31 March 2011
Scenario 1 proposes to remove and replace existing buildings (which currently total 250,000 s.f.)
with 550,000 s.f. of office development (net total of 300,000 s.f.).
The Town’s General Plan designates the project site as Office/Professional and Light Industrial.
The project would not conflict with the Town’s General Plan designations. The
Office/Professional designation allows for professional and business offices, and the Light
Industrial designation allows for large‐scale office development and well‐controlled research
and development uses. As indicated in the analysis below, the proposed project would not
result in significant long‐term operational air quality impacts regarding ROG, NOX, and PM
emissions. Additionally, the project would incorporate transportation demand management
features (included as project design features required by Mitigation Measure GHG‐1) that
would be consistent with those of the Clean Air Plan. Construction‐related air quality impacts
would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures
AQ‐1 through AQ‐3. Therefore, the project would not hinder the region’s ability achieve
compliance with the State ozone standards. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict
with the Clean Air Plan, and impacts would be less than significant.
Scenario 2
Similar to Scenario 1, the development of Scenario 2 would result in commercial office space at
the project site. Scenario 2 would not conflict with the Town’s General Plan designations.
Scenario 2 would not result in significant long‐term operational air quality impacts regarding
ROG, NOX, and PM emissions. Additionally, the project would incorporate transportation
demand management features (included as project design features required by Mitigation
Measure GHG‐1) that would be consistent with those of the Clean Air Plan. Construction‐
related air quality impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation
of Mitigation Measures AQ‐1 through AQ‐3. Therefore, as with Scenario 1, Scenario 2 would
not conflict with the Clean Air Plan, and impacts would be less than significant.
Scenario 3
The development of Scenario 3 would result in less commercial office space than considered
under Scenario 1. However, Scenario 3 also includes up to 516 high‐density units. Scenario 3
would not conflict with the Town’s General Plan designations. Also, Scenario 3 would not result
in significant long‐term operational air quality impacts regarding ROG, NOX, and PM
emissions. Construction‐related air quality impacts would be reduced to less than significant
levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ‐1 through AQ‐3. Therefore, as with
Scenario 1, Scenario 3 would not conflict with the Clean Air Plan, and impacts would be less
than significant.
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 32 March 2011
Scenario 4
The development of Scenario 4 would result in a similar development plan as Scenario 3;
however, Scenario 4 proposes 600 senior units instead of 516 high‐density units. Scenario 4
would not conflict with the Town’s General Plan designations. Also, Scenario 4 would not result
in significant long‐term operational air quality impacts regarding ROG, NOX, and PM
emissions. Construction‐related air quality impacts would be reduced to less than significant
levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ‐1 through AQ‐3. Therefore, as with
Scenario 1, Scenario 4 would not conflict with the Clean Air Plan, and impacts would be less
than significant.
Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measures AQ‐1 through AQ‐3, GHG‐1.
Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
AQ‐2 VIOLATE ANY AIR QUALITY STANDARD OR CONTRIBUTE
SUBSTANTIALLY TO AN EXISTING OR PROJECTED AIR QUALITY
VIOLATION?
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant.
SHORT‐TERM EMISSIONS
Scenario 1
Short‐term air quality impacts are predicted to occur during demolition, grading and
construction operations associated with implementation of the proposed project. Temporary air
emissions would result from the following activities:
• Particulate (fugitive dust) emissions from demolition, grading, and building
construction; and
• Exhaust emissions from the construction equipment and the motor vehicles of the
construction crew.
Potential odors could arise from the diesel construction equipment used on‐site, as well as from
architectural coatings and asphalt off‐gassing. Odors generated during construction activities
would be temporary and are not considered to be a significant impact. Emissions produced
during demolition, grading, and construction activities are short‐term, as they would exist only
during construction.
Construction activities for the proposed project would include demolition, grading, trenching,
construction of buildings, paving, and architectural coatings. Project construction would result
in approximately 1.61 acres of site grading per day with up to 2,730 cubic yards per day of cut
and fill during mass grading. Grading for the site would require the export of 95,500 cubic
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 33 March 2011
and fill during mass grading. Grading for the site would require the export of 95,500 cubic
yards. The analysis of daily construction emissions has been prepared utilizing the URBEMIS
2007 computer model; refer to Appendix A, Air Modeling Data. Table 6, Construction Emissions,
presents the anticipated daily short‐term construction emissions. Where emissions exceed the
BAAQMD thresholds, the Basic mitigation measures required by the BAAQMD have been
analyzed and quantified. Should emissions still exceed the BAAQMD thresholds, enhanced
mitigation measures have been evaluated and quantified.
Table 6
Construction Emissions
Emissions (lbs/day) Emissions Source ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5
Year 1
Total Unmitigated Emissions 8.20 105.08 179.99 40.54
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 821
541
Unmitigated Emissions Exceed BAAQMD Threshold? No Yes Yes No
Total Basic Mitigated Emissions1
8.20 105.08 32.23 9.68
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 821
541
Basic Mitigated Emissions Exceed
BAAQMD Threshold? No Yes No No
Total Enhanced Mitigated Emissions2,3
4.82 53.85 30.07 7.88
Enhanced Mitigated Emissions Exceed BAAQMD
Threshold? No No No No
Year 24
Total Unmitigated Emissions 85.52 58.07 261.96 57.38
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 821
541
Unmitigated Emissions Exceed BAAQMD Threshold? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Total Basic Mitigated Emissions1
85.52 58.07 44.83 12.03
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 821
541
Basic Mitigated Emissions Exceed
BAAQMD Threshold? Yes Yes No No
Total Enhanced Mitigated Emissions 2,3
52.57 53.10 43.01 10.54
Enhanced Mitigated Emissions Exceed BAAQMD
Threshold? No No No No
Year 3
Total Unmitigated Emissions 85.26 60.21 94.95 21.79
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 821
541
Unmitigated Emissions Exceed BAAQMD Threshold? Yes Yes Yes No
Total Basic Mitigated Emissions1
85.26 60.21 16.80 5.07
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 821
541
Basic Mitigated Emissions Exceed
BAAQMD Threshold? Yes Yes No No
Total Enhanced Mitigated Emissions 2,3
52.30 44.73 16.80 5.07
Enhanced Mitigated Emissions Exceed BAAQMD
Threshold? No No No No
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 34 March 2011
Table 6 (Continued)
Construction Emissions
Emissions (lbs/day) Emissions Source ROG NOX3
PM10 PM2.5
Year 4
Total Unmitigated Emissions 85.00 78.03 205.45 45.07
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 821
541
Unmitigated Emissions Exceed BAAQMD Threshold? Yes Yes Yes No
Total Basic Mitigated Emissions1
85.00 78.03 35.33 9.54
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 821
541
Basic Mitigated Emissions Exceed
BAAQMD Threshold? Yes Yes No No
Total Enhanced Mitigated Emissions 2,3
52.05 53.83 34.26 8.68
Enhanced Mitigated Emissions Exceed BAAQMD
Threshold? No No No No
Year 5
Total Unmitigated Emissions 5.32 30.60 79.47 17.52
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 821
541
Unmitigated Emissions Exceed BAAQMD Threshold? No No No No
Total Basic Mitigated Emissions1
5.32 30.60 13.46 3.58
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 821
541
Basic Mitigated Emissions Exceed
BAAQMD Threshold? No No No No
Total Enhanced Mitigated Emissions 2,3
5.32 30.60 13.46 3.58
Enhanced Mitigated Emissions Exceed BAAQMD
Threshold? No No No No
ROG = reactive organic gases; NOX = nitrogen oxides; PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5
microns; lbs/day = pounds per day
Notes:
1. The reduction/credits for construction emission mitigations are based on mitigation included in the URBEMIS2007 version 9.2.4 computer
model and as typically required by the BAAQMD (Basic Control Measures and Regulation 6: Particulate Matter and Visible Emissions). The
mitigation includes the following: replace ground cover on disturbed areas quickly, water exposed surfaces twice daily, and proper
loading/unloading of mobile and other construction equipment.
2. Enhanced Mitigation involves compliance with an additional control measure requiring the use of low volatile organic compound (VOC)
coatings (compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3; Architectural Coatings). Specifically, the VOX content in coatings shall not
exceed 150 grams per liter.
3. Enhanced Mitigation accounts for the VMT reduction during soil hauling, as required by Mitigation Measure AQ-3.
4. Phase 1 and Phase 2 would have construction activities occurring in Year 2. However, the construction activities in each phase would not
overlap. Therefore, the maximum daily emissions occurring in Year 2 are reported.
Refer to Appendix A, Air Modeling Data, for assumptions used in this analysis.
Fugitive Dust Emissions
Construction activities are a source of fugitive dust (also known as PM10 and PM2.5) emissions
that may have a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. Fugitive dust is often a
nuisance to those living and working within the vicinity of the project site. Fugitive dust
emissions are associated with demolition, land clearing, ground evacuation, cut and fill
operations, and truck travel on unpaved roadways. Fugitive dust emissions also vary
substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and
weather conditions.
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 35 March 2011
PM10 and PM2.5 are both emitted during construction activities and as a result of wind erosion
over exposed soil surfaces. Clearing and grading activities comprise the major sources of
construction dust emissions, but traffic and general disturbance of the soil also generates
significant dust emissions. PM10 and PM2.5 emissions can vary greatly depending on the level of
activity, the specific operations taking place, the equipment being operated, local soils, weather
conditions, and other factors making quantification difficult. The highest potential for
construction dust impacts would occur during the dry late spring, summer, and early fall
months when soils are dry. Despite this variability in emissions, experience has shown that
there are a number of feasible control measures that can be reasonably implemented to
significantly reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from construction activities. The BAAQMD
recommends the implementation of all Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, whether or not
construction‐related emissions exceed applicable significance thresholds. As shown in Table 6,
above, unmitigated fugitive dust emissions would exceed the BAAQMD thresholds for PM10
and PM2.5. However, implementation of the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation
Measures would be required for the proposed project; refer to Mitigation Measure AQ‐1.
Implementation of the BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation (included in Mitigation
Measure AQ‐1) would reduce fugitive dust impacts to a less than significant level.
ROG Emissions
In addition to gaseous and particulate emissions, the application of asphalt and surface coatings
creates ROG emissions, which are O3 precursors. In accordance with the methodology
prescribed by the BAAQMD, the ROG emissions associated with paving have been quantified
with the URBEMIS 2007 model. In addition, based upon the size of the buildings, architectural
coatings were also quantified within the URBEMIS 2007 model.
The highest concentration of ROG emissions would be generated during the application of
architectural coatings towards the end of construction. As required by law, all architectural
coatings for the proposed project structures would comply with BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3:
Architectural Coating. Regulation 8, Rule 3 provides specifications on painting practices as well
as regulates the ROG content of paint. As indicated in Table 6, the project construction would
result in an exceedance of ROG emissions and compliance with BAAQMD Additional Control
Measures to reduce ROG emissions is required. Specifically, the VOC content for coatings shall
not exceed 150 grams per liter. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ‐2
(compliance with BAAQMD Additional Control Measures [i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3]) would be
required to reduce ROG emissions from architectural coatings. With implementation of
Mitigation Measures AQ‐2, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Construction Equipment and Worker Vehicle Exhaust
Exhaust emission factors for typical diesel‐powered heavy equipment are based on the
URBEMIS 2007 program defaults. Variables factored into estimating the total construction
emissions include: level of activity, length of construction period, number of pieces/types of
equipment in use, site characteristics, weather conditions, number of construction personnel,
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 36 March 2011
and the amount of materials to be transported on‐site or off‐site. A listing of mobile and
stationary construction equipment is included in Appendix A, Air Modeling Data.
Exhaust emissions from construction activities include emissions associated with the transport
of machinery and supplies to and from the project site, emissions produced on‐site as the
equipment is used, and emissions from trucks transporting materials to and from the site.
Emitted pollutants would include ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5. Thresholds for ROG, PM10, and
PM2.5 would not be exceeded by exhaust emissions (note that exhaust emissions are included in
total ROG, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions in Table 6), as the majority of these emissions are
attributed to fugitive dust and architectural coatings. However, due to the amount of soil
hauling required for the proposed project, NOX thresholds would be exceeded in all three
construction phases. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ‐3 would limit the
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from soil hauling trucks during grading to ensure NOX emissions
would not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds. As indicated in Table 6, NOX emissions would be
less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ‐3.
Naturally Occurring Asbestos
Pursuant to guidance issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State
Clearinghouse, Lead Agencies are encouraged to analyze potential impacts related to naturally
occurring asbestos. Naturally occurring asbestos can be released from serpentinite and
ultramafic rocks when the rock is broken or crushed. At the point of release, the asbestos fibers
may become airborne, causing air quality and human health hazards. These rocks have been
commonly used for unpaved gravel roads, landscaping, fill projects, and other improvement
projects in some localities. Asbestos may be released to the atmosphere due to vehicular traffic
on unpaved roads, during grading for development projects, and at quarry operations.
Serpentinite and/or ultramafic rock are known to be present in 44 of Californiaʹs 58 counties.
These rocks are particularly abundant in the counties associated with the Sierra Nevada
foothills, the Klamath Mountains, and Coast Ranges. According to the Department of
Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in
California – Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos Report (August 2000), the
project site is not located in an area where naturally occurring asbestos is likely to be present.
Therefore, impacts are less than significant in this regard.
Structural Asbestos
Asbestos is a strong, incombustible, and corrosion resistant material, which was used in many
commercial products since prior to the 1940s and up until the early 1970s. If inhaled, asbestos
fibers can result in serious health problems. Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs) are
building materials containing more than one percent asbestos (some state and regional
regulators impose a one‐tenth of one percent threshold). Multiple on‐site structures requiring
demolition exist within the boundaries of the project site; therefore, the potential for ACMs to
be found on‐site is considered likely. The BAAQMD regulates the demolition of buildings and
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 37 March 2011
structures containing asbestos. On‐site demolition activities would be conducted in accordance
with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 (Asbestos Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing).
Total Daily Construction Emissions
In accordance with the BAAQMD Guidelines, URBEMIS 2007 was utilized to model
construction emissions for ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5. Construction would occur over a five
year period, with the greatest amount of fugitive dust emissions being generated during the
initial stages of each construction phase. Additionally, the greatest amount of ROG emissions
would typically occur during the final stages of each construction phase due to the application
of architectural coatings.
The URBEMIS 2007 model allows the user to input mitigation measures such as watering the
construction area to limit fugitive dust in the project area. Mitigation measures inputted within
the URBEMIS 2007 model allow for certain reduction credits and result in a decrease of
pollutant emissions. Reduction credits are based upon various land use and transportation
studies and were programmed within the URBEMIS 2007 model.13
As indicated in Table 6, the
URBEMIS 2007 model calculates the reduction associated with recommended mitigation
measures for ROG. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ‐1 through AQ‐3
construction‐related impacts would be less than significant.
LONG‐TERM EMISSIONS
Operational emissions generated by both stationary and mobile sources would result from
normal daily activities on the project site after occupation (i.e., increased loads of O3, PM10, and
CO). Stationary area source emissions would be generated by the consumption of natural gas
for space and water heating devices, the operation of landscape maintenance equipment, and
the use of consumer products. Mobile emissions would be generated by the motor vehicles
traveling to and from the project site. Emissions associated with each of these sources were
calculated and are discussed below.
Scenario 1
Mobile Source Emissions
Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative
emissions. Depending upon the pollutant being discussed, the potential air quality impact may
be of either regional or local concern. For example, ROG, NOX, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 are all
pollutants of regional concern (NOX and ROG react with sunlight to form O3 [photochemical
smog], and wind currents readily transport SOX, PM10, and PM2.5). However, CO tends to be a
localized pollutant, dispersing rapidly at the source.
13
Jones and Stokes Associates, Software User’s Guide: URBEMIS2007 for Windows User’s Guide Appendices,
November 2007.
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 38 March 2011
Project‐generated vehicle emissions have been estimated using the URBEMIS 2007 model. This
model predicts ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from motor vehicle traffic associated with
new or modified land uses; refer to Appendix A, Air Modeling Data. According to the project’s
Traffic Impact Analysis, the proposed project would generate a net 3,126 daily trips. Table 7,
Long‐Term Operational Air Emissions presents the anticipated mobile source emissions. As
shown in Table 7, emissions generated by vehicle traffic associated with the proposed project
would not exceed established BAAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOX, and PM10. Therefore,
impacts from vehicle emissions would be less than significant.
Table 7
Long‐Term Operational Air Emissions
Pollutant (lbs/day)1
Project Emissions ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5
Area Source Emissions 2.03 2.02 0.01 0.01
Vehicle Emissions 15.90 17.19 44.97 8.54
Total Unmitigated Operational Emissions 17.93 19.21 44.98 8.55
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 82 54
Unmitigated Emissions Exceed BAAQMD Threshold?
(Significant Impact?) No No No No
ROG = reactive organic gases; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = particulate matter; less than 10
microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter; less than 2.5 microns; lbs/day = pounds per day.
Notes:
1. Based on URBEMIS 2007 modeling results, worst-case seasonal emissions for area and mobile emissions have been modeled.
Area Source Emissions
Area source emissions would be generated due to an increased demand for electrical energy
and natural gas with the development of the proposed project. This assumption is based on the
supposition that those power plants supplying electricity to the site are utilizing fossil fuels.
Electric power generating plants are distributed throughout the Basin and western United
States, and their emissions contribute to the total regional pollutant burden. The primary use of
natural gas by the proposed land uses would be for combustion to produce space heating, water
heating, other miscellaneous heating, or air conditioning, consumer products, and landscaping.
As indicated in Table 7, area source emissions from the proposed project would not exceed
BAAQMD thresholds. If stationary sources, such as backup generators, are installed on‐site,
they would be required to obtain the applicable permits from BAAQMD for operation of such
equipment. The BAAQMD is responsible for issuing permits for the operation of stationary
sources in order to reduce air pollution, and to attain and maintain the national and California
ambient air quality standards in the Basin. Newly modified or constructed stationary sources
subject to BAAQMD permitting may be required to implement Best Available Control
Technology (BACT), which may include the installation of emissions control equipment or the
implementation of administrative practices that would result in the lowest achievable emission
rate. Backup generators would be used only in emergency situations, and would not contribute
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 39 March 2011
a substantial amount of emissions capable of exceeding BAAQMD thresholds. Thus, impacts
from area source emissions would be less than significant.
Scenario 2
The development of Scenario 2 would result in less commercial office space than considered
under Scenario 1. Construction related air quality impacts would be reduced due to the
reduction in required construction activities. However, Mitigation Measures AQ‐1 through
AQ‐3 would still be required to ensure construction air emissions are reduced to less than the
BAAQMD thresholds. It is noted that Mitigation Measure AQ‐1 is required by the BAAQMD,
and Mitigation Measures AQ‐2 and AQ‐3 have been formulated based upon the “worst case”
construction scenario (Scenario 1). Therefore, although emissions are expected to be less under
Scenario 2, implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ‐2 and AQ‐3 would ensure emissions are
reduced below BAAQMD thresholds. As with Scenario 1, impacts would be less than
significant with the incorporation of the recommended construction mitigation.
At full development, Scenario 2 would result in 948 daily net new trips (as opposed to 3,126 for
Scenario 1). Therefore, as the majority of operational emissions are attributed to mobile sources,
Scenario 2 would result in fewer emissions than Scenario 1 (which do not exceed the BAAQMD
thresholds). As with Scenario 1, operational impacts under Scenario 2 would be less than
significant.
Scenario 3
The development of Scenario 3 would result in less commercial office space than considered
under Scenario 1. However, Scenario 3 also includes up to 516 high‐density units. Construction
related air quality impacts would be similar to that presented for Scenario 1. Therefore, as with
Scenario 1, construction air quality impacts would be less than significant with the
incorporation of Mitigation Measures AQ‐1 through AQ‐3.
At full development, Scenario 3 would result in 2,000 daily net new trips (as opposed to 3,126
for Scenario 1). Therefore, as the majority of operational emissions are attributed to mobile
sources, Scenario 3 would result in fewer emissions than Scenario 1 (which do not exceed the
BAAQMD thresholds). As with Scenario 1, operational impacts under Scenario 3 would be less
than significant.
Scenario 4
The development of Scenario 4 would result in a similar development plan as envisioned within
Scenario 3. The primary difference would be that Scenario 4 proposes 600 senior units instead
of 516 high‐density units. Construction related air quality impacts would be similar to that
presented for Scenario 3. Therefore, as with Scenario 1, construction air quality impacts would
be less than significant with the incorporation of Mitigation Measures AQ‐1 through AQ‐3.
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 40 March 2011
At full development, Scenario 4 would result in 1,442 daily net new trips (as opposed to 3,126
for Scenario 1). Therefore, as the majority of operational emissions are attributed to mobile
sources, Scenario 4 would result in fewer emissions than Scenario 1 (which do not exceed the
BAAQMD thresholds). As with Scenario 1, operational impacts under Scenario 4 would be less
than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
AQ‐1 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the Town Engineer and the Chief Building
Official shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and specifications
stipulate that, in compliance with the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, the
following basic construction mitigation measures shall be implemented:
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded
areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off‐site shall be
covered.
• All visible mud or dirt track‐out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed
using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of
dry power sweeping is prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as
soon as possible.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in
use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the
California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California
Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction
workers at all access points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in
accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be
checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper
condition prior to operation.
• Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact
at the Town regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take
corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also
be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
AQ‐2 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the Town Engineer and the Chief Building
Official shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and specifications
include the following BAAQMD additional construction mitigation measure:
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 41 March 2011
• Use low volatile organic compounds (VOC) (i.e., reactive organic gases
[ROG]) coatings beyond the BAAQMD requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule
3: Architectural Coatings).
• VOC content of architectural coatings shall not exceed 150 grams VOC per
liter of coating.
AQ‐3 The following limitations shall be adhered to during soil hauling activities (during
mass and fine grading) for each construction phase in order to ensure NOX emissions
would be reduced to less than significant levels:
• Phase 1: Trucks hauling soil during Phase 1 shall not travel more than 23
miles roundtrip. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) during mass grading shall not
exceed 1,416; VMT during fine grading shall not exceed 425.
• Phase 2: Trucks hauling soil during Phase 2 shall not travel more than 26
miles roundtrip. VMT during mass grading shall not exceed 1,629; VMT
during fine grading shall not exceed 671.
• Phase 3: Trucks hauling soil during Phase 3 shall not travel more than 36
miles roundtrip. VMT during mass grading shall not exceed 2,318; VMT
during fine grading shall not exceed 625.
VMT’s shall be logged daily and supplied to the Town Engineer and the Chief
Building Official on a monthly basis. These limitations shall be stipulated in
construction bids, plans, and specifications.
Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
AQ‐3 RESULT IN A CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE NET INCREASE OF
ANY CRITERIA POLLUTANT FOR WHICH THE AIR BASIN IS
NONATTAINMENT UNDER AN APPLICABLE FEDERAL OR STATE
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARD (INCLUDING RELEASING
EMISSIONS, WHICH EXCEED QUANTITATIVE THRESHOLDS FOR
OZONE PRECURSORS)?
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant.
Scenario 1
CUMULATIVE SHORT‐TERM EMISSIONS
As discussed above, the project’s construction‐related emissions would not exceed any of the
BAAQMD thresholds of significance with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ‐1
through AQ‐3. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines do not include significance
thresholds for cumulative construction emissions. However, due to the temporary nature of
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 42 March 2011
construction emissions, if the project’s emissions would be less than significant based on the
project‐level thresholds of significance, it can be expected that the project would not be a
cumulatively considerable contributor to a significant cumulative impact. In addition, the
project would be required to implement the proposed BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation
Measures (Mitigation Measure AQ‐1), which are recommended for all projects whether or not
construction‐related emissions exceed the thresholds of significance. The project would also
implement an Additional Control Mitigation Measure (AQ‐2) to reduce VOC/ROG emissions
from architectural coatings. NOX emissions are reduced by Mitigation Measure AQ‐3.
Therefore, construction emissions associated with the proposed project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative air quality impacts.
CUMULATIVE LONG‐TERM EMISSIONS
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines do not include separate significance thresholds for
cumulative operational emissions. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines note that the
nature of air emissions is largely a cumulative impact. As a result, no single project is sufficient
in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s
individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts.
The BAAQMD developed the operational thresholds of significance based on the level above
which a project’s individual emissions would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution
to the Basin’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore, a project that exceeds the BAAQMD
operational thresholds would also be a cumulatively considerable contributor to a significant
cumulative impact. As depicted in Table 7, above, the proposed project’s operational emissions
would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOX, and PM. Therefore, the impact of the
proposed project, in conjunction with related cumulative projects would not be cumulatively
considerable. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Scenario 1
With regards to cumulative health risks and hazards (further discuss below under Impact
Statement AQ‐4), the project would be located within 1,000 feet of SR‐85. However, no other
sources of air toxics are located within the 1,000‐foot screening distance of the project site.
Further, Scenario 1 proposes all commercial uses, which the BAAQMD does not consider to be
sensitive receptors. Additionally, Scenario 1 does not propose any uses that would be
considered a significant source of air toxics. Therefore, the project would not be cumulatively
considerable and a less than significant impact would occur.
Scenario 2
As discussed above, Scenario 2 would result in fewer construction‐related emissions than
Scenario 1. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ‐1 through AQ‐3 would ensure Scenario
2 would not exceed any of the BAAQMD thresholds of significance for construction.
Additionally, operational emissions under Scenario 2 would be less than those of Scenario 1
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 43 March 2011
(which do not exceed BAAQMD thresholds). Therefore, Scenario 2 would not result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact.
With regards to cumulative health risks and hazards, although the project would be located
within 1,000 feet of SR‐85, Scenario 2 proposes all commercial uses, which the BAAQMD does
not consider to be sensitive receptors. Scenario 2 does not propose any uses that would be
considered a significant source of air toxics. Therefore, the project would not be cumulatively
considerable and a less than significant impact would occur.
Scenario 3
As discussed above, Scenario 3 would result in fewer construction‐related emissions than
Scenario 1. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ‐1 through AQ‐3 would ensure Scenario
3 would not exceed any of the BAAQMD thresholds of significance for construction.
Additionally, operational emissions under Scenario 3 would be less than those of Scenario 1
(which do not exceed BAAQMD thresholds). Therefore, Scenario 3 would not result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact.
With regards to cumulative health risks and hazards (further discuss below under Impact
Statement AQ‐4), the project would be located within 1,000 feet of SR‐85. Scenario 3 proposes
commercial uses as well as high‐density residential units, which the BAAQMD considers to be
sensitive receptors. Detailed modeling (which included cumulative traffic conditions) indicated
that residents on‐site within 261 feet of SR‐85 would be subject to health risk. With
incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ‐5, on‐site residents would not be subject to air toxics
from SR‐85 (refer to Impact Statement AQ‐4). No other sources of air toxics are located within
the 1,000‐foot screening distance of the project site. Additionally, Scenario 3 does not propose
any uses that would be considered a significant source of air toxics. Therefore, the project
would not be cumulatively considerable and a less than significant impact would occur.
Scenario 4
As discussed above, Scenario 4 would result in fewer construction‐related emissions than
Scenario 1. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ‐1 through AQ‐3 would ensure Scenario
4 would not exceed any of the BAAQMD thresholds of significance for construction.
Additionally, operational emissions under Scenario 4 would be less than those of Scenario 1
(which do not exceed BAAQMD thresholds). Therefore, Scenario 4 would not result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact.
With regards to cumulative health risks and hazards (further discuss below under Impact
Statement AQ‐4), the project would be located within 1,000 feet of SR‐85. Similar to Scenario 3,
Scenario 4 proposes commercial uses as well as senior living units, which the BAAQMD
considers to be sensitive receptors. Detailed modeling (which included cumulative traffic
conditions) indicated that residents on‐site within 261 feet of SR‐85 would be subject to health
risk. With incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ‐5, on‐site residents would not be subject to
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 44 March 2011
air toxics from SR‐85 (refer to Impact Statement AQ‐4). No other sources of air toxics are
located within the 1,000‐foot screening distance of the project site. Additionally, Scenario 4 does
not propose any uses that would be considered a significant source of air toxics. Therefore, the
project would not be cumulatively considerable and a less than significant impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measures AQ‐1 through AQ‐3 and AQ‐5.
Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
AQ‐4 EXPOSE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS TO SUBSTANTIAL POLLUTANT
CONCENTRATIONS?
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant.
Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population
that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and
people with illnesses. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals,
and daycare centers. CARB has identified the following groups of individuals as the most
likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, athletes, and
persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and
bronchitis. Sensitive receptors within the immediate vicinity of the project site are the existing
residences to the east, south, and west; also refer to Table 2. Localized impacts from project
construction and operations are analyzed below.
Scenario 1
Localized Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
The Basin is designated as attainment for carbon monoxide (CO). As indicated in the
BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, emissions and ambient concentrations of CO have
decreased dramatically in the Basin with the introduction of the catalytic converter in 1975. No
exceedances of the CAAQS or NAAQS for CO have been recorded at nearby monitoring
stations since 1991.14
As a result, the screening criteria in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality
Guidelines note that that CO impacts may be determined to be less than significant if a project is
consistent with the applicable congestion management plan (CMP) and would not increase
traffic volumes at local intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour for locations in
heavily urban areas, where “urban canyons” formed by buildings tend to reduce air circulation.
The project’s Traffic Impact Analysis has determined that the unsignalized intersections of
Winchester Boulevard/Albright Way and University Avenue/Lark Avenue would be impacted
with project implementation. These intersections are expected to operate at unacceptable LOS E
and F during peak hours under background conditions. The addition of project traffic would
14
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (page 6‐1), June 2010.
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 45 March 2011
cause the intersections to degrade to LOS E and F during both peak hours with project
implementation. The intersections also would meet signal warrants with the addition of project
traffic, which constitutes a significant impact by the Town standards. Therefore, the Traffic
Impact Analysis includes mitigation requiring the signalization of the Winchester
Boulevard/Albright Way and University Avenue/Lark Avenue intersections to improve both
intersections to LOS B. Additionally, the project would not violate the CMP criteria at any of
the CMP intersections, as noted in the Traffic Impact Analysis. Therefore, the project would be
consistent with the CMP. With implementation of the Traffic Impact Analysis mitigation, the
project would not significantly increase the delay or LOS at the study intersections, and would
not increase traffic volumes at local intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour.
Therefore, effects related to CO concentrations would be less than significant.
Construction Toxic Air Contaminants
Construction‐related activities could result in the generation of toxic air contaminants (TACs),
specifically diesel particulate matter (DPM), from on‐road haul trucks and off‐road equipment
exhaust emissions. Due to the variable nature of the proposed construction activity, the
generation of TAC emissions would be temporary, especially considering the short amount of
time such equipment is typically within an influential distance that would result in the
exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations.
The project construction period would occur over three phases and would require various types
of heavy equipment throughout each construction phase. Specifically, demolition activities
would require tractors, dozers, and concrete/industrial saws. Grading activities would require
tractors, graders, rubber tired dozers, and water trucks. Trenching activities would require
excavators. Paving activities would include cement and mortar mixers, pavers, rollers, and
other pieces of paving equipment. The building phase would require one crane, two forklifts,
one tractor, three welders, and one generator set. As indicated in the URBEMIS 2007 model
outputs (refer to Appendix A) for the proposed project, construction activities would generate a
maximum of 2.41 pounds of diesel PM2.5 exhaust per day. Additionally, the project would
implement the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures (Mitigation Measure AQ‐
1), which would also reduce DPM exhaust emissions.
As noted above, the closest sensitive receptors are the residential uses adjacent to the project site
to the south and east. However, construction equipment during project construction would
move about the project site and would not be concentrated in one area or near one sensitive
receptor for an excessive duration of time capable of causing health effects. Additionally, health
risks are associated with longer‐term exposure periods of nine, 40, and 70 years, which do not
correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities.15
Construction staging areas are generally planned to be concentrated toward the center of the
project site. However, to ensure that sensitive uses in the vicinity of the project site are not
exposed to substantial TACs, Mitigation Measure AQ‐4 would require the implementation of
additional construction mitigation measures for off‐road equipment to reduce the exposure of
15
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, June 2010.
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 46 March 2011
sensitive uses to TACs from construction emissions. The specific types of emission reduction
features identified in Mitigation Measure AQ‐4 would be determined based on the acreage
disturbed in a particular construction phase as well as the proximity of the construction activity
to sensitive uses. With implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ‐1 and AQ‐4, impacts would
be reduced to less than significant levels.
Risk and Health Hazards
It is noted that the BAAQMD has revised the effective date for the risk and hazards thresholds
for new receptors from January 1, 2011 to May 1, 2011. However, the BAAQMD CEQA Air
Quality Guidelines recommend that all toxic air contaminant (TAC) and particulate matter less
than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) sources located within a 1,000 foot radius of the proposed project site
be identified to determine any risk and health hazards. There are no stationary TAC and PM2.5
sources located within 1,000 feet of the project site.16
However, SR‐85 is located to the north of
the project site with annual average daily traffic (AADT) of approximately 106,00017
, which
requires a risk and hazard screening analysis; refer to Exhibit 4, Phased Approach for Estimating
Community Risks and Hazards.
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines defines a receptor to be “a place where people live,
play, or convalesce”. These types of receptors would include residences, schools, school yards,
parks, daycare centers, nursing homes, and medical facilities. Scenario 1 consists of all office
development, which the BAAQMD does not consider a sensitive receptor. Therefore, risk and
health hazards from SR‐85 would be less than significant.
Scenario 2
The Winchester Boulevard/Albright Way and University Avenue/Lark Avenue intersections are
expected to operate at an unacceptable LOS during both peak hours under background
conditions and with implementation of Scenario 1. Scenario 2 would result in fewer daily trips
than Scenario 1; however, it is anticipated that the intersection would still decrease to LOS F
and also meet signal warrants with the addition of project traffic, which constitutes a significant
impact by the Town standards. Therefore, the mitigation requiring the signalization of the
intersection with protected left‐turn phasing on Winchester Boulevard (which would improve
the intersection LOS to LOS B) would also be required under Scenario 2. Therefore, effects
related to CO concentrations would be less than significant under Scenario 2.
16
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Stationary Source Risk & Hazard Analysis Tool, Santa Clara County
Permitted Sources, January 27, 2011. http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning‐and‐Research/CEQA‐
GUIDELINES/Tools‐and‐Methodology.aspx
17
California Department of Transportation, Traffic and Vehicle Data Systems Unit, All Traffic Volumes on
California State Highways, 2009. http://traffic‐counts.dot.ca.gov/2009all/Route82‐86i.htm.
Project proposal
submitted
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
All roadways and
major sources >
1,000 feet away
NO FURTHER
PARTICULATE MATTER
OR TAC ANALYSIS
RECOMMENDED
NO FURTHER
PARTICULATE MATTER
OR TAC ANALYSIS
RECOMMENDED
Use screening tables that most
closly matches project characteristics
Project PM2.5 and
TAC risk and hazard
< CEQA Threshold
Project PM2.5 and
TAC risk and hazard
< CEQA Threshold
Conduct site specic air dispersion
modeling and risk assessment
RECOMMEND APPROPRIATE
MITIGATION MEASURES
Site specic
inputs
Site and roadway
characteristics
1/26/11 JN 40-100419-17194 MASExhibit 4
Phased Approach for Estimating
Community Risks and Hazards
ALBRIGHT WAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, June 2010
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 48 March 2011
Similar to Scenario 1, construction equipment during Scenario 2 construction would move
about the project site and would not be concentrated in one area or near one sensitive receptor
long enough to cause health effects. Additionally, the project would implement the BAAQMD’s
Basic Construction Mitigation Measures (Mitigation Measure AQ‐1), which would also reduce
DPM exhaust emissions. To ensure that sensitive uses in the vicinity of the project site are not
exposed to substantial TACs, Mitigation Measure AQ‐4 requires the implementation of
additional construction mitigation measures for off‐road equipment to reduce the exposure of
sensitive uses to TACs from construction emissions. The specific types of reduction features
identified in Mitigation Measure AQ‐4 would be determined based on the acreage disturbed in
a particular construction phase as well as the proximity of the construction activity to sensitive
uses. Similar to Scenario 1, implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ‐1 and AQ‐4 would
reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
As with Scenario 1, Scenario 2 consists of all office development, which the BAAQMD does not
consider a sensitive receptor. Therefore, risk and health hazards from SR‐85 would be less than
significant.
Scenario 3
The intersections of Winchester Boulevard/Albright Way and University Avenue/Lark Avenue
are expected to operate at an unacceptable LOS during both peak hours under background
conditions and with implementation of Scenario 1. Scenario 3 would result in fewer daily trips
than Scenario 1; however, it is anticipated that the intersection would still decrease to LOS F
and also meet signal warrants with the addition of project traffic, which constitutes a significant
impact by the Town standards. Therefore, the mitigation within the Traffic Impact Analysis
requiring the signalization of the intersection with protected left‐turn phasing on Winchester
Boulevard (which would improve the intersection LOS to LOS B) would also be required under
Scenario 3. Therefore, effects related to CO concentrations would be less than significant under
Scenario 3.
Similar to Scenario 1, construction equipment during Scenario 3 construction would move
about the project site and would not be concentrated in one area or near one sensitive receptor
long enough to cause health effects. The project would implement the BAAQMD’s Basic
Construction Mitigation Measures (Mitigation Measure AQ‐1), which would also reduce DPM
exhaust emissions. To ensure that sensitive uses in the vicinity of the project site are not
exposed to substantial TACs, Mitigation Measure AQ‐4 requires the implementation of
additional construction mitigation measures for off‐road equipment to reduce the exposure of
sensitive uses to TACs from construction emissions. The specific reduction features identified
in Mitigation Measure AQ‐4 would be determined based on the acreage disturbed in a
particular construction phase as well as the proximity of the construction activity to sensitive
uses. Similar to Scenario 1, implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ‐1 and AQ‐4 would
reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 49 March 2011
Scenario 3 consists of office development as well as residential uses, which could be located
within the 1,000‐foot screening distance of SR‐85. Following the BAAQMD risk and hazard
screening analysis process, Scenario 3 would exceed the initial and advanced screening criteria
for PM2.5 and lifetime excess cancer risk, requiring further analysis and modeling. Utilizing the
BAAQMD screening tables and criteria (from the BAAQMD’s Recommended Methods for
Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards), a 300‐foot buffer for PM2.5 and a 265‐foot buffer
for lifetime excess cancer risk would be required between the centerline of SR‐85 and proposed
residential uses. Because the Scenario 3 would exceed the screening criteria, consistent with the
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, a refined dispersion modeling analysis was conducted utilizing
local meteorology, emission rates, and highway estimates. Refined dispersion modeling was
performed using the Breeze Roads GIS Pro interface for the EPA’s CAL3QHCR model, which is
a roadway model that predicts air pollutant concentrations from motor vehicles. The dispersion
modeling utilized traffic data from Caltrans, as well as emissions rates and vehicle fleet data
from the EMFAC2007 model.18
Based on the results of the screening analysis described above,
receptors were modeled at 100‐foot increments from the SR‐85 centerline. Table 8, Risk and
Health Hazards from State Route 85, depicts the results of the modeling. As indicated in Table 8, a
300‐foot buffer would ensure that BAAQMD significance thresholds would not be exceeded.
However, it should be noted that Table 8 also indicates that at 261 feet from the SR‐85
centerline, the projected cancer risk would be just below the BAAQMD threshold; refer to
Exhibit 5, Residential Development Limitations.
Table 8
Risk and Health Hazards from State Route 85
Description PM2.5 Concentration
(μg/m3
annual average)
Cancer Risk
(in a million)
Chronic Non-Cancer
Hazard Index
Acute Non-Cancer
Hazard Index
Value at 100 Feet 0.09 25.27 0.019 0.022
Threshold 0.3 10 1 1
Threshold Exceeded? No Yes No No
Value at 200 Feet 0.04 11.16 0.008 0.010
Threshold 0.3 10 1 1
Threshold Exceeded? No Yes No No
Value at 261 Feet 0.04 9.99 0.008 0.009
Threshold 0.3 10 1 1
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Value at 300 Feet 0.03 8.63 0.007 0.008
Threshold 0.3 10 1 1
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Source: Breeze Roads GIS Pro dispersion model (v5.1.7) interface for CAL3QHCR. Refer to Appendix A, Air Modeling Data, for assumptions
used in this analysis.
18
California Department of Transportation, Traffic and Vehicle Data Systems Unit, All Traffic Volumes on
California State Highways, 2009. http://traffic‐counts.dot.ca.gov/2009all/Route82‐86i.htm.
Freeway CenterlineFreeway CenterlineResidential
Not Permitted
Residential
Not Permitted
1/26/11 JN 40-100419-17194 MAS
Exhibit 5
Residential Development Limitationsnot to scale
ALBRIGHT WAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT
Source: Google Earth aerial.
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 51 March 2011
Therefore, Scenario 3 would require a minimum 261‐foot buffer between the proposed
residential units and the SR‐85 centerline (Mitigation Measure AQ‐5) to ensure on‐site residents
would not be exposed to risk and health hazards from SR‐85. It should be noted that SR‐85 is
not a truck route and has a low volume of trucks based on the latest Caltrans data (less than one
percent of the total vehicles).19
Additionally, CARB has adopted a Diesel Risk Reduction Plan
(DRRP) with control measures that would reduce overall diesel emissions by approximately 85
percent from 2000 to 2020. These reduction measures are not reflected in the emissions factors
and modeling used in the analysis described above. Impacts in this regard would be less than
significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ‐5.
Scenario 4
The unsignalized Winchester Boulevard/Albright Way and University Avenue/Lark Avenue
intersections are expected to operate at an unacceptable LOS E during both peak hours under
background conditions, and LOS F with implementation of Scenario 1. Scenario 4 would result
in fewer daily trips than Scenario 1; however, it is anticipated that the intersection would still
decrease to LOS F and also meet signal warrants with the addition of project traffic, which
constitutes a significant impact by the Town standards. Therefore, the mitigation within the
Traffic Impact Analysis requiring the signalization of the intersection with protected left‐turn
phasing on Winchester Boulevard (which would improve the intersection LOS to LOS B) would
also be required under Scenario 4. Therefore, effects related to CO concentrations would be less
than significant under Scenario 4.
Similar to Scenario 1, construction equipment during Scenario 4 construction would move
about the project site and would not be concentrated in one area or near one sensitive receptor
long enough to cause health effects. Additionally, the project would implement the BAAQMD’s
Basic Construction Mitigation Measures (Mitigation Measure AQ‐1), which would also reduce
DPM exhaust emissions. To ensure that sensitive uses in the vicinity of the project site are not
exposed to substantial TACs, Mitigation Measure AQ‐4 would require construction staging
areas to be sited at the minimum distance required by the BAAQMD. Similar to Scenario 1,
implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ‐1 and AQ‐4 would reduce impacts to less than
significant levels.
Similar to Scenario 3, Scenario 4 proposes office development as well as senior living units,
which could be located within the 1,000‐foot screening distance of SR‐85. Scenario 4 would also
exceed the initial and advanced screening criteria for PM2.5 and lifetime excess cancer risk and
would also require a minimum 261‐foot buffer between the centerline of SR‐85 and proposed
residential uses. As stated under Scenario 3, a refined dispersion modeling analysis confirmed
the results of the screening analysis; refer to Table 8. As indicated in Table 8, at 261 feet from
the SR‐85 centerline, the projected cancer risk would be just below the BAAQMD threshold;
refer to Exhibit 5. Therefore, Scenario 4 would require at least a 261‐foot buffer between the
proposed senior living units and the SR‐85 centerline (Mitigation Measure AQ‐5) to ensure on‐
19 Ibid.
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 52 March 2011
site residents would not be exposed to risk and health hazards from SR‐85. Impacts in this
regard would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ‐5.
Mitigation Measures:
AQ‐4 Prior to the approval of project plans and specifications, the Town Engineer, or his
designee, shall confirm that the construction bid packages include a plan
demonstrating that the off‐road equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be used in
the construction project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would
achieve a project wide fleet‐average 20 percent NOX reduction and 45 percent
particulate matter reduction compared to the most recent CARB fleet average.
Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines,
low‐emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after‐
treatment products, add‐on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other options
as such become available. These limitations shall be stipulated in construction bids,
plans, and specifications, and shall be enforced by the Town Engineer.
AQ‐5 Should residential uses be incorporated into the project design (Scenarios 3 and 4),
the Applicant shall provide a minimum 261‐foot buffer between proposed
residential land uses and the centerline of SR‐85 in order to avoid health risks to
future on‐site residents.
Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
AQ‐5 CREATE OBJECTIONABLE ODORS AFFECTING A SUBSTANTIAL
NUMBER OF PEOPLE?
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
Scenario 1
According to the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, land uses associated with odor
complaints typically include wastewater treatment plants, landfills, confined animal facilities,
composting stations, food manufacturing plants, refineries, and chemical plants. Scenario 1
does not include any uses identified by the BAAQMD as being associated with odors.
Construction activity associated with the project may generate detectable odors from heavy‐
duty equipment exhaust. Construction‐related odors would be short‐term in nature and cease
upon project completion. Any impacts to existing adjacent land uses would be short‐term and
are considered less than significant.
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 53 March 2011
Scenario 2
Refer to the discussion under Scenario 1.
Scenario 3
Refer to the discussion under Scenario 1.
Scenario 4
Refer to the discussion under Scenario 1.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation: Not Applicable.
GHG‐1 GENERATE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, EITHER DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY, THAT MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE
ENVIRONMENT?
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant.
Scenario 1
Business as Usual Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Direct Project Related Sources of Greenhouse Gases
Direct project‐related GHG emissions include emissions from construction activities, area
sources, and mobile sources. Table 9, Scenario 1 Business as Usual Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Projections, presents the estimated CO2, N2O, and CH4 emissions without the incorporation of
project design features discussed later in this section. GHG emissions from construction would
result in 243 MT CO2eq in Year 1; 385 MT CO2eq in Year 2; 298 MT CO2eq in Year 3; 325 MT
CO2eq in Year 4; and 159 MT CO2eq in Year 5. The BAAQMD has not adopted thresholds for
GHGs associated with construction activities. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure
AQ‐1 and AQ‐3 would reduce equipment idling time, ensure equipment is operating properly,
and limit the amount of soil hauling truck VMT, which would reduce construction‐related GHG
emissions.
The URBEMIS 2007 computer model outputs contained within the Appendix A Air Modeling
Data, were used to calculate mobile source CO2 emissions. The URBEMIS 2007 model relies
upon trip data within the Traffic Impact Analysis and project specific land use data to calculate
emissions. Estimations are based on energy emissions from natural gas usage, as well as
automobile emissions. URBEMIS 2007 model outputs were used in conjunction with the
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 54 March 2011
BAAQMD Greenhouse Gas Model (BGM) (Version 1.1.9) to calculate GHG emissions for area
sources and natural gas. GHGs associated with area sources, natural gas, and mobile sources
would be 0.23 MT CO2eq/yr, 420.34 MT CO2eq/yr, and 3,749.77 MT CO2eq/yr, respectively.
Total project‐related direct operational emissions would result in 4,170.34 MT CO2eq/yr for
Scenario 1.
Table 9
Scenario 1 Business as Usual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Projections
CO2 CH4 N2O
Source Metric
Tons/year
Metric
Tons/year
Metric
Tons of
CO2eq
Metric
Tons/year
Metric
Tons of
CO2eq
Total
Metric
Tons of
CO2eq2
Direct Emissions
Area Source1
0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23
Natural Gas1
419.26 0.04 0.84 0.00 0.24 420.34
Mobile Source1
3,749.77 -- -- -- -- 3,749.77
Total Unmitigated Direct Emissions3
4,169.26 0.04 0.84 0.00 0.24 4,170.34
Indirect Emissions
Electricity Consumption1
2,574.88 0.02 0.42 0.01 3.10 2,579.01
Water and Wastewater1
40.09 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.05 40.16
Solid Waste1
1.53 10.01 210.00 N/A N/A 211.77
Total Unmitigated Indirect Emissions2
2,616.50 10.03 210.44 0.01 3.15 2,830.94
Total Business As Usual
Project-Related Emissions
7,001.26 MT CO2eq/year=
8.17 MT CO2eq/SP3
/yr
BAAQMD GHG Threshold 4.6 MT CO2eq/SP/yr
Unmitigated GHG Emissions Exceed
Threshold? Yes
Notes:
1 – Emissions calculated using URBEMIS 2007 computer model and the BAAQMD Greenhouse Gas Model (BGM) (Version 1.1.9).
2 – Totals may be slightly off due to rounding.
3 – SP = service population (857 employees, based upon 350 square feet per employee).
Refer to Appendix A, Air Modeling Data, for detailed model input/output data.
Indirect Project Related Sources of Greenhouse Gases. Indirect project‐related GHG emissions
include emissions from consumption of electricity, natural gas, and water, as well as
wastewater and solid waste generation. Indirect GHG emissions were calculated using BGM
and URBEMIS 2007. Electricity consumption would indirectly result in 2,579.01 MT CO2eq/yr;
water and wastewater would result in 40.16 MT CO2eq/yr; and solid waste generation would
result in 211.77 MT CO2eq/yr; refer to Table 9.
Total Project‐Related Sources of Greenhouse Gases. The total amount of project‐related GHG
emissions without accounting for any project design features that would reduce GHG emissions
from direct and indirect sources combined would total 7,001.26 MT CO2eq/yr.
Consistency With the BAAQMD Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would incorporate several design features (required to be implemented
by Mitigation Measure GHG‐1A) that are also consistent with the BAAQMD mitigation
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 55 March 2011
to reduce GHG emissions. A list of the BAAQMD mitigation measures contained in the
BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (June 2010) and the project’s compliance with each
applicable measure are listed in Table 10, Project Consistency with the BAAQMD Greenhouse Gas
Mitigation Measures. Table 10 depicts a host of potential project design features and sustainable
practices that the proposed project would incorporate, which include water, energy, solid
waste, land use, and transportation efficiency measures. Table 10 also identifies the associated
scaled percent reduction and applicable sector based on the project’s consistency with the
BAAQMD mitigation measures. The reductions have been based on BAAQMD methodology
presented in the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. It should be noted that Table 10
presents potential measures that the project would incorporate. Mitigation Measure GHG‐1
requires the implementation of any mix of GHG reduction measures necessary to achieve the
required 44.34 percent scaled reduction that is required for impacts to be less than significant.
Table 10
Project Consistency With the BAAQMD Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures
Project Design Feature Project Applicability Percent Reduction
(Sector)
Transportation Measures
(a) Secure Bike Parking (at
least 1 space per 20
vehicle spaces)
Compliant. The proposed project would include bicycle parking and other
facilities for bicycle riders.
39.4
(transportation)
(b) Information Provided on
Transportation Alternatives
(Bus Schedules, Maps)
Compliant. Schedules and maps for transportation alternatives would be
available at each proposed building.
(c) Preferential Carpool/
Vanpool Parking
Compliant. Parking spaces would be reserved on-site for carpool/vanpools.
(d) Mix of Uses Compliant. The project site is located within a half-mile of residential and
nonresidential (job-generating) uses.
(e) Local Serving Retail Compliant. The project site is located within a half mile of local serving retail
uses.
(f) Transit Service
Compliant. The project site is located along Albright Way off of Winchester
Boulevard. VTA Bus Route 48 stops adjacent to the project site near the
intersection of Albright Way and Winchester Boulevard.
(g) Bike and Pedestrian
Compliant. Proposed Class II bike lanes are proposed near the project site
along Winchester Boulevard and Lark Avenue. The stretch of Winchester
Boulevard just south of the project site contains an existing Class II bike lane.
The project would include sidewalks along both sides of Albright Way and
would facilitate pedestrian circulation throughout the site. The project site
would also be designed to be bicycle-friendly. Additionally, the project site
would have connections to Winchester Boulevard as well as the adjoining Los
Gatos Creek Trail (east of the project site).
(h) Employee Telecommuting
Program
Compliant. The proposed project would allow employees flexibility in working
location and hours in order to reduce the amount of daily commute time.
(i) Showers/Changing
Facilities
Compliant. The proposed project would provide showers/changing areas for
employees on the project site.
(j) Carpool Matching Program Compliant. The project would provide a carpool matching program to assist
employees in finding colleagues to conveniently carpool with.
(k) 100% Increase in Diversity
of Land Uses
Compliant. The proposed project would provide on-site amenities for
employees such as eating and other establishments which would allow
employees to reduce off-site trips.
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 56 March 2011
Table 10 (continued)
Project Consistency With the BAAQMD Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures
Project Design Feature Project Applicability Percent Reduction
(Sector)
(l) 100% Increase in Design
(i.e., presence of design
guidelines for transit
oriented development,
complete street standards)
Compliant. The proposed project would incorporate transit oriented
development design measures.
Natural Gas Measures
(a) Increase Energy Efficiency
Beyond Title 24
Compliant. The buildings associated with the proposed project would exceed
Title 24 by 20 percent. The baseline for this standard would be the 2010
California Green Building Standards which are effective January 1, 2011.
20
(natural gas)
(b) Require smart meters and
programmable thermostats
Compliant. The project would install smart meters and energy management
system controls for lighting, heating, and cooling equipment.
5
(natural gas)
Electricity Measures
(a) Plant shade trees within 40
feet of the south side or
within 60 feet of the west
sides of properties
Compliant. Where existing, mature shade trees do not already exist, the
proposed project would include newly planted shade trees along the buildings
and in open space areas.
17
(electricity)
(b) Require cool roof materials
(albedo >=30)
Compliant. The project would use highly reflective roof materials (albedo of
at least 30) to reduce cooling load.
20
(electricity)
(c) Require smart meters and
programmable thermostats
Compliant. The project would install smart meters and energy management
system controls for lighting, heating, and cooling equipment.
5
(electricity)
(d) Meet Green Building Code
Standards
Compliant. The project would be required to meet the 2010 Green Building
Code Standards which would result in reduced electricity usage.
7
(electricity)
(e) HVAC duct sealing Compliant. The project would seal heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
(HVAC) ducts to enhance efficiency and reduce energy loss.
10
(electricity)
Total Scaled Reduction 44.34
Notes:
1. BAAQMD reductions are presented in percentage ranges for specific sectors (i.e., transportation, natural gas). Each sector’s reduction percentages
are scaled proportionally to their sector of the project-generated emissions. For example, transportation emissions account for 53.56 percent of the
total emissions, and a 39.40 percent reduction would apply to transportation related emissions. Therefore, the reduction is calculated by multiplying
0.5356 by 0.3940 for a scaled reduction of 0.2110 (21.10 percent). This was completed for each sector. The total emissions reduction applied to the
project is a sum of the scaled sector reduction percentages (44.34 percent).
BAAQMD Sector Reduction Methodology
The BAAQMD provides GHG reduction measures and associated reduction percentages in
their CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Reductions are presented in percentage ranges for each
measure, and apply specifically to mobile, electricity, and natural gas sectors. Reductions from
BAAQMD measures are scaled proportionally to their sector of project‐generated emissions.
For example, if measures would result in a 39.40 percent reduction in transportation‐related
emissions, and transportation accounts for 53.56 percent of the total emissions, then the scaled
reduction would be 21.10 percent (0.5356 x 0.3940 = 0.2110). This process is completed for each
sector. The total emission reductions are summed and applied to the overall total project‐
related GHG emissions. As presented in Table 10 and Table 11, Scenario 1 Greenhouse Gas
Emissions With BAAQMD Sector Reductions, the overall reduction percentages total 44.34
percent. Applying the BAAQMD reduction percentages, GHG emissions from the proposed
project would be reduced by 3,104.36 MTCO2eq/yr, which equates to 4.56 MT CO2eq/SP/yr. A
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 57 March 2011
service population of 857 employees is used (based on one employee per 350 square feet of
office space). Thus, the project would not exceed the 4.6 MT CO2eq/SP/yr threshold utilizing the
BAAQMD scaled reduction methodology.
Table 11
Scenario 1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions With BAAQMD Sector Reductions
Sector
Reductions Breakdown
% of Total GHG
Business as Usual
Emissions
% of Sector
Reductions
Scaled Reductions
Calculation4
Scaled
Reduction %
Transportation 53.56 39.40 0.5356 x 0.3940 = 0.2110 21.10
Natural Gas 6.00 25.00 0.0600 x 0.2500 = 0.0150 1.50
Electricity 36.84 59.00 0.3684 x 0.5900 = 0.2174 21.74
Total Scaled % Reduction 44.34
Total Project-Related Business as
Usual Emissions1,3
7,001.26 MT CO2eq/yr
Total Project-Related GHG
Emissions WITH 48.26%
Reduction1,3
3,897.02 MT CO2eq/yr =
4.56 MT CO2eq/SP2
/yr
BAAQMD GHG Threshold 4.6 MT CO2eq/SP/yr
Mitigated GHG Emissions
Exceed Threshold? No
Notes:
1. Total project-related GHG emissions = total direct emissions + total indirect emissions (in MT CO2eq/yr).
2. SP = service population. The SP for the project is assumed to be 857 employees, based on one employee per 350 square feet of office space.
The total project-related GHG emissions were divided by the SP of 857 for the annual GHG emissions per SP.
3. Totals may be off due to rounding.
4. BAAQMD reductions are presented in percentage ranges for specific sectors (i.e., transportation, natural gas). Each sector’s reduction
percentages are scaled proportionally to their sector of the project-generated emissions. For example, transportation emissions account for
53.56 percent of the total emissions, and a 39.40 percent reduction would apply to transportation related emissions. Therefore, the reduction is
calculated by multiplying 0.5356 by 0.3940 for a scaled reduction of 0.2110 (21.10 percent). This was completed for each sector. The total
emissions reduction applied to the project is a sum of the scaled sector reduction percentages (44.34 percent).
Conclusion
As shown in Table 9, operational‐related emissions under Scenario 1 would be 7,001.26
MTCO2eq/yr (8.17 MTCO2eq/SP/yr) without reductions from project design features, which
exceeds the BAAQMD GHG significance threshold of 4.6 MT CO2eq/SP/yr. URBEMIS 2007 and
the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines were used to quantify GHG emissions reductions
associated with project design features from project operations. With implementation of project
design features (which are required by Mitigation Measure GHG‐1), the project would
incorporate sustainable practices which include water, energy, solid waste, and transportation
efficiency measures that are summarized in Table 10. Based on the reduction measures in Table
10, Scenario 1 would reduce its GHG emissions 44.34 percent below the business as usual
scenario, and would reduce the project’s operational GHG emissions to 3,897.02 MT CO2eq/yr.
The project would have a service population of 857 employees and the total GHG emissions
after reductions would equate to 4.56 MT CO2eq/SP/yr. Therefore, the project would not exceed
the 4.6 MT CO2eq/SP/yr threshold utilizing the BAAQMD scaled reduction methodology.
Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 58 March 2011
Scenario 2
The development of Scenario 2 would result in less commercial office space than considered
under Scenario 1. Construction impacts would be less than those associated with Scenario 1, as
less development is proposed. At full development, Scenario 2 would result in 948 daily net
new trips (69.67 percent reduction from 3,126 for Scenario 1). Proportionately reducing GHG
emissions by 69.67 percent (proportion that Scenario 2 square footage is reduced by compared
to Scenario 1) results in a total BAU emissions total of approximately 2,123.71 MT CO2eq/yr.
Utilizing a SP of 260 (350 s.f. per employee), Scenario 2 would result in 8.17 MT CO2eq/SP/yr,
which would exceed the BAAQMD GHG threshold.
Therefore, Scenario 2 would be required to incorporate BAAQMD GHG mitigation measures to
be below the 4.6 MT CO2eq/SP/yr threshold. Scenario 2 would be required to incorporate
Mitigation Measure GHG‐1. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG‐1, Scenario 2
would reduce its GHG emissions by a scaled 44.34 percent, which equates to 1,182.05 MT
CO2eq/yr and 4.55 MT CO2eq/SP/yr, which falls below the BAAQMD GHG threshold. With
implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG‐1, impacts would be reduced to less than
significant levels.
Scenario 3
The development of Scenario 3 would consist of 200,000 s.f. of commercial office space as well
as up to 516 high‐density units. Utilizing the URBEMIS 2007 and BGM models, the total GHG
emissions associated with Scenario 3 would be 6,870.34 MT CO2eq/yr. Utilizing a SP of 1,223
(based on 350 s.f. per employee [with a net decrease of 50,000 s.f. of office space] and 2.39
persons per household), Scenario 3 would result in 5.61 MT CO2eq/SP/yr, which is above the 4.6
MT CO2eq/SP/yr GHG threshold. Therefore, Scenario 3 would be required to incorporate
BAAQMD GHG mitigation measures to be below the 4.6 MT CO2eq/SP/yr threshold. Scenario 3
would be required to incorporate Mitigation Measure GHG‐1. With implementation of
Mitigation Measure GHG‐1, Scenario 3 would reduce its GHG emissions by a scaled 18.5
percent, which equates to 5,599.33 MT CO2eq/yr and 4.58 MT CO2eq/SP/yr, which falls below
the BAAQMD GHG threshold. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG‐1, impacts
would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Scenario 4
The development of Scenario 4 consists of 200,000 s.f. of commercial office space as well as up to
600 senior living units. Utilizing the URBEMIS 2007 and BGM models, the total GHG emissions
associated with Scenario 4 would be 8,994.56 MT CO2eq/yr. Utilizing a SP of 1,057 (based on
350 s.f. per employee [with a net decrease of 50,000 s.f. of office space] and 2.0 persons per
household), Scenario 4 would result in 8.46 MT CO2eq/SP/yr, which is above the 4.6 MT
CO2eq/SP/yr GHG threshold. Therefore, Scenario 4 would be required to incorporate
BAAQMD GHG mitigation measures to be below the 4.6 MT CO2eq/SP/yr threshold. Scenario 4
would be required to incorporate Mitigation Measure GHG‐1. With implementation of
Mitigation Measure GHG‐1, Scenario 4 would reduce its GHG emissions by a scaled 46 percent,
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 59 March 2011
which equates to 4,857.06 MT CO2eq/yr and 4.59 MT CO2eq/SP/yr, which falls below the
BAAQMD GHG threshold. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG‐1, impacts
would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures:
GHG‐1 A combination of the following is a list of sustainability and design features that
shall be incorporated into Scenarios 1, 2, 3, or 4 to achieve the overall scaled
reduction in GHG emissions to ensure a less than significant GHG impact (Scenarios
1 and 2 require a 44.34 percent scaled reduction, Scenario 3 requires an 18.5 percent
scaled reduction, and Scenario 4 requires a 46 percent scaled reduction in GHG
emissions). Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate
the incorporation of a combination (one or more) of sustainable project design
features that would reduce the project’s GHG emissions by the percentage required
above. Each measure and the associated GHG reduction shall be identified and
included on all project plans and specifications. One or more of the following
sustainability and design features, or other measures that may be available in the
future, shall be included to achieve the reduction in GHG emissions:
• Provide secure on‐site bike parking (ratio shall be at least one space per 20
vehicle spaces).
• Provide information on transportation alternatives (i.e., bus schedules and
maps) accessible to employees within each proposed building.
• Provide preferential on‐site carpool/vanpool parking.
• Increase energy efficiency beyond Title 24 by 20 percent.
• Install smart meters and programmable thermostats.
• Plant shade trees within 40 feet of the south side or within 60 feet of the west
sides of the buildings.
• Install roofs with highly reflective materials (albedo of at least 30) to reduce
cooling load.
• Meet 2010 Green Building Code Standards.
• Seal heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) ducts to enhance
efficiency and reduce energy loss.
• Include solar photovoltaic or other technology to generate electricity on‐site
to reduce consumption from the electrical grid.
• Implement an employee telecommuting program.
• Provide showers/changing facilities on‐site for employee use.
• Implement an on‐site carpool matching program for employees.
• Provide on‐site amenities (i.e., eating and other establishments).
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 60 March 2011
• Increase the project design by 100 percent (i.e., presence of transit oriented
development design guidelines, complete streets standards).
• Work with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to
implement acceptable off‐site mitigation. This involves an agreement with
the BAAQMD and payment of fees or the purchase of carbon credits. The
BAAQMD would commit to reducing the type and amount of emissions
identified in the agreement.
Also refer to Mitigation Measures AQ‐1 and AQ‐3.
Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
GHG‐2 CONFLICT WITH AN APPLICABLE PLAN, POLICY OR REGULATION
ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF REDUCING THE EMISSIONS OF
GREENHOUSE GASES?
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
Scenario 1
According to the BAAQMD, a GHG reduction plan should:
• Quantify GHG emissions, both existing and projected over a specified time period,
resulting from activities within a defined geographic area;
• Establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to GHG
emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable;
• Identify and analyze the GHG emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of
actions anticipated within the geographic area;
• Specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that
substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project‐by‐project basis, would
collectively achieve the specified emissions level;
• Establish a mechanism to monitor the plan’s progress toward achieving the level and to
require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels; and
• Be adopted in a public process following environmental review.
The GHG reduction plan should identify goals, policies, and implementation measures that
would achieve the goals of AB 32 for the entire community. The Town of Los Gatos does not
currently have an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of GHGs. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with an adopted plan,
policy, or regulation pertaining to GHGs. Also, as described above, the proposed project would
comply with the 2010 California Green Building Code and would include design features to
reduce energy and water consumption and reduce vehicle trips. The project would not hinder
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 61 March 2011
the Stateʹs GHG reduction goals established by AB 32. Thus, a less than significant impact
would occur in this regard.
Scenario 2
Refer to the discussion under Scenario 1.
Scenario 3
Refer to the discussion under Scenario 1.
Scenario 4
Refer to the discussion under Scenario 1.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 62 March 2011
6.0 REFERENCES
6.1 LIST OF PREPARERS
RBF CONSULTING
14725 Alton Parkway
Irvine, California 92618
949/472‐3505
Eddie Torres, Director of Technical Services
Kelly Chiene, Environmental Analyst
Achilles Malisos, Environmental Analyst
Debby Hutchinson, Graphic Artist
Gary Gick, Word Processor
6.2 DOCUMENTS
1. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, June
2010.
2. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Recommended Methods for Screening and
Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, May 2010.
3. California Air Resources Board, Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan, October
2008.
4. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, CEQA & Climate Change:
Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the
California Environmental Quality Act, 2008.
5. California Climate Change Center, Our Changing Climate, Assessing the Risks to
California, July 2006.
6. California Energy Commission, Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks 1990 to 2004, December 2006.
7. California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team, Climate Action
Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature (Executive Summary),
March 2006.
8. California Governorʹs Office of Planning and Research, CEQA AND CLIMATE
CHANGE: Addressing Climate Change Through the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Review, June 19, 2008.
Albright Way Development Project
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 63 March 2011
9. California Governors Office of Planning and Research, Proposed Amendments to 14
Sections of the CEQA Guidelines, January 2009.
10. California Natural Resources Agency. 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy,
December 2009.
11. Energy Information Administration, Other Gases: Hydrofluorocarbons,
Perfluorocarbons, and Sulfur Hexafluoride, October 29, 2001.
12. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., Albright Way Development Traffic Impact
Analysis, March 17, 2011.
13. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change, The Science of Climate
Change – Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC,
1996.
14. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: The Physical
Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers, February 2007.
15. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks 1990 to 2008, April 2010.
16. United States Environmental Protection Agency, High GWP Gases and Climate
Change, June 22, 2010.
6.3 WEB SITES/PROGRAMS
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD Greenhouse Gas Model (version
1.1.9)
California Air Resources Board, Aerometric Data Analysis and Measurement System
(ADAM), summaries from 2007 to 2009, http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam.
California Air Resources Board, EMFAC 2007 (version 2.3), November 1, 2006.
California Air Resources Board, www.arb.ca.gov.
Rimpo and Associates, URBEMIS 2007 (version 9.2.4), June 2007.
APPENDIX A: AIR MODELING DATA
Parenthetical URBEMIS2007 (Version 9.2.4) Assumptions
For: Albright Way Office Development Project
Date: March 2011
LAND USES
Scenario A
Amount Land Use Type Unit Type Net Trips
300 Office Park 1,000 sf 3,126
Scenario B
Amount Land Use Type Unit Type Net Trips
200 Office Park 1,000 sf 948
Scenario C
Amount Land Use Type Unit Type Net Trips
200 Office Park 1,000 sf
516 Multi-Family Residential Dwelling units 2,000
Scenario D
Amount Land Use Type Unit Type Net Trips
200 Office Park 1,000 sf
600 Senior Living Residential Dwelling units 1,442
CONSTRUCTION SOURCES
Year Duration (months) Development
2012 9 months Demolition, Grading, Trenching, Building Construction
2013 12 months Demolition, Grading, Trenching, Paving, Building Construction,
Architectural Coating
2014 12 months Grading, Paving, Building Construction, Architectural Coating
2015 12 months Demolition, Grading, Trenching, Building Construction, Architectural
Coating
2016 6 months Grading, Paving, Building Construction
PHASE 1:
Demolition:
Year Duration
(days)
Total Volume
(cubic feet)
Total Daily
Volume
(cubic feet)
2012 30 400,000 14,000
Demolition Equipment (URBEMIS2007 Default):
Quantity Type Hours of Daily Operation
1 Concrete/Industrial Saw 8
1 Rubber Tired Dozer 1
2 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoe 6
Site Grading:
Year Total Acreage
Disturbed
Acreage
Disturbed Daily
Duration-
Mass
Grading
(days)
Duration-
Fine
Grading
(days)
Soil Hauling
(cubic yards)
Estimated
Cut/Fill (cubic
yards/day)
2012-2013 8.46 1.61 19 22 31,200 1,800
Mass Grading Equipment (URBEMIS2007 Default):
Quantity Type Hours of Daily Operation
1 Grader 6
1 Rubber Tired Dozer 6
1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoe 7
1 Water Trucks 8
Fine Grading Equipment (URBEMIS2007 Default):
Quantity Type Hours of Daily Operation
1 Grader 6
1 Rubber Tired Dozer 6
1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoe 7
1 Water Trucks 8
Trenching:
Year Duration
2012 36 days
Trenching Equipment (URBEMIS2007 Default):
Quantity Type Hours of Daily Operation
2 Excavators 8
1 Other General Industrial
Equipment
8
Paving:
Year Duration
(days) Acres
2013 11 3.42
Equipment (URBEMIS2007 Default):
Quantity Type Hours of Daily Operation
4 Cement and Mortar Mixers 6
1 Paver 7
2 Paving Equipment 6
1 Roller 7
1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 7
Building Construction
Year Duration
(days)
2012-2013 270
Equipment (URBEMIS2007 Default):
Quantity Type Hours of Daily Operation
1 Crane 6
2 Forklifts 6
1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 8
3 Welders 8
1 Generator Set 8
Architectural Coatings:
Duration – 25 days
Low VOC coatings (Pursuant to BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3) (150)
(URBEMIS2007 default all phases)
Worker Commute
(URBEMIS2007 default all phases)
Construction Mitigation:
Refer to URBEMIS2007 file output.
PHASE 2:
Demolition:
Year Duration
(days)
Total Volume
(cubic feet)
Total Daily
Volume
(cubic feet)
2013 15 175,000 14,000
Demolition Equipment (URBEMIS2007 Default):
Quantity Type Hours of Daily Operation
1 Concrete/Industrial Saw 8
1 Rubber Tired Dozer 1
2 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoe 6
Site Grading:
Year Total Acreage
Disturbed
Acreage
Disturbed Daily
Duration-
Mass
Grading
(days)
Duration-
Fine
Grading
(days)
Soil Hauling
(cubic yards)
Estimated
Cut/Fill (cubic
yards/day)
2013-2014 16.21 1.61 21 17 35,100 2,730
Mass Grading Equipment (URBEMIS2007 Default):
Quantity Type Hours of Daily Operation
1 Grader 6
1 Rubber Tired Dozer 6
1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoe 7
1 Water Trucks 8
Fine Grading Equipment (URBEMIS2007 Default):
Quantity Type Hours of Daily Operation
1 Grader 6
1 Rubber Tired Dozer 6
1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoe 7
1 Water Trucks 8
Trenching:
Year Duration
2013 26 days
Trenching Equipment (URBEMIS2007 Default):
Quantity Type Hours of Daily Operation
2 Excavators 8
1 Other General Industrial 8
Equipment
Paving:
Year Duration
(days) Acres
2014 12 3.57
Equipment (URBEMIS2007 Default):
Quantity Type Hours of Daily Operation
4 Cement and Mortar Mixers 6
1 Paver 7
2 Paving Equipment 6
1 Roller 7
1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 7
Building Construction
Year Duration
(days)
2013-2014 260
Equipment (URBEMIS2007 Default):
Quantity Type Hours of Daily Operation
1 Crane 6
2 Forklifts 6
1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 8
3 Welders 8
1 Generator Set 8
Architectural Coatings:
Duration – 25 days
Low VOC coatings (Pursuant to BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3) (150)
(URBEMIS2007 default all phases)
Worker Commute
(URBEMIS2007 default all phases)
Construction Mitigation:
Refer to URBEMIS2007 file output.
PHASE 3:
Demolition:
Year Duration
(days)
Total Volume
(cubic feet)
Total Daily
Volume
(cubic feet)
2015 20 246,000 14,000
Demolition Equipment (URBEMIS2007 Default):
Quantity Type Hours of Daily Operation
1 Concrete/Industrial Saw 8
1 Rubber Tired Dozer 1
2 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoe 6
Site Grading:
Year Total Acreage
Disturbed
Acreage
Disturbed Daily
Duration-
Mass
Grading
(days)
Duration-
Fine
Grading
(days)
Soil Hauling
(cubic yards)
Estimated
Cut/Fill (cubic
yards/day)
2015-2016 13.79 1.61 17 21 29,200 2,100
Mass Grading Equipment (URBEMIS2007 Default):
Quantity Type Hours of Daily Operation
1 Grader 6
1 Rubber Tired Dozer 6
1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoe 7
1 Water Trucks 8
Fine Grading Equipment (URBEMIS2007 Default):
Quantity Type Hours of Daily Operation
1 Grader 6
1 Rubber Tired Dozer 6
1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoe 7
1 Water Trucks 8
Trenching:
Year Duration
2015 29 days
Trenching Equipment (URBEMIS2007 Default):
Quantity Type Hours of Daily Operation
2 Excavators 8
1 Other General Industrial 8
Equipment
Paving:
Year Duration
(days) Acres
2016 11 3.25
Equipment (URBEMIS2007 Default):
Quantity Type Hours of Daily Operation
4 Cement and Mortar Mixers 6
1 Paver 7
2 Paving Equipment 6
1 Roller 7
1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 7
Building Construction
Year Duration
(days)
2015-2016 270
Equipment (URBEMIS2007 Default):
Quantity Type Hours of Daily Operation
1 Crane 6
2 Forklifts 6
1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 8
3 Welders 8
1 Generator Set 8
Architectural Coatings:
Duration – 25 days
Low VOC coatings (Pursuant to BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3) (150)
(URBEMIS2007 default all phases)
Worker Commute
(URBEMIS2007 default all phases)
Construction Mitigation:
Refer to URBEMIS2007 file output.
LONG TERM OPERATIONS
YEAR 2016 AREA SOURCES
Natural Gas Fuel Combustion:
(URBEMIS2007 default all phases)
Hearth Fuel Combustion:
Off
Landscape Fuel Combustion:
Consumer Products:
(URBEMIS2007 default all phases)
Architectural Coating:
(URBEMIS2007 default all phases)
Area Source Mitigation:
Low VOC coatings (Pursuant to BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3)
Refer to URBEMIS2007 file output.
YEAR 2016 OPERATIONAL SOURCES
Vehicle Fleet %:
(URBEMIS2007 default all phases)
Year:
Year of Completion – 2016
Trip Characteristics:
(URBEMIS2007 Default all phases)
Temperature Data:
40 to 90 degrees Fahrenheit
Variable Starts:
(URBEMIS2007 default all phases)
Year of Completion Summer Days
2016 180
Road Dust:
Paved – 100%
Unpaved – 0%
Pass By Trips (On/Off):
Off
Double-Counting(On/Off):
Off
Operational Mitigation Measures:
Refer to URBEMIS2007 file output.
2/2/2011 2:18:34 PM
Page: 1
File Name: H:\pdata\40100419\Admin\reports\AQ_GHG\Models\URBEMIS\NOX mit\Albright_Phase1.urb924
Project Name: Albright Way Construction Phase1 No MM
Project Location: Bay Area Air District
On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year)
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated
ROGNOxCOSO2PM10 DustPM10 Exhaust PM10PM2.5 DustPM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5CO2
2013 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated)1.361.851.700.000.770.110.880.160.100.27291.31
2013 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated)0.951.851.700.000.120.110.240.030.100.13291.31
Percent Reduction30.300.000.000.0083.690.0072.8883.330.0050.520.00
Percent Reduction0.000.000.000.0079.660.0074.5279.460.0061.010.00
2012 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated)0.322.321.610.001.760.121.880.370.110.48355.29
2012 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated)0.322.321.610.000.360.120.480.080.110.19355.29
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5 CO2
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
Summary Report:
2/2/2011 2:18:34 PM
Page: 2
2012 0.32 2.32 1.61 0.00 1.88 0.48 355.291.76 0.12 0.37 0.11
0.01Trenching 06/08/2012-07/27/20120.030.280.160.000.0132.700.000.010.000.01
Trenching Worker Trips0.000.000.020.000.000.000.000.000.000.001.84
Trenching Off Road Diesel0.030.270.140.000.000.010.010.000.010.0130.86
0.06Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20130.190.880.970.000.06135.180.000.060.000.05
Building Worker Trips0.010.020.350.000.000.000.000.000.000.0036.24
Building Vendor Trips0.000.040.030.000.000.000.000.000.000.008.96
Building Off Road Diesel0.170.820.580.000.000.060.060.000.050.0589.98
0.10Demolition 04/02/2012-
05/11/2012
0.02 0.17 0.10 0.00 0.03 23.780.09 0.01 0.02 0.01
Demo On Road Diesel0.000.070.020.000.000.000.000.000.000.0011.74
Demo Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.001.53
Fugitive Dust0.000.000.000.000.210.000.210.040.000.040.00
Demo Off Road Diesel0.010.100.070.000.000.010.010.000.010.0110.50
1.71Mass Grading 05/14/2012-
06/07/2012
0.081.000.380.000.39163.631.670.040.350.04
Mass Grading On Road Diesel0.050.790.260.000.000.030.030.000.030.03141.31
Mass Grading Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.97
Mass Grading Dust0.000.000.000.001.670.001.670.350.000.350.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel0.030.210.110.000.000.010.010.000.010.0121.35
2/2/2011 2:18:34 PM
Page: 3
Off-Road Equipment:
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 194.44
Phase: Demolition 4/2/2012 - 5/11/2012 - Phase 1
Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 14000
Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 400000
Phase Assumptions
2013 1.36 1.85 1.70 0.00 0.88 0.27 291.310.77 0.11 0.16 0.10
0.02Asphalt 07/26/2013-08/31/2013 0.04 0.21 0.16 0.00 0.02 23.470.00 0.02 0.00 0.02
Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.04
Paving Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.99
Paving Off-Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paving Off Road Diesel 0.03 0.20 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 18.44
0.78Fine Grading 08/12/2013-
09/10/2013
0.04 0.46 0.21 0.00 0.18 72.950.76 0.02 0.16 0.02
Fine Grading On Road Diesel0.020.230.080.000.000.010.010.000.010.0147.10
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.001.12
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.000.760.000.760.160.000.160.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel0.030.230.120.000.000.010.010.000.010.0124.72
0.08Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 0.25 1.18 1.32 0.00 0.07 193.670.00 0.08 0.00 0.07
Building Worker Trips 0.01 0.02 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 51.94
Building Vendor Trips 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.84
Building Off Road Diesel 0.23 1.11 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.07 128.89
0.00Coating 01/20/2013-02/22/2013 1.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 1.230.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Coating Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.23
Architectural Coating 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2/2/2011 2:18:34 PM
Page: 4
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 3694.74
Onsite Cut/Fill: 1350 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
Total Acres Disturbed: 8.46
Phase: Mass Grading 5/14/2012 - 6/7/2012 - Phase 1
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61
Off-Road Equipment:
Phase: Trenching 6/8/2012 - 7/27/2012 - Phase 1
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
Total Acres Disturbed: 8.46
Phase: Fine Grading 8/12/2013 - 9/10/2013 - Phase 1
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day
1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day
2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1063.64
Onsite Cut/Fill: 450 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
2/2/2011 2:18:34 PM
Page: 5
Construction Mitigated Detail Report:
1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day
3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day
2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day
Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Phase: Architectural Coating 1/20/2013 - 2/22/2013 - Phase 1
Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Phase: Building Construction 7/30/2012 - 8/9/2013 - Phase 1
Phase: Paving 7/26/2013 - 8/31/2013 - Phase 1
Acres to be Paved: 3.42
2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day
2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 6 hours per day
2/2/2011 2:18:34 PM
Page: 6
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Mitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2
2012 0.32 2.32 1.61 0.00 0.48 0.19 355.290.36 0.12 0.08 0.11
0.01Trenching 06/08/2012-07/27/20120.030.280.160.000.0132.700.000.010.000.01
Trenching Worker Trips0.000.000.020.000.000.000.000.000.000.001.84
Trenching Off Road Diesel0.030.270.140.000.000.010.010.000.010.0130.86
0.06Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20130.190.880.970.000.06135.180.000.060.000.05
Building Worker Trips0.010.020.350.000.000.000.000.000.000.0036.24
Building Vendor Trips0.000.040.030.000.000.000.000.000.000.008.96
Building Off Road Diesel0.170.820.580.000.000.060.060.000.050.0589.98
0.10Demolition 04/02/2012-
05/11/2012
0.02 0.17 0.10 0.00 0.03 23.780.09 0.01 0.02 0.01
Demo On Road Diesel0.000.070.020.000.000.000.000.000.000.0011.74
Demo Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.001.53
Fugitive Dust0.000.000.000.000.210.000.210.040.000.040.00
Demo Off Road Diesel0.010.100.070.000.000.010.010.000.010.0110.50
0.31Mass Grading 05/14/2012-
06/07/2012
0.081.000.380.000.09163.630.270.040.060.04
Mass Grading On Road Diesel0.050.790.260.000.000.030.030.000.030.03141.31
Mass Grading Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.97
Mass Grading Dust0.000.000.000.000.260.000.260.050.000.050.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel0.030.210.110.000.000.010.010.000.010.0121.35
2/2/2011 2:18:34 PM
Page: 7
2013 0.95 1.85 1.70 0.00 0.24 0.13 291.310.12 0.11 0.03 0.10
0.02Asphalt 07/26/2013-08/31/2013 0.04 0.21 0.16 0.00 0.02 23.470.00 0.02 0.00 0.02
Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.04
Paving Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.99
Paving Off-Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paving Off Road Diesel 0.03 0.20 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 18.44
0.14Fine Grading 08/12/2013-
09/10/2013
0.04 0.46 0.21 0.00 0.04 72.950.12 0.02 0.03 0.02
Fine Grading On Road Diesel0.020.230.080.000.000.010.010.000.010.0147.10
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.001.12
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.000.120.000.120.030.000.030.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel0.030.230.120.000.000.010.010.000.010.0124.72
0.08Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 0.25 1.18 1.32 0.00 0.07 193.670.00 0.08 0.00 0.07
Building Worker Trips 0.01 0.02 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 51.94
Building Vendor Trips 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.84
Building Off Road Diesel 0.23 1.11 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.07 128.89
0.00Coating 01/20/2013-02/22/2013 0.62 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 1.230.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Coating Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.23
Architectural Coating 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
PM10: 5% PM25: 5%
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 8/12/2013 - 9/10/2013 - Phase 1
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by:
Construction Related Mitigation Measures
2/2/2011 2:18:34 PM
Page: 8
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 1/20/2013 - 2/22/2013 - Phase 1
For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 44% PM25: 44%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
ROG: 40%
For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 44% PM25: 44%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 69% PM25: 69%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by:
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 5/14/2012 - 6/7/2012 - Phase 1
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 69% PM25: 69%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 5% PM25: 5%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
2/2/2011 2:18:09 PM
Page: 1
File Name: H:\pdata\40100419\Admin\reports\AQ_GHG\Models\URBEMIS\NOX mit\Albright_Phase1.urb924
Project Name: Albright Way Construction Phase1 No MM
Project Location: Bay Area Air District
On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day)
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
ROGNOxCOSO2PM10 DustPM10 Exhaust PM10PM2.5 DustPM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5CO2
2013 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated)85.5258.0731.410.0469.373.0872.4514.512.8317.348,436.76
2013 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated)52.5758.0731.410.0411.083.0814.162.332.835.178,436.76
2012 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated)8.20105.0839.830.1428.174.0632.235.953.749.6817,224.40
2012 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated)8.20105.0839.830.14175.934.06179.9936.803.7440.5417,224.40
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5 CO2
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
Summary Report:
2/2/2011 2:18:09 PM
Page: 2
Time Slice 5/14/2012-6/7/2012
Active Days: 19
8.20105.0839.830.14179.9940.5417,224.40175.934.0636.803.74
179.99Mass Grading 05/14/2012-
06/07/2012
8.20105.0839.830.1440.5417,224.40175.934.0636.803.74
Mass Grading On Road Diesel5.4883.0827.330.140.522.993.510.172.752.9214,875.04
Mass Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.990.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.04
Mass Grading Dust0.000.000.000.00175.400.00175.4036.630.0036.630.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel2.6921.9511.510.000.001.071.070.000.990.992,247.32
Time Slice 4/2/2012-5/11/2012
Active Days: 30
1.30 11.19 6.92 0.01 6.57 1.84 1,585.175.91 0.65 1.23 0.60
6.57Demolition 04/02/2012-
05/11/2012
1.3011.196.920.011.841,585.175.910.651.230.60
Demo On Road Diesel0.294.371.440.010.030.160.180.010.140.15782.84
Demo Worker Trips0.030.050.990.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.04
Fugitive Dust0.000.000.000.005.880.005.881.220.001.220.00
Demo Off Road Diesel0.986.774.490.000.000.490.490.000.450.45700.30
Time Slice 6/8/2012-7/27/2012
Active Days: 36
1.8415.309.000.000.740.681,816.670.000.740.000.68
0.74Trenching 06/08/2012-07/27/20121.8415.309.000.000.681,816.670.000.740.000.68
Trenching Worker Trips0.030.050.990.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.04
Trenching Off Road Diesel1.8015.248.010.000.000.730.730.000.670.671,714.64
Time Slice 7/30/2012-12/31/2012
Active Days: 111
3.3915.8117.400.011.121.002,435.680.041.080.010.99
1.12Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20133.3915.8117.400.011.002,435.680.041.080.010.99
Building Worker Trips0.200.356.320.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.03
Building Vendor Trips0.050.650.570.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.46
Building Off Road Diesel3.1414.8110.520.000.001.041.040.000.950.951,621.20
2/2/2011 2:18:09 PM
Page: 3
Time Slice 1/1/2013-1/18/2013
Active Days: 14
3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 1.01 0.90 2,436.060.04 0.97 0.01 0.89
1.01Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20133.1014.7916.560.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
Building Worker Trips0.180.315.820.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.39
Building Vendor Trips0.050.570.530.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.47
Building Off Road Diesel2.8813.9110.200.000.000.930.930.000.860.861,621.20
Time Slice 1/21/2013-2/22/2013
Active Days: 25
85.5214.8417.430.011.010.912,534.220.040.970.020.89
0.01Coating 01/20/2013-02/22/201382.420.050.870.000.0098.170.000.000.000.00
Coating Worker Trips0.030.050.870.000.000.000.010.000.000.0098.17
Architectural Coating82.390.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
1.01Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20133.1014.7916.560.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
Building Worker Trips0.180.315.820.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.39
Building Vendor Trips0.050.570.530.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.47
Building Off Road Diesel2.8813.9110.200.000.000.930.930.000.860.861,621.20
Time Slice 2/25/2013-7/25/2013
Active Days: 109
3.1014.7916.560.011.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
1.01Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20133.1014.7916.560.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
Building Worker Trips0.180.315.820.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.39
Building Vendor Trips0.050.570.530.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.47
Building Off Road Diesel2.8813.9110.200.000.000.930.930.000.860.861,621.20
2/2/2011 2:18:09 PM
Page: 4
Time Slice 8/12/2013-8/30/2013
Active Days: 15
6.9858.0731.410.0472.4517.348,436.7669.373.0814.512.83
71.10Fine Grading 08/12/2013-
09/10/2013
4.0341.8219.120.0416.116,631.6269.351.7514.501.61
Fine Grading On Road Diesel1.4521.207.110.040.150.760.910.050.700.754,282.21
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0069.200.0069.2014.450.0014.450.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.5520.5611.100.000.000.990.990.000.910.912,247.32
1.35Asphalt 07/26/2013-08/31/20132.9516.2512.290.001.231,805.140.021.330.011.23
Paving On Road Diesel0.050.780.260.000.010.030.030.000.030.03156.99
Paving Worker Trips0.060.112.050.000.010.010.020.000.000.01229.71
Paving Off-Gas0.340.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Paving Off Road Diesel2.4815.369.980.000.001.301.300.001.201.201,418.44
Time Slice 7/26/2013-8/9/2013
Active Days: 11
6.05 31.05 28.84 0.01 2.36 2.14 4,241.200.05 2.30 0.02 2.12
1.01Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20133.1014.7916.560.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
Building Worker Trips0.180.315.820.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.39
Building Vendor Trips0.050.570.530.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.47
Building Off Road Diesel2.8813.9110.200.000.000.930.930.000.860.861,621.20
1.35Asphalt 07/26/2013-08/31/20132.9516.2512.290.001.231,805.140.021.330.011.23
Paving On Road Diesel0.050.780.260.000.010.030.030.000.030.03156.99
Paving Worker Trips0.060.112.050.000.010.010.020.000.000.01229.71
Paving Off-Gas0.340.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Paving Off Road Diesel2.4815.369.980.000.001.301.300.001.201.201,418.44
2/2/2011 2:18:09 PM
Page: 5
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 194.44
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day
1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Demolition 4/2/2012 - 5/11/2012 - Phase 1
Off-Road Equipment:
Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 14000
Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 400000
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1063.64
Onsite Cut/Fill: 450 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day
2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day
Total Acres Disturbed: 8.46
Phase: Fine Grading 8/12/2013 - 9/10/2013 - Phase 1
Phase Assumptions
Time Slice 9/2/2013-9/10/2013
Active Days: 7
4.03 41.82 19.12 0.04 71.10 16.11 6,631.6269.35 1.75 14.50 1.61
71.10Fine Grading 08/12/2013-
09/10/2013
4.0341.8219.120.0416.116,631.6269.351.7514.501.61
Fine Grading On Road Diesel1.4521.207.110.040.150.760.910.050.700.754,282.21
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0069.200.0069.2014.450.0014.450.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.5520.5611.100.000.000.990.990.000.910.912,247.32
2/2/2011 2:18:09 PM
Page: 6
Off-Road Equipment:
Acres to be Paved: 3.42
1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day
4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day
1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Paving 7/26/2013 - 8/31/2013 - Phase 1
Off-Road Equipment:
Phase: Building Construction 7/30/2012 - 8/9/2013 - Phase 1
1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day
2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
Onsite Cut/Fill: 1350 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low
Off-Road Equipment:
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 3694.74
Phase: Mass Grading 5/14/2012 - 6/7/2012 - Phase 1
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61
Total Acres Disturbed: 8.46
Phase: Trenching 6/8/2012 - 7/27/2012 - Phase 1
2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
2/2/2011 2:18:09 PM
Page: 7
Construction Mitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated
ROGNOxCOSO2PM10 DustPM10 Exhaust PM10PM2.5 DustPM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5CO2
Time Slice 4/2/2012-5/11/2012
Active Days: 30
1.3011.196.920.016.571.841,585.175.910.651.230.60
6.57Demolition 04/02/2012-
05/11/2012
1.3011.196.920.011.841,585.175.910.651.230.60
Demo On Road Diesel0.294.371.440.010.030.160.180.010.140.15782.84
Demo Worker Trips0.030.050.990.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.04
Fugitive Dust0.000.000.000.005.880.005.881.220.001.220.00
Demo Off Road Diesel0.986.774.490.000.000.490.490.000.450.45700.30
Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Phase: Architectural Coating 1/20/2013 - 2/22/2013 - Phase 1
Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day
2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day
3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day
2/2/2011 2:18:09 PM
Page: 8
Time Slice 6/8/2012-7/27/2012
Active Days: 36
1.8415.309.000.000.740.681,816.670.000.740.000.68
0.74Trenching 06/08/2012-07/27/20121.8415.309.000.000.681,816.670.000.740.000.68
Trenching Worker Trips0.030.050.990.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.04
Trenching Off Road Diesel1.8015.248.010.000.000.730.730.000.670.671,714.64
Time Slice 5/14/2012-6/7/2012
Active Days: 19
8.20 105.08 39.83 0.14 32.23 9.68 17,224.4028.17 4.06 5.95 3.74
32.23Mass Grading 05/14/2012-
06/07/2012
8.20105.0839.830.149.6817,224.4028.174.065.953.74
Mass Grading On Road Diesel5.4883.0827.330.140.522.993.510.172.752.9214,875.04
Mass Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.990.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.04
Mass Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0027.650.0027.655.770.005.770.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel2.6921.9511.510.000.001.071.070.000.990.992,247.32
Time Slice 1/1/2013-1/18/2013
Active Days: 14
3.1014.7916.560.011.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
1.01Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20133.1014.7916.560.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
Building Worker Trips0.180.315.820.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.39
Building Vendor Trips0.050.570.530.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.47
Building Off Road Diesel2.8813.9110.200.000.000.930.930.000.860.861,621.20
Time Slice 7/30/2012-12/31/2012
Active Days: 111
3.3915.8117.400.011.121.002,435.680.041.080.010.99
1.12Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20133.3915.8117.400.011.002,435.680.041.080.010.99
Building Worker Trips0.200.356.320.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.03
Building Vendor Trips0.050.650.570.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.46
Building Off Road Diesel3.1414.8110.520.000.001.041.040.000.950.951,621.20
2/2/2011 2:18:09 PM
Page: 9
Time Slice 7/26/2013-8/9/2013
Active Days: 11
6.0531.0528.840.012.362.144,241.200.052.300.022.12
1.01Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20133.1014.7916.560.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
Building Worker Trips0.180.315.820.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.39
Building Vendor Trips0.050.570.530.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.47
Building Off Road Diesel2.8813.9110.200.000.000.930.930.000.860.861,621.20
1.35Asphalt 07/26/2013-08/31/20132.9516.2512.290.001.231,805.140.021.330.011.23
Paving On Road Diesel0.050.780.260.000.010.030.030.000.030.03156.99
Paving Worker Trips0.060.112.050.000.010.010.020.000.000.01229.71
Paving Off-Gas0.340.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Paving Off Road Diesel2.4815.369.980.000.001.301.300.001.201.201,418.44
Time Slice 1/21/2013-2/22/2013
Active Days: 25
52.57 14.84 17.43 0.01 1.01 0.91 2,534.220.04 0.97 0.02 0.89
0.01Coating 01/20/2013-02/22/201349.460.050.870.000.0098.170.000.000.000.00
Coating Worker Trips0.030.050.870.000.000.000.010.000.000.0098.17
Architectural Coating49.430.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
1.01Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20133.1014.7916.560.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
Building Worker Trips0.180.315.820.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.39
Building Vendor Trips0.050.570.530.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.47
Building Off Road Diesel2.8813.9110.200.000.000.930.930.000.860.861,621.20
Time Slice 2/25/2013-7/25/2013
Active Days: 109
3.1014.7916.560.011.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
1.01Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20133.1014.7916.560.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
Building Worker Trips0.180.315.820.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.39
Building Vendor Trips0.050.570.530.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.47
Building Off Road Diesel2.8813.9110.200.000.000.930.930.000.860.861,621.20
2/2/2011 2:18:09 PM
Page: 10
Time Slice 9/2/2013-9/10/2013
Active Days: 7
4.0341.8219.120.0412.813.936,631.6211.061.752.331.61
12.81Fine Grading 08/12/2013-
09/10/2013
4.0341.8219.120.043.936,631.6211.061.752.331.61
Fine Grading On Road Diesel1.4521.207.110.040.150.760.910.050.700.754,282.21
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0010.910.0010.912.280.002.280.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.5520.5611.100.000.000.990.990.000.910.912,247.32
Time Slice 8/12/2013-8/30/2013
Active Days: 15
6.98 58.07 31.41 0.04 14.16 5.17 8,436.7611.08 3.08 2.33 2.83
12.81Fine Grading 08/12/2013-
09/10/2013
4.0341.8219.120.043.936,631.6211.061.752.331.61
Fine Grading On Road Diesel1.4521.207.110.040.150.760.910.050.700.754,282.21
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0010.910.0010.912.280.002.280.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.5520.5611.100.000.000.990.990.000.910.912,247.32
1.35Asphalt 07/26/2013-08/31/20132.9516.2512.290.001.231,805.140.021.330.011.23
Paving On Road Diesel0.050.780.260.000.010.030.030.000.030.03156.99
Paving Worker Trips0.060.112.050.000.010.010.020.000.000.01229.71
Paving Off-Gas0.340.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Paving Off Road Diesel2.4815.369.980.000.001.301.300.001.201.201,418.44
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
PM10: 5% PM25: 5%
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 8/12/2013 - 9/10/2013 - Phase 1
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by:
Construction Related Mitigation Measures
2/2/2011 2:18:09 PM
Page: 11
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 1/20/2013 - 2/22/2013 - Phase 1
For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 44% PM25: 44%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
ROG: 40%
For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 44% PM25: 44%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 69% PM25: 69%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by:
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 5/14/2012 - 6/7/2012 - Phase 1
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 69% PM25: 69%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 5% PM25: 5%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
2/2/2011 2:18:24 PM
Page: 1
File Name: H:\pdata\40100419\Admin\reports\AQ_GHG\Models\URBEMIS\NOX mit\Albright_Phase1.urb924
Project Name: Albright Way Construction Phase1 No MM
Project Location: Bay Area Air District
On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day)
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
ROGNOxCOSO2PM10 DustPM10 Exhaust PM10PM2.5 DustPM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5CO2
2013 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated)85.5258.0731.410.0469.373.0872.4514.512.8317.348,436.76
2013 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated)52.5758.0731.410.0411.083.0814.162.332.835.178,436.76
2012 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated)8.20105.0839.830.1428.174.0632.235.953.749.6817,224.40
2012 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated)8.20105.0839.830.14175.934.06179.9936.803.7440.5417,224.40
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5 CO2
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
Summary Report:
2/2/2011 2:18:24 PM
Page: 2
Time Slice 5/14/2012-6/7/2012
Active Days: 19
8.20105.0839.830.14179.9940.5417,224.40175.934.0636.803.74
179.99Mass Grading 05/14/2012-
06/07/2012
8.20105.0839.830.1440.5417,224.40175.934.0636.803.74
Mass Grading On Road Diesel5.4883.0827.330.140.522.993.510.172.752.9214,875.04
Mass Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.990.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.04
Mass Grading Dust0.000.000.000.00175.400.00175.4036.630.0036.630.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel2.6921.9511.510.000.001.071.070.000.990.992,247.32
Time Slice 4/2/2012-5/11/2012
Active Days: 30
1.30 11.19 6.92 0.01 6.57 1.84 1,585.175.91 0.65 1.23 0.60
6.57Demolition 04/02/2012-
05/11/2012
1.3011.196.920.011.841,585.175.910.651.230.60
Demo On Road Diesel0.294.371.440.010.030.160.180.010.140.15782.84
Demo Worker Trips0.030.050.990.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.04
Fugitive Dust0.000.000.000.005.880.005.881.220.001.220.00
Demo Off Road Diesel0.986.774.490.000.000.490.490.000.450.45700.30
Time Slice 6/8/2012-7/27/2012
Active Days: 36
1.8415.309.000.000.740.681,816.670.000.740.000.68
0.74Trenching 06/08/2012-07/27/20121.8415.309.000.000.681,816.670.000.740.000.68
Trenching Worker Trips0.030.050.990.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.04
Trenching Off Road Diesel1.8015.248.010.000.000.730.730.000.670.671,714.64
Time Slice 7/30/2012-12/31/2012
Active Days: 111
3.3915.8117.400.011.121.002,435.680.041.080.010.99
1.12Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20133.3915.8117.400.011.002,435.680.041.080.010.99
Building Worker Trips0.200.356.320.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.03
Building Vendor Trips0.050.650.570.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.46
Building Off Road Diesel3.1414.8110.520.000.001.041.040.000.950.951,621.20
2/2/2011 2:18:24 PM
Page: 3
Time Slice 1/1/2013-1/18/2013
Active Days: 14
3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 1.01 0.90 2,436.060.04 0.97 0.01 0.89
1.01Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20133.1014.7916.560.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
Building Worker Trips0.180.315.820.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.39
Building Vendor Trips0.050.570.530.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.47
Building Off Road Diesel2.8813.9110.200.000.000.930.930.000.860.861,621.20
Time Slice 1/21/2013-2/22/2013
Active Days: 25
85.5214.8417.430.011.010.912,534.220.040.970.020.89
0.01Coating 01/20/2013-02/22/201382.420.050.870.000.0098.170.000.000.000.00
Coating Worker Trips0.030.050.870.000.000.000.010.000.000.0098.17
Architectural Coating82.390.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
1.01Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20133.1014.7916.560.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
Building Worker Trips0.180.315.820.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.39
Building Vendor Trips0.050.570.530.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.47
Building Off Road Diesel2.8813.9110.200.000.000.930.930.000.860.861,621.20
Time Slice 2/25/2013-7/25/2013
Active Days: 109
3.1014.7916.560.011.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
1.01Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20133.1014.7916.560.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
Building Worker Trips0.180.315.820.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.39
Building Vendor Trips0.050.570.530.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.47
Building Off Road Diesel2.8813.9110.200.000.000.930.930.000.860.861,621.20
2/2/2011 2:18:24 PM
Page: 4
Time Slice 8/12/2013-8/30/2013
Active Days: 15
6.9858.0731.410.0472.4517.348,436.7669.373.0814.512.83
71.10Fine Grading 08/12/2013-
09/10/2013
4.0341.8219.120.0416.116,631.6269.351.7514.501.61
Fine Grading On Road Diesel1.4521.207.110.040.150.760.910.050.700.754,282.21
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0069.200.0069.2014.450.0014.450.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.5520.5611.100.000.000.990.990.000.910.912,247.32
1.35Asphalt 07/26/2013-08/31/20132.9516.2512.290.001.231,805.140.021.330.011.23
Paving On Road Diesel0.050.780.260.000.010.030.030.000.030.03156.99
Paving Worker Trips0.060.112.050.000.010.010.020.000.000.01229.71
Paving Off-Gas0.340.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Paving Off Road Diesel2.4815.369.980.000.001.301.300.001.201.201,418.44
Time Slice 7/26/2013-8/9/2013
Active Days: 11
6.05 31.05 28.84 0.01 2.36 2.14 4,241.200.05 2.30 0.02 2.12
1.01Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20133.1014.7916.560.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
Building Worker Trips0.180.315.820.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.39
Building Vendor Trips0.050.570.530.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.47
Building Off Road Diesel2.8813.9110.200.000.000.930.930.000.860.861,621.20
1.35Asphalt 07/26/2013-08/31/20132.9516.2512.290.001.231,805.140.021.330.011.23
Paving On Road Diesel0.050.780.260.000.010.030.030.000.030.03156.99
Paving Worker Trips0.060.112.050.000.010.010.020.000.000.01229.71
Paving Off-Gas0.340.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Paving Off Road Diesel2.4815.369.980.000.001.301.300.001.201.201,418.44
2/2/2011 2:18:24 PM
Page: 5
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 194.44
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day
1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Demolition 4/2/2012 - 5/11/2012 - Phase 1
Off-Road Equipment:
Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 14000
Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 400000
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1063.64
Onsite Cut/Fill: 450 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day
2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day
Total Acres Disturbed: 8.46
Phase: Fine Grading 8/12/2013 - 9/10/2013 - Phase 1
Phase Assumptions
Time Slice 9/2/2013-9/10/2013
Active Days: 7
4.03 41.82 19.12 0.04 71.10 16.11 6,631.6269.35 1.75 14.50 1.61
71.10Fine Grading 08/12/2013-
09/10/2013
4.0341.8219.120.0416.116,631.6269.351.7514.501.61
Fine Grading On Road Diesel1.4521.207.110.040.150.760.910.050.700.754,282.21
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0069.200.0069.2014.450.0014.450.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.5520.5611.100.000.000.990.990.000.910.912,247.32
2/2/2011 2:18:24 PM
Page: 6
Off-Road Equipment:
Acres to be Paved: 3.42
1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day
4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day
1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Paving 7/26/2013 - 8/31/2013 - Phase 1
Off-Road Equipment:
Phase: Building Construction 7/30/2012 - 8/9/2013 - Phase 1
1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day
2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
Onsite Cut/Fill: 1350 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low
Off-Road Equipment:
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 3694.74
Phase: Mass Grading 5/14/2012 - 6/7/2012 - Phase 1
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61
Total Acres Disturbed: 8.46
Phase: Trenching 6/8/2012 - 7/27/2012 - Phase 1
2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
2/2/2011 2:18:24 PM
Page: 7
Construction Mitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Mitigated
ROGNOxCOSO2PM10 DustPM10 Exhaust PM10PM2.5 DustPM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5CO2
Time Slice 4/2/2012-5/11/2012
Active Days: 30
1.3011.196.920.016.571.841,585.175.910.651.230.60
6.57Demolition 04/02/2012-
05/11/2012
1.3011.196.920.011.841,585.175.910.651.230.60
Demo On Road Diesel0.294.371.440.010.030.160.180.010.140.15782.84
Demo Worker Trips0.030.050.990.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.04
Fugitive Dust0.000.000.000.005.880.005.881.220.001.220.00
Demo Off Road Diesel0.986.774.490.000.000.490.490.000.450.45700.30
Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Phase: Architectural Coating 1/20/2013 - 2/22/2013 - Phase 1
Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day
2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day
3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day
2/2/2011 2:18:24 PM
Page: 8
Time Slice 6/8/2012-7/27/2012
Active Days: 36
1.8415.309.000.000.740.681,816.670.000.740.000.68
0.74Trenching 06/08/2012-07/27/20121.8415.309.000.000.681,816.670.000.740.000.68
Trenching Worker Trips0.030.050.990.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.04
Trenching Off Road Diesel1.8015.248.010.000.000.730.730.000.670.671,714.64
Time Slice 5/14/2012-6/7/2012
Active Days: 19
8.20 105.08 39.83 0.14 32.23 9.68 17,224.4028.17 4.06 5.95 3.74
32.23Mass Grading 05/14/2012-
06/07/2012
8.20105.0839.830.149.6817,224.4028.174.065.953.74
Mass Grading On Road Diesel5.4883.0827.330.140.522.993.510.172.752.9214,875.04
Mass Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.990.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.04
Mass Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0027.650.0027.655.770.005.770.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel2.6921.9511.510.000.001.071.070.000.990.992,247.32
Time Slice 1/1/2013-1/18/2013
Active Days: 14
3.1014.7916.560.011.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
1.01Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20133.1014.7916.560.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
Building Worker Trips0.180.315.820.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.39
Building Vendor Trips0.050.570.530.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.47
Building Off Road Diesel2.8813.9110.200.000.000.930.930.000.860.861,621.20
Time Slice 7/30/2012-12/31/2012
Active Days: 111
3.3915.8117.400.011.121.002,435.680.041.080.010.99
1.12Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20133.3915.8117.400.011.002,435.680.041.080.010.99
Building Worker Trips0.200.356.320.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.03
Building Vendor Trips0.050.650.570.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.46
Building Off Road Diesel3.1414.8110.520.000.001.041.040.000.950.951,621.20
2/2/2011 2:18:24 PM
Page: 9
Time Slice 7/26/2013-8/9/2013
Active Days: 11
6.0531.0528.840.012.362.144,241.200.052.300.022.12
1.01Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20133.1014.7916.560.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
Building Worker Trips0.180.315.820.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.39
Building Vendor Trips0.050.570.530.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.47
Building Off Road Diesel2.8813.9110.200.000.000.930.930.000.860.861,621.20
1.35Asphalt 07/26/2013-08/31/20132.9516.2512.290.001.231,805.140.021.330.011.23
Paving On Road Diesel0.050.780.260.000.010.030.030.000.030.03156.99
Paving Worker Trips0.060.112.050.000.010.010.020.000.000.01229.71
Paving Off-Gas0.340.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Paving Off Road Diesel2.4815.369.980.000.001.301.300.001.201.201,418.44
Time Slice 1/21/2013-2/22/2013
Active Days: 25
52.57 14.84 17.43 0.01 1.01 0.91 2,534.220.04 0.97 0.02 0.89
0.01Coating 01/20/2013-02/22/201349.460.050.870.000.0098.170.000.000.000.00
Coating Worker Trips0.030.050.870.000.000.000.010.000.000.0098.17
Architectural Coating49.430.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
1.01Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20133.1014.7916.560.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
Building Worker Trips0.180.315.820.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.39
Building Vendor Trips0.050.570.530.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.47
Building Off Road Diesel2.8813.9110.200.000.000.930.930.000.860.861,621.20
Time Slice 2/25/2013-7/25/2013
Active Days: 109
3.1014.7916.560.011.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
1.01Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20133.1014.7916.560.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
Building Worker Trips0.180.315.820.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.39
Building Vendor Trips0.050.570.530.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.47
Building Off Road Diesel2.8813.9110.200.000.000.930.930.000.860.861,621.20
2/2/2011 2:18:24 PM
Page: 10
Time Slice 9/2/2013-9/10/2013
Active Days: 7
4.0341.8219.120.0412.813.936,631.6211.061.752.331.61
12.81Fine Grading 08/12/2013-
09/10/2013
4.0341.8219.120.043.936,631.6211.061.752.331.61
Fine Grading On Road Diesel1.4521.207.110.040.150.760.910.050.700.754,282.21
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0010.910.0010.912.280.002.280.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.5520.5611.100.000.000.990.990.000.910.912,247.32
Time Slice 8/12/2013-8/30/2013
Active Days: 15
6.98 58.07 31.41 0.04 14.16 5.17 8,436.7611.08 3.08 2.33 2.83
12.81Fine Grading 08/12/2013-
09/10/2013
4.0341.8219.120.043.936,631.6211.061.752.331.61
Fine Grading On Road Diesel1.4521.207.110.040.150.760.910.050.700.754,282.21
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0010.910.0010.912.280.002.280.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.5520.5611.100.000.000.990.990.000.910.912,247.32
1.35Asphalt 07/26/2013-08/31/20132.9516.2512.290.001.231,805.140.021.330.011.23
Paving On Road Diesel0.050.780.260.000.010.030.030.000.030.03156.99
Paving Worker Trips0.060.112.050.000.010.010.020.000.000.01229.71
Paving Off-Gas0.340.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Paving Off Road Diesel2.4815.369.980.000.001.301.300.001.201.201,418.44
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
PM10: 5% PM25: 5%
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 8/12/2013 - 9/10/2013 - Phase 1
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by:
Construction Related Mitigation Measures
2/2/2011 2:18:24 PM
Page: 11
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 1/20/2013 - 2/22/2013 - Phase 1
For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 44% PM25: 44%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
ROG: 40%
For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 44% PM25: 44%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 69% PM25: 69%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by:
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 5/14/2012 - 6/7/2012 - Phase 1
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 69% PM25: 69%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 5% PM25: 5%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
2/2/2011 2:21:16 PM
Page: 1
File Name: H:\pdata\40100419\Admin\reports\AQ_GHG\Models\URBEMIS\NOX mit\Albright_Phase2.urb924
Project Name: Albright Way Construction Phase 2 No MM
Project Location: Bay Area Air District
On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year)
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated
ROGNOxCOSO2PM10 DustPM10 Exhaust PM10PM2.5 DustPM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5CO2
2014 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated)1.451.922.080.000.370.120.490.080.110.19342.60
2014 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated)1.021.922.080.000.060.120.180.010.110.12342.60
Percent Reduction29.610.000.000.0082.950.0063.3182.070.0034.950.00
Percent Reduction0.000.000.000.0082.880.0081.2282.780.0075.940.00
2013 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated)0.151.560.720.003.170.063.240.660.060.72267.52
2013 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated)0.151.560.720.000.540.060.610.110.060.17267.52
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5 CO2
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
Summary Report:
2/2/2011 2:21:16 PM
Page: 2
2013 0.15 1.56 0.72 0.00 3.24 0.72 267.523.17 0.06 0.66 0.06
0.42Fine Grading 12/19/2013-
01/12/2014
0.020.230.100.000.1038.630.410.010.090.01
Fine Grading On Road Diesel0.010.140.050.000.000.000.010.000.000.0028.05
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.46
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.000.410.000.410.090.000.090.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel0.010.090.050.000.000.000.000.000.000.0010.11
0.00Building 12/20/2013-12/18/20140.010.060.070.000.009.740.000.000.000.00
Building Worker Trips0.000.000.020.000.000.000.000.000.000.002.61
Building Vendor Trips0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.65
Building Off Road Diesel0.010.060.040.000.000.000.000.000.000.006.48
0.01Trenching 11/14/2013-12/19/20130.020.180.120.000.0123.620.000.010.000.01
Trenching Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.001.33
Trenching Off Road Diesel0.020.180.100.000.000.010.010.000.010.0122.29
0.05Demolition 09/25/2013-
10/15/2013
0.01 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.01 11.890.04 0.00 0.01 0.00
Demo On Road Diesel0.000.030.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.005.87
Demo Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.77
Fugitive Dust0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Demo Off Road Diesel0.010.050.030.000.000.000.000.000.000.005.25
2.75Mass Grading 10/16/2013-
11/13/2013
0.081.000.390.000.60183.652.710.040.570.04
Mass Grading On Road Diesel0.050.790.260.000.010.030.030.000.030.03158.98
Mass Grading Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.001.07
Mass Grading Dust0.000.000.000.002.710.002.710.570.000.570.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel0.030.220.120.000.000.010.010.000.010.0123.60
2/2/2011 2:21:16 PM
Page: 3
Off-Road Equipment:
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 194.44
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day
1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Demolition 9/25/2013 - 10/15/2013 - Phase 2
Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 14000
Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 175000
2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day
Total Acres Disturbed: 4.59
Phase: Fine Grading 12/19/2013 - 1/12/2014 - Phase 2
Phase Assumptions
2014 1.45 1.92 2.08 0.00 0.49 0.19 342.600.37 0.12 0.08 0.11
0.00Coating 11/14/2014-12/19/20141.070.000.010.000.001.280.000.000.000.00
Coating Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.001.28
Architectural Coating1.070.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
0.38Fine Grading 12/19/2013-
01/12/2014
0.02 0.19 0.08 0.00 0.08 34.340.37 0.01 0.08 0.01
Fine Grading On Road Diesel0.010.110.040.000.000.000.000.000.000.0024.94
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.41
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.000.370.000.370.080.000.080.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel0.010.080.040.000.000.000.000.000.000.008.99
0.11Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 0.36 1.74 1.98 0.00 0.10 306.990.00 0.11 0.00 0.10
Building Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 82.37
Building Vendor Trips 0.01 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.35
Building Off Road Diesel 0.33 1.63 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.10 204.27
2/2/2011 2:21:16 PM
Page: 4
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
Phase: Trenching 11/14/2013 - 12/19/2013 - Phase 2
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
Phase: Building Construction 12/20/2013 - 12/18/2014 - Phase 2
1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day
2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.15
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1548.53
Onsite Cut/Fill: 682 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 3760.71
Onsite Cut/Fill: 2048 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
Total Acres Disturbed: 16.21
Phase: Mass Grading 10/16/2013 - 11/13/2013 - Phase 2
2/2/2011 2:21:16 PM
Page: 5
Construction Mitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Mitigated
ROGNOxCOSO2PM10 DustPM10 Exhaust PM10PM2.5 DustPM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5CO2
20130.151.560.720.000.610.17267.520.540.060.110.06
0.05Demolition 09/25/2013-
10/15/2013
0.010.080.050.000.0111.890.040.000.010.00
Demo On Road Diesel0.000.030.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.005.87
Demo Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.77
Fugitive Dust0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Demo Off Road Diesel0.010.050.030.000.000.000.000.000.000.005.25
Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Phase: Architectural Coating 11/14/2014 - 12/19/2014 - Phase 2
Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day
2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day
3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day
2/2/2011 2:21:16 PM
Page: 6
0.08Fine Grading 12/19/2013-
01/12/2014
0.020.230.100.000.0238.630.070.010.010.01
Fine Grading On Road Diesel0.010.140.050.000.000.000.010.000.000.0028.05
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.46
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.000.070.000.070.010.000.010.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel0.010.090.050.000.000.000.000.000.000.0010.11
0.00Building 12/20/2013-12/18/20140.010.060.070.000.009.740.000.000.000.00
Building Worker Trips0.000.000.020.000.000.000.000.000.000.002.61
Building Vendor Trips0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.65
Building Off Road Diesel0.010.060.040.000.000.000.000.000.000.006.48
0.47Mass Grading 10/16/2013-
11/13/2013
0.08 1.00 0.39 0.00 0.13 183.650.43 0.04 0.09 0.04
Mass Grading On Road Diesel0.050.790.260.000.010.030.030.000.030.03158.98
Mass Grading Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.001.07
Mass Grading Dust0.000.000.000.000.430.000.430.090.000.090.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel0.030.220.120.000.000.010.010.000.010.0123.60
0.01Trenching 11/14/2013-12/19/20130.020.180.120.000.0123.620.000.010.000.01
Trenching Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.001.33
Trenching Off Road Diesel0.020.180.100.000.000.010.010.000.010.0122.29
2/2/2011 2:21:16 PM
Page: 7
2014 1.02 1.92 2.08 0.00 0.18 0.12 342.600.06 0.12 0.01 0.11
0.00Coating 11/14/2014-12/19/20140.640.000.010.000.001.280.000.000.000.00
Coating Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.001.28
Architectural Coating0.640.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
0.07Fine Grading 12/19/2013-
01/12/2014
0.02 0.19 0.08 0.00 0.02 34.340.06 0.01 0.01 0.01
Fine Grading On Road Diesel0.010.110.040.000.000.000.000.000.000.0024.94
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.41
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.000.060.000.060.010.000.010.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel0.010.080.040.000.000.000.000.000.000.008.99
0.11Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 0.36 1.74 1.98 0.00 0.10 306.990.00 0.11 0.00 0.10
Building Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 82.37
Building Vendor Trips 0.01 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.35
Building Off Road Diesel 0.33 1.63 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.10 204.27
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 5% PM25: 5%
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 12/19/2013 - 1/12/2014 - Phase 2
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 69% PM25: 69%
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 44% PM25: 44%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
Construction Related Mitigation Measures
2/2/2011 2:21:16 PM
Page: 8
ROG: 40%
For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 11/14/2014 - 12/19/2014 - Phase 2
For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
ROG: 40%
ROG: 40%
For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
PM10: 5% PM25: 5%
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 10/16/2013 - 11/13/2013 - Phase 2
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 44% PM25: 44%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by:
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 69% PM25: 69%
2/2/2011 2:20:58 PM
Page: 1
File Name: H:\pdata\40100419\Admin\reports\AQ_GHG\Models\URBEMIS\NOX mit\Albright_Phase2.urb924
Project Name: Albright Way Construction Phase 2 No MM
Project Location: Bay Area Air District
On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day)
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
ROGNOxCOSO2PM10 DustPM10 Exhaust PM10PM2.5 DustPM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5CO2
2014 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated)85.2660.2136.680.0792.242.7294.9519.302.5021.7911,020.26
2014 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated)52.3060.2136.680.0714.762.7217.483.112.505.6111,020.26
2013 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated)7.7995.5938.920.1441.163.6644.838.663.3712.0317,490.08
2013 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated)7.7995.5938.920.14258.303.66261.9654.013.3757.3817,490.08
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5 CO2
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
Summary Report:
2/2/2011 2:20:58 PM
Page: 2
Time Slice 10/16/2013-11/13/2013
Active Days: 21
7.7195.5937.160.14261.9657.3817,490.08258.303.6654.013.37
261.96Mass Grading 10/16/2013-
11/13/2013
7.7195.5937.160.1457.3817,490.08258.303.6654.013.37
Mass Grading On Road Diesel5.1374.9725.150.140.532.683.210.172.462.6415,140.67
Mass Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Mass Grading Dust0.000.000.000.00257.760.00257.7653.830.0053.830.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel2.5520.5611.100.000.000.990.990.000.910.912,247.32
Time Slice 9/25/2013-10/15/2013
Active Days: 15
1.21 10.27 6.61 0.01 6.49 1.77 1,585.235.91 0.58 1.23 0.54
6.49Demolition 09/25/2013-
10/15/2013
1.2110.276.610.011.771,585.235.910.581.230.54
Demo On Road Diesel0.273.881.300.010.030.140.170.010.130.14782.84
Demo Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Fugitive Dust0.000.000.000.005.880.005.881.220.001.220.00
Demo Off Road Diesel0.916.354.400.000.000.440.440.000.410.41700.30
Time Slice 11/14/2013-12/18/2013
Active Days: 25
1.7414.178.880.000.680.631,816.730.000.680.000.63
0.68Trenching 11/14/2013-12/19/20131.7414.178.880.000.631,816.730.000.680.000.63
Trenching Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Trenching Off Road Diesel1.7214.127.970.000.000.680.680.000.620.621,714.64
2/2/2011 2:20:58 PM
Page: 3
Time Slice 12/19/2013-12/19/2013
Active Days: 1
6.43 65.65 31.24 0.06 94.97 21.83 10,400.5392.20 2.77 19.28 2.55
0.68Trenching 11/14/2013-12/19/20131.7414.178.880.000.631,816.730.000.680.000.63
Trenching Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Trenching Off Road Diesel1.7214.127.970.000.000.680.680.000.620.621,714.64
94.29Fine Grading 12/19/2013-
01/12/2014
4.6951.4822.360.0621.208,583.8092.202.0919.281.92
Fine Grading On Road Diesel2.1130.8710.360.060.221.101.320.071.011.096,234.39
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0091.980.0091.9819.210.0019.210.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.5520.5611.100.000.000.990.990.000.910.912,247.32
Time Slice 12/20/2013-12/31/2013
Active Days: 8
7.7966.2838.920.0795.3022.1111,019.8692.243.0619.302.81
94.29Fine Grading 12/19/2013-
01/12/2014
4.6951.4822.360.0621.208,583.8092.202.0919.281.92
Fine Grading On Road Diesel2.1130.8710.360.060.221.101.320.071.011.096,234.39
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0091.980.0091.9819.210.0019.210.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.5520.5611.100.000.000.990.990.000.910.912,247.32
1.01Building 12/20/2013-12/18/20143.1014.7916.560.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
Building Worker Trips0.180.315.820.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.39
Building Vendor Trips0.050.570.530.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.47
Building Off Road Diesel2.8813.9110.200.000.000.930.930.000.860.861,621.20
2/2/2011 2:20:58 PM
Page: 4
Time Slice 11/14/2014-12/18/2014
Active Days: 25
85.2613.8116.550.010.910.812,534.610.040.860.020.79
0.01Coating 11/14/2014-12/19/201482.410.040.810.000.0098.220.000.000.000.00
Coating Worker Trips0.020.040.810.000.000.000.010.000.000.0098.22
Architectural Coating82.390.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
0.90Building 12/20/2013-12/18/20142.8413.7715.750.010.802,436.400.040.860.010.79
Building Worker Trips0.160.295.360.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.72
Building Vendor Trips0.040.510.500.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.48
Building Off Road Diesel2.6312.979.890.000.000.820.820.000.760.761,621.20
Time Slice 1/1/2014-1/10/2014
Active Days: 8
7.22 60.21 36.68 0.07 94.95 21.79 11,020.2692.24 2.72 19.30 2.50
94.06Fine Grading 12/19/2013-
01/12/2014
4.3846.4420.930.0620.998,583.8692.201.8619.281.71
Fine Grading On Road Diesel1.9427.329.360.060.220.971.190.070.890.966,234.40
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.030.040.840.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.14
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0091.980.0091.9819.210.0019.210.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.4119.0810.740.000.000.890.890.000.820.822,247.32
0.90Building 12/20/2013-12/18/20142.8413.7715.750.010.802,436.400.040.860.010.79
Building Worker Trips0.160.295.360.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.72
Building Vendor Trips0.040.510.500.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.48
Building Off Road Diesel2.6312.979.890.000.000.820.820.000.760.761,621.20
Time Slice 1/13/2014-11/13/2014
Active Days: 219
2.8413.7715.750.010.900.802,436.400.040.860.010.79
0.90Building 12/20/2013-12/18/20142.8413.7715.750.010.802,436.400.040.860.010.79
Building Worker Trips0.160.295.360.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.72
Building Vendor Trips0.040.510.500.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.48
Building Off Road Diesel2.6312.979.890.000.000.820.820.000.760.761,621.20
2/2/2011 2:20:58 PM
Page: 5
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Mass Grading 10/16/2013 - 11/13/2013 - Phase 2
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 194.44
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day
1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Demolition 9/25/2013 - 10/15/2013 - Phase 2
Off-Road Equipment:
Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 14000
Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 175000
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.15
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1548.53
Onsite Cut/Fill: 682 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day
2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day
Total Acres Disturbed: 4.59
Phase: Fine Grading 12/19/2013 - 1/12/2014 - Phase 2
Phase Assumptions
Time Slice 12/19/2014-12/19/2014
Active Days: 1
82.41 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.01 0.00 98.220.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.01Coating 11/14/2014-12/19/201482.410.040.810.000.0098.220.000.000.000.00
Coating Worker Trips0.020.040.810.000.000.000.010.000.000.0098.22
Architectural Coating82.390.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
2/2/2011 2:20:58 PM
Page: 6
2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day
Phase: Building Construction 12/20/2013 - 12/18/2014 - Phase 2
Off-Road Equipment:
3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day
Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Phase: Architectural Coating 11/14/2014 - 12/19/2014 - Phase 2
Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 3760.71
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
Onsite Cut/Fill: 2048 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day
Total Acres Disturbed: 16.21
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Trenching 11/14/2013 - 12/19/2013 - Phase 2
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
2/2/2011 2:20:58 PM
Page: 7
Construction Mitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated
ROGNOxCOSO2PM10 DustPM10 Exhaust PM10PM2.5 DustPM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5CO2
Time Slice 10/16/2013-11/13/2013
Active Days: 21
7.7195.5937.160.1444.8312.0317,490.0841.163.668.663.37
44.83Mass Grading 10/16/2013-
11/13/2013
7.7195.5937.160.1412.0317,490.0841.163.668.663.37
Mass Grading On Road Diesel5.1374.9725.150.140.532.683.210.172.462.6415,140.67
Mass Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Mass Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0040.630.0040.638.480.008.480.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel2.5520.5611.100.000.000.990.990.000.910.912,247.32
Time Slice 9/25/2013-10/15/2013
Active Days: 15
1.2110.276.610.016.491.771,585.235.910.581.230.54
6.49Demolition 09/25/2013-
10/15/2013
1.2110.276.610.011.771,585.235.910.581.230.54
Demo On Road Diesel0.273.881.300.010.030.140.170.010.130.14782.84
Demo Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Fugitive Dust0.000.000.000.005.880.005.881.220.001.220.00
Demo Off Road Diesel0.916.354.400.000.000.440.440.000.410.41700.30
Time Slice 11/14/2013-12/18/2013
Active Days: 25
1.7414.178.880.000.680.631,816.730.000.680.000.63
0.68Trenching 11/14/2013-12/19/20131.7414.178.880.000.631,816.730.000.680.000.63
Trenching Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Trenching Off Road Diesel1.7214.127.970.000.000.680.680.000.620.621,714.64
2/2/2011 2:20:58 PM
Page: 8
Time Slice 12/19/2013-12/19/2013
Active Days: 1
6.43 65.65 31.24 0.06 17.50 5.65 10,400.5314.73 2.77 3.10 2.55
0.68Trenching 11/14/2013-12/19/20131.7414.178.880.000.631,816.730.000.680.000.63
Trenching Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Trenching Off Road Diesel1.7214.127.970.000.000.680.680.000.620.621,714.64
16.81Fine Grading 12/19/2013-
01/12/2014
4.6951.4822.360.065.028,583.8014.722.093.101.92
Fine Grading On Road Diesel2.1130.8710.360.060.221.101.320.071.011.096,234.39
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0014.500.0014.503.030.003.030.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.5520.5611.100.000.000.990.990.000.910.912,247.32
Time Slice 12/20/2013-12/31/2013
Active Days: 8
7.7966.2838.920.0717.825.9311,019.8614.763.063.112.81
16.81Fine Grading 12/19/2013-
01/12/2014
4.6951.4822.360.065.028,583.8014.722.093.101.92
Fine Grading On Road Diesel2.1130.8710.360.060.221.101.320.071.011.096,234.39
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0014.500.0014.503.030.003.030.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.5520.5611.100.000.000.990.990.000.910.912,247.32
1.01Building 12/20/2013-12/18/20143.1014.7916.560.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
Building Worker Trips0.180.315.820.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.39
Building Vendor Trips0.050.570.530.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.47
Building Off Road Diesel2.8813.9110.200.000.000.930.930.000.860.861,621.20
2/2/2011 2:20:58 PM
Page: 9
Time Slice 11/14/2014-12/18/2014
Active Days: 25
52.3013.8116.550.010.910.812,534.610.040.860.020.79
0.01Coating 11/14/2014-12/19/201449.460.040.810.000.0098.220.000.000.000.00
Coating Worker Trips0.020.040.810.000.000.000.010.000.000.0098.22
Architectural Coating49.430.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
0.90Building 12/20/2013-12/18/20142.8413.7715.750.010.802,436.400.040.860.010.79
Building Worker Trips0.160.295.360.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.72
Building Vendor Trips0.040.510.500.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.48
Building Off Road Diesel2.6312.979.890.000.000.820.820.000.760.761,621.20
Time Slice 1/1/2014-1/10/2014
Active Days: 8
7.22 60.21 36.68 0.07 17.48 5.61 11,020.2614.76 2.72 3.11 2.50
16.58Fine Grading 12/19/2013-
01/12/2014
4.3846.4420.930.064.818,583.8614.721.863.101.71
Fine Grading On Road Diesel1.9427.329.360.060.220.971.190.070.890.966,234.40
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.030.040.840.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.14
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0014.500.0014.503.030.003.030.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.4119.0810.740.000.000.890.890.000.820.822,247.32
0.90Building 12/20/2013-12/18/20142.8413.7715.750.010.802,436.400.040.860.010.79
Building Worker Trips0.160.295.360.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.72
Building Vendor Trips0.040.510.500.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.48
Building Off Road Diesel2.6312.979.890.000.000.820.820.000.760.761,621.20
Time Slice 1/13/2014-11/13/2014
Active Days: 219
2.8413.7715.750.010.900.802,436.400.040.860.010.79
0.90Building 12/20/2013-12/18/20142.8413.7715.750.010.802,436.400.040.860.010.79
Building Worker Trips0.160.295.360.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.72
Building Vendor Trips0.040.510.500.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.48
Building Off Road Diesel2.6312.979.890.000.000.820.820.000.760.761,621.20
2/2/2011 2:20:58 PM
Page: 10
Time Slice 12/19/2014-12/19/2014
Active Days: 1
49.46 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.01 0.00 98.220.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.01Coating 11/14/2014-12/19/201449.460.040.810.000.0098.220.000.000.000.00
Coating Worker Trips0.020.040.810.000.000.000.010.000.000.0098.22
Architectural Coating49.430.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
PM10: 44% PM25: 44%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 69% PM25: 69%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 5% PM25: 5%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 12/19/2013 - 1/12/2014 - Phase 2
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 69% PM25: 69%
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 10/16/2013 - 11/13/2013 - Phase 2
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 5% PM25: 5%
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 44% PM25: 44%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
Construction Related Mitigation Measures
2/2/2011 2:20:58 PM
Page: 11
ROG: 40%
For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 11/14/2014 - 12/19/2014 - Phase 2
For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
2/2/2011 2:21:07 PM
Page: 1
File Name: H:\pdata\40100419\Admin\reports\AQ_GHG\Models\URBEMIS\NOX mit\Albright_Phase2.urb924
Project Name: Albright Way Construction Phase 2 No MM
Project Location: Bay Area Air District
On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day)
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
ROGNOxCOSO2PM10 DustPM10 Exhaust PM10PM2.5 DustPM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5CO2
2014 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated)85.2660.2136.680.0792.242.7294.9519.302.5021.7911,020.26
2014 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated)52.3060.2136.680.0714.762.7217.483.112.505.6111,020.26
2013 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated)7.7995.5938.920.1441.163.6644.838.663.3712.0317,490.08
2013 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated)7.7995.5938.920.14258.303.66261.9654.013.3757.3817,490.08
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5 CO2
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
Summary Report:
2/2/2011 2:21:07 PM
Page: 2
Time Slice 10/16/2013-11/13/2013
Active Days: 21
7.7195.5937.160.14261.9657.3817,490.08258.303.6654.013.37
261.96Mass Grading 10/16/2013-
11/13/2013
7.7195.5937.160.1457.3817,490.08258.303.6654.013.37
Mass Grading On Road Diesel5.1374.9725.150.140.532.683.210.172.462.6415,140.67
Mass Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Mass Grading Dust0.000.000.000.00257.760.00257.7653.830.0053.830.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel2.5520.5611.100.000.000.990.990.000.910.912,247.32
Time Slice 9/25/2013-10/15/2013
Active Days: 15
1.21 10.27 6.61 0.01 6.49 1.77 1,585.235.91 0.58 1.23 0.54
6.49Demolition 09/25/2013-
10/15/2013
1.2110.276.610.011.771,585.235.910.581.230.54
Demo On Road Diesel0.273.881.300.010.030.140.170.010.130.14782.84
Demo Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Fugitive Dust0.000.000.000.005.880.005.881.220.001.220.00
Demo Off Road Diesel0.916.354.400.000.000.440.440.000.410.41700.30
Time Slice 11/14/2013-12/18/2013
Active Days: 25
1.7414.178.880.000.680.631,816.730.000.680.000.63
0.68Trenching 11/14/2013-12/19/20131.7414.178.880.000.631,816.730.000.680.000.63
Trenching Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Trenching Off Road Diesel1.7214.127.970.000.000.680.680.000.620.621,714.64
2/2/2011 2:21:07 PM
Page: 3
Time Slice 12/19/2013-12/19/2013
Active Days: 1
6.43 65.65 31.24 0.06 94.97 21.83 10,400.5392.20 2.77 19.28 2.55
0.68Trenching 11/14/2013-12/19/20131.7414.178.880.000.631,816.730.000.680.000.63
Trenching Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Trenching Off Road Diesel1.7214.127.970.000.000.680.680.000.620.621,714.64
94.29Fine Grading 12/19/2013-
01/12/2014
4.6951.4822.360.0621.208,583.8092.202.0919.281.92
Fine Grading On Road Diesel2.1130.8710.360.060.221.101.320.071.011.096,234.39
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0091.980.0091.9819.210.0019.210.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.5520.5611.100.000.000.990.990.000.910.912,247.32
Time Slice 12/20/2013-12/31/2013
Active Days: 8
7.7966.2838.920.0795.3022.1111,019.8692.243.0619.302.81
94.29Fine Grading 12/19/2013-
01/12/2014
4.6951.4822.360.0621.208,583.8092.202.0919.281.92
Fine Grading On Road Diesel2.1130.8710.360.060.221.101.320.071.011.096,234.39
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0091.980.0091.9819.210.0019.210.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.5520.5611.100.000.000.990.990.000.910.912,247.32
1.01Building 12/20/2013-12/18/20143.1014.7916.560.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
Building Worker Trips0.180.315.820.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.39
Building Vendor Trips0.050.570.530.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.47
Building Off Road Diesel2.8813.9110.200.000.000.930.930.000.860.861,621.20
2/2/2011 2:21:07 PM
Page: 4
Time Slice 11/14/2014-12/18/2014
Active Days: 25
85.2613.8116.550.010.910.812,534.610.040.860.020.79
0.01Coating 11/14/2014-12/19/201482.410.040.810.000.0098.220.000.000.000.00
Coating Worker Trips0.020.040.810.000.000.000.010.000.000.0098.22
Architectural Coating82.390.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
0.90Building 12/20/2013-12/18/20142.8413.7715.750.010.802,436.400.040.860.010.79
Building Worker Trips0.160.295.360.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.72
Building Vendor Trips0.040.510.500.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.48
Building Off Road Diesel2.6312.979.890.000.000.820.820.000.760.761,621.20
Time Slice 1/1/2014-1/10/2014
Active Days: 8
7.22 60.21 36.68 0.07 94.95 21.79 11,020.2692.24 2.72 19.30 2.50
94.06Fine Grading 12/19/2013-
01/12/2014
4.3846.4420.930.0620.998,583.8692.201.8619.281.71
Fine Grading On Road Diesel1.9427.329.360.060.220.971.190.070.890.966,234.40
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.030.040.840.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.14
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0091.980.0091.9819.210.0019.210.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.4119.0810.740.000.000.890.890.000.820.822,247.32
0.90Building 12/20/2013-12/18/20142.8413.7715.750.010.802,436.400.040.860.010.79
Building Worker Trips0.160.295.360.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.72
Building Vendor Trips0.040.510.500.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.48
Building Off Road Diesel2.6312.979.890.000.000.820.820.000.760.761,621.20
Time Slice 1/13/2014-11/13/2014
Active Days: 219
2.8413.7715.750.010.900.802,436.400.040.860.010.79
0.90Building 12/20/2013-12/18/20142.8413.7715.750.010.802,436.400.040.860.010.79
Building Worker Trips0.160.295.360.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.72
Building Vendor Trips0.040.510.500.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.48
Building Off Road Diesel2.6312.979.890.000.000.820.820.000.760.761,621.20
2/2/2011 2:21:07 PM
Page: 5
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Mass Grading 10/16/2013 - 11/13/2013 - Phase 2
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 194.44
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day
1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Demolition 9/25/2013 - 10/15/2013 - Phase 2
Off-Road Equipment:
Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 14000
Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 175000
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.15
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1548.53
Onsite Cut/Fill: 682 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day
2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day
Total Acres Disturbed: 4.59
Phase: Fine Grading 12/19/2013 - 1/12/2014 - Phase 2
Phase Assumptions
Time Slice 12/19/2014-12/19/2014
Active Days: 1
82.41 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.01 0.00 98.220.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.01Coating 11/14/2014-12/19/201482.410.040.810.000.0098.220.000.000.000.00
Coating Worker Trips0.020.040.810.000.000.000.010.000.000.0098.22
Architectural Coating82.390.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
2/2/2011 2:21:07 PM
Page: 6
2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day
Phase: Building Construction 12/20/2013 - 12/18/2014 - Phase 2
Off-Road Equipment:
3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day
Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Phase: Architectural Coating 11/14/2014 - 12/19/2014 - Phase 2
Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 3760.71
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
Onsite Cut/Fill: 2048 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day
Total Acres Disturbed: 16.21
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Trenching 11/14/2013 - 12/19/2013 - Phase 2
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
2/2/2011 2:21:07 PM
Page: 7
Construction Mitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Mitigated
ROGNOxCOSO2PM10 DustPM10 Exhaust PM10PM2.5 DustPM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5CO2
Time Slice 10/16/2013-11/13/2013
Active Days: 21
7.7195.5937.160.1444.8312.0317,490.0841.163.668.663.37
44.83Mass Grading 10/16/2013-
11/13/2013
7.7195.5937.160.1412.0317,490.0841.163.668.663.37
Mass Grading On Road Diesel5.1374.9725.150.140.532.683.210.172.462.6415,140.67
Mass Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Mass Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0040.630.0040.638.480.008.480.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel2.5520.5611.100.000.000.990.990.000.910.912,247.32
Time Slice 9/25/2013-10/15/2013
Active Days: 15
1.2110.276.610.016.491.771,585.235.910.581.230.54
6.49Demolition 09/25/2013-
10/15/2013
1.2110.276.610.011.771,585.235.910.581.230.54
Demo On Road Diesel0.273.881.300.010.030.140.170.010.130.14782.84
Demo Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Fugitive Dust0.000.000.000.005.880.005.881.220.001.220.00
Demo Off Road Diesel0.916.354.400.000.000.440.440.000.410.41700.30
Time Slice 11/14/2013-12/18/2013
Active Days: 25
1.7414.178.880.000.680.631,816.730.000.680.000.63
0.68Trenching 11/14/2013-12/19/20131.7414.178.880.000.631,816.730.000.680.000.63
Trenching Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Trenching Off Road Diesel1.7214.127.970.000.000.680.680.000.620.621,714.64
2/2/2011 2:21:07 PM
Page: 8
Time Slice 12/19/2013-12/19/2013
Active Days: 1
6.43 65.65 31.24 0.06 17.50 5.65 10,400.5314.73 2.77 3.10 2.55
0.68Trenching 11/14/2013-12/19/20131.7414.178.880.000.631,816.730.000.680.000.63
Trenching Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Trenching Off Road Diesel1.7214.127.970.000.000.680.680.000.620.621,714.64
16.81Fine Grading 12/19/2013-
01/12/2014
4.6951.4822.360.065.028,583.8014.722.093.101.92
Fine Grading On Road Diesel2.1130.8710.360.060.221.101.320.071.011.096,234.39
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0014.500.0014.503.030.003.030.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.5520.5611.100.000.000.990.990.000.910.912,247.32
Time Slice 12/20/2013-12/31/2013
Active Days: 8
7.7966.2838.920.0717.825.9311,019.8614.763.063.112.81
16.81Fine Grading 12/19/2013-
01/12/2014
4.6951.4822.360.065.028,583.8014.722.093.101.92
Fine Grading On Road Diesel2.1130.8710.360.060.221.101.320.071.011.096,234.39
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0014.500.0014.503.030.003.030.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.5520.5611.100.000.000.990.990.000.910.912,247.32
1.01Building 12/20/2013-12/18/20143.1014.7916.560.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
Building Worker Trips0.180.315.820.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.39
Building Vendor Trips0.050.570.530.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.47
Building Off Road Diesel2.8813.9110.200.000.000.930.930.000.860.861,621.20
2/2/2011 2:21:07 PM
Page: 9
Time Slice 11/14/2014-12/18/2014
Active Days: 25
52.3013.8116.550.010.910.812,534.610.040.860.020.79
0.01Coating 11/14/2014-12/19/201449.460.040.810.000.0098.220.000.000.000.00
Coating Worker Trips0.020.040.810.000.000.000.010.000.000.0098.22
Architectural Coating49.430.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
0.90Building 12/20/2013-12/18/20142.8413.7715.750.010.802,436.400.040.860.010.79
Building Worker Trips0.160.295.360.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.72
Building Vendor Trips0.040.510.500.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.48
Building Off Road Diesel2.6312.979.890.000.000.820.820.000.760.761,621.20
Time Slice 1/1/2014-1/10/2014
Active Days: 8
7.22 60.21 36.68 0.07 17.48 5.61 11,020.2614.76 2.72 3.11 2.50
16.58Fine Grading 12/19/2013-
01/12/2014
4.3846.4420.930.064.818,583.8614.721.863.101.71
Fine Grading On Road Diesel1.9427.329.360.060.220.971.190.070.890.966,234.40
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.030.040.840.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.14
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0014.500.0014.503.030.003.030.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.4119.0810.740.000.000.890.890.000.820.822,247.32
0.90Building 12/20/2013-12/18/20142.8413.7715.750.010.802,436.400.040.860.010.79
Building Worker Trips0.160.295.360.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.72
Building Vendor Trips0.040.510.500.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.48
Building Off Road Diesel2.6312.979.890.000.000.820.820.000.760.761,621.20
Time Slice 1/13/2014-11/13/2014
Active Days: 219
2.8413.7715.750.010.900.802,436.400.040.860.010.79
0.90Building 12/20/2013-12/18/20142.8413.7715.750.010.802,436.400.040.860.010.79
Building Worker Trips0.160.295.360.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.72
Building Vendor Trips0.040.510.500.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.48
Building Off Road Diesel2.6312.979.890.000.000.820.820.000.760.761,621.20
2/2/2011 2:21:07 PM
Page: 10
Time Slice 12/19/2014-12/19/2014
Active Days: 1
49.46 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.01 0.00 98.220.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.01Coating 11/14/2014-12/19/201449.460.040.810.000.0098.220.000.000.000.00
Coating Worker Trips0.020.040.810.000.000.000.010.000.000.0098.22
Architectural Coating49.430.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
PM10: 44% PM25: 44%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 69% PM25: 69%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 5% PM25: 5%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 12/19/2013 - 1/12/2014 - Phase 2
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 69% PM25: 69%
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 10/16/2013 - 11/13/2013 - Phase 2
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 5% PM25: 5%
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 44% PM25: 44%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
Construction Related Mitigation Measures
2/2/2011 2:21:07 PM
Page: 11
ROG: 40%
For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 11/14/2014 - 12/19/2014 - Phase 2
For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
2/2/2011 2:25:17 PM
Page: 1
File Name: H:\pdata\40100419\Admin\reports\AQ_GHG\Models\URBEMIS\NOX mit\Albright_Phase3.urb924
Project Name: Albright Way Construction Phase 3 No MM
Project Location: Bay Area Air District
On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year)
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated
ROGNOxCOSO2PM10 DustPM10 Exhaust PM10PM2.5 DustPM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5CO2
2016 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated)0.160.950.900.000.820.050.870.170.050.22193.07
2016 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated)0.160.950.900.000.130.050.180.030.050.08193.07
Percent Reduction0.000.000.000.0083.880.0078.9083.650.0065.510.00
Percent Reduction30.820.000.000.0081.060.0076.4280.830.0063.830.00
2015 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated)1.392.051.800.001.780.111.890.370.100.47411.35
2015 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated)0.962.051.800.000.340.110.450.070.100.17411.35
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5 CO2
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
Summary Report:
2/2/2011 2:25:17 PM
Page: 2
2015 1.39 2.05 1.80 0.00 1.89 0.47 411.351.78 0.11 0.37 0.10
0.07Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20160.231.131.330.000.07215.650.000.070.000.06
Building Worker Trips0.010.020.440.000.000.000.000.000.000.0057.88
Building Vendor Trips0.000.040.040.000.000.000.000.000.000.0014.29
Building Off Road Diesel0.211.070.850.000.000.070.070.000.060.06143.48
0.00Coating 11/04/2015-12/09/20151.070.000.010.000.001.280.000.000.000.00
Coating Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.001.28
Architectural Coating1.070.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
0.01Trenching 03/19/2015-04/28/20150.020.170.120.000.0126.340.000.010.000.01
Trenching Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.001.48
Trenching Off Road Diesel0.020.170.110.000.000.010.010.000.010.0124.86
0.06Demolition 01/27/2015-
02/23/2015
0.01 0.09 0.06 0.00 0.02 15.850.06 0.00 0.01 0.00
Demo On Road Diesel0.000.030.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.007.83
Demo Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.001.02
Fugitive Dust0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Demo Off Road Diesel0.010.050.040.000.000.000.000.000.000.007.00
1.75Mass Grading 02/24/2015-
03/18/2015
0.060.660.280.000.38152.231.720.030.360.02
Mass Grading On Road Diesel0.040.510.180.000.000.020.020.000.020.02132.25
Mass Grading Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.87
Mass Grading Dust0.000.000.000.001.720.001.720.360.000.360.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel0.020.150.090.000.000.010.010.000.010.0119.10
2/2/2011 2:25:17 PM
Page: 3
Off-Road Equipment:
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 194.44
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day
1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Demolition 1/27/2015 - 2/23/2015 - Phase 3
Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 14000
Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 246000
2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day
Phase Assumptions
2016 0.16 0.95 0.90 0.00 0.87 0.22 193.070.82 0.05 0.17 0.05
0.83Fine Grading 05/11/2016-
06/08/2016
0.03 0.32 0.17 0.00 0.18 68.750.82 0.01 0.17 0.01
Fine Grading On Road Diesel0.010.150.050.000.000.010.010.000.000.0144.08
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.001.07
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.000.820.000.820.170.000.170.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel0.020.170.110.000.000.010.010.000.010.0123.60
0.01Asphalt 04/26/2016-05/10/2016 0.02 0.08 0.06 0.00 0.01 11.010.00 0.01 0.00 0.01
Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.94
Paving Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.26
Paving Off-Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paving Off Road Diesel 0.01 0.07 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 7.80
0.03Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 0.11 0.55 0.67 0.00 0.03 113.310.00 0.03 0.00 0.03
Building Worker Trips 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.42
Building Vendor Trips 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.51
Building Off Road Diesel 0.10 0.52 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 75.39
2/2/2011 2:25:17 PM
Page: 4
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 3864.71
Onsite Cut/Fill: 1575 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
Phase: Trenching 3/19/2015 - 4/28/2015 - Phase 3
1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day
2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1042.86
Onsite Cut/Fill: 525 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
Total Acres Disturbed: 13.79
Phase: Fine Grading 5/11/2016 - 6/8/2016 - Phase 3
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61
Total Acres Disturbed: 13.79
Phase: Mass Grading 2/24/2015 - 3/18/2015 - Phase 3
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
2/2/2011 2:25:17 PM
Page: 5
Construction Mitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Mitigated
ROGNOxCOSO2PM10 DustPM10 Exhaust PM10PM2.5 DustPM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5CO2
3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day
2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Architectural Coating 11/4/2015 - 12/9/2015 - Phase 3
Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day
4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
Phase: Paving 4/26/2016 - 5/10/2016 - Phase 3
Acres to be Paved: 3.25
2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 6 hours per day
Phase: Building Construction 4/29/2015 - 5/10/2016 - Phase 3
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
2/2/2011 2:25:17 PM
Page: 6
2015 0.96 2.05 1.80 0.00 0.45 0.17 411.350.34 0.11 0.07 0.10
0.07Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20160.231.131.330.000.07215.650.000.070.000.06
Building Worker Trips0.010.020.440.000.000.000.000.000.000.0057.88
Building Vendor Trips0.000.040.040.000.000.000.000.000.000.0014.29
Building Off Road Diesel0.211.070.850.000.000.070.070.000.060.06143.48
0.00Coating 11/04/2015-12/09/20150.640.000.010.000.001.280.000.000.000.00
Coating Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.001.28
Architectural Coating0.640.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
0.01Trenching 03/19/2015-04/28/20150.020.170.120.000.0126.340.000.010.000.01
Trenching Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.001.48
Trenching Off Road Diesel0.020.170.110.000.000.010.010.000.010.0124.86
0.06Demolition 01/27/2015-
02/23/2015
0.01 0.09 0.06 0.00 0.02 15.850.06 0.00 0.01 0.00
Demo On Road Diesel0.000.030.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.007.83
Demo Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.001.02
Fugitive Dust0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Demo Off Road Diesel0.010.050.040.000.000.000.000.000.000.007.00
0.30Mass Grading 02/24/2015-
03/18/2015
0.060.660.280.000.08152.230.280.030.060.02
Mass Grading On Road Diesel0.040.510.180.000.000.020.020.000.020.02132.25
Mass Grading Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.87
Mass Grading Dust0.000.000.000.000.270.000.270.060.000.060.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel0.020.150.090.000.000.010.010.000.010.0119.10
2/2/2011 2:25:17 PM
Page: 7
2016 0.16 0.95 0.90 0.00 0.18 0.08 193.070.13 0.05 0.03 0.05
0.14Fine Grading 05/11/2016-
06/08/2016
0.03 0.32 0.17 0.00 0.04 68.750.13 0.01 0.03 0.01
Fine Grading On Road Diesel0.010.150.050.000.000.010.010.000.000.0144.08
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.001.07
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.000.130.000.130.030.000.030.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel0.020.170.110.000.000.010.010.000.010.0123.60
0.01Asphalt 04/26/2016-05/10/2016 0.02 0.08 0.06 0.00 0.01 11.010.00 0.01 0.00 0.01
Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.94
Paving Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.26
Paving Off-Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paving Off Road Diesel 0.01 0.07 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 7.80
0.03Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 0.11 0.55 0.67 0.00 0.03 113.310.00 0.03 0.00 0.03
Building Worker Trips 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.42
Building Vendor Trips 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.51
Building Off Road Diesel 0.10 0.52 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 75.39
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 5% PM25: 5%
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 5/11/2016 - 6/8/2016 - Phase 3
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 69% PM25: 69%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 44% PM25: 44%
Construction Related Mitigation Measures
2/2/2011 2:25:17 PM
Page: 8
For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 11/4/2015 - 12/9/2015 - Phase 3
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
ROG: 40%
ROG: 40%
For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 5% PM25: 5%
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 2/24/2015 - 3/18/2015 - Phase 3
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 44% PM25: 44%
PM10: 69% PM25: 69%
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by:
2/2/2011 2:24:59 PM
Page: 1
File Name: H:\pdata\40100419\Admin\reports\AQ_GHG\Models\URBEMIS\NOX mit\Albright_Phase3.urb924
Project Name: Albright Way Construction Phase 3 No MM
Project Location: Bay Area Air District
On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day)
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
ROGNOxCOSO2PM10 DustPM10 Exhaust PM10PM2.5 DustPM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5CO2
2016 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated)5.3230.6026.200.0478.201.7779.4716.351.6217.526,548.08
2016 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated)5.3230.6026.200.0412.451.7713.722.621.623.796,548.08
2015 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated)52.0578.0332.370.1532.382.9535.336.832.719.5417,908.84
2015 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated)85.0078.0332.370.15202.502.95205.4542.362.7145.0717,908.84
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5 CO2
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
Summary Report:
2/2/2011 2:24:59 PM
Page: 2
Time Slice 2/24/2015-3/18/2015
Active Days: 17
6.7478.0332.370.15205.4545.0717,908.84202.502.9542.362.71
205.45Mass Grading 02/24/2015-
03/18/2015
6.7478.0332.370.1545.0717,908.84202.502.9542.362.71
Mass Grading On Road Diesel4.4660.4821.200.140.542.142.680.181.972.1415,559.34
Mass Grading Worker Trips0.020.040.770.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.18
Mass Grading Dust0.000.000.000.00201.950.00201.9542.180.0042.180.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel2.2617.5010.400.000.000.810.810.000.740.742,247.32
Time Slice 1/27/2015-2/23/2015
Active Days: 20
1.03 8.57 6.09 0.01 6.38 1.66 1,585.325.91 0.46 1.23 0.43
6.38Demolition 01/27/2015-
02/23/2015
1.038.576.090.011.661,585.325.910.461.230.43
Demo On Road Diesel0.223.041.070.010.030.110.130.010.100.11782.84
Demo Worker Trips0.020.040.770.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.18
Fugitive Dust0.000.000.000.005.880.005.881.220.001.220.00
Demo Off Road Diesel0.795.494.250.000.000.350.350.000.330.33700.30
Time Slice 4/29/2015-11/3/2015
Active Days: 135
2.5912.7515.020.010.830.742,436.670.040.800.010.73
0.83Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20162.5912.7515.020.010.742,436.670.040.800.010.73
Building Worker Trips0.150.264.940.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.98
Building Vendor Trips0.040.450.460.000.010.020.020.000.020.02161.50
Building Off Road Diesel2.4012.049.620.000.000.760.760.000.700.701,621.20
Time Slice 3/19/2015-4/28/2015
Active Days: 29
1.5111.698.620.000.560.511,816.820.000.560.000.51
0.56Trenching 03/19/2015-04/28/20151.5111.698.620.000.511,816.820.000.560.000.51
Trenching Worker Trips0.020.040.770.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.18
Trenching Off Road Diesel1.4811.657.850.000.000.550.550.000.510.511,714.64
2/2/2011 2:24:59 PM
Page: 3
Time Slice 1/1/2016-4/25/2016
Active Days: 82
2.3611.8314.400.010.740.662,436.860.040.710.010.65
0.74Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20162.3611.8314.400.010.662,436.860.040.710.010.65
Building Worker Trips0.140.244.560.010.030.020.050.010.010.02654.16
Building Vendor Trips0.040.400.440.000.010.020.020.000.010.02161.51
Building Off Road Diesel2.1911.199.400.000.000.670.670.000.620.621,621.20
Time Slice 11/4/2015-12/9/2015
Active Days: 26
85.00 12.79 15.77 0.01 0.84 0.75 2,534.930.04 0.80 0.02 0.73
0.01Coating 11/04/2015-12/09/201582.410.040.740.000.0098.250.000.000.000.00
Coating Worker Trips0.020.040.740.000.000.000.010.000.000.0098.25
Architectural Coating82.390.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
0.83Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20162.5912.7515.020.010.742,436.670.040.800.010.73
Building Worker Trips0.150.264.940.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.98
Building Vendor Trips0.040.450.460.000.010.020.020.000.020.02161.50
Building Off Road Diesel2.4012.049.620.000.000.760.760.000.700.701,621.20
Time Slice 12/10/2015-12/31/2015
Active Days: 16
2.5912.7515.020.010.830.742,436.670.040.800.010.73
0.83Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20162.5912.7515.020.010.742,436.670.040.800.010.73
Building Worker Trips0.150.264.940.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.98
Building Vendor Trips0.040.450.460.000.010.020.020.000.020.02161.50
Building Off Road Diesel2.4012.049.620.000.000.760.760.000.700.701,621.20
2/2/2011 2:24:59 PM
Page: 4
Off-Road Equipment:
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 194.44
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day
1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Demolition 1/27/2015 - 2/23/2015 - Phase 3
Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 14000
Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 246000
Phase Assumptions
Time Slice 5/11/2016-6/8/2016
Active Days: 21
3.2630.6016.020.0479.4717.526,548.0878.201.2716.351.17
79.47Fine Grading 05/11/2016-
06/08/2016
3.2630.6016.020.0417.526,548.0878.201.2716.351.17
Fine Grading On Road Diesel1.1114.505.210.040.150.510.660.050.470.524,198.55
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.020.040.710.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.21
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0078.050.0078.0516.300.0016.300.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.1316.0710.090.000.000.750.750.000.690.692,247.32
Time Slice 4/26/2016-5/10/2016
Active Days: 11
5.32 25.91 26.20 0.01 1.83 1.64 4,437.910.06 1.77 0.02 1.62
0.74Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20162.3611.8314.400.010.662,436.860.040.710.010.65
Building Worker Trips0.140.244.560.010.030.020.050.010.010.02654.16
Building Vendor Trips0.040.400.440.000.010.020.020.000.010.02161.51
Building Off Road Diesel2.1911.199.400.000.000.670.670.000.620.621,621.20
1.08Asphalt 04/26/2016-05/10/20162.9614.0711.800.010.982,001.050.021.060.010.97
Paving On Road Diesel0.091.220.440.000.010.040.060.000.040.04352.63
Paving Worker Trips0.050.081.600.000.010.010.020.000.000.01229.98
Paving Off-Gas0.770.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Paving Off Road Diesel2.0512.779.760.000.001.011.010.000.930.931,418.44
2/2/2011 2:25:00 PM
Page: 5
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 3864.71
Onsite Cut/Fill: 1575 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day
1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day
2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
Phase: Trenching 3/19/2015 - 4/28/2015 - Phase 3
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1042.86
Onsite Cut/Fill: 525 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day
2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day
Total Acres Disturbed: 13.79
Phase: Fine Grading 5/11/2016 - 6/8/2016 - Phase 3
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
Total Acres Disturbed: 13.79
Phase: Mass Grading 2/24/2015 - 3/18/2015 - Phase 3
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
2/2/2011 2:25:00 PM
Page: 6
Construction Mitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day
3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day
2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day
Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Phase: Architectural Coating 11/4/2015 - 12/9/2015 - Phase 3
Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Off-Road Equipment:
Acres to be Paved: 3.25
Off-Road Equipment:
4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day
Phase: Paving 4/26/2016 - 5/10/2016 - Phase 3
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
Phase: Building Construction 4/29/2015 - 5/10/2016 - Phase 3
1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day
2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day
2/2/2011 2:25:00 PM
Page: 7
Time Slice 2/24/2015-3/18/2015
Active Days: 17
6.7478.0332.370.1535.339.5417,908.8432.382.956.832.71
35.33Mass Grading 02/24/2015-
03/18/2015
6.7478.0332.370.159.5417,908.8432.382.956.832.71
Mass Grading On Road Diesel4.4660.4821.200.140.542.142.680.181.972.1415,559.34
Mass Grading Worker Trips0.020.040.770.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.18
Mass Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0031.830.0031.836.650.006.650.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel2.2617.5010.400.000.000.810.810.000.740.742,247.32
Time Slice 1/27/2015-2/23/2015
Active Days: 20
1.03 8.57 6.09 0.01 6.38 1.66 1,585.325.91 0.46 1.23 0.43
6.38Demolition 01/27/2015-
02/23/2015
1.038.576.090.011.661,585.325.910.461.230.43
Demo On Road Diesel0.223.041.070.010.030.110.130.010.100.11782.84
Demo Worker Trips0.020.040.770.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.18
Fugitive Dust0.000.000.000.005.880.005.881.220.001.220.00
Demo Off Road Diesel0.795.494.250.000.000.350.350.000.330.33700.30
Time Slice 4/29/2015-11/3/2015
Active Days: 135
2.5912.7515.020.010.830.742,436.670.040.800.010.73
0.83Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20162.5912.7515.020.010.742,436.670.040.800.010.73
Building Worker Trips0.150.264.940.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.98
Building Vendor Trips0.040.450.460.000.010.020.020.000.020.02161.50
Building Off Road Diesel2.4012.049.620.000.000.760.760.000.700.701,621.20
Time Slice 3/19/2015-4/28/2015
Active Days: 29
1.5111.698.620.000.560.511,816.820.000.560.000.51
0.56Trenching 03/19/2015-04/28/20151.5111.698.620.000.511,816.820.000.560.000.51
Trenching Worker Trips0.020.040.770.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.18
Trenching Off Road Diesel1.4811.657.850.000.000.550.550.000.510.511,714.64
2/2/2011 2:25:00 PM
Page: 8
Time Slice 1/1/2016-4/25/2016
Active Days: 82
2.3611.8314.400.010.740.662,436.860.040.710.010.65
0.74Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20162.3611.8314.400.010.662,436.860.040.710.010.65
Building Worker Trips0.140.244.560.010.030.020.050.010.010.02654.16
Building Vendor Trips0.040.400.440.000.010.020.020.000.010.02161.51
Building Off Road Diesel2.1911.199.400.000.000.670.670.000.620.621,621.20
Time Slice 11/4/2015-12/9/2015
Active Days: 26
52.05 12.79 15.77 0.01 0.84 0.75 2,534.930.04 0.80 0.02 0.73
0.01Coating 11/04/2015-12/09/201549.460.040.740.000.0098.250.000.000.000.00
Coating Worker Trips0.020.040.740.000.000.000.010.000.000.0098.25
Architectural Coating49.430.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
0.83Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20162.5912.7515.020.010.742,436.670.040.800.010.73
Building Worker Trips0.150.264.940.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.98
Building Vendor Trips0.040.450.460.000.010.020.020.000.020.02161.50
Building Off Road Diesel2.4012.049.620.000.000.760.760.000.700.701,621.20
Time Slice 12/10/2015-12/31/2015
Active Days: 16
2.5912.7515.020.010.830.742,436.670.040.800.010.73
0.83Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20162.5912.7515.020.010.742,436.670.040.800.010.73
Building Worker Trips0.150.264.940.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.98
Building Vendor Trips0.040.450.460.000.010.020.020.000.020.02161.50
Building Off Road Diesel2.4012.049.620.000.000.760.760.000.700.701,621.20
2/2/2011 2:25:00 PM
Page: 9
Time Slice 5/11/2016-6/8/2016
Active Days: 21
3.2630.6016.020.0413.723.796,548.0812.451.272.621.17
13.72Fine Grading 05/11/2016-
06/08/2016
3.2630.6016.020.043.796,548.0812.451.272.621.17
Fine Grading On Road Diesel1.1114.505.210.040.150.510.660.050.470.524,198.55
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.020.040.710.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.21
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0012.300.0012.302.570.002.570.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.1316.0710.090.000.000.750.750.000.690.692,247.32
Time Slice 4/26/2016-5/10/2016
Active Days: 11
5.32 25.91 26.20 0.01 1.83 1.64 4,437.910.06 1.77 0.02 1.62
0.74Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20162.3611.8314.400.010.662,436.860.040.710.010.65
Building Worker Trips0.140.244.560.010.030.020.050.010.010.02654.16
Building Vendor Trips0.040.400.440.000.010.020.020.000.010.02161.51
Building Off Road Diesel2.1911.199.400.000.000.670.670.000.620.621,621.20
1.08Asphalt 04/26/2016-05/10/20162.9614.0711.800.010.982,001.050.021.060.010.97
Paving On Road Diesel0.091.220.440.000.010.040.060.000.040.04352.63
Paving Worker Trips0.050.081.600.000.010.010.020.000.000.01229.98
Paving Off-Gas0.770.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Paving Off Road Diesel2.0512.779.760.000.001.011.010.000.930.931,418.44
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 5% PM25: 5%
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 5/11/2016 - 6/8/2016 - Phase 3
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 69% PM25: 69%
Construction Related Mitigation Measures
2/2/2011 2:25:00 PM
Page: 10
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 11/4/2015 - 12/9/2015 - Phase 3
For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
PM10: 44% PM25: 44%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
ROG: 40%
For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 2/24/2015 - 3/18/2015 - Phase 3
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by:
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 44% PM25: 44%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 69% PM25: 69%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 5% PM25: 5%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
2/2/2011 2:25:08 PM
Page: 1
File Name: H:\pdata\40100419\Admin\reports\AQ_GHG\Models\URBEMIS\NOX mit\Albright_Phase3.urb924
Project Name: Albright Way Construction Phase 3 No MM
Project Location: Bay Area Air District
On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day)
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
ROGNOxCOSO2PM10 DustPM10 Exhaust PM10PM2.5 DustPM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5CO2
2016 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated)5.3230.6026.200.0478.201.7779.4716.351.6217.526,548.08
2016 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated)5.3230.6026.200.0412.451.7713.722.621.623.796,548.08
2015 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated)52.0578.0332.370.1532.382.9535.336.832.719.5417,908.84
2015 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated)85.0078.0332.370.15202.502.95205.4542.362.7145.0717,908.84
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5 CO2
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
Summary Report:
2/2/2011 2:25:08 PM
Page: 2
Time Slice 2/24/2015-3/18/2015
Active Days: 17
6.7478.0332.370.15205.4545.0717,908.84202.502.9542.362.71
205.45Mass Grading 02/24/2015-
03/18/2015
6.7478.0332.370.1545.0717,908.84202.502.9542.362.71
Mass Grading On Road Diesel4.4660.4821.200.140.542.142.680.181.972.1415,559.34
Mass Grading Worker Trips0.020.040.770.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.18
Mass Grading Dust0.000.000.000.00201.950.00201.9542.180.0042.180.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel2.2617.5010.400.000.000.810.810.000.740.742,247.32
Time Slice 1/27/2015-2/23/2015
Active Days: 20
1.03 8.57 6.09 0.01 6.38 1.66 1,585.325.91 0.46 1.23 0.43
6.38Demolition 01/27/2015-
02/23/2015
1.038.576.090.011.661,585.325.910.461.230.43
Demo On Road Diesel0.223.041.070.010.030.110.130.010.100.11782.84
Demo Worker Trips0.020.040.770.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.18
Fugitive Dust0.000.000.000.005.880.005.881.220.001.220.00
Demo Off Road Diesel0.795.494.250.000.000.350.350.000.330.33700.30
Time Slice 4/29/2015-11/3/2015
Active Days: 135
2.5912.7515.020.010.830.742,436.670.040.800.010.73
0.83Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20162.5912.7515.020.010.742,436.670.040.800.010.73
Building Worker Trips0.150.264.940.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.98
Building Vendor Trips0.040.450.460.000.010.020.020.000.020.02161.50
Building Off Road Diesel2.4012.049.620.000.000.760.760.000.700.701,621.20
Time Slice 3/19/2015-4/28/2015
Active Days: 29
1.5111.698.620.000.560.511,816.820.000.560.000.51
0.56Trenching 03/19/2015-04/28/20151.5111.698.620.000.511,816.820.000.560.000.51
Trenching Worker Trips0.020.040.770.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.18
Trenching Off Road Diesel1.4811.657.850.000.000.550.550.000.510.511,714.64
2/2/2011 2:25:08 PM
Page: 3
Time Slice 1/1/2016-4/25/2016
Active Days: 82
2.3611.8314.400.010.740.662,436.860.040.710.010.65
0.74Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20162.3611.8314.400.010.662,436.860.040.710.010.65
Building Worker Trips0.140.244.560.010.030.020.050.010.010.02654.16
Building Vendor Trips0.040.400.440.000.010.020.020.000.010.02161.51
Building Off Road Diesel2.1911.199.400.000.000.670.670.000.620.621,621.20
Time Slice 11/4/2015-12/9/2015
Active Days: 26
85.00 12.79 15.77 0.01 0.84 0.75 2,534.930.04 0.80 0.02 0.73
0.01Coating 11/04/2015-12/09/201582.410.040.740.000.0098.250.000.000.000.00
Coating Worker Trips0.020.040.740.000.000.000.010.000.000.0098.25
Architectural Coating82.390.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
0.83Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20162.5912.7515.020.010.742,436.670.040.800.010.73
Building Worker Trips0.150.264.940.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.98
Building Vendor Trips0.040.450.460.000.010.020.020.000.020.02161.50
Building Off Road Diesel2.4012.049.620.000.000.760.760.000.700.701,621.20
Time Slice 12/10/2015-12/31/2015
Active Days: 16
2.5912.7515.020.010.830.742,436.670.040.800.010.73
0.83Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20162.5912.7515.020.010.742,436.670.040.800.010.73
Building Worker Trips0.150.264.940.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.98
Building Vendor Trips0.040.450.460.000.010.020.020.000.020.02161.50
Building Off Road Diesel2.4012.049.620.000.000.760.760.000.700.701,621.20
2/2/2011 2:25:08 PM
Page: 4
Off-Road Equipment:
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 194.44
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day
1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Demolition 1/27/2015 - 2/23/2015 - Phase 3
Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 14000
Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 246000
Phase Assumptions
Time Slice 5/11/2016-6/8/2016
Active Days: 21
3.2630.6016.020.0479.4717.526,548.0878.201.2716.351.17
79.47Fine Grading 05/11/2016-
06/08/2016
3.2630.6016.020.0417.526,548.0878.201.2716.351.17
Fine Grading On Road Diesel1.1114.505.210.040.150.510.660.050.470.524,198.55
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.020.040.710.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.21
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0078.050.0078.0516.300.0016.300.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.1316.0710.090.000.000.750.750.000.690.692,247.32
Time Slice 4/26/2016-5/10/2016
Active Days: 11
5.32 25.91 26.20 0.01 1.83 1.64 4,437.910.06 1.77 0.02 1.62
0.74Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20162.3611.8314.400.010.662,436.860.040.710.010.65
Building Worker Trips0.140.244.560.010.030.020.050.010.010.02654.16
Building Vendor Trips0.040.400.440.000.010.020.020.000.010.02161.51
Building Off Road Diesel2.1911.199.400.000.000.670.670.000.620.621,621.20
1.08Asphalt 04/26/2016-05/10/20162.9614.0711.800.010.982,001.050.021.060.010.97
Paving On Road Diesel0.091.220.440.000.010.040.060.000.040.04352.63
Paving Worker Trips0.050.081.600.000.010.010.020.000.000.01229.98
Paving Off-Gas0.770.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Paving Off Road Diesel2.0512.779.760.000.001.011.010.000.930.931,418.44
2/2/2011 2:25:08 PM
Page: 5
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 3864.71
Onsite Cut/Fill: 1575 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day
1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day
2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
Phase: Trenching 3/19/2015 - 4/28/2015 - Phase 3
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1042.86
Onsite Cut/Fill: 525 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day
2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day
Total Acres Disturbed: 13.79
Phase: Fine Grading 5/11/2016 - 6/8/2016 - Phase 3
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
Total Acres Disturbed: 13.79
Phase: Mass Grading 2/24/2015 - 3/18/2015 - Phase 3
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
2/2/2011 2:25:08 PM
Page: 6
Construction Mitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Mitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day
3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day
2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day
Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Phase: Architectural Coating 11/4/2015 - 12/9/2015 - Phase 3
Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Off-Road Equipment:
Acres to be Paved: 3.25
Off-Road Equipment:
4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day
Phase: Paving 4/26/2016 - 5/10/2016 - Phase 3
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
Phase: Building Construction 4/29/2015 - 5/10/2016 - Phase 3
1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day
2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day
2/2/2011 2:25:08 PM
Page: 7
Time Slice 2/24/2015-3/18/2015
Active Days: 17
6.7478.0332.370.1535.339.5417,908.8432.382.956.832.71
35.33Mass Grading 02/24/2015-
03/18/2015
6.7478.0332.370.159.5417,908.8432.382.956.832.71
Mass Grading On Road Diesel4.4660.4821.200.140.542.142.680.181.972.1415,559.34
Mass Grading Worker Trips0.020.040.770.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.18
Mass Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0031.830.0031.836.650.006.650.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel2.2617.5010.400.000.000.810.810.000.740.742,247.32
Time Slice 1/27/2015-2/23/2015
Active Days: 20
1.03 8.57 6.09 0.01 6.38 1.66 1,585.325.91 0.46 1.23 0.43
6.38Demolition 01/27/2015-
02/23/2015
1.038.576.090.011.661,585.325.910.461.230.43
Demo On Road Diesel0.223.041.070.010.030.110.130.010.100.11782.84
Demo Worker Trips0.020.040.770.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.18
Fugitive Dust0.000.000.000.005.880.005.881.220.001.220.00
Demo Off Road Diesel0.795.494.250.000.000.350.350.000.330.33700.30
Time Slice 4/29/2015-11/3/2015
Active Days: 135
2.5912.7515.020.010.830.742,436.670.040.800.010.73
0.83Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20162.5912.7515.020.010.742,436.670.040.800.010.73
Building Worker Trips0.150.264.940.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.98
Building Vendor Trips0.040.450.460.000.010.020.020.000.020.02161.50
Building Off Road Diesel2.4012.049.620.000.000.760.760.000.700.701,621.20
Time Slice 3/19/2015-4/28/2015
Active Days: 29
1.5111.698.620.000.560.511,816.820.000.560.000.51
0.56Trenching 03/19/2015-04/28/20151.5111.698.620.000.511,816.820.000.560.000.51
Trenching Worker Trips0.020.040.770.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.18
Trenching Off Road Diesel1.4811.657.850.000.000.550.550.000.510.511,714.64
2/2/2011 2:25:08 PM
Page: 8
Time Slice 1/1/2016-4/25/2016
Active Days: 82
2.3611.8314.400.010.740.662,436.860.040.710.010.65
0.74Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20162.3611.8314.400.010.662,436.860.040.710.010.65
Building Worker Trips0.140.244.560.010.030.020.050.010.010.02654.16
Building Vendor Trips0.040.400.440.000.010.020.020.000.010.02161.51
Building Off Road Diesel2.1911.199.400.000.000.670.670.000.620.621,621.20
Time Slice 11/4/2015-12/9/2015
Active Days: 26
52.05 12.79 15.77 0.01 0.84 0.75 2,534.930.04 0.80 0.02 0.73
0.01Coating 11/04/2015-12/09/201549.460.040.740.000.0098.250.000.000.000.00
Coating Worker Trips0.020.040.740.000.000.000.010.000.000.0098.25
Architectural Coating49.430.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
0.83Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20162.5912.7515.020.010.742,436.670.040.800.010.73
Building Worker Trips0.150.264.940.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.98
Building Vendor Trips0.040.450.460.000.010.020.020.000.020.02161.50
Building Off Road Diesel2.4012.049.620.000.000.760.760.000.700.701,621.20
Time Slice 12/10/2015-12/31/2015
Active Days: 16
2.5912.7515.020.010.830.742,436.670.040.800.010.73
0.83Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20162.5912.7515.020.010.742,436.670.040.800.010.73
Building Worker Trips0.150.264.940.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.98
Building Vendor Trips0.040.450.460.000.010.020.020.000.020.02161.50
Building Off Road Diesel2.4012.049.620.000.000.760.760.000.700.701,621.20
2/2/2011 2:25:08 PM
Page: 9
Time Slice 5/11/2016-6/8/2016
Active Days: 21
3.2630.6016.020.0413.723.796,548.0812.451.272.621.17
13.72Fine Grading 05/11/2016-
06/08/2016
3.2630.6016.020.043.796,548.0812.451.272.621.17
Fine Grading On Road Diesel1.1114.505.210.040.150.510.660.050.470.524,198.55
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.020.040.710.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.21
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0012.300.0012.302.570.002.570.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.1316.0710.090.000.000.750.750.000.690.692,247.32
Time Slice 4/26/2016-5/10/2016
Active Days: 11
5.32 25.91 26.20 0.01 1.83 1.64 4,437.910.06 1.77 0.02 1.62
0.74Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20162.3611.8314.400.010.662,436.860.040.710.010.65
Building Worker Trips0.140.244.560.010.030.020.050.010.010.02654.16
Building Vendor Trips0.040.400.440.000.010.020.020.000.010.02161.51
Building Off Road Diesel2.1911.199.400.000.000.670.670.000.620.621,621.20
1.08Asphalt 04/26/2016-05/10/20162.9614.0711.800.010.982,001.050.021.060.010.97
Paving On Road Diesel0.091.220.440.000.010.040.060.000.040.04352.63
Paving Worker Trips0.050.081.600.000.010.010.020.000.000.01229.98
Paving Off-Gas0.770.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Paving Off Road Diesel2.0512.779.760.000.001.011.010.000.930.931,418.44
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 5% PM25: 5%
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 5/11/2016 - 6/8/2016 - Phase 3
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 69% PM25: 69%
Construction Related Mitigation Measures
2/2/2011 2:25:08 PM
Page: 10
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 11/4/2015 - 12/9/2015 - Phase 3
For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
PM10: 44% PM25: 44%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
ROG: 40%
For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 2/24/2015 - 3/18/2015 - Phase 3
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by:
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 44% PM25: 44%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 69% PM25: 69%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 5% PM25: 5%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
1/27/2011 1:55:00 PM
Page: 1
File Name: H:\pdata\40100419\Admin\reports\AQ_GHG\Models\URBEMIS\Albright_Phase1.urb924
Project Name: Albright Way Construction Phase1
Project Location: Bay Area Air District
On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year)
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated
ROGNOxCOSO2PM10 DustPM10 Exhaust PM10PM2.5 DustPM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5CO2
2013 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated)1.351.711.650.000.770.110.870.160.100.26263.05
2013 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated)0.941.711.650.000.120.110.230.030.100.13263.05
Percent Reduction30.510.000.000.0083.800.0073.3883.500.0051.480.00
Percent Reduction0.000.000.000.0079.790.0075.3479.670.0063.260.00
2012 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated)0.291.831.450.001.760.101.860.370.100.46268.15
2012 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated)0.291.831.450.000.360.100.460.070.100.17268.15
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5 CO2
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
Summary Report:
1/27/2011 1:55:00 PM
Page: 2
2012 0.29 1.83 1.45 0.00 1.86 0.46 268.151.76 0.10 0.37 0.10
0.01Trenching 06/08/2012-07/27/20120.030.280.160.000.0132.700.000.010.000.01
Trenching Worker Trips0.000.000.020.000.000.000.000.000.000.001.84
Trenching Off Road Diesel0.030.270.140.000.000.010.010.000.010.0130.86
0.06Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20130.190.880.970.000.06135.180.000.060.000.05
Building Worker Trips0.010.020.350.000.000.000.000.000.000.0036.24
Building Vendor Trips0.000.040.030.000.000.000.000.000.000.008.96
Building Off Road Diesel0.170.820.580.000.000.060.060.000.050.0589.98
0.10Demolition 04/02/2012-
05/11/2012
0.02 0.17 0.10 0.00 0.03 23.780.09 0.01 0.02 0.01
Demo On Road Diesel0.000.070.020.000.000.000.000.000.000.0011.74
Demo Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.001.53
Fugitive Dust0.000.000.000.000.210.000.210.040.000.040.00
Demo Off Road Diesel0.010.100.070.000.000.010.010.000.010.0110.50
1.69Mass Grading 05/14/2012-
06/07/2012
0.050.510.220.000.3776.491.670.020.350.02
Mass Grading On Road Diesel0.020.300.100.000.000.010.010.000.010.0154.17
Mass Grading Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.97
Mass Grading Dust0.000.000.000.001.670.001.670.350.000.350.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel0.030.210.110.000.000.010.010.000.010.0121.35
1/27/2011 1:55:00 PM
Page: 3
Off-Road Equipment:
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 194.44
Phase: Demolition 4/2/2012 - 5/11/2012 - Phase 1
Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 14000
Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 400000
Phase Assumptions
2013 1.35 1.71 1.65 0.00 0.87 0.26 263.050.77 0.11 0.16 0.10
0.02Asphalt 07/26/2013-08/31/2013 0.04 0.21 0.16 0.00 0.02 23.470.00 0.02 0.00 0.02
Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.04
Paving Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.99
Paving Off-Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paving Off Road Diesel 0.03 0.20 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 18.44
0.78Fine Grading 08/12/2013-
09/10/2013
0.03 0.32 0.16 0.00 0.17 44.690.76 0.01 0.16 0.01
Fine Grading On Road Diesel0.010.090.030.000.000.000.000.000.000.0018.84
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.001.12
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.000.760.000.760.160.000.160.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel0.030.230.120.000.000.010.010.000.010.0124.72
0.08Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 0.25 1.18 1.32 0.00 0.07 193.670.00 0.08 0.00 0.07
Building Worker Trips 0.01 0.02 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 51.94
Building Vendor Trips 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.84
Building Off Road Diesel 0.23 1.11 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.07 128.89
0.00Coating 01/20/2013-02/22/2013 1.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 1.230.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Coating Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.23
Architectural Coating 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1/27/2011 1:55:00 PM
Page: 4
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1416.32
Onsite Cut/Fill: 1350 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
Total Acres Disturbed: 8.46
Phase: Mass Grading 5/14/2012 - 6/7/2012 - Phase 1
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61
Off-Road Equipment:
Phase: Trenching 6/8/2012 - 7/27/2012 - Phase 1
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
Total Acres Disturbed: 8.46
Phase: Fine Grading 8/12/2013 - 9/10/2013 - Phase 1
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day
1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day
2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 425.45
Onsite Cut/Fill: 450 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
1/27/2011 1:55:00 PM
Page: 5
Construction Mitigated Detail Report:
1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day
3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day
2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day
Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Phase: Architectural Coating 1/20/2013 - 2/22/2013 - Phase 1
Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Phase: Building Construction 7/30/2012 - 8/9/2013 - Phase 1
Phase: Paving 7/26/2013 - 8/31/2013 - Phase 1
Acres to be Paved: 3.42
2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day
2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 6 hours per day
1/27/2011 1:55:00 PM
Page: 6
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Mitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2
2012 0.29 1.83 1.45 0.00 0.46 0.17 268.150.36 0.10 0.07 0.10
0.01Trenching 06/08/2012-07/27/20120.030.280.160.000.0132.700.000.010.000.01
Trenching Worker Trips0.000.000.020.000.000.000.000.000.000.001.84
Trenching Off Road Diesel0.030.270.140.000.000.010.010.000.010.0130.86
0.06Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20130.190.880.970.000.06135.180.000.060.000.05
Building Worker Trips0.010.020.350.000.000.000.000.000.000.0036.24
Building Vendor Trips0.000.040.030.000.000.000.000.000.000.008.96
Building Off Road Diesel0.170.820.580.000.000.060.060.000.050.0589.98
0.10Demolition 04/02/2012-
05/11/2012
0.02 0.17 0.10 0.00 0.03 23.780.09 0.01 0.02 0.01
Demo On Road Diesel0.000.070.020.000.000.000.000.000.000.0011.74
Demo Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.001.53
Fugitive Dust0.000.000.000.000.210.000.210.040.000.040.00
Demo Off Road Diesel0.010.100.070.000.000.010.010.000.010.0110.50
0.29Mass Grading 05/14/2012-
06/07/2012
0.050.510.220.000.0776.490.260.020.060.02
Mass Grading On Road Diesel0.020.300.100.000.000.010.010.000.010.0154.17
Mass Grading Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.97
Mass Grading Dust0.000.000.000.000.260.000.260.050.000.050.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel0.030.210.110.000.000.010.010.000.010.0121.35
1/27/2011 1:55:00 PM
Page: 7
2013 0.94 1.71 1.65 0.00 0.23 0.13 263.050.12 0.11 0.03 0.10
0.02Asphalt 07/26/2013-08/31/2013 0.04 0.21 0.16 0.00 0.02 23.470.00 0.02 0.00 0.02
Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.04
Paving Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.99
Paving Off-Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paving Off Road Diesel 0.03 0.20 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 18.44
0.13Fine Grading 08/12/2013-
09/10/2013
0.03 0.32 0.16 0.00 0.04 44.690.12 0.01 0.03 0.01
Fine Grading On Road Diesel0.010.090.030.000.000.000.000.000.000.0018.84
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.001.12
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.000.120.000.120.030.000.030.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel0.030.230.120.000.000.010.010.000.010.0124.72
0.08Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 0.25 1.18 1.32 0.00 0.07 193.670.00 0.08 0.00 0.07
Building Worker Trips 0.01 0.02 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 51.94
Building Vendor Trips 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.84
Building Off Road Diesel 0.23 1.11 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.07 128.89
0.00Coating 01/20/2013-02/22/2013 0.62 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 1.230.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Coating Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.23
Architectural Coating 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
PM10: 5% PM25: 5%
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 8/12/2013 - 9/10/2013 - Phase 1
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by:
Construction Related Mitigation Measures
1/27/2011 1:55:00 PM
Page: 8
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 1/20/2013 - 2/22/2013 - Phase 1
For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 44% PM25: 44%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
ROG: 40%
For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 44% PM25: 44%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 69% PM25: 69%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by:
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 5/14/2012 - 6/7/2012 - Phase 1
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 69% PM25: 69%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 5% PM25: 5%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
1/27/2011 1:54:26 PM
Page: 1
File Name: H:\pdata\40100419\Admin\reports\AQ_GHG\Models\URBEMIS\Albright_Phase1.urb924
Project Name: Albright Way Construction Phase1
Project Location: Bay Area Air District
On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day)
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
ROGNOxCOSO2PM10 DustPM10 Exhaust PM10PM2.5 DustPM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5CO2
2013 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated)85.5245.3428.840.0269.282.6371.9114.482.4116.895,867.44
2013 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated)52.5745.3428.840.0210.992.6313.612.312.414.725,867.44
2012 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated)4.8253.8522.980.0527.852.2230.075.842.047.888,051.45
2012 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated)4.8253.8522.980.05175.602.22177.8236.702.0438.748,051.45
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5 CO2
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
Summary Report:
1/27/2011 1:54:26 PM
Page: 2
Time Slice 5/14/2012-6/7/2012
Active Days: 19
4.8253.8522.980.05177.8238.748,051.45175.602.2236.702.04
177.82Mass Grading 05/14/2012-
06/07/2012
4.8253.8522.980.0538.748,051.45175.602.2236.702.04
Mass Grading On Road Diesel2.1031.8510.480.050.201.141.340.071.051.125,702.10
Mass Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.990.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.04
Mass Grading Dust0.000.000.000.00175.400.00175.4036.630.0036.630.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel2.6921.9511.510.000.001.071.070.000.990.992,247.32
Time Slice 4/2/2012-5/11/2012
Active Days: 30
1.30 11.19 6.92 0.01 6.57 1.84 1,585.175.91 0.65 1.23 0.60
6.57Demolition 04/02/2012-
05/11/2012
1.3011.196.920.011.841,585.175.910.651.230.60
Demo On Road Diesel0.294.371.440.010.030.160.180.010.140.15782.84
Demo Worker Trips0.030.050.990.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.04
Fugitive Dust0.000.000.000.005.880.005.881.220.001.220.00
Demo Off Road Diesel0.986.774.490.000.000.490.490.000.450.45700.30
Time Slice 6/8/2012-7/27/2012
Active Days: 36
1.8415.309.000.000.740.681,816.670.000.740.000.68
0.74Trenching 06/08/2012-07/27/20121.8415.309.000.000.681,816.670.000.740.000.68
Trenching Worker Trips0.030.050.990.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.04
Trenching Off Road Diesel1.8015.248.010.000.000.730.730.000.670.671,714.64
Time Slice 7/30/2012-12/31/2012
Active Days: 111
3.3915.8117.400.011.121.002,435.680.041.080.010.99
1.12Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20133.3915.8117.400.011.002,435.680.041.080.010.99
Building Worker Trips0.200.356.320.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.03
Building Vendor Trips0.050.650.570.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.46
Building Off Road Diesel3.1414.8110.520.000.001.041.040.000.950.951,621.20
1/27/2011 1:54:26 PM
Page: 3
Time Slice 1/1/2013-1/18/2013
Active Days: 14
3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 1.01 0.90 2,436.060.04 0.97 0.01 0.89
1.01Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20133.1014.7916.560.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
Building Worker Trips0.180.315.820.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.39
Building Vendor Trips0.050.570.530.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.47
Building Off Road Diesel2.8813.9110.200.000.000.930.930.000.860.861,621.20
Time Slice 1/21/2013-2/22/2013
Active Days: 25
85.5214.8417.430.011.010.912,534.220.040.970.020.89
0.01Coating 01/20/2013-02/22/201382.420.050.870.000.0098.170.000.000.000.00
Coating Worker Trips0.030.050.870.000.000.000.010.000.000.0098.17
Architectural Coating82.390.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
1.01Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20133.1014.7916.560.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
Building Worker Trips0.180.315.820.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.39
Building Vendor Trips0.050.570.530.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.47
Building Off Road Diesel2.8813.9110.200.000.000.930.930.000.860.861,621.20
Time Slice 2/25/2013-7/25/2013
Active Days: 109
3.1014.7916.560.011.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
1.01Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20133.1014.7916.560.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
Building Worker Trips0.180.315.820.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.39
Building Vendor Trips0.050.570.530.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.47
Building Off Road Diesel2.8813.9110.200.000.000.930.930.000.860.861,621.20
1/27/2011 1:54:27 PM
Page: 4
Time Slice 8/12/2013-8/30/2013
Active Days: 15
6.1145.3427.140.0271.9116.895,867.4469.282.6314.482.41
70.56Fine Grading 08/12/2013-
09/10/2013
3.1629.0914.850.0215.664,062.2969.261.2914.471.19
Fine Grading On Road Diesel0.588.482.850.020.060.300.360.020.280.301,712.88
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0069.200.0069.2014.450.0014.450.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.5520.5611.100.000.000.990.990.000.910.912,247.32
1.35Asphalt 07/26/2013-08/31/20132.9516.2512.290.001.231,805.140.021.330.011.23
Paving On Road Diesel0.050.780.260.000.010.030.030.000.030.03156.99
Paving Worker Trips0.060.112.050.000.010.010.020.000.000.01229.71
Paving Off-Gas0.340.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Paving Off Road Diesel2.4815.369.980.000.001.301.300.001.201.201,418.44
Time Slice 7/26/2013-8/9/2013
Active Days: 11
6.05 31.05 28.84 0.01 2.36 2.14 4,241.200.05 2.30 0.02 2.12
1.01Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20133.1014.7916.560.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
Building Worker Trips0.180.315.820.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.39
Building Vendor Trips0.050.570.530.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.47
Building Off Road Diesel2.8813.9110.200.000.000.930.930.000.860.861,621.20
1.35Asphalt 07/26/2013-08/31/20132.9516.2512.290.001.231,805.140.021.330.011.23
Paving On Road Diesel0.050.780.260.000.010.030.030.000.030.03156.99
Paving Worker Trips0.060.112.050.000.010.010.020.000.000.01229.71
Paving Off-Gas0.340.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Paving Off Road Diesel2.4815.369.980.000.001.301.300.001.201.201,418.44
1/27/2011 1:54:27 PM
Page: 5
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 194.44
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day
1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Demolition 4/2/2012 - 5/11/2012 - Phase 1
Off-Road Equipment:
Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 14000
Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 400000
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 425.45
Onsite Cut/Fill: 450 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day
2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day
Total Acres Disturbed: 8.46
Phase: Fine Grading 8/12/2013 - 9/10/2013 - Phase 1
Phase Assumptions
Time Slice 9/2/2013-9/10/2013
Active Days: 7
3.16 29.09 14.85 0.02 70.56 15.66 4,062.2969.26 1.29 14.47 1.19
70.56Fine Grading 08/12/2013-
09/10/2013
3.1629.0914.850.0215.664,062.2969.261.2914.471.19
Fine Grading On Road Diesel0.588.482.850.020.060.300.360.020.280.301,712.88
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0069.200.0069.2014.450.0014.450.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.5520.5611.100.000.000.990.990.000.910.912,247.32
1/27/2011 1:54:27 PM
Page: 6
Off-Road Equipment:
Acres to be Paved: 3.42
1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day
4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day
1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Paving 7/26/2013 - 8/31/2013 - Phase 1
Off-Road Equipment:
Phase: Building Construction 7/30/2012 - 8/9/2013 - Phase 1
1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day
2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
Onsite Cut/Fill: 1350 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low
Off-Road Equipment:
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1416.32
Phase: Mass Grading 5/14/2012 - 6/7/2012 - Phase 1
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61
Total Acres Disturbed: 8.46
Phase: Trenching 6/8/2012 - 7/27/2012 - Phase 1
2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1/27/2011 1:54:27 PM
Page: 7
Construction Mitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated
ROGNOxCOSO2PM10 DustPM10 Exhaust PM10PM2.5 DustPM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5CO2
Time Slice 4/2/2012-5/11/2012
Active Days: 30
1.3011.196.920.016.571.841,585.175.910.651.230.60
6.57Demolition 04/02/2012-
05/11/2012
1.3011.196.920.011.841,585.175.910.651.230.60
Demo On Road Diesel0.294.371.440.010.030.160.180.010.140.15782.84
Demo Worker Trips0.030.050.990.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.04
Fugitive Dust0.000.000.000.005.880.005.881.220.001.220.00
Demo Off Road Diesel0.986.774.490.000.000.490.490.000.450.45700.30
Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Phase: Architectural Coating 1/20/2013 - 2/22/2013 - Phase 1
Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day
2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day
3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day
1/27/2011 1:54:27 PM
Page: 8
Time Slice 6/8/2012-7/27/2012
Active Days: 36
1.8415.309.000.000.740.681,816.670.000.740.000.68
0.74Trenching 06/08/2012-07/27/20121.8415.309.000.000.681,816.670.000.740.000.68
Trenching Worker Trips0.030.050.990.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.04
Trenching Off Road Diesel1.8015.248.010.000.000.730.730.000.670.671,714.64
Time Slice 5/14/2012-6/7/2012
Active Days: 19
4.82 53.85 22.98 0.05 30.07 7.88 8,051.4527.85 2.22 5.84 2.04
30.07Mass Grading 05/14/2012-
06/07/2012
4.8253.8522.980.057.888,051.4527.852.225.842.04
Mass Grading On Road Diesel2.1031.8510.480.050.201.141.340.071.051.125,702.10
Mass Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.990.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.04
Mass Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0027.650.0027.655.770.005.770.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel2.6921.9511.510.000.001.071.070.000.990.992,247.32
Time Slice 1/1/2013-1/18/2013
Active Days: 14
3.1014.7916.560.011.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
1.01Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20133.1014.7916.560.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
Building Worker Trips0.180.315.820.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.39
Building Vendor Trips0.050.570.530.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.47
Building Off Road Diesel2.8813.9110.200.000.000.930.930.000.860.861,621.20
Time Slice 7/30/2012-12/31/2012
Active Days: 111
3.3915.8117.400.011.121.002,435.680.041.080.010.99
1.12Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20133.3915.8117.400.011.002,435.680.041.080.010.99
Building Worker Trips0.200.356.320.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.03
Building Vendor Trips0.050.650.570.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.46
Building Off Road Diesel3.1414.8110.520.000.001.041.040.000.950.951,621.20
1/27/2011 1:54:27 PM
Page: 9
Time Slice 7/26/2013-8/9/2013
Active Days: 11
6.0531.0528.840.012.362.144,241.200.052.300.022.12
1.01Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20133.1014.7916.560.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
Building Worker Trips0.180.315.820.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.39
Building Vendor Trips0.050.570.530.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.47
Building Off Road Diesel2.8813.9110.200.000.000.930.930.000.860.861,621.20
1.35Asphalt 07/26/2013-08/31/20132.9516.2512.290.001.231,805.140.021.330.011.23
Paving On Road Diesel0.050.780.260.000.010.030.030.000.030.03156.99
Paving Worker Trips0.060.112.050.000.010.010.020.000.000.01229.71
Paving Off-Gas0.340.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Paving Off Road Diesel2.4815.369.980.000.001.301.300.001.201.201,418.44
Time Slice 1/21/2013-2/22/2013
Active Days: 25
52.57 14.84 17.43 0.01 1.01 0.91 2,534.220.04 0.97 0.02 0.89
0.01Coating 01/20/2013-02/22/201349.460.050.870.000.0098.170.000.000.000.00
Coating Worker Trips0.030.050.870.000.000.000.010.000.000.0098.17
Architectural Coating49.430.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
1.01Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20133.1014.7916.560.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
Building Worker Trips0.180.315.820.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.39
Building Vendor Trips0.050.570.530.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.47
Building Off Road Diesel2.8813.9110.200.000.000.930.930.000.860.861,621.20
Time Slice 2/25/2013-7/25/2013
Active Days: 109
3.1014.7916.560.011.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
1.01Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20133.1014.7916.560.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
Building Worker Trips0.180.315.820.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.39
Building Vendor Trips0.050.570.530.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.47
Building Off Road Diesel2.8813.9110.200.000.000.930.930.000.860.861,621.20
1/27/2011 1:54:27 PM
Page: 10
Time Slice 9/2/2013-9/10/2013
Active Days: 7
3.1629.0914.850.0212.263.494,062.2910.971.292.301.19
12.26Fine Grading 08/12/2013-
09/10/2013
3.1629.0914.850.023.494,062.2910.971.292.301.19
Fine Grading On Road Diesel0.588.482.850.020.060.300.360.020.280.301,712.88
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0010.910.0010.912.280.002.280.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.5520.5611.100.000.000.990.990.000.910.912,247.32
Time Slice 8/12/2013-8/30/2013
Active Days: 15
6.11 45.34 27.14 0.02 13.61 4.72 5,867.4410.99 2.63 2.31 2.41
12.26Fine Grading 08/12/2013-
09/10/2013
3.1629.0914.850.023.494,062.2910.971.292.301.19
Fine Grading On Road Diesel0.588.482.850.020.060.300.360.020.280.301,712.88
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0010.910.0010.912.280.002.280.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.5520.5611.100.000.000.990.990.000.910.912,247.32
1.35Asphalt 07/26/2013-08/31/20132.9516.2512.290.001.231,805.140.021.330.011.23
Paving On Road Diesel0.050.780.260.000.010.030.030.000.030.03156.99
Paving Worker Trips0.060.112.050.000.010.010.020.000.000.01229.71
Paving Off-Gas0.340.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Paving Off Road Diesel2.4815.369.980.000.001.301.300.001.201.201,418.44
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
PM10: 5% PM25: 5%
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 8/12/2013 - 9/10/2013 - Phase 1
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by:
Construction Related Mitigation Measures
1/27/2011 1:54:27 PM
Page: 11
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 1/20/2013 - 2/22/2013 - Phase 1
For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 44% PM25: 44%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
ROG: 40%
For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 44% PM25: 44%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 69% PM25: 69%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by:
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 5/14/2012 - 6/7/2012 - Phase 1
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 69% PM25: 69%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 5% PM25: 5%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
1/27/2011 1:54:50 PM
Page: 1
File Name: H:\pdata\40100419\Admin\reports\AQ_GHG\Models\URBEMIS\Albright_Phase1.urb924
Project Name: Albright Way Construction Phase1
Project Location: Bay Area Air District
On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day)
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
ROGNOxCOSO2PM10 DustPM10 Exhaust PM10PM2.5 DustPM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5CO2
2013 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated)85.5245.3428.840.0269.282.6371.9114.482.4116.895,867.44
2013 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated)52.5745.3428.840.0210.992.6313.612.312.414.725,867.44
2012 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated)4.8253.8522.980.0527.852.2230.075.842.047.888,051.45
2012 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated)4.8253.8522.980.05175.602.22177.8236.702.0438.748,051.45
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5 CO2
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
Summary Report:
1/27/2011 1:54:50 PM
Page: 2
Time Slice 5/14/2012-6/7/2012
Active Days: 19
4.8253.8522.980.05177.8238.748,051.45175.602.2236.702.04
177.82Mass Grading 05/14/2012-
06/07/2012
4.8253.8522.980.0538.748,051.45175.602.2236.702.04
Mass Grading On Road Diesel2.1031.8510.480.050.201.141.340.071.051.125,702.10
Mass Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.990.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.04
Mass Grading Dust0.000.000.000.00175.400.00175.4036.630.0036.630.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel2.6921.9511.510.000.001.071.070.000.990.992,247.32
Time Slice 4/2/2012-5/11/2012
Active Days: 30
1.30 11.19 6.92 0.01 6.57 1.84 1,585.175.91 0.65 1.23 0.60
6.57Demolition 04/02/2012-
05/11/2012
1.3011.196.920.011.841,585.175.910.651.230.60
Demo On Road Diesel0.294.371.440.010.030.160.180.010.140.15782.84
Demo Worker Trips0.030.050.990.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.04
Fugitive Dust0.000.000.000.005.880.005.881.220.001.220.00
Demo Off Road Diesel0.986.774.490.000.000.490.490.000.450.45700.30
Time Slice 6/8/2012-7/27/2012
Active Days: 36
1.8415.309.000.000.740.681,816.670.000.740.000.68
0.74Trenching 06/08/2012-07/27/20121.8415.309.000.000.681,816.670.000.740.000.68
Trenching Worker Trips0.030.050.990.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.04
Trenching Off Road Diesel1.8015.248.010.000.000.730.730.000.670.671,714.64
Time Slice 7/30/2012-12/31/2012
Active Days: 111
3.3915.8117.400.011.121.002,435.680.041.080.010.99
1.12Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20133.3915.8117.400.011.002,435.680.041.080.010.99
Building Worker Trips0.200.356.320.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.03
Building Vendor Trips0.050.650.570.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.46
Building Off Road Diesel3.1414.8110.520.000.001.041.040.000.950.951,621.20
1/27/2011 1:54:50 PM
Page: 3
Time Slice 1/1/2013-1/18/2013
Active Days: 14
3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 1.01 0.90 2,436.060.04 0.97 0.01 0.89
1.01Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20133.1014.7916.560.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
Building Worker Trips0.180.315.820.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.39
Building Vendor Trips0.050.570.530.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.47
Building Off Road Diesel2.8813.9110.200.000.000.930.930.000.860.861,621.20
Time Slice 1/21/2013-2/22/2013
Active Days: 25
85.5214.8417.430.011.010.912,534.220.040.970.020.89
0.01Coating 01/20/2013-02/22/201382.420.050.870.000.0098.170.000.000.000.00
Coating Worker Trips0.030.050.870.000.000.000.010.000.000.0098.17
Architectural Coating82.390.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
1.01Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20133.1014.7916.560.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
Building Worker Trips0.180.315.820.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.39
Building Vendor Trips0.050.570.530.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.47
Building Off Road Diesel2.8813.9110.200.000.000.930.930.000.860.861,621.20
Time Slice 2/25/2013-7/25/2013
Active Days: 109
3.1014.7916.560.011.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
1.01Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20133.1014.7916.560.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
Building Worker Trips0.180.315.820.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.39
Building Vendor Trips0.050.570.530.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.47
Building Off Road Diesel2.8813.9110.200.000.000.930.930.000.860.861,621.20
1/27/2011 1:54:50 PM
Page: 4
Time Slice 8/12/2013-8/30/2013
Active Days: 15
6.1145.3427.140.0271.9116.895,867.4469.282.6314.482.41
70.56Fine Grading 08/12/2013-
09/10/2013
3.1629.0914.850.0215.664,062.2969.261.2914.471.19
Fine Grading On Road Diesel0.588.482.850.020.060.300.360.020.280.301,712.88
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0069.200.0069.2014.450.0014.450.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.5520.5611.100.000.000.990.990.000.910.912,247.32
1.35Asphalt 07/26/2013-08/31/20132.9516.2512.290.001.231,805.140.021.330.011.23
Paving On Road Diesel0.050.780.260.000.010.030.030.000.030.03156.99
Paving Worker Trips0.060.112.050.000.010.010.020.000.000.01229.71
Paving Off-Gas0.340.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Paving Off Road Diesel2.4815.369.980.000.001.301.300.001.201.201,418.44
Time Slice 7/26/2013-8/9/2013
Active Days: 11
6.05 31.05 28.84 0.01 2.36 2.14 4,241.200.05 2.30 0.02 2.12
1.01Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20133.1014.7916.560.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
Building Worker Trips0.180.315.820.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.39
Building Vendor Trips0.050.570.530.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.47
Building Off Road Diesel2.8813.9110.200.000.000.930.930.000.860.861,621.20
1.35Asphalt 07/26/2013-08/31/20132.9516.2512.290.001.231,805.140.021.330.011.23
Paving On Road Diesel0.050.780.260.000.010.030.030.000.030.03156.99
Paving Worker Trips0.060.112.050.000.010.010.020.000.000.01229.71
Paving Off-Gas0.340.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Paving Off Road Diesel2.4815.369.980.000.001.301.300.001.201.201,418.44
1/27/2011 1:54:50 PM
Page: 5
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 194.44
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day
1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Demolition 4/2/2012 - 5/11/2012 - Phase 1
Off-Road Equipment:
Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 14000
Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 400000
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 425.45
Onsite Cut/Fill: 450 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day
2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day
Total Acres Disturbed: 8.46
Phase: Fine Grading 8/12/2013 - 9/10/2013 - Phase 1
Phase Assumptions
Time Slice 9/2/2013-9/10/2013
Active Days: 7
3.16 29.09 14.85 0.02 70.56 15.66 4,062.2969.26 1.29 14.47 1.19
70.56Fine Grading 08/12/2013-
09/10/2013
3.1629.0914.850.0215.664,062.2969.261.2914.471.19
Fine Grading On Road Diesel0.588.482.850.020.060.300.360.020.280.301,712.88
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0069.200.0069.2014.450.0014.450.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.5520.5611.100.000.000.990.990.000.910.912,247.32
1/27/2011 1:54:50 PM
Page: 6
Off-Road Equipment:
Acres to be Paved: 3.42
1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day
4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day
1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Paving 7/26/2013 - 8/31/2013 - Phase 1
Off-Road Equipment:
Phase: Building Construction 7/30/2012 - 8/9/2013 - Phase 1
1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day
2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
Onsite Cut/Fill: 1350 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low
Off-Road Equipment:
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1416.32
Phase: Mass Grading 5/14/2012 - 6/7/2012 - Phase 1
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61
Total Acres Disturbed: 8.46
Phase: Trenching 6/8/2012 - 7/27/2012 - Phase 1
2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1/27/2011 1:54:50 PM
Page: 7
Construction Mitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Mitigated
ROGNOxCOSO2PM10 DustPM10 Exhaust PM10PM2.5 DustPM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5CO2
Time Slice 4/2/2012-5/11/2012
Active Days: 30
1.3011.196.920.016.571.841,585.175.910.651.230.60
6.57Demolition 04/02/2012-
05/11/2012
1.3011.196.920.011.841,585.175.910.651.230.60
Demo On Road Diesel0.294.371.440.010.030.160.180.010.140.15782.84
Demo Worker Trips0.030.050.990.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.04
Fugitive Dust0.000.000.000.005.880.005.881.220.001.220.00
Demo Off Road Diesel0.986.774.490.000.000.490.490.000.450.45700.30
Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Phase: Architectural Coating 1/20/2013 - 2/22/2013 - Phase 1
Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day
2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day
3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day
1/27/2011 1:54:50 PM
Page: 8
Time Slice 6/8/2012-7/27/2012
Active Days: 36
1.8415.309.000.000.740.681,816.670.000.740.000.68
0.74Trenching 06/08/2012-07/27/20121.8415.309.000.000.681,816.670.000.740.000.68
Trenching Worker Trips0.030.050.990.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.04
Trenching Off Road Diesel1.8015.248.010.000.000.730.730.000.670.671,714.64
Time Slice 5/14/2012-6/7/2012
Active Days: 19
4.82 53.85 22.98 0.05 30.07 7.88 8,051.4527.85 2.22 5.84 2.04
30.07Mass Grading 05/14/2012-
06/07/2012
4.8253.8522.980.057.888,051.4527.852.225.842.04
Mass Grading On Road Diesel2.1031.8510.480.050.201.141.340.071.051.125,702.10
Mass Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.990.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.04
Mass Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0027.650.0027.655.770.005.770.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel2.6921.9511.510.000.001.071.070.000.990.992,247.32
Time Slice 1/1/2013-1/18/2013
Active Days: 14
3.1014.7916.560.011.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
1.01Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20133.1014.7916.560.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
Building Worker Trips0.180.315.820.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.39
Building Vendor Trips0.050.570.530.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.47
Building Off Road Diesel2.8813.9110.200.000.000.930.930.000.860.861,621.20
Time Slice 7/30/2012-12/31/2012
Active Days: 111
3.3915.8117.400.011.121.002,435.680.041.080.010.99
1.12Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20133.3915.8117.400.011.002,435.680.041.080.010.99
Building Worker Trips0.200.356.320.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.03
Building Vendor Trips0.050.650.570.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.46
Building Off Road Diesel3.1414.8110.520.000.001.041.040.000.950.951,621.20
1/27/2011 1:54:50 PM
Page: 9
Time Slice 7/26/2013-8/9/2013
Active Days: 11
6.0531.0528.840.012.362.144,241.200.052.300.022.12
1.01Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20133.1014.7916.560.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
Building Worker Trips0.180.315.820.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.39
Building Vendor Trips0.050.570.530.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.47
Building Off Road Diesel2.8813.9110.200.000.000.930.930.000.860.861,621.20
1.35Asphalt 07/26/2013-08/31/20132.9516.2512.290.001.231,805.140.021.330.011.23
Paving On Road Diesel0.050.780.260.000.010.030.030.000.030.03156.99
Paving Worker Trips0.060.112.050.000.010.010.020.000.000.01229.71
Paving Off-Gas0.340.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Paving Off Road Diesel2.4815.369.980.000.001.301.300.001.201.201,418.44
Time Slice 1/21/2013-2/22/2013
Active Days: 25
52.57 14.84 17.43 0.01 1.01 0.91 2,534.220.04 0.97 0.02 0.89
0.01Coating 01/20/2013-02/22/201349.460.050.870.000.0098.170.000.000.000.00
Coating Worker Trips0.030.050.870.000.000.000.010.000.000.0098.17
Architectural Coating49.430.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
1.01Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20133.1014.7916.560.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
Building Worker Trips0.180.315.820.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.39
Building Vendor Trips0.050.570.530.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.47
Building Off Road Diesel2.8813.9110.200.000.000.930.930.000.860.861,621.20
Time Slice 2/25/2013-7/25/2013
Active Days: 109
3.1014.7916.560.011.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
1.01Building 07/30/2012-08/09/20133.1014.7916.560.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
Building Worker Trips0.180.315.820.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.39
Building Vendor Trips0.050.570.530.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.47
Building Off Road Diesel2.8813.9110.200.000.000.930.930.000.860.861,621.20
1/27/2011 1:54:50 PM
Page: 10
Time Slice 9/2/2013-9/10/2013
Active Days: 7
3.1629.0914.850.0212.263.494,062.2910.971.292.301.19
12.26Fine Grading 08/12/2013-
09/10/2013
3.1629.0914.850.023.494,062.2910.971.292.301.19
Fine Grading On Road Diesel0.588.482.850.020.060.300.360.020.280.301,712.88
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0010.910.0010.912.280.002.280.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.5520.5611.100.000.000.990.990.000.910.912,247.32
Time Slice 8/12/2013-8/30/2013
Active Days: 15
6.11 45.34 27.14 0.02 13.61 4.72 5,867.4410.99 2.63 2.31 2.41
12.26Fine Grading 08/12/2013-
09/10/2013
3.1629.0914.850.023.494,062.2910.971.292.301.19
Fine Grading On Road Diesel0.588.482.850.020.060.300.360.020.280.301,712.88
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0010.910.0010.912.280.002.280.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.5520.5611.100.000.000.990.990.000.910.912,247.32
1.35Asphalt 07/26/2013-08/31/20132.9516.2512.290.001.231,805.140.021.330.011.23
Paving On Road Diesel0.050.780.260.000.010.030.030.000.030.03156.99
Paving Worker Trips0.060.112.050.000.010.010.020.000.000.01229.71
Paving Off-Gas0.340.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Paving Off Road Diesel2.4815.369.980.000.001.301.300.001.201.201,418.44
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
PM10: 5% PM25: 5%
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 8/12/2013 - 9/10/2013 - Phase 1
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by:
Construction Related Mitigation Measures
1/27/2011 1:54:50 PM
Page: 11
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 1/20/2013 - 2/22/2013 - Phase 1
For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 44% PM25: 44%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
ROG: 40%
For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 44% PM25: 44%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 69% PM25: 69%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by:
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 5/14/2012 - 6/7/2012 - Phase 1
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 69% PM25: 69%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 5% PM25: 5%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
1/27/2011 1:40:43 PM
Page: 1
File Name: H:\pdata\40100419\Admin\reports\AQ_GHG\Models\Albright_Phase2.urb924
Project Name: Albright Way Construction Phase 2
Project Location: Bay Area Air District
On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year)
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated
ROGNOxCOSO2PM10 DustPM10 Exhaust PM10PM2.5 DustPM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5CO2
2014 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated)1.441.862.060.000.370.110.490.080.100.18328.47
2014 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated)1.011.862.060.000.060.110.180.010.100.12328.47
Percent Reduction29.700.000.000.0083.060.0063.6682.240.0035.360.00
Percent Reduction0.000.000.000.0082.980.0081.7882.930.0077.920.00
2013 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated)0.111.030.550.003.170.053.210.660.040.70161.54
2013 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated)0.111.030.550.000.540.050.590.110.040.16161.54
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5 CO2
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
Summary Report:
1/27/2011 1:40:43 PM
Page: 2
2013 0.11 1.03 0.55 0.00 3.21 0.70 161.543.17 0.05 0.66 0.04
0.42Fine Grading 12/19/2013-
01/12/2014
0.020.150.070.000.0922.730.410.010.090.01
Fine Grading On Road Diesel0.000.060.020.000.000.000.000.000.000.0012.16
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.46
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.000.410.000.410.090.000.090.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel0.010.090.050.000.000.000.000.000.000.0010.11
0.00Building 12/20/2013-12/18/20140.010.060.070.000.009.740.000.000.000.00
Building Worker Trips0.000.000.020.000.000.000.000.000.000.002.61
Building Vendor Trips0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.65
Building Off Road Diesel0.010.060.040.000.000.000.000.000.000.006.48
0.01Trenching 11/14/2013-12/19/20130.020.180.120.000.0123.620.000.010.000.01
Trenching Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.001.33
Trenching Off Road Diesel0.020.180.100.000.000.010.010.000.010.0122.29
0.05Demolition 09/25/2013-
10/15/2013
0.01 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.01 11.890.04 0.00 0.01 0.00
Demo On Road Diesel0.000.030.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.005.87
Demo Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.77
Fugitive Dust0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Demo Off Road Diesel0.010.050.030.000.000.000.000.000.000.005.25
2.73Mass Grading 10/16/2013-
11/13/2013
0.050.560.240.000.5993.562.710.020.570.02
Mass Grading On Road Diesel0.020.340.110.000.000.010.010.000.010.0168.89
Mass Grading Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.001.07
Mass Grading Dust0.000.000.000.002.710.002.710.570.000.570.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel0.030.220.120.000.000.010.010.000.010.0123.60
1/27/2011 1:40:43 PM
Page: 3
Off-Road Equipment:
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 194.44
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day
1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Demolition 9/25/2013 - 10/15/2013 - Phase 2
Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 14000
Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 175000
2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day
Total Acres Disturbed: 4.59
Phase: Fine Grading 12/19/2013 - 1/12/2014 - Phase 2
Phase Assumptions
2014 1.44 1.86 2.06 0.00 0.49 0.18 328.470.37 0.11 0.08 0.10
0.00Coating 11/14/2014-12/19/20141.070.000.010.000.001.280.000.000.000.00
Coating Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.001.28
Architectural Coating1.070.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
0.37Fine Grading 12/19/2013-
01/12/2014
0.01 0.12 0.06 0.00 0.08 20.200.37 0.01 0.08 0.00
Fine Grading On Road Diesel0.000.050.020.000.000.000.000.000.000.0010.81
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.41
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.000.370.000.370.080.000.080.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel0.010.080.040.000.000.000.000.000.000.008.99
0.11Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 0.36 1.74 1.98 0.00 0.10 306.990.00 0.11 0.00 0.10
Building Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 82.37
Building Vendor Trips 0.01 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.35
Building Off Road Diesel 0.33 1.63 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.10 204.27
1/27/2011 1:40:43 PM
Page: 4
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
Phase: Trenching 11/14/2013 - 12/19/2013 - Phase 2
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
Phase: Building Construction 12/20/2013 - 12/18/2014 - Phase 2
1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day
2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.15
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 671.03
Onsite Cut/Fill: 682 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1629.64
Onsite Cut/Fill: 2048 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
Total Acres Disturbed: 16.21
Phase: Mass Grading 10/16/2013 - 11/13/2013 - Phase 2
1/27/2011 1:40:43 PM
Page: 5
Construction Mitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Mitigated
ROGNOxCOSO2PM10 DustPM10 Exhaust PM10PM2.5 DustPM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5CO2
20130.111.030.550.000.590.16161.540.540.050.110.04
0.05Demolition 09/25/2013-
10/15/2013
0.010.080.050.000.0111.890.040.000.010.00
Demo On Road Diesel0.000.030.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.005.87
Demo Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.77
Fugitive Dust0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Demo Off Road Diesel0.010.050.030.000.000.000.000.000.000.005.25
Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Phase: Architectural Coating 11/14/2014 - 12/19/2014 - Phase 2
Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day
2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day
3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day
1/27/2011 1:40:43 PM
Page: 6
0.07Fine Grading 12/19/2013-
01/12/2014
0.020.150.070.000.0222.730.070.010.010.01
Fine Grading On Road Diesel0.000.060.020.000.000.000.000.000.000.0012.16
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.46
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.000.070.000.070.010.000.010.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel0.010.090.050.000.000.000.000.000.000.0010.11
0.00Building 12/20/2013-12/18/20140.010.060.070.000.009.740.000.000.000.00
Building Worker Trips0.000.000.020.000.000.000.000.000.000.002.61
Building Vendor Trips0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.65
Building Off Road Diesel0.010.060.040.000.000.000.000.000.000.006.48
0.45Mass Grading 10/16/2013-
11/13/2013
0.05 0.56 0.24 0.00 0.11 93.560.43 0.02 0.09 0.02
Mass Grading On Road Diesel0.020.340.110.000.000.010.010.000.010.0168.89
Mass Grading Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.001.07
Mass Grading Dust0.000.000.000.000.430.000.430.090.000.090.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel0.030.220.120.000.000.010.010.000.010.0123.60
0.01Trenching 11/14/2013-12/19/20130.020.180.120.000.0123.620.000.010.000.01
Trenching Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.001.33
Trenching Off Road Diesel0.020.180.100.000.000.010.010.000.010.0122.29
1/27/2011 1:40:43 PM
Page: 7
2014 1.01 1.86 2.06 0.00 0.18 0.12 328.470.06 0.11 0.01 0.10
0.00Coating 11/14/2014-12/19/20140.640.000.010.000.001.280.000.000.000.00
Coating Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.001.28
Architectural Coating0.640.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
0.06Fine Grading 12/19/2013-
01/12/2014
0.01 0.12 0.06 0.00 0.02 20.200.06 0.01 0.01 0.00
Fine Grading On Road Diesel0.000.050.020.000.000.000.000.000.000.0010.81
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.41
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.000.060.000.060.010.000.010.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel0.010.080.040.000.000.000.000.000.000.008.99
0.11Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 0.36 1.74 1.98 0.00 0.10 306.990.00 0.11 0.00 0.10
Building Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 82.37
Building Vendor Trips 0.01 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.35
Building Off Road Diesel 0.33 1.63 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.10 204.27
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 5% PM25: 5%
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 12/19/2013 - 1/12/2014 - Phase 2
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 69% PM25: 69%
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 44% PM25: 44%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
Construction Related Mitigation Measures
1/27/2011 1:40:43 PM
Page: 8
ROG: 40%
For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 11/14/2014 - 12/19/2014 - Phase 2
For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
ROG: 40%
ROG: 40%
For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
PM10: 5% PM25: 5%
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 10/16/2013 - 11/13/2013 - Phase 2
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 44% PM25: 44%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by:
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 69% PM25: 69%
1/27/2011 1:40:20 PM
Page: 1
File Name: H:\pdata\40100419\Admin\reports\AQ_GHG\Models\Albright_Phase2.urb924
Project Name: Albright Way Construction Phase 2
Project Location: Bay Area Air District
On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day)
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
ROGNOxCOSO2PM10 DustPM10 Exhaust PM10PM2.5 DustPM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5CO2
2014 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated)85.2644.7331.380.0392.112.1794.2819.251.9921.257,487.43
2014 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated)52.3044.7331.380.0314.632.1716.803.071.995.077,487.43
2013 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated)6.6053.1033.050.0640.862.4343.018.562.2410.548,910.37
2013 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated)6.6053.1033.050.06258.002.43260.1553.912.2455.888,910.37
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5 CO2
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
Summary Report:
1/27/2011 1:40:20 PM
Page: 2
Time Slice 10/16/2013-11/13/2013
Active Days: 21
4.8053.1022.910.06260.1555.888,910.37258.002.1553.911.98
260.15Mass Grading 10/16/2013-
11/13/2013
4.8053.1022.910.0655.888,910.37258.002.1553.911.98
Mass Grading On Road Diesel2.2232.4910.900.060.231.161.390.081.071.146,560.96
Mass Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Mass Grading Dust0.000.000.000.00257.760.00257.7653.830.0053.830.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel2.5520.5611.100.000.000.990.990.000.910.912,247.32
Time Slice 9/25/2013-10/15/2013
Active Days: 15
1.21 10.27 6.61 0.01 6.49 1.77 1,585.235.91 0.58 1.23 0.54
6.49Demolition 09/25/2013-
10/15/2013
1.2110.276.610.011.771,585.235.910.581.230.54
Demo On Road Diesel0.273.881.300.010.030.140.170.010.130.14782.84
Demo Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Fugitive Dust0.000.000.000.005.880.005.881.220.001.220.00
Demo Off Road Diesel0.916.354.400.000.000.440.440.000.410.41700.30
Time Slice 11/14/2013-12/18/2013
Active Days: 25
1.7414.178.880.000.680.631,816.730.000.680.000.63
0.68Trenching 11/14/2013-12/19/20131.7414.178.880.000.631,816.730.000.680.000.63
Trenching Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Trenching Off Road Diesel1.7214.127.970.000.000.680.680.000.620.621,714.64
1/27/2011 1:40:20 PM
Page: 3
Time Slice 12/19/2013-12/19/2013
Active Days: 1
5.24 48.16 25.37 0.03 94.23 21.22 6,867.7192.08 2.15 19.24 1.97
0.68Trenching 11/14/2013-12/19/20131.7414.178.880.000.631,816.730.000.680.000.63
Trenching Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Trenching Off Road Diesel1.7214.127.970.000.000.680.680.000.620.621,714.64
93.54Fine Grading 12/19/2013-
01/12/2014
3.4933.9916.500.0320.595,050.9892.081.4719.241.35
Fine Grading On Road Diesel0.9113.384.490.030.090.480.570.030.440.472,701.57
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0091.980.0091.9819.210.0019.210.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.5520.5611.100.000.000.990.990.000.910.912,247.32
Time Slice 12/20/2013-12/31/2013
Active Days: 8
6.6048.7833.050.0394.5521.497,487.0492.112.4319.252.24
93.54Fine Grading 12/19/2013-
01/12/2014
3.4933.9916.500.0320.595,050.9892.081.4719.241.35
Fine Grading On Road Diesel0.9113.384.490.030.090.480.570.030.440.472,701.57
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0091.980.0091.9819.210.0019.210.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.5520.5611.100.000.000.990.990.000.910.912,247.32
1.01Building 12/20/2013-12/18/20143.1014.7916.560.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
Building Worker Trips0.180.315.820.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.39
Building Vendor Trips0.050.570.530.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.47
Building Off Road Diesel2.8813.9110.200.000.000.930.930.000.860.861,621.20
1/27/2011 1:40:20 PM
Page: 4
Time Slice 11/14/2014-12/18/2014
Active Days: 25
85.2613.8116.550.010.910.812,534.610.040.860.020.79
0.01Coating 11/14/2014-12/19/201482.410.040.810.000.0098.220.000.000.000.00
Coating Worker Trips0.020.040.810.000.000.000.010.000.000.0098.22
Architectural Coating82.390.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
0.90Building 12/20/2013-12/18/20142.8413.7715.750.010.802,436.400.040.860.010.79
Building Worker Trips0.160.295.360.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.72
Building Vendor Trips0.040.510.500.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.48
Building Off Road Diesel2.6312.979.890.000.000.820.820.000.760.761,621.20
Time Slice 1/1/2014-1/10/2014
Active Days: 8
6.12 44.73 31.38 0.03 94.28 21.25 7,487.4392.11 2.17 19.25 1.99
93.38Fine Grading 12/19/2013-
01/12/2014
3.2830.9615.630.0320.445,051.0392.081.3119.241.20
Fine Grading On Road Diesel0.8411.844.060.030.090.420.510.030.390.422,701.57
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.030.040.840.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.14
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0091.980.0091.9819.210.0019.210.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.4119.0810.740.000.000.890.890.000.820.822,247.32
0.90Building 12/20/2013-12/18/20142.8413.7715.750.010.802,436.400.040.860.010.79
Building Worker Trips0.160.295.360.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.72
Building Vendor Trips0.040.510.500.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.48
Building Off Road Diesel2.6312.979.890.000.000.820.820.000.760.761,621.20
Time Slice 1/13/2014-11/13/2014
Active Days: 219
2.8413.7715.750.010.900.802,436.400.040.860.010.79
0.90Building 12/20/2013-12/18/20142.8413.7715.750.010.802,436.400.040.860.010.79
Building Worker Trips0.160.295.360.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.72
Building Vendor Trips0.040.510.500.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.48
Building Off Road Diesel2.6312.979.890.000.000.820.820.000.760.761,621.20
1/27/2011 1:40:20 PM
Page: 5
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Mass Grading 10/16/2013 - 11/13/2013 - Phase 2
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 194.44
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day
1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Demolition 9/25/2013 - 10/15/2013 - Phase 2
Off-Road Equipment:
Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 14000
Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 175000
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.15
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 671.03
Onsite Cut/Fill: 682 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day
2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day
Total Acres Disturbed: 4.59
Phase: Fine Grading 12/19/2013 - 1/12/2014 - Phase 2
Phase Assumptions
Time Slice 12/19/2014-12/19/2014
Active Days: 1
82.41 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.01 0.00 98.220.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.01Coating 11/14/2014-12/19/201482.410.040.810.000.0098.220.000.000.000.00
Coating Worker Trips0.020.040.810.000.000.000.010.000.000.0098.22
Architectural Coating82.390.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
1/27/2011 1:40:20 PM
Page: 6
2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day
Phase: Building Construction 12/20/2013 - 12/18/2014 - Phase 2
Off-Road Equipment:
3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day
Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Phase: Architectural Coating 11/14/2014 - 12/19/2014 - Phase 2
Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1629.64
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
Onsite Cut/Fill: 2048 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day
Total Acres Disturbed: 16.21
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Trenching 11/14/2013 - 12/19/2013 - Phase 2
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
1/27/2011 1:40:20 PM
Page: 7
Construction Mitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated
ROGNOxCOSO2PM10 DustPM10 Exhaust PM10PM2.5 DustPM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5CO2
Time Slice 10/16/2013-11/13/2013
Active Days: 21
4.8053.1022.910.0643.0110.548,910.3740.862.158.561.98
43.01Mass Grading 10/16/2013-
11/13/2013
4.8053.1022.910.0610.548,910.3740.862.158.561.98
Mass Grading On Road Diesel2.2232.4910.900.060.231.161.390.081.071.146,560.96
Mass Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Mass Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0040.630.0040.638.480.008.480.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel2.5520.5611.100.000.000.990.990.000.910.912,247.32
Time Slice 9/25/2013-10/15/2013
Active Days: 15
1.2110.276.610.016.491.771,585.235.910.581.230.54
6.49Demolition 09/25/2013-
10/15/2013
1.2110.276.610.011.771,585.235.910.581.230.54
Demo On Road Diesel0.273.881.300.010.030.140.170.010.130.14782.84
Demo Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Fugitive Dust0.000.000.000.005.880.005.881.220.001.220.00
Demo Off Road Diesel0.916.354.400.000.000.440.440.000.410.41700.30
Time Slice 11/14/2013-12/18/2013
Active Days: 25
1.7414.178.880.000.680.631,816.730.000.680.000.63
0.68Trenching 11/14/2013-12/19/20131.7414.178.880.000.631,816.730.000.680.000.63
Trenching Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Trenching Off Road Diesel1.7214.127.970.000.000.680.680.000.620.621,714.64
1/27/2011 1:40:20 PM
Page: 8
Time Slice 12/19/2013-12/19/2013
Active Days: 1
5.24 48.16 25.37 0.03 16.75 5.04 6,867.7114.60 2.15 3.06 1.97
0.68Trenching 11/14/2013-12/19/20131.7414.178.880.000.631,816.730.000.680.000.63
Trenching Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Trenching Off Road Diesel1.7214.127.970.000.000.680.680.000.620.621,714.64
16.06Fine Grading 12/19/2013-
01/12/2014
3.4933.9916.500.034.415,050.9814.601.473.061.35
Fine Grading On Road Diesel0.9113.384.490.030.090.480.570.030.440.472,701.57
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0014.500.0014.503.030.003.030.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.5520.5611.100.000.000.990.990.000.910.912,247.32
Time Slice 12/20/2013-12/31/2013
Active Days: 8
6.6048.7833.050.0317.075.317,487.0414.632.433.072.24
16.06Fine Grading 12/19/2013-
01/12/2014
3.4933.9916.500.034.415,050.9814.601.473.061.35
Fine Grading On Road Diesel0.9113.384.490.030.090.480.570.030.440.472,701.57
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0014.500.0014.503.030.003.030.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.5520.5611.100.000.000.990.990.000.910.912,247.32
1.01Building 12/20/2013-12/18/20143.1014.7916.560.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
Building Worker Trips0.180.315.820.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.39
Building Vendor Trips0.050.570.530.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.47
Building Off Road Diesel2.8813.9110.200.000.000.930.930.000.860.861,621.20
1/27/2011 1:40:20 PM
Page: 9
Time Slice 11/14/2014-12/18/2014
Active Days: 25
52.3013.8116.550.010.910.812,534.610.040.860.020.79
0.01Coating 11/14/2014-12/19/201449.460.040.810.000.0098.220.000.000.000.00
Coating Worker Trips0.020.040.810.000.000.000.010.000.000.0098.22
Architectural Coating49.430.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
0.90Building 12/20/2013-12/18/20142.8413.7715.750.010.802,436.400.040.860.010.79
Building Worker Trips0.160.295.360.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.72
Building Vendor Trips0.040.510.500.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.48
Building Off Road Diesel2.6312.979.890.000.000.820.820.000.760.761,621.20
Time Slice 1/1/2014-1/10/2014
Active Days: 8
6.12 44.73 31.38 0.03 16.80 5.07 7,487.4314.63 2.17 3.07 1.99
15.90Fine Grading 12/19/2013-
01/12/2014
3.2830.9615.630.034.265,051.0314.601.313.061.20
Fine Grading On Road Diesel0.8411.844.060.030.090.420.510.030.390.422,701.57
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.030.040.840.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.14
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0014.500.0014.503.030.003.030.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.4119.0810.740.000.000.890.890.000.820.822,247.32
0.90Building 12/20/2013-12/18/20142.8413.7715.750.010.802,436.400.040.860.010.79
Building Worker Trips0.160.295.360.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.72
Building Vendor Trips0.040.510.500.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.48
Building Off Road Diesel2.6312.979.890.000.000.820.820.000.760.761,621.20
Time Slice 1/13/2014-11/13/2014
Active Days: 219
2.8413.7715.750.010.900.802,436.400.040.860.010.79
0.90Building 12/20/2013-12/18/20142.8413.7715.750.010.802,436.400.040.860.010.79
Building Worker Trips0.160.295.360.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.72
Building Vendor Trips0.040.510.500.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.48
Building Off Road Diesel2.6312.979.890.000.000.820.820.000.760.761,621.20
1/27/2011 1:40:20 PM
Page: 10
Time Slice 12/19/2014-12/19/2014
Active Days: 1
49.46 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.01 0.00 98.220.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.01Coating 11/14/2014-12/19/201449.460.040.810.000.0098.220.000.000.000.00
Coating Worker Trips0.020.040.810.000.000.000.010.000.000.0098.22
Architectural Coating49.430.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
PM10: 44% PM25: 44%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 69% PM25: 69%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 5% PM25: 5%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 12/19/2013 - 1/12/2014 - Phase 2
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 69% PM25: 69%
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 10/16/2013 - 11/13/2013 - Phase 2
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 5% PM25: 5%
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 44% PM25: 44%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
Construction Related Mitigation Measures
1/27/2011 1:40:20 PM
Page: 11
ROG: 40%
For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 11/14/2014 - 12/19/2014 - Phase 2
For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
1/27/2011 1:40:33 PM
Page: 1
File Name: H:\pdata\40100419\Admin\reports\AQ_GHG\Models\Albright_Phase2.urb924
Project Name: Albright Way Construction Phase 2
Project Location: Bay Area Air District
On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day)
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
ROGNOxCOSO2PM10 DustPM10 Exhaust PM10PM2.5 DustPM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5CO2
2014 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated)85.2644.7331.380.0392.112.1794.2819.251.9921.257,487.43
2014 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated)52.3044.7331.380.0314.632.1716.803.071.995.077,487.43
2013 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated)6.6053.1033.050.0640.862.4343.018.562.2410.548,910.37
2013 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated)6.6053.1033.050.06258.002.43260.1553.912.2455.888,910.37
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5 CO2
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
Summary Report:
1/27/2011 1:40:33 PM
Page: 2
Time Slice 10/16/2013-11/13/2013
Active Days: 21
4.8053.1022.910.06260.1555.888,910.37258.002.1553.911.98
260.15Mass Grading 10/16/2013-
11/13/2013
4.8053.1022.910.0655.888,910.37258.002.1553.911.98
Mass Grading On Road Diesel2.2232.4910.900.060.231.161.390.081.071.146,560.96
Mass Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Mass Grading Dust0.000.000.000.00257.760.00257.7653.830.0053.830.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel2.5520.5611.100.000.000.990.990.000.910.912,247.32
Time Slice 9/25/2013-10/15/2013
Active Days: 15
1.21 10.27 6.61 0.01 6.49 1.77 1,585.235.91 0.58 1.23 0.54
6.49Demolition 09/25/2013-
10/15/2013
1.2110.276.610.011.771,585.235.910.581.230.54
Demo On Road Diesel0.273.881.300.010.030.140.170.010.130.14782.84
Demo Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Fugitive Dust0.000.000.000.005.880.005.881.220.001.220.00
Demo Off Road Diesel0.916.354.400.000.000.440.440.000.410.41700.30
Time Slice 11/14/2013-12/18/2013
Active Days: 25
1.7414.178.880.000.680.631,816.730.000.680.000.63
0.68Trenching 11/14/2013-12/19/20131.7414.178.880.000.631,816.730.000.680.000.63
Trenching Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Trenching Off Road Diesel1.7214.127.970.000.000.680.680.000.620.621,714.64
1/27/2011 1:40:33 PM
Page: 3
Time Slice 12/19/2013-12/19/2013
Active Days: 1
5.24 48.16 25.37 0.03 94.23 21.22 6,867.7192.08 2.15 19.24 1.97
0.68Trenching 11/14/2013-12/19/20131.7414.178.880.000.631,816.730.000.680.000.63
Trenching Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Trenching Off Road Diesel1.7214.127.970.000.000.680.680.000.620.621,714.64
93.54Fine Grading 12/19/2013-
01/12/2014
3.4933.9916.500.0320.595,050.9892.081.4719.241.35
Fine Grading On Road Diesel0.9113.384.490.030.090.480.570.030.440.472,701.57
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0091.980.0091.9819.210.0019.210.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.5520.5611.100.000.000.990.990.000.910.912,247.32
Time Slice 12/20/2013-12/31/2013
Active Days: 8
6.6048.7833.050.0394.5521.497,487.0492.112.4319.252.24
93.54Fine Grading 12/19/2013-
01/12/2014
3.4933.9916.500.0320.595,050.9892.081.4719.241.35
Fine Grading On Road Diesel0.9113.384.490.030.090.480.570.030.440.472,701.57
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0091.980.0091.9819.210.0019.210.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.5520.5611.100.000.000.990.990.000.910.912,247.32
1.01Building 12/20/2013-12/18/20143.1014.7916.560.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
Building Worker Trips0.180.315.820.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.39
Building Vendor Trips0.050.570.530.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.47
Building Off Road Diesel2.8813.9110.200.000.000.930.930.000.860.861,621.20
1/27/2011 1:40:33 PM
Page: 4
Time Slice 11/14/2014-12/18/2014
Active Days: 25
85.2613.8116.550.010.910.812,534.610.040.860.020.79
0.01Coating 11/14/2014-12/19/201482.410.040.810.000.0098.220.000.000.000.00
Coating Worker Trips0.020.040.810.000.000.000.010.000.000.0098.22
Architectural Coating82.390.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
0.90Building 12/20/2013-12/18/20142.8413.7715.750.010.802,436.400.040.860.010.79
Building Worker Trips0.160.295.360.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.72
Building Vendor Trips0.040.510.500.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.48
Building Off Road Diesel2.6312.979.890.000.000.820.820.000.760.761,621.20
Time Slice 1/1/2014-1/10/2014
Active Days: 8
6.12 44.73 31.38 0.03 94.28 21.25 7,487.4392.11 2.17 19.25 1.99
93.38Fine Grading 12/19/2013-
01/12/2014
3.2830.9615.630.0320.445,051.0392.081.3119.241.20
Fine Grading On Road Diesel0.8411.844.060.030.090.420.510.030.390.422,701.57
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.030.040.840.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.14
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0091.980.0091.9819.210.0019.210.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.4119.0810.740.000.000.890.890.000.820.822,247.32
0.90Building 12/20/2013-12/18/20142.8413.7715.750.010.802,436.400.040.860.010.79
Building Worker Trips0.160.295.360.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.72
Building Vendor Trips0.040.510.500.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.48
Building Off Road Diesel2.6312.979.890.000.000.820.820.000.760.761,621.20
Time Slice 1/13/2014-11/13/2014
Active Days: 219
2.8413.7715.750.010.900.802,436.400.040.860.010.79
0.90Building 12/20/2013-12/18/20142.8413.7715.750.010.802,436.400.040.860.010.79
Building Worker Trips0.160.295.360.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.72
Building Vendor Trips0.040.510.500.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.48
Building Off Road Diesel2.6312.979.890.000.000.820.820.000.760.761,621.20
1/27/2011 1:40:33 PM
Page: 5
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Mass Grading 10/16/2013 - 11/13/2013 - Phase 2
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 194.44
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day
1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Demolition 9/25/2013 - 10/15/2013 - Phase 2
Off-Road Equipment:
Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 14000
Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 175000
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.15
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 671.03
Onsite Cut/Fill: 682 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day
2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day
Total Acres Disturbed: 4.59
Phase: Fine Grading 12/19/2013 - 1/12/2014 - Phase 2
Phase Assumptions
Time Slice 12/19/2014-12/19/2014
Active Days: 1
82.41 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.01 0.00 98.220.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.01Coating 11/14/2014-12/19/201482.410.040.810.000.0098.220.000.000.000.00
Coating Worker Trips0.020.040.810.000.000.000.010.000.000.0098.22
Architectural Coating82.390.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
1/27/2011 1:40:33 PM
Page: 6
2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day
Phase: Building Construction 12/20/2013 - 12/18/2014 - Phase 2
Off-Road Equipment:
3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day
Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Phase: Architectural Coating 11/14/2014 - 12/19/2014 - Phase 2
Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1629.64
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
Onsite Cut/Fill: 2048 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day
Total Acres Disturbed: 16.21
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Trenching 11/14/2013 - 12/19/2013 - Phase 2
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
1/27/2011 1:40:33 PM
Page: 7
Construction Mitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Mitigated
ROGNOxCOSO2PM10 DustPM10 Exhaust PM10PM2.5 DustPM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5CO2
Time Slice 10/16/2013-11/13/2013
Active Days: 21
4.8053.1022.910.0643.0110.548,910.3740.862.158.561.98
43.01Mass Grading 10/16/2013-
11/13/2013
4.8053.1022.910.0610.548,910.3740.862.158.561.98
Mass Grading On Road Diesel2.2232.4910.900.060.231.161.390.081.071.146,560.96
Mass Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Mass Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0040.630.0040.638.480.008.480.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel2.5520.5611.100.000.000.990.990.000.910.912,247.32
Time Slice 9/25/2013-10/15/2013
Active Days: 15
1.2110.276.610.016.491.771,585.235.910.581.230.54
6.49Demolition 09/25/2013-
10/15/2013
1.2110.276.610.011.771,585.235.910.581.230.54
Demo On Road Diesel0.273.881.300.010.030.140.170.010.130.14782.84
Demo Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Fugitive Dust0.000.000.000.005.880.005.881.220.001.220.00
Demo Off Road Diesel0.916.354.400.000.000.440.440.000.410.41700.30
Time Slice 11/14/2013-12/18/2013
Active Days: 25
1.7414.178.880.000.680.631,816.730.000.680.000.63
0.68Trenching 11/14/2013-12/19/20131.7414.178.880.000.631,816.730.000.680.000.63
Trenching Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Trenching Off Road Diesel1.7214.127.970.000.000.680.680.000.620.621,714.64
1/27/2011 1:40:33 PM
Page: 8
Time Slice 12/19/2013-12/19/2013
Active Days: 1
5.24 48.16 25.37 0.03 16.75 5.04 6,867.7114.60 2.15 3.06 1.97
0.68Trenching 11/14/2013-12/19/20131.7414.178.880.000.631,816.730.000.680.000.63
Trenching Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Trenching Off Road Diesel1.7214.127.970.000.000.680.680.000.620.621,714.64
16.06Fine Grading 12/19/2013-
01/12/2014
3.4933.9916.500.034.415,050.9814.601.473.061.35
Fine Grading On Road Diesel0.9113.384.490.030.090.480.570.030.440.472,701.57
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0014.500.0014.503.030.003.030.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.5520.5611.100.000.000.990.990.000.910.912,247.32
Time Slice 12/20/2013-12/31/2013
Active Days: 8
6.6048.7833.050.0317.075.317,487.0414.632.433.072.24
16.06Fine Grading 12/19/2013-
01/12/2014
3.4933.9916.500.034.415,050.9814.601.473.061.35
Fine Grading On Road Diesel0.9113.384.490.030.090.480.570.030.440.472,701.57
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.030.050.910.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.09
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0014.500.0014.503.030.003.030.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.5520.5611.100.000.000.990.990.000.910.912,247.32
1.01Building 12/20/2013-12/18/20143.1014.7916.560.010.902,436.060.040.970.010.89
Building Worker Trips0.180.315.820.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.39
Building Vendor Trips0.050.570.530.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.47
Building Off Road Diesel2.8813.9110.200.000.000.930.930.000.860.861,621.20
1/27/2011 1:40:33 PM
Page: 9
Time Slice 11/14/2014-12/18/2014
Active Days: 25
52.3013.8116.550.010.910.812,534.610.040.860.020.79
0.01Coating 11/14/2014-12/19/201449.460.040.810.000.0098.220.000.000.000.00
Coating Worker Trips0.020.040.810.000.000.000.010.000.000.0098.22
Architectural Coating49.430.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
0.90Building 12/20/2013-12/18/20142.8413.7715.750.010.802,436.400.040.860.010.79
Building Worker Trips0.160.295.360.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.72
Building Vendor Trips0.040.510.500.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.48
Building Off Road Diesel2.6312.979.890.000.000.820.820.000.760.761,621.20
Time Slice 1/1/2014-1/10/2014
Active Days: 8
6.12 44.73 31.38 0.03 16.80 5.07 7,487.4314.63 2.17 3.07 1.99
15.90Fine Grading 12/19/2013-
01/12/2014
3.2830.9615.630.034.265,051.0314.601.313.061.20
Fine Grading On Road Diesel0.8411.844.060.030.090.420.510.030.390.422,701.57
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.030.040.840.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.14
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0014.500.0014.503.030.003.030.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.4119.0810.740.000.000.890.890.000.820.822,247.32
0.90Building 12/20/2013-12/18/20142.8413.7715.750.010.802,436.400.040.860.010.79
Building Worker Trips0.160.295.360.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.72
Building Vendor Trips0.040.510.500.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.48
Building Off Road Diesel2.6312.979.890.000.000.820.820.000.760.761,621.20
Time Slice 1/13/2014-11/13/2014
Active Days: 219
2.8413.7715.750.010.900.802,436.400.040.860.010.79
0.90Building 12/20/2013-12/18/20142.8413.7715.750.010.802,436.400.040.860.010.79
Building Worker Trips0.160.295.360.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.72
Building Vendor Trips0.040.510.500.000.010.020.030.000.020.02161.48
Building Off Road Diesel2.6312.979.890.000.000.820.820.000.760.761,621.20
1/27/2011 1:40:33 PM
Page: 10
Time Slice 12/19/2014-12/19/2014
Active Days: 1
49.46 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.01 0.00 98.220.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.01Coating 11/14/2014-12/19/201449.460.040.810.000.0098.220.000.000.000.00
Coating Worker Trips0.020.040.810.000.000.000.010.000.000.0098.22
Architectural Coating49.430.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
PM10: 44% PM25: 44%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 69% PM25: 69%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 5% PM25: 5%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 12/19/2013 - 1/12/2014 - Phase 2
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 69% PM25: 69%
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 10/16/2013 - 11/13/2013 - Phase 2
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 5% PM25: 5%
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 44% PM25: 44%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
Construction Related Mitigation Measures
1/27/2011 1:40:33 PM
Page: 11
ROG: 40%
For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 11/14/2014 - 12/19/2014 - Phase 2
For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
1/27/2011 1:44:38 PM
Page: 1
File Name: H:\pdata\40100419\Admin\reports\AQ_GHG\Models\Albright_Phase3.urb924
Project Name: Albright Way Construction Phase 3
Project Location: Bay Area Air District
On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year)
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated
ROGNOxCOSO2PM10 DustPM10 Exhaust PM10PM2.5 DustPM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5CO2
2016 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated)0.160.890.880.000.820.050.870.170.050.22175.44
2016 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated)0.160.890.880.000.130.050.180.030.050.07175.44
Percent Reduction0.000.000.000.0083.940.0079.1583.750.0066.170.00
Percent Reduction31.160.000.000.0081.150.0076.7980.960.0064.830.00
2015 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated)1.371.841.730.001.780.101.880.370.090.47358.44
2015 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated)0.951.841.730.000.340.100.440.070.090.16358.44
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5 CO2
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
Summary Report:
1/27/2011 1:44:38 PM
Page: 2
2015 1.37 1.84 1.73 0.00 1.88 0.47 358.441.78 0.10 0.37 0.09
0.07Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20160.231.131.330.000.07215.650.000.070.000.06
Building Worker Trips0.010.020.440.000.000.000.000.000.000.0057.88
Building Vendor Trips0.000.040.040.000.000.000.000.000.000.0014.29
Building Off Road Diesel0.211.070.850.000.000.070.070.000.060.06143.48
0.00Coating 11/04/2015-12/09/20151.070.000.010.000.001.280.000.000.000.00
Coating Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.001.28
Architectural Coating1.070.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
0.01Trenching 03/19/2015-04/28/20150.020.170.120.000.0126.340.000.010.000.01
Trenching Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.001.48
Trenching Off Road Diesel0.020.170.110.000.000.010.010.000.010.0124.86
0.06Demolition 01/27/2015-
02/23/2015
0.01 0.09 0.06 0.00 0.02 15.850.06 0.00 0.01 0.00
Demo On Road Diesel0.000.030.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.007.83
Demo Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.001.02
Fugitive Dust0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Demo Off Road Diesel0.010.050.040.000.000.000.000.000.000.007.00
1.74Mass Grading 02/24/2015-
03/18/2015
0.040.460.200.000.3899.321.720.020.360.02
Mass Grading On Road Diesel0.020.310.110.000.000.010.010.000.010.0179.35
Mass Grading Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.87
Mass Grading Dust0.000.000.000.001.720.001.720.360.000.360.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel0.020.150.090.000.000.010.010.000.010.0119.10
1/27/2011 1:44:38 PM
Page: 3
Off-Road Equipment:
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 194.44
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day
1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Demolition 1/27/2015 - 2/23/2015 - Phase 3
Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 14000
Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 246000
2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day
Phase Assumptions
2016 0.16 0.89 0.88 0.00 0.87 0.22 175.440.82 0.05 0.17 0.05
0.83Fine Grading 05/11/2016-
06/08/2016
0.03 0.26 0.15 0.00 0.18 51.120.82 0.01 0.17 0.01
Fine Grading On Road Diesel0.010.090.030.000.000.000.000.000.000.0026.45
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.001.07
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.000.820.000.820.170.000.170.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel0.020.170.110.000.000.010.010.000.010.0123.60
0.01Asphalt 04/26/2016-05/10/2016 0.02 0.08 0.06 0.00 0.01 11.010.00 0.01 0.00 0.01
Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.94
Paving Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.26
Paving Off-Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paving Off Road Diesel 0.01 0.07 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 7.80
0.03Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 0.11 0.55 0.67 0.00 0.03 113.310.00 0.03 0.00 0.03
Building Worker Trips 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.42
Building Vendor Trips 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.51
Building Off Road Diesel 0.10 0.52 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 75.39
1/27/2011 1:44:38 PM
Page: 4
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 2318.82
Onsite Cut/Fill: 1575 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
Phase: Trenching 3/19/2015 - 4/28/2015 - Phase 3
1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day
2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 625.71
Onsite Cut/Fill: 525 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
Total Acres Disturbed: 13.79
Phase: Fine Grading 5/11/2016 - 6/8/2016 - Phase 3
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61
Total Acres Disturbed: 13.79
Phase: Mass Grading 2/24/2015 - 3/18/2015 - Phase 3
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
1/27/2011 1:44:38 PM
Page: 5
Construction Mitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Mitigated
ROGNOxCOSO2PM10 DustPM10 Exhaust PM10PM2.5 DustPM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5CO2
3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day
2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Architectural Coating 11/4/2015 - 12/9/2015 - Phase 3
Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day
4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
Phase: Paving 4/26/2016 - 5/10/2016 - Phase 3
Acres to be Paved: 3.25
2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 6 hours per day
Phase: Building Construction 4/29/2015 - 5/10/2016 - Phase 3
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1/27/2011 1:44:38 PM
Page: 6
2015 0.95 1.84 1.73 0.00 0.44 0.16 358.440.34 0.10 0.07 0.09
0.07Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20160.231.131.330.000.07215.650.000.070.000.06
Building Worker Trips0.010.020.440.000.000.000.000.000.000.0057.88
Building Vendor Trips0.000.040.040.000.000.000.000.000.000.0014.29
Building Off Road Diesel0.211.070.850.000.000.070.070.000.060.06143.48
0.00Coating 11/04/2015-12/09/20150.640.000.010.000.001.280.000.000.000.00
Coating Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.001.28
Architectural Coating0.640.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
0.01Trenching 03/19/2015-04/28/20150.020.170.120.000.0126.340.000.010.000.01
Trenching Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.001.48
Trenching Off Road Diesel0.020.170.110.000.000.010.010.000.010.0124.86
0.06Demolition 01/27/2015-
02/23/2015
0.01 0.09 0.06 0.00 0.02 15.850.06 0.00 0.01 0.00
Demo On Road Diesel0.000.030.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.007.83
Demo Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.001.02
Fugitive Dust0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Demo Off Road Diesel0.010.050.040.000.000.000.000.000.000.007.00
0.29Mass Grading 02/24/2015-
03/18/2015
0.040.460.200.000.0799.320.270.020.060.02
Mass Grading On Road Diesel0.020.310.110.000.000.010.010.000.010.0179.35
Mass Grading Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.87
Mass Grading Dust0.000.000.000.000.270.000.270.060.000.060.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel0.020.150.090.000.000.010.010.000.010.0119.10
1/27/2011 1:44:38 PM
Page: 7
2016 0.16 0.89 0.88 0.00 0.18 0.07 175.440.13 0.05 0.03 0.05
0.14Fine Grading 05/11/2016-
06/08/2016
0.03 0.26 0.15 0.00 0.04 51.120.13 0.01 0.03 0.01
Fine Grading On Road Diesel0.010.090.030.000.000.000.000.000.000.0026.45
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.000.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.001.07
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.000.130.000.130.030.000.030.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel0.020.170.110.000.000.010.010.000.010.0123.60
0.01Asphalt 04/26/2016-05/10/2016 0.02 0.08 0.06 0.00 0.01 11.010.00 0.01 0.00 0.01
Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.94
Paving Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.26
Paving Off-Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paving Off Road Diesel 0.01 0.07 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 7.80
0.03Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 0.11 0.55 0.67 0.00 0.03 113.310.00 0.03 0.00 0.03
Building Worker Trips 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.42
Building Vendor Trips 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.51
Building Off Road Diesel 0.10 0.52 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 75.39
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 5% PM25: 5%
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 5/11/2016 - 6/8/2016 - Phase 3
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 69% PM25: 69%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 44% PM25: 44%
Construction Related Mitigation Measures
1/27/2011 1:44:38 PM
Page: 8
For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 11/4/2015 - 12/9/2015 - Phase 3
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
ROG: 40%
ROG: 40%
For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 5% PM25: 5%
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 2/24/2015 - 3/18/2015 - Phase 3
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 44% PM25: 44%
PM10: 69% PM25: 69%
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by:
1/27/2011 1:44:14 PM
Page: 1
File Name: H:\pdata\40100419\Admin\reports\AQ_GHG\Models\Albright_Phase3.urb924
Project Name: Albright Way Construction Phase 3
Project Location: Bay Area Air District
On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day)
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
ROGNOxCOSO2PM10 DustPM10 Exhaust PM10PM2.5 DustPM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5CO2
2016 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated)5.3225.9126.200.0278.141.7779.2116.331.6217.314,868.66
2016 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated)5.3225.9126.200.0212.401.7713.462.601.623.584,868.66
2015 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated)52.0553.8323.890.0932.162.0934.266.761.938.6811,685.11
2015 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated)85.0053.8323.890.09202.282.09204.3842.281.9344.2111,685.11
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5 CO2
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
Summary Report:
1/27/2011 1:44:14 PM
Page: 2
Time Slice 2/24/2015-3/18/2015
Active Days: 17
4.9553.8323.890.09204.3844.2111,685.11202.282.0942.281.93
204.38Mass Grading 02/24/2015-
03/18/2015
4.9553.8323.890.0944.2111,685.11202.282.0942.281.93
Mass Grading On Road Diesel2.6836.2912.720.090.331.281.610.111.181.299,335.60
Mass Grading Worker Trips0.020.040.770.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.18
Mass Grading Dust0.000.000.000.00201.950.00201.9542.180.0042.180.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel2.2617.5010.400.000.000.810.810.000.740.742,247.32
Time Slice 1/27/2015-2/23/2015
Active Days: 20
1.03 8.57 6.09 0.01 6.38 1.66 1,585.325.91 0.46 1.23 0.43
6.38Demolition 01/27/2015-
02/23/2015
1.038.576.090.011.661,585.325.910.461.230.43
Demo On Road Diesel0.223.041.070.010.030.110.130.010.100.11782.84
Demo Worker Trips0.020.040.770.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.18
Fugitive Dust0.000.000.000.005.880.005.881.220.001.220.00
Demo Off Road Diesel0.795.494.250.000.000.350.350.000.330.33700.30
Time Slice 4/29/2015-11/3/2015
Active Days: 135
2.5912.7515.020.010.830.742,436.670.040.800.010.73
0.83Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20162.5912.7515.020.010.742,436.670.040.800.010.73
Building Worker Trips0.150.264.940.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.98
Building Vendor Trips0.040.450.460.000.010.020.020.000.020.02161.50
Building Off Road Diesel2.4012.049.620.000.000.760.760.000.700.701,621.20
Time Slice 3/19/2015-4/28/2015
Active Days: 29
1.5111.698.620.000.560.511,816.820.000.560.000.51
0.56Trenching 03/19/2015-04/28/20151.5111.698.620.000.511,816.820.000.560.000.51
Trenching Worker Trips0.020.040.770.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.18
Trenching Off Road Diesel1.4811.657.850.000.000.550.550.000.510.511,714.64
1/27/2011 1:44:14 PM
Page: 3
Time Slice 1/1/2016-4/25/2016
Active Days: 82
2.3611.8314.400.010.740.662,436.860.040.710.010.65
0.74Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20162.3611.8314.400.010.662,436.860.040.710.010.65
Building Worker Trips0.140.244.560.010.030.020.050.010.010.02654.16
Building Vendor Trips0.040.400.440.000.010.020.020.000.010.02161.51
Building Off Road Diesel2.1911.199.400.000.000.670.670.000.620.621,621.20
Time Slice 11/4/2015-12/9/2015
Active Days: 26
85.00 12.79 15.77 0.01 0.84 0.75 2,534.930.04 0.80 0.02 0.73
0.01Coating 11/04/2015-12/09/201582.410.040.740.000.0098.250.000.000.000.00
Coating Worker Trips0.020.040.740.000.000.000.010.000.000.0098.25
Architectural Coating82.390.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
0.83Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20162.5912.7515.020.010.742,436.670.040.800.010.73
Building Worker Trips0.150.264.940.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.98
Building Vendor Trips0.040.450.460.000.010.020.020.000.020.02161.50
Building Off Road Diesel2.4012.049.620.000.000.760.760.000.700.701,621.20
Time Slice 12/10/2015-12/31/2015
Active Days: 16
2.5912.7515.020.010.830.742,436.670.040.800.010.73
0.83Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20162.5912.7515.020.010.742,436.670.040.800.010.73
Building Worker Trips0.150.264.940.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.98
Building Vendor Trips0.040.450.460.000.010.020.020.000.020.02161.50
Building Off Road Diesel2.4012.049.620.000.000.760.760.000.700.701,621.20
1/27/2011 1:44:14 PM
Page: 4
Off-Road Equipment:
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 194.44
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day
1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Demolition 1/27/2015 - 2/23/2015 - Phase 3
Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 14000
Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 246000
Phase Assumptions
Time Slice 5/11/2016-6/8/2016
Active Days: 21
2.8224.8013.930.0279.2117.314,868.6678.141.0616.330.98
79.21Fine Grading 05/11/2016-
06/08/2016
2.8224.8013.930.0217.314,868.6678.141.0616.330.98
Fine Grading On Road Diesel0.678.703.130.020.090.310.400.030.280.312,519.13
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.020.040.710.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.21
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0078.050.0078.0516.300.0016.300.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.1316.0710.090.000.000.750.750.000.690.692,247.32
Time Slice 4/26/2016-5/10/2016
Active Days: 11
5.32 25.91 26.20 0.01 1.83 1.64 4,437.910.06 1.77 0.02 1.62
0.74Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20162.3611.8314.400.010.662,436.860.040.710.010.65
Building Worker Trips0.140.244.560.010.030.020.050.010.010.02654.16
Building Vendor Trips0.040.400.440.000.010.020.020.000.010.02161.51
Building Off Road Diesel2.1911.199.400.000.000.670.670.000.620.621,621.20
1.08Asphalt 04/26/2016-05/10/20162.9614.0711.800.010.982,001.050.021.060.010.97
Paving On Road Diesel0.091.220.440.000.010.040.060.000.040.04352.63
Paving Worker Trips0.050.081.600.000.010.010.020.000.000.01229.98
Paving Off-Gas0.770.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Paving Off Road Diesel2.0512.779.760.000.001.011.010.000.930.931,418.44
1/27/2011 1:44:14 PM
Page: 5
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 2318.82
Onsite Cut/Fill: 1575 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day
1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day
2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
Phase: Trenching 3/19/2015 - 4/28/2015 - Phase 3
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 625.71
Onsite Cut/Fill: 525 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day
2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day
Total Acres Disturbed: 13.79
Phase: Fine Grading 5/11/2016 - 6/8/2016 - Phase 3
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
Total Acres Disturbed: 13.79
Phase: Mass Grading 2/24/2015 - 3/18/2015 - Phase 3
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
1/27/2011 1:44:14 PM
Page: 6
Construction Mitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day
3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day
2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day
Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Phase: Architectural Coating 11/4/2015 - 12/9/2015 - Phase 3
Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Off-Road Equipment:
Acres to be Paved: 3.25
Off-Road Equipment:
4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day
Phase: Paving 4/26/2016 - 5/10/2016 - Phase 3
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
Phase: Building Construction 4/29/2015 - 5/10/2016 - Phase 3
1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day
2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day
1/27/2011 1:44:14 PM
Page: 7
Time Slice 2/24/2015-3/18/2015
Active Days: 17
4.9553.8323.890.0934.268.6811,685.1132.162.096.761.93
34.26Mass Grading 02/24/2015-
03/18/2015
4.9553.8323.890.098.6811,685.1132.162.096.761.93
Mass Grading On Road Diesel2.6836.2912.720.090.331.281.610.111.181.299,335.60
Mass Grading Worker Trips0.020.040.770.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.18
Mass Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0031.830.0031.836.650.006.650.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel2.2617.5010.400.000.000.810.810.000.740.742,247.32
Time Slice 1/27/2015-2/23/2015
Active Days: 20
1.03 8.57 6.09 0.01 6.38 1.66 1,585.325.91 0.46 1.23 0.43
6.38Demolition 01/27/2015-
02/23/2015
1.038.576.090.011.661,585.325.910.461.230.43
Demo On Road Diesel0.223.041.070.010.030.110.130.010.100.11782.84
Demo Worker Trips0.020.040.770.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.18
Fugitive Dust0.000.000.000.005.880.005.881.220.001.220.00
Demo Off Road Diesel0.795.494.250.000.000.350.350.000.330.33700.30
Time Slice 4/29/2015-11/3/2015
Active Days: 135
2.5912.7515.020.010.830.742,436.670.040.800.010.73
0.83Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20162.5912.7515.020.010.742,436.670.040.800.010.73
Building Worker Trips0.150.264.940.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.98
Building Vendor Trips0.040.450.460.000.010.020.020.000.020.02161.50
Building Off Road Diesel2.4012.049.620.000.000.760.760.000.700.701,621.20
Time Slice 3/19/2015-4/28/2015
Active Days: 29
1.5111.698.620.000.560.511,816.820.000.560.000.51
0.56Trenching 03/19/2015-04/28/20151.5111.698.620.000.511,816.820.000.560.000.51
Trenching Worker Trips0.020.040.770.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.18
Trenching Off Road Diesel1.4811.657.850.000.000.550.550.000.510.511,714.64
1/27/2011 1:44:14 PM
Page: 8
Time Slice 1/1/2016-4/25/2016
Active Days: 82
2.3611.8314.400.010.740.662,436.860.040.710.010.65
0.74Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20162.3611.8314.400.010.662,436.860.040.710.010.65
Building Worker Trips0.140.244.560.010.030.020.050.010.010.02654.16
Building Vendor Trips0.040.400.440.000.010.020.020.000.010.02161.51
Building Off Road Diesel2.1911.199.400.000.000.670.670.000.620.621,621.20
Time Slice 11/4/2015-12/9/2015
Active Days: 26
52.05 12.79 15.77 0.01 0.84 0.75 2,534.930.04 0.80 0.02 0.73
0.01Coating 11/04/2015-12/09/201549.460.040.740.000.0098.250.000.000.000.00
Coating Worker Trips0.020.040.740.000.000.000.010.000.000.0098.25
Architectural Coating49.430.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
0.83Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20162.5912.7515.020.010.742,436.670.040.800.010.73
Building Worker Trips0.150.264.940.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.98
Building Vendor Trips0.040.450.460.000.010.020.020.000.020.02161.50
Building Off Road Diesel2.4012.049.620.000.000.760.760.000.700.701,621.20
Time Slice 12/10/2015-12/31/2015
Active Days: 16
2.5912.7515.020.010.830.742,436.670.040.800.010.73
0.83Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20162.5912.7515.020.010.742,436.670.040.800.010.73
Building Worker Trips0.150.264.940.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.98
Building Vendor Trips0.040.450.460.000.010.020.020.000.020.02161.50
Building Off Road Diesel2.4012.049.620.000.000.760.760.000.700.701,621.20
1/27/2011 1:44:14 PM
Page: 9
Time Slice 5/11/2016-6/8/2016
Active Days: 21
2.8224.8013.930.0213.463.584,868.6612.401.062.600.98
13.46Fine Grading 05/11/2016-
06/08/2016
2.8224.8013.930.023.584,868.6612.401.062.600.98
Fine Grading On Road Diesel0.678.703.130.020.090.310.400.030.280.312,519.13
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.020.040.710.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.21
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0012.300.0012.302.570.002.570.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.1316.0710.090.000.000.750.750.000.690.692,247.32
Time Slice 4/26/2016-5/10/2016
Active Days: 11
5.32 25.91 26.20 0.01 1.83 1.64 4,437.910.06 1.77 0.02 1.62
0.74Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20162.3611.8314.400.010.662,436.860.040.710.010.65
Building Worker Trips0.140.244.560.010.030.020.050.010.010.02654.16
Building Vendor Trips0.040.400.440.000.010.020.020.000.010.02161.51
Building Off Road Diesel2.1911.199.400.000.000.670.670.000.620.621,621.20
1.08Asphalt 04/26/2016-05/10/20162.9614.0711.800.010.982,001.050.021.060.010.97
Paving On Road Diesel0.091.220.440.000.010.040.060.000.040.04352.63
Paving Worker Trips0.050.081.600.000.010.010.020.000.000.01229.98
Paving Off-Gas0.770.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Paving Off Road Diesel2.0512.779.760.000.001.011.010.000.930.931,418.44
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 5% PM25: 5%
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 5/11/2016 - 6/8/2016 - Phase 3
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 69% PM25: 69%
Construction Related Mitigation Measures
1/27/2011 1:44:14 PM
Page: 10
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 11/4/2015 - 12/9/2015 - Phase 3
For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
PM10: 44% PM25: 44%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
ROG: 40%
For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 2/24/2015 - 3/18/2015 - Phase 3
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by:
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 44% PM25: 44%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 69% PM25: 69%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 5% PM25: 5%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
1/27/2011 1:44:27 PM
Page: 1
File Name: H:\pdata\40100419\Admin\reports\AQ_GHG\Models\Albright_Phase3.urb924
Project Name: Albright Way Construction Phase 3
Project Location: Bay Area Air District
On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day)
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
ROGNOxCOSO2PM10 DustPM10 Exhaust PM10PM2.5 DustPM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5CO2
2016 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated)5.3225.9126.200.0278.141.7779.2116.331.6217.314,868.66
2016 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated)5.3225.9126.200.0212.401.7713.462.601.623.584,868.66
2015 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated)52.0553.8323.890.0932.162.0934.266.761.938.6811,685.11
2015 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated)85.0053.8323.890.09202.282.09204.3842.281.9344.2111,685.11
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5 CO2
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
Summary Report:
1/27/2011 1:44:27 PM
Page: 2
Time Slice 2/24/2015-3/18/2015
Active Days: 17
4.9553.8323.890.09204.3844.2111,685.11202.282.0942.281.93
204.38Mass Grading 02/24/2015-
03/18/2015
4.9553.8323.890.0944.2111,685.11202.282.0942.281.93
Mass Grading On Road Diesel2.6836.2912.720.090.331.281.610.111.181.299,335.60
Mass Grading Worker Trips0.020.040.770.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.18
Mass Grading Dust0.000.000.000.00201.950.00201.9542.180.0042.180.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel2.2617.5010.400.000.000.810.810.000.740.742,247.32
Time Slice 1/27/2015-2/23/2015
Active Days: 20
1.03 8.57 6.09 0.01 6.38 1.66 1,585.325.91 0.46 1.23 0.43
6.38Demolition 01/27/2015-
02/23/2015
1.038.576.090.011.661,585.325.910.461.230.43
Demo On Road Diesel0.223.041.070.010.030.110.130.010.100.11782.84
Demo Worker Trips0.020.040.770.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.18
Fugitive Dust0.000.000.000.005.880.005.881.220.001.220.00
Demo Off Road Diesel0.795.494.250.000.000.350.350.000.330.33700.30
Time Slice 4/29/2015-11/3/2015
Active Days: 135
2.5912.7515.020.010.830.742,436.670.040.800.010.73
0.83Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20162.5912.7515.020.010.742,436.670.040.800.010.73
Building Worker Trips0.150.264.940.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.98
Building Vendor Trips0.040.450.460.000.010.020.020.000.020.02161.50
Building Off Road Diesel2.4012.049.620.000.000.760.760.000.700.701,621.20
Time Slice 3/19/2015-4/28/2015
Active Days: 29
1.5111.698.620.000.560.511,816.820.000.560.000.51
0.56Trenching 03/19/2015-04/28/20151.5111.698.620.000.511,816.820.000.560.000.51
Trenching Worker Trips0.020.040.770.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.18
Trenching Off Road Diesel1.4811.657.850.000.000.550.550.000.510.511,714.64
1/27/2011 1:44:27 PM
Page: 3
Time Slice 1/1/2016-4/25/2016
Active Days: 82
2.3611.8314.400.010.740.662,436.860.040.710.010.65
0.74Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20162.3611.8314.400.010.662,436.860.040.710.010.65
Building Worker Trips0.140.244.560.010.030.020.050.010.010.02654.16
Building Vendor Trips0.040.400.440.000.010.020.020.000.010.02161.51
Building Off Road Diesel2.1911.199.400.000.000.670.670.000.620.621,621.20
Time Slice 11/4/2015-12/9/2015
Active Days: 26
85.00 12.79 15.77 0.01 0.84 0.75 2,534.930.04 0.80 0.02 0.73
0.01Coating 11/04/2015-12/09/201582.410.040.740.000.0098.250.000.000.000.00
Coating Worker Trips0.020.040.740.000.000.000.010.000.000.0098.25
Architectural Coating82.390.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
0.83Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20162.5912.7515.020.010.742,436.670.040.800.010.73
Building Worker Trips0.150.264.940.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.98
Building Vendor Trips0.040.450.460.000.010.020.020.000.020.02161.50
Building Off Road Diesel2.4012.049.620.000.000.760.760.000.700.701,621.20
Time Slice 12/10/2015-12/31/2015
Active Days: 16
2.5912.7515.020.010.830.742,436.670.040.800.010.73
0.83Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20162.5912.7515.020.010.742,436.670.040.800.010.73
Building Worker Trips0.150.264.940.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.98
Building Vendor Trips0.040.450.460.000.010.020.020.000.020.02161.50
Building Off Road Diesel2.4012.049.620.000.000.760.760.000.700.701,621.20
1/27/2011 1:44:27 PM
Page: 4
Off-Road Equipment:
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 194.44
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day
1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Demolition 1/27/2015 - 2/23/2015 - Phase 3
Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 14000
Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 246000
Phase Assumptions
Time Slice 5/11/2016-6/8/2016
Active Days: 21
2.8224.8013.930.0279.2117.314,868.6678.141.0616.330.98
79.21Fine Grading 05/11/2016-
06/08/2016
2.8224.8013.930.0217.314,868.6678.141.0616.330.98
Fine Grading On Road Diesel0.678.703.130.020.090.310.400.030.280.312,519.13
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.020.040.710.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.21
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0078.050.0078.0516.300.0016.300.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.1316.0710.090.000.000.750.750.000.690.692,247.32
Time Slice 4/26/2016-5/10/2016
Active Days: 11
5.32 25.91 26.20 0.01 1.83 1.64 4,437.910.06 1.77 0.02 1.62
0.74Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20162.3611.8314.400.010.662,436.860.040.710.010.65
Building Worker Trips0.140.244.560.010.030.020.050.010.010.02654.16
Building Vendor Trips0.040.400.440.000.010.020.020.000.010.02161.51
Building Off Road Diesel2.1911.199.400.000.000.670.670.000.620.621,621.20
1.08Asphalt 04/26/2016-05/10/20162.9614.0711.800.010.982,001.050.021.060.010.97
Paving On Road Diesel0.091.220.440.000.010.040.060.000.040.04352.63
Paving Worker Trips0.050.081.600.000.010.010.020.000.000.01229.98
Paving Off-Gas0.770.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Paving Off Road Diesel2.0512.779.760.000.001.011.010.000.930.931,418.44
1/27/2011 1:44:27 PM
Page: 5
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 2318.82
Onsite Cut/Fill: 1575 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day
1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day
2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
Phase: Trenching 3/19/2015 - 4/28/2015 - Phase 3
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 625.71
Onsite Cut/Fill: 525 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day
2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day
Total Acres Disturbed: 13.79
Phase: Fine Grading 5/11/2016 - 6/8/2016 - Phase 3
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
Total Acres Disturbed: 13.79
Phase: Mass Grading 2/24/2015 - 3/18/2015 - Phase 3
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
1/27/2011 1:44:27 PM
Page: 6
Construction Mitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Mitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day
3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day
2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day
Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Phase: Architectural Coating 11/4/2015 - 12/9/2015 - Phase 3
Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Off-Road Equipment:
Acres to be Paved: 3.25
Off-Road Equipment:
4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day
Phase: Paving 4/26/2016 - 5/10/2016 - Phase 3
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
Phase: Building Construction 4/29/2015 - 5/10/2016 - Phase 3
1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day
2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day
1/27/2011 1:44:27 PM
Page: 7
Time Slice 2/24/2015-3/18/2015
Active Days: 17
4.9553.8323.890.0934.268.6811,685.1132.162.096.761.93
34.26Mass Grading 02/24/2015-
03/18/2015
4.9553.8323.890.098.6811,685.1132.162.096.761.93
Mass Grading On Road Diesel2.6836.2912.720.090.331.281.610.111.181.299,335.60
Mass Grading Worker Trips0.020.040.770.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.18
Mass Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0031.830.0031.836.650.006.650.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel2.2617.5010.400.000.000.810.810.000.740.742,247.32
Time Slice 1/27/2015-2/23/2015
Active Days: 20
1.03 8.57 6.09 0.01 6.38 1.66 1,585.325.91 0.46 1.23 0.43
6.38Demolition 01/27/2015-
02/23/2015
1.038.576.090.011.661,585.325.910.461.230.43
Demo On Road Diesel0.223.041.070.010.030.110.130.010.100.11782.84
Demo Worker Trips0.020.040.770.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.18
Fugitive Dust0.000.000.000.005.880.005.881.220.001.220.00
Demo Off Road Diesel0.795.494.250.000.000.350.350.000.330.33700.30
Time Slice 4/29/2015-11/3/2015
Active Days: 135
2.5912.7515.020.010.830.742,436.670.040.800.010.73
0.83Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20162.5912.7515.020.010.742,436.670.040.800.010.73
Building Worker Trips0.150.264.940.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.98
Building Vendor Trips0.040.450.460.000.010.020.020.000.020.02161.50
Building Off Road Diesel2.4012.049.620.000.000.760.760.000.700.701,621.20
Time Slice 3/19/2015-4/28/2015
Active Days: 29
1.5111.698.620.000.560.511,816.820.000.560.000.51
0.56Trenching 03/19/2015-04/28/20151.5111.698.620.000.511,816.820.000.560.000.51
Trenching Worker Trips0.020.040.770.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.18
Trenching Off Road Diesel1.4811.657.850.000.000.550.550.000.510.511,714.64
1/27/2011 1:44:27 PM
Page: 8
Time Slice 1/1/2016-4/25/2016
Active Days: 82
2.3611.8314.400.010.740.662,436.860.040.710.010.65
0.74Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20162.3611.8314.400.010.662,436.860.040.710.010.65
Building Worker Trips0.140.244.560.010.030.020.050.010.010.02654.16
Building Vendor Trips0.040.400.440.000.010.020.020.000.010.02161.51
Building Off Road Diesel2.1911.199.400.000.000.670.670.000.620.621,621.20
Time Slice 11/4/2015-12/9/2015
Active Days: 26
52.05 12.79 15.77 0.01 0.84 0.75 2,534.930.04 0.80 0.02 0.73
0.01Coating 11/04/2015-12/09/201549.460.040.740.000.0098.250.000.000.000.00
Coating Worker Trips0.020.040.740.000.000.000.010.000.000.0098.25
Architectural Coating49.430.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
0.83Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20162.5912.7515.020.010.742,436.670.040.800.010.73
Building Worker Trips0.150.264.940.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.98
Building Vendor Trips0.040.450.460.000.010.020.020.000.020.02161.50
Building Off Road Diesel2.4012.049.620.000.000.760.760.000.700.701,621.20
Time Slice 12/10/2015-12/31/2015
Active Days: 16
2.5912.7515.020.010.830.742,436.670.040.800.010.73
0.83Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20162.5912.7515.020.010.742,436.670.040.800.010.73
Building Worker Trips0.150.264.940.010.030.020.050.010.010.02653.98
Building Vendor Trips0.040.450.460.000.010.020.020.000.020.02161.50
Building Off Road Diesel2.4012.049.620.000.000.760.760.000.700.701,621.20
1/27/2011 1:44:27 PM
Page: 9
Time Slice 5/11/2016-6/8/2016
Active Days: 21
2.8224.8013.930.0213.463.584,868.6612.401.062.600.98
13.46Fine Grading 05/11/2016-
06/08/2016
2.8224.8013.930.023.584,868.6612.401.062.600.98
Fine Grading On Road Diesel0.678.703.130.020.090.310.400.030.280.312,519.13
Fine Grading Worker Trips0.020.040.710.000.000.000.010.000.000.00102.21
Fine Grading Dust0.000.000.000.0012.300.0012.302.570.002.570.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel2.1316.0710.090.000.000.750.750.000.690.692,247.32
Time Slice 4/26/2016-5/10/2016
Active Days: 11
5.32 25.91 26.20 0.01 1.83 1.64 4,437.910.06 1.77 0.02 1.62
0.74Building 04/29/2015-05/10/20162.3611.8314.400.010.662,436.860.040.710.010.65
Building Worker Trips0.140.244.560.010.030.020.050.010.010.02654.16
Building Vendor Trips0.040.400.440.000.010.020.020.000.010.02161.51
Building Off Road Diesel2.1911.199.400.000.000.670.670.000.620.621,621.20
1.08Asphalt 04/26/2016-05/10/20162.9614.0711.800.010.982,001.050.021.060.010.97
Paving On Road Diesel0.091.220.440.000.010.040.060.000.040.04352.63
Paving Worker Trips0.050.081.600.000.010.010.020.000.000.01229.98
Paving Off-Gas0.770.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Paving Off Road Diesel2.0512.779.760.000.001.011.010.000.930.931,418.44
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 5% PM25: 5%
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 5/11/2016 - 6/8/2016 - Phase 3
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 69% PM25: 69%
Construction Related Mitigation Measures
1/27/2011 1:44:27 PM
Page: 10
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 11/4/2015 - 12/9/2015 - Phase 3
For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
PM10: 44% PM25: 44%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
ROG: 40%
For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
ROG: 40%
For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 2/24/2015 - 3/18/2015 - Phase 3
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by:
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 44% PM25: 44%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 69% PM25: 69%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 5% PM25: 5%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
2/2/2011 2:06:21 PM
Page: 1
File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\KCHIENE\Desktop\Albright_Operations.urb924
Project Name: Albright Way Operations Revised
Project Location: Bay Area Air District
On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year)
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Architectural Coatings0.32
Consumer Products0.00
Hearth
Landscape0.010.000.140.000.000.000.25
Natural Gas0.030.360.310.000.000.00438.00
TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated)0.360.360.450.000.000.00438.25
SourceROGNOxCOSO2PM10PM2.5CO2
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated
Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report:
Area Source Changes to Defaults
2/2/2011 2:06:21 PM
Page: 2
OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated
Office park 2.93 3.65 34.37 0.04 8.21 1.56 4,433.64
TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated)2.93 3.65 34.37 0.04 8.21 1.56 4,433.64
Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM25 CO2
Operational Unmitigated Detail Report:
Light Truck < 3750 lbs12.70.896.82.4
Light Auto53.80.299.60.2
Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs0.60.050.050.0
Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs0.90.077.822.2
Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs6.60.0100.00.0
Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs19.90.0100.00.0
Vehicle Fleet Mix
Vehicle TypePercent TypeNon-CatalystCatalystDiesel
Office park10.421000 sq ft300.003,126.0026,202.13
3,126.0026,202.13
Summary of Land Uses
Land Use TypeAcreageTrip RateUnit TypeNo. UnitsTotal TripsTotal VMT
Analysis Year: 2016 Season: Annual
Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Does not include correction for passby trips
Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips
Operational Settings:
2/2/2011 2:06:21 PM
Page: 3
% of Trips - Residential32.918.049.1
Trip speeds (mph)35.035.035.035.035.035.0
% of Trips - Commercial (by land use)
Office park48.024.028.0
Rural Trip Length (miles)16.87.17.914.76.66.6
Urban Trip Length (miles)10.87.37.59.57.47.4
Travel Conditions
Home-WorkHome-ShopHome-OtherCommuteNon-WorkCustomer
ResidentialCommercial
Urban Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
Motor Home 0.6 0.0 83.3 16.7
School Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
Motorcycle 3.2 46.9 53.1 0.0
Other Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs 1.0 0.0 20.0 80.0
Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs 0.4 0.0 0.0 100.0
Vehicle Fleet Mix
Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel
2/2/2011 2:06:13 PM
Page: 1
File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\KCHIENE\Desktop\Albright_Operations.urb924
Project Name: Albright Way Operations Revised
Project Location: Bay Area Air District
On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day)
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Architectural Coatings1.76
Consumer Products0.00
Hearth
Landscape0.120.021.550.000.010.012.81
Natural Gas0.152.001.680.000.000.002,400.00
TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)2.032.023.230.000.010.012,402.81
SourceROGNOxCOSO2PM10PM2.5CO2
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report:
Area Source Changes to Defaults
2/2/2011 2:06:13 PM
Page: 2
OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
Office park 15.90 17.19 186.33 0.25 44.97 8.54 25,459.91
TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)15.90 17.19 186.33 0.25 44.97 8.54 25,459.91
Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM25 CO2
Operational Unmitigated Detail Report:
Light Truck < 3750 lbs12.70.896.82.4
Light Auto53.80.299.60.2
Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs0.60.050.050.0
Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs0.90.077.822.2
Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs6.60.0100.00.0
Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs19.90.0100.00.0
Vehicle Fleet Mix
Vehicle TypePercent TypeNon-CatalystCatalystDiesel
Office park10.421000 sq ft300.003,126.0026,202.13
3,126.0026,202.13
Summary of Land Uses
Land Use TypeAcreageTrip RateUnit TypeNo. UnitsTotal TripsTotal VMT
Analysis Year: 2016 Temperature (F): 85 Season: Summer
Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Does not include correction for passby trips
Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips
Operational Settings:
2/2/2011 2:06:13 PM
Page: 3
% of Trips - Residential32.918.049.1
Trip speeds (mph)35.035.035.035.035.035.0
% of Trips - Commercial (by land use)
Office park48.024.028.0
Rural Trip Length (miles)16.87.17.914.76.66.6
Urban Trip Length (miles)10.87.37.59.57.47.4
Travel Conditions
Home-WorkHome-ShopHome-OtherCommuteNon-WorkCustomer
ResidentialCommercial
Urban Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
Motor Home 0.6 0.0 83.3 16.7
School Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
Motorcycle 3.2 46.9 53.1 0.0
Other Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs 1.0 0.0 20.0 80.0
Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs 0.4 0.0 0.0 100.0
Vehicle Fleet Mix
Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel
2/2/2011 2:05:59 PM
Page: 1
File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\KCHIENE\Desktop\Albright_Operations.urb924
Project Name: Albright Way Operations Revised
Project Location: Bay Area Air District
On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day)
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Architectural Coatings1.76
Consumer Products0.00
Hearth
Landscaping - No Winter Emissions
Natural Gas0.152.001.680.000.000.002,400.00
TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)1.912.001.680.000.000.002,400.00
SourceROGNOxCOSO2PM10PM2.5CO2
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report:
Area Source Changes to Defaults
2/2/2011 2:05:59 PM
Page: 2
OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
Office park 16.30 25.58 192.36 0.22 44.97 8.54 21,961.97
TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)16.30 25.58 192.36 0.22 44.97 8.54 21,961.97
Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM25 CO2
Operational Unmitigated Detail Report:
Light Truck < 3750 lbs12.70.896.82.4
Light Auto53.80.299.60.2
Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs0.60.050.050.0
Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs0.90.077.822.2
Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs6.60.0100.00.0
Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs19.90.0100.00.0
Vehicle Fleet Mix
Vehicle TypePercent TypeNon-CatalystCatalystDiesel
Office park10.421000 sq ft300.003,126.0026,202.13
3,126.0026,202.13
Summary of Land Uses
Land Use TypeAcreageTrip RateUnit TypeNo. UnitsTotal TripsTotal VMT
Analysis Year: 2016 Temperature (F): 40 Season: Winter
Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Does not include correction for passby trips
Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips
Operational Settings:
2/2/2011 2:05:59 PM
Page: 3
% of Trips - Residential32.918.049.1
Trip speeds (mph)35.035.035.035.035.035.0
% of Trips - Commercial (by land use)
Office park48.024.028.0
Rural Trip Length (miles)16.87.17.914.76.66.6
Urban Trip Length (miles)10.87.37.59.57.47.4
Travel Conditions
Home-WorkHome-ShopHome-OtherCommuteNon-WorkCustomer
ResidentialCommercial
Urban Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
Motor Home 0.6 0.0 83.3 16.7
School Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
Motorcycle 3.2 46.9 53.1 0.0
Other Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs 1.0 0.0 20.0 80.0
Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs 0.4 0.0 0.0 100.0
Vehicle Fleet Mix
Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel
Risk Calculations: 100 Feet from SR-85 Centerline
Hourly Concentration:1.2μg/m3 (output from CAL3QHCR run)
Annual Average Conc:0.096
Cancer Risk
Cancer Risk:25.27323
BAAQMD Threshold10 in one million
CancerRisk=Slope*InhalationDoseCancer Risk = Slope Inhalation Dose
Inhalation Dose = (Cair*DBR*A*EF*ED*10-6)/AT
Slope1.1(mg/kg/day)-1
Inhalation DoseDose through inhalation (mg/kg-d)
10-6 Micrograms to milligrams conversions, liters to cubic meters conversion
CairConcentration in air (ug/m3), modeled annual average concentration
DBR302L/kg-dayDaily breathing Rate (l/kg body weight-day) (80%ile)
A1Inhalation absorption factor
EF350days/yearExposure frequency (days/year)yypqy(yy)
ED70yearsExposure duration (years)
AT25550daysAveraging time period over which exposure is averaged, in days (70 years*365 = 25,550 days)
Chronic Noncancer Hazard
BAAQMD Threshold1 in one million
Hazard Quotient = Ci/RELi
HQ = 0.0192
Ci 0096Concentration(annualaverage)Ci 0.096Concentration (annual average)
RELi 5Reference Exposure Level
Acute NonCancer Hazard
BAAQMD Threshold1 in one million
Acute HQ = Maximum Hourly Concentration/Acute REL
Acute HQ = 0.022105
Max Hourly1.2y
Acute REL (Acrolein)0.19
Risk Calculations: 200 Feet from SR-85 Centerline
Hourly Concentration:0.53μg/m3 (output from CAL3QHCR run)
Annual Average Conc:0.0424
Cancer Risk
Cancer Risk:11.16234
BAAQMD Threshold10 in one million
Cancer Risk = Slope * Inhalation Dose
Inhalation Dose = (Cair*DBR*A*EF*ED*10-6)/AT
Slope1.1(mg/kg/day)-1
Inhalation DoseDose through inhalation (mg/kg-d)
10-6 Micrograms to milligrams conversions, liters to cubic meters conversion
CairConcentration in air (ug/m3), modeled annual average concentration
DBR302L/kg-dayDaily breathing Rate (l/kg body weight-day) (80%ile)
A1Inhalation absorption factor
EF350days/yearExposure frequency (days/year)
ED70yearsExposure duration (years)
AT25550daysAveraging time period over which exposure is averaged, in days (70 years*365 = 25,550 days)
Chronic Noncancer Hazard
BAAQMD Threshold1 in one million
Hazard Quotient = Ci/RELi
HQ = 0.00848
Ci 0.0424Concentration (annual average)
RELi 5Reference Exposure Level
Acute NonCancer Hazard
BAAQMD Threshold1 in one million
Acute HQ = Maximum Hourly Concentration/Acute REL
Acute HQ = 0.009763
Max Hourly0.53
Acute REL (Acrolein)0.19
Risk Calculations: 261 Feet from SR-85 Centerline
Hourly Concentration:0.474565μg/m3 (output from CAL3QHCR run)
Annual Average Conc:0.037965
Cancer Risk
Cancer Risk:9.994824
BAAQMD Threshold10 in one million
Cancer Risk = Slope * Inhalation Dose
Inhalation Dose = (Cair*DBR*A*EF*ED*10-6)/AT
Slope1.1(mg/kg/day)-1
Inhalation DoseDose through inhalation (mg/kg-d)
10-6 Micrograms to milligrams conversions, liters to cubic mete
CairConcentration in air (ug/m3), modeled annual average con
DBR302L/kg-dayDaily breathing Rate (l/kg body weight-day) (80%ile)
A1Inhalation absorption factor
EF350days/yearExposure frequency (days/year)
ED70yearsExposure duration (years)
AT25550daysAveraging time period over which exposure is averaged, in
Chronic Noncancer Hazard
BAAQMD Threshold1 in one million
Hazard Quotient = Ci/RELi
HQ = 0.007593
Ci 0.037965Concentration (annual average)
RELi 5Reference Exposure Level
Acute NonCancer Hazard
BAAQMD Threshold1 in one million
Acute HQ = Maximum Hourly Concentration/Acute REL
Acute HQ = 0.008742
Max Hourly0.474565
Acute REL (Acrolein)0.19
ers conversion
ncentration
n days (70 years*365 = 25,550 days)
Risk Calculations: 300 Feet from SR-85 Centerline
Hourly Concentration:0.41μg/m3 (output from CAL3QHCR run)
Annual Average Conc:0.0328
Cancer Risk
Cancer Risk:8.635019
BAAQMD Threshold10 in one million
CancerRisk=Slope*InhalationDoseCancer Risk = Slope * Inhalation Dose
Inhalation Dose = (Cair*DBR*A*EF*ED*10-6)/AT
Slope1.1(mg/kg/day)-1
Inhalation DoseDose through inhalation (mg/kg-d)
10-6 Micrograms to milligrams conversions, liters to cubic meters conversion
CairConcentration in air (ug/m3), modeled annual average concentration
DBR302L/kg-dayDaily breathing Rate (l/kg body weight-day) (80%ile)
A1Inhalation absorption factor
EF350days/yearExposurefrequency(days/year)EF350days/yearExposure frequency (days/year)
ED70yearsExposure duration (years)
AT25550daysAveraging time period over which exposure is averaged, in days (70 years*365 = 25,550 days)
Chronic Noncancer Hazard
BAAQMD Threshold1 in one million
Hazard Quotient = Ci/RELi
HQ = 0.00656
Ci 0.0328Concentration (annual average)
RELi 5Reference Exposure Level
Acute NonCancer Hazard
BAAQMD Threshold1 in one million
Acute HQ = Maximum Hourly Concentration/Acute REL
Acute HQ = 0.007553
MaxHourly041Max Hourly0.41
Acute REL (Acrolein)0.19
albright.lst
1 CAL3QHCR - (DATED 95221)
CAL3QHCR PC (32 BIT) VERSION 3.1.1
(C) COPYRIGHT 1993-2001, TRINITY CONSULTANTS
Run Began on 2/02/2011 at 17:03:16
DATE : 02/02/2011
PAGE: 1
TIME : 17:03:16
JOB: ALBRIGHT RUN:
===================
General Information
===================
Run start date: 1/ 1/93 Julian: 1
end date: 12/31/93 Julian: 365
A Tier 2 approach was used for input data preparation.
The MODE flag has been set to P for calculating PM averages.
Ambient background concentrations are included in the averages below.
Site & Meteorological Constants
-------------------------------
VS = 0.0 CM/S VD = 0.0 CM/S Z0 = 0. CM ATIM = 60.
Met. Sfc. Sta. Id & Yr = 7801 93
Upper Air Sta. Id & Yr = 7801 93
Urban mixing heights were processed.
In 1993, Julian day 1 is a Friday.
The patterns from the input file
have been assigned as follows:
Pattern # 1 is assigned to Monday.
Pattern # 1 is assigned to Tuesday.
Pattern # 1 is assigned to Wednesday.
Pattern # 1 is assigned to Thursday.
Pattern # 1 is assigned to Friday.
Pattern # 1 is assigned to Saturday.
Pattern # 1 is assigned to Sunday.
Link Data Constants - (Variable data in *.LNK file)
-------------------
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH
BRG TYPE H W NLANES
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M)
(DEG) (M) (M)
------------------------*----------------------------------------*------------------------
----------------
1. 85 * 591353.9 ******** 591530.8 ******** * 191.
112. DP -6.1 42.7
2. 85 * 591530.8 ******** 591796.2 ******** * 277.
107. DP -6.1 42.7
3. 85 * 591796.2 ******** 592550.0 ******** * 822.
Page 1
albright.lst
113. DP -6.1 42.7
Trinity Consultants CAL3QHCR+ (Dated: 95221)
DATE : 02/02/2011
PAGE: 2
TIME : 17:03:16
JOB: ALBRIGHT RUN:
Receptor Data
-------------
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
-------------------------*-------------------------------------
1. * 591876.6 ******** 1.8
2. * 591921.6 ******** 1.8
3. * 591970.4 ******** 1.8
4. * 592014.9 ******** 1.8
5. * 592054.4 ******** 1.8
6. * 591865.6 ******** 1.8
7. * 591914.1 ******** 1.8
8. * 591967.9 ******** 1.8
9. * 592008.0 ******** 1.8
10. * 592046.7 ******** 1.8
11. * 591854.0 ******** 1.8
12. * 591903.9 ******** 1.8
13. * 591951.4 ******** 1.8
14. * 591998.7 ******** 1.8
15. * 592042.4 ******** 1.8
16. 250 ft * 591861.1 ******** 1.8
17. 250 ft * 591908.6 ******** 1.8
18. 250 ft * 591965.8 ******** 1.8
19. 250 ft * 592005.2 ******** 1.8
20. 250 ft * 592045.3 ******** 1.8
Model Results
-------------
Remarks : In search of the wind direction corresponding
to the maximum concentration, only the first
direction, of the directions with the same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as the maximum.
* MAXIMUM HOURLY CONCENTRATIONS WITH ANY AMBIENT BACKGROUND
CONCENTRATIONS (BKG) ADDED
* (MICROGRAMS/M**3)
* REC1 REC2 REC3 REC4 REC5 REC6
REC7 REC8 REC9 REC10
--------*---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
MAX+BKG * 0.121634E+01 0.961975E+00 0.866490E+00 0.804939E+00 0.747998E+00
0.526711E+00 0.510984E+00 0.507514E+00 0.480624E+00 0.458595E+00
- BKG * 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00
0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00
--------*---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
MAX * 0.121634E+01 0.961975E+00 0.866490E+00 0.804939E+00 0.747998E+00
0.526711E+00 0.510984E+00 0.507514E+00 0.480624E+00 0.458595E+00
WIND DIR* 105 105 296 296 296
101 101 101 101 97
JULIAN * 33 33 83 83 83
Page 2
albright.lst
10 10 10 10 98
HOUR * 6 6 6 6 6
6 6 6 6 6
Trinity Consultants CAL3QHCR+ (Dated: 95221)
DATE : 02/02/2011
PAGE: 3
TIME : 17:03:16
JOB: ALBRIGHT RUN:
* MAXIMUM HOURLY CONCENTRATIONS WITH ANY AMBIENT BACKGROUND
CONCENTRATIONS (BKG) ADDED
* (MICROGRAMS/M**3)
* REC11 REC12 REC13 REC14 REC15
REC16 REC17 REC18 REC19 REC20
--------*---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
MAX+BKG * 0.410046E+00 0.401437E+00 0.376083E+00 0.358158E+00 0.348568E+00
0.474565E+00 0.457291E+00 0.454279E+00 0.439627E+00 0.420855E+00
- BKG * 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00
0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00
--------*---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
MAX * 0.410046E+00 0.401437E+00 0.376083E+00 0.358158E+00 0.348568E+00
0.474565E+00 0.457291E+00 0.454279E+00 0.439627E+00 0.420855E+00
WIND DIR* 101 97 97 97 96
101 101 101 97 97
JULIAN * 10 98 98 98 28
10 10 10 98 98
HOUR * 6 6 6 6 6
6 6 6 6 6
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION OF 0.121634E+01 UG/M**3 OCCURRED AT RECEPTOR REC1 .
Trinity Consultants CAL3QHCR+ (Dated: 95221)
DATE : 02/02/2011
PAGE: 4
TIME : 17:04:25
JOB: ALBRIGHT RUN:
==============
Output Section
==============
NOTES PERTAINING TO THE REPORT
1. THE HIGHEST AVERAGE IN EACH OF THE FIRST TWO COLUMNS OF EACH TABLE BELOW ARE
SUFFIXED BY AN ASTERISK (*).
FOR PM OUTPUT, THERE IS ONLY ONE COLUMN AND ASTERISK FOR THE ANNUAL
AVERAGE/PERIOD OF CONCERN TABLE.
2. THE NUMBERS IN PARENTHESES ARE THE JULIAN DAY AND ENDING HOUR FOR THE
PRECEDING AVERAGE.
3. THE NUMBER OF CALM HOURS USED IN PRODUCING EACH AVERAGE ARE PREFIXED BY A C.
Page 3
albright.lst
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY AVERAGES.
FIVE HIGHEST 24-HOUR END-TO-END AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS IN MICROGRAMS/M**3
INCLUDING AMBIENT BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS.
Highest Second Highest Third Highest
Fourth Highest Fifth Highest
Rcptr Ending Ending Ending
Ending Ending
No. Conc Day Hr Calm Conc Day Hr Calm Conc Day Hr
Calm Conc Day Hr Calm Conc Day Hr Calm
1 0.116918E+00*(182,24) C 0 0.115184E+00*(181,24) C 0 0.114274E+00 (351,24) C
0 0.105015E+00 ( 38,24) C 0 0.103414E+00 (235,24) C 0
2 0.914093E-01 (182,24) C 0 0.900589E-01 (181,24) C 0 0.892522E-01 (351,24) C
0 0.886829E-01 (113,24) C 0 0.850380E-01 (232,24) C 0
3 0.787120E-01 (232,24) C 0 0.765394E-01 (113,24) C 0 0.729686E-01 (182,24) C
0 0.718936E-01 ( 58,24) C 0 0.714771E-01 (181,24) C 0
4 0.761358E-01 (232,24) C 0 0.721034E-01 (113,24) C 0 0.699714E-01 ( 58,24) C
0 0.672360E-01 (182,24) C 0 0.671006E-01 (244,24) C 0
5 0.742733E-01 (232,24) C 0 0.687688E-01 ( 58,24) C 0 0.687130E-01 (113,24) C
0 0.666497E-01 (244,24) C 0 0.661544E-01 (163,24) C 0
6 0.499703E-01 ( 58,24) C 0 0.446787E-01 (163,24) C 0 0.443992E-01 (219,24) C
0 0.439073E-01 (182,24) C 0 0.436081E-01 (232,24) C 0
7 0.485008E-01 ( 58,24) C 0 0.453628E-01 (163,24) C 0 0.437631E-01 (219,24) C
0 0.418608E-01 ( 28,24) C 0 0.413054E-01 (274,24) C 0
8 0.484049E-01 ( 58,24) C 0 0.465265E-01 (163,24) C 0 0.444953E-01 (274,24) C
0 0.437759E-01 (219,24) C 0 0.424731E-01 (167,24) C 0
9 0.468407E-01 ( 58,24) C 0 0.465817E-01 (163,24) C 0 0.460246E-01 (274,24) C
0 0.425584E-01 (167,24) C 0 0.425369E-01 (254,24) C 0
10 0.459873E-01 (274,24) C 0 0.457937E-01 (163,24) C 0 0.446755E-01 ( 58,24) C
0 0.424354E-01 (120,24) C 0 0.420405E-01 (167,24) C 0
11 0.398177E-01 ( 58,24) C 0 0.365467E-01 (163,24) C 0 0.360943E-01 (274,24) C
0 0.355515E-01 (122,24) C 0 0.351339E-01 ( 28,24) C 0
12 0.386665E-01 ( 58,24) C 0 0.365366E-01 (163,24) C 0 0.346617E-01 ( 28,24) C
0 0.346278E-01 (122,24) C 0 0.344960E-01 (219,24) C 0
13 0.352923E-01 ( 58,24) C 0 0.349710E-01 (163,24) C 0 0.333541E-01 (274,24) C
0 0.329015E-01 (167,24) C 0 0.327017E-01 ( 28,24) C 0
14 0.354274E-01 (163,24) C 0 0.339205E-01 (274,24) C 0 0.334169E-01 (167,24) C
0 0.331934E-01 ( 58,24) C 0 0.324198E-01 (254,24) C 0
15 0.364096E-01 (163,24) C 0 0.356839E-01 (274,24) C 0 0.343925E-01 (167,24) C
0 0.333270E-01 (254,24) C 0 0.327002E-01 (154,24) C 0
16 0.454264E-01 ( 58,24) C 0 0.412993E-01 (163,24) C 0 0.403289E-01 (219,24) C
0 0.393310E-01 ( 28,24) C 0 0.390339E-01 (274,24) C 0
17 0.441341E-01 ( 58,24) C 0 0.415025E-01 (163,24) C 0 0.397329E-01 (219,24) C
0 0.386295E-01 ( 28,24) C 0 0.377778E-01 (167,24) C 0
18 0.442022E-01 ( 58,24) C 0 0.430501E-01 (163,24) C 0 0.404633E-01 (274,24) C
0 0.400499E-01 (219,24) C 0 0.393611E-01 (167,24) C 0
19 0.433057E-01 (163,24) C 0 0.424909E-01 ( 58,24) C 0 0.421568E-01 (274,24) C
0 0.396870E-01 (167,24) C 0 0.395085E-01 (254,24) C 0
20 0.425702E-01 (163,24) C 0 0.424113E-01 (274,24) C 0 0.401069E-01 ( 58,24) C
0 0.393590E-01 (167,24) C 0 0.388956E-01 (254,24) C 0
THE HIGHEST ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS
IN MICROGRAMS/M**3
INCLUDING AMBIENT BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS.
Receptor Maximum Ending
Number Conc Day Hr Calm
1 0.407598E-01* (365,24) C 20
Trinity Consultants CAL3QHCR+ (Dated: 95221)
DATE : 02/02/2011
Page 4
albright.lst
PAGE: 5
TIME : 17:04:25
JOB: ALBRIGHT RUN:
THE HIGHEST ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS
IN MICROGRAMS/M**3
INCLUDING AMBIENT BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS.
Receptor Maximum Ending
Number Conc Day Hr Calm
2 0.328297E-01 (365,24) C 20
3 0.266585E-01 (365,24) C 20
4 0.246945E-01 (365,24) C 20
5 0.232855E-01 (365,24) C 20
6 0.152052E-01 (365,24) C 20
7 0.145511E-01 (365,24) C 20
8 0.144070E-01 (365,24) C 20
9 0.135703E-01 (365,24) C 20
10 0.125370E-01 (365,24) C 20
11 0.108218E-01 (365,24) C 20
12 0.102872E-01 (365,24) C 20
13 0.913063E-02 (365,24) C 20
14 0.858169E-02 (365,24) C 20
15 0.839209E-02 (365,24) C 20
16 0.130856E-01 (365,24) C 20
17 0.124967E-01 (365,24) C 20
18 0.124921E-01 (365,24) C 20
19 0.117775E-01 (365,24) C 20
20 0.108707E-01 (365,24) C 20
MAXIMUM 24-HOUR AVERAGED LINK CONTRIBUTIONS
IN MICROGRAMS/M**3
INCLUDING AMBIENT BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS.
Rcptr Total Ending Ambient Total Link Link
Link
No. Conc Day Hr Backgnd Link +1 +2
+3
1 0.116918E+00 (182,24) 0.0000E+00 0.116918E+00 0.154035E-04 0.107814E-03
0.116794E+00
2 0.914093E-01 (182,24) 0.0000E+00 0.914093E-01 0.126972E-04 0.563707E-04
0.913402E-01
3 0.787120E-01 (232,24) 0.0000E+00 0.787120E-01 0.190739E-01 0.363023E-01
0.233358E-01
4 0.761358E-01 (232,24) 0.0000E+00 0.761358E-01 0.171582E-01 0.296130E-01
0.293646E-01
5 0.742733E-01 (232,24) 0.0000E+00 0.742733E-01 0.147636E-01 0.248647E-01
0.346451E-01
6 0.499703E-01 ( 58,24) 0.0000E+00 0.499703E-01 0.370560E-02 0.974384E-02
0.365209E-01
7 0.485008E-01 ( 58,24) 0.0000E+00 0.485008E-01 0.292759E-02 0.972768E-02
0.358456E-01
8 0.484049E-01 ( 58,24) 0.0000E+00 0.484049E-01 0.215299E-02 0.957873E-02
0.366732E-01
9 0.468407E-01 ( 58,24) 0.0000E+00 0.468407E-01 0.187877E-02 0.875163E-02
0.362103E-01
10 0.459873E-01 (274,24) 0.0000E+00 0.459873E-01 0.114503E-03 0.531349E-02
0.405593E-01
11 0.398177E-01 ( 58,24) 0.0000E+00 0.398177E-01 0.531332E-02 0.506023E-02
0.294442E-01
12 0.386665E-01 ( 58,24) 0.0000E+00 0.386665E-01 0.435956E-02 0.579752E-02
0.285094E-01
13 0.352923E-01 ( 58,24) 0.0000E+00 0.352923E-01 0.376359E-02 0.561315E-02
Page 5
albright.lst
0.259155E-01
14 0.354274E-01 (163,24) 0.0000E+00 0.354274E-01 0.272082E-02 0.107439E-01
0.219626E-01
Trinity Consultants CAL3QHCR+ (Dated: 95221)
DATE : 02/02/2011
PAGE: 6
TIME : 17:04:25
JOB: ALBRIGHT RUN:
LINK CONTRIBUTION TABLES
MAXIMUM 24-HOUR AVERAGED LINK CONTRIBUTIONS
IN MICROGRAMS/M**3
INCLUDING AMBIENT BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS.
Rcptr Total Ending Ambient Total Link Link
Link
No. Conc Day Hr Backgnd Link +1 +2
+3
15 0.364096E-01 (163,24) 0.0000E+00 0.364096E-01 0.225878E-02 0.873789E-02
0.254129E-01
16 0.454264E-01 ( 58,24) 0.0000E+00 0.454263E-01 0.452196E-02 0.770177E-02
0.332026E-01
17 0.441341E-01 ( 58,24) 0.0000E+00 0.441341E-01 0.362275E-02 0.805694E-02
0.324544E-01
18 0.442022E-01 ( 58,24) 0.0000E+00 0.442022E-01 0.261336E-02 0.865700E-02
0.329318E-01
19 0.433057E-01 (163,24) 0.0000E+00 0.433057E-01 0.197957E-02 0.102328E-01
0.310933E-01
20 0.425702E-01 (163,24) 0.0000E+00 0.425702E-01 0.175225E-02 0.839524E-02
0.324227E-01
SECOND HIGHEST 24-HOUR AVERAGED LINK CONTRIBUTIONS
IN MICROGRAMS/M**3
INCLUDING AMBIENT BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS.
Rcptr Total Ending Ambient Total Link Link
Link
No. Conc Day Hr Backgnd Link +1 +2
+3
1 0.115184E+00 (181,24) 0.0000E+00 0.115184E+00 0.179228E-02 0.651251E-03
0.112740E+00
2 0.900589E-01 (181,24) 0.0000E+00 0.900589E-01 0.138378E-02 0.446299E-03
0.882288E-01
3 0.765394E-01 (113,24) 0.0000E+00 0.765394E-01 0.213370E-01 0.178314E-01
0.373710E-01
4 0.721034E-01 (113,24) 0.0000E+00 0.721034E-01 0.190617E-01 0.151050E-01
0.379367E-01
5 0.687688E-01 ( 58,24) 0.0000E+00 0.687688E-01 0.222830E-02 0.613803E-02
0.604024E-01
6 0.446787E-01 (163,24) 0.0000E+00 0.446787E-01 0.328132E-02 0.259348E-01
0.154626E-01
7 0.453628E-01 (163,24) 0.0000E+00 0.453628E-01 0.257725E-02 0.180222E-01
0.247633E-01
8 0.465265E-01 (163,24) 0.0000E+00 0.465264E-01 0.190715E-02 0.122386E-01
0.323807E-01
9 0.465817E-01 (163,24) 0.0000E+00 0.465817E-01 0.166150E-02 0.980171E-02
0.351185E-01
10 0.457937E-01 (163,24) 0.0000E+00 0.457937E-01 0.148915E-02 0.805996E-02
Page 6
albright.lst
0.362446E-01
11 0.365467E-01 (163,24) 0.0000E+00 0.365467E-01 0.479173E-02 0.258742E-01
0.588081E-02
12 0.365366E-01 (163,24) 0.0000E+00 0.365366E-01 0.379771E-02 0.177153E-01
0.150235E-01
13 0.349710E-01 (163,24) 0.0000E+00 0.349710E-01 0.323353E-02 0.133801E-01
0.183574E-01
14 0.339205E-01 (274,24) 0.0000E+00 0.339205E-01 0.550585E-03 0.152383E-01
0.181317E-01
15 0.356839E-01 (274,24) 0.0000E+00 0.356839E-01 0.368457E-03 0.102400E-01
0.250754E-01
16 0.412993E-01 (163,24) 0.0000E+00 0.412993E-01 0.398412E-02 0.261315E-01
0.111837E-01
17 0.415025E-01 (163,24) 0.0000E+00 0.415025E-01 0.314880E-02 0.182503E-01
0.201034E-01
18 0.430501E-01 (163,24) 0.0000E+00 0.430501E-01 0.227485E-02 0.125479E-01
0.282274E-01
19 0.424909E-01 ( 58,24) 0.0000E+00 0.424909E-01 0.227971E-02 0.821923E-02
0.319920E-01
20 0.424113E-01 (274,24) 0.0000E+00 0.424113E-01 0.172204E-03 0.690963E-02
0.353295E-01
Trinity Consultants CAL3QHCR+ (Dated: 95221)
DATE : 02/02/2011
PAGE: 7
TIME : 17:04:25
JOB: ALBRIGHT RUN:
LINK CONTRIBUTION TABLES
MAXIMUM ANNUAL AVERAGED LINK CONTRIBUTIONS
IN MICROGRAMS/M**3
INCLUDING AMBIENT BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS.
Rcptr Total Ending Ambient Total Link Link
Link
No. Conc Day Hr Backgnd Link +1 +2
+3
1 0.407598E-01 (365,24) 0.0000E+00 0.407598E-01 0.124061E-02 0.310988E-02
0.364093E-01
2 0.328297E-01 (365,24) 0.0000E+00 0.328297E-01 0.106283E-02 0.204060E-02
0.297263E-01
3 0.266585E-01 (365,24) 0.0000E+00 0.266585E-01 0.913689E-03 0.139783E-02
0.243470E-01
4 0.246945E-01 (365,24) 0.0000E+00 0.246945E-01 0.805774E-03 0.106528E-02
0.228235E-01
5 0.232855E-01 (365,24) 0.0000E+00 0.232855E-01 0.689905E-03 0.862326E-03
0.217333E-01
6 0.152052E-01 (365,24) 0.0000E+00 0.152051E-01 0.489416E-03 0.320400E-02
0.115117E-01
7 0.145511E-01 (365,24) 0.0000E+00 0.145510E-01 0.401968E-03 0.222713E-02
0.119220E-01
8 0.144070E-01 (365,24) 0.0000E+00 0.144070E-01 0.327728E-03 0.153421E-02
0.125451E-01
9 0.135703E-01 (365,24) 0.0000E+00 0.135703E-01 0.289370E-03 0.123283E-02
0.120481E-01
10 0.125370E-01 (365,24) 0.0000E+00 0.125370E-01 0.259547E-03 0.100753E-02
0.112699E-01
11 0.108218E-01 (365,24) 0.0000E+00 0.108218E-01 0.572380E-03 0.307985E-02
0.716960E-02
12 0.102872E-01 (365,24) 0.0000E+00 0.102871E-01 0.460295E-03 0.221101E-02
Page 7
albright.lst
0.761583E-02
13 0.913063E-02 (365,24) 0.0000E+00 0.913064E-02 0.389567E-03 0.166323E-02
0.707784E-02
14 0.858169E-02 (365,24) 0.0000E+00 0.858167E-02 0.331925E-03 0.131122E-02
0.693853E-02
15 0.839209E-02 (365,24) 0.0000E+00 0.839207E-02 0.286902E-03 0.105975E-02
0.704541E-02
16 0.130856E-01 (365,24) 0.0000E+00 0.130856E-01 0.522733E-03 0.316291E-02
0.939991E-02
17 0.124967E-01 (365,24) 0.0000E+00 0.124967E-01 0.428064E-03 0.225202E-02
0.981659E-02
18 0.124921E-01 (365,24) 0.0000E+00 0.124920E-01 0.341405E-03 0.156229E-02
0.105883E-01
19 0.117775E-01 (365,24) 0.0000E+00 0.117775E-01 0.301416E-03 0.126992E-02
0.102062E-01
20 0.108707E-01 (365,24) 0.0000E+00 0.108707E-01 0.268552E-03 0.103257E-02
0.956956E-02
Trinity Consultants CAL3QHCR+ (Dated: 95221)
DATE : 02/02/2011
PAGE: 8
TIME : 17:04:25
JOB: ALBRIGHT RUN:
CALM DURATION FREQUENCY
Hours of Frequency
Consecutive of
Calm Winds Occurrence (Julian day/hour ending) of Significant Occurrences
1 8 ( 4,12)( 30,12)( 82, 8)(176,15)(215, 8)(271,
7)(333,11)(343,13)
3 2 ( 61,18)(228,15)
6 1 ( 62,16)
Program terminated normally
Page 8
Summary
ResultsProject
Name:Albright
Way
Construction
and
Operation
s
Project
and
Baseline
Years:2016N/A
Results Transportation:4,016.073,437.63Area
Source:0.230.23
Electricity:2,579.012,579.01Natural
Gas:420.34420.34
Water
&
Wastewater:40.1640.16Solid
Waste:211.77211.77Agriculture:0.000.00
Off
‐
Road
Equipment:0.000.00
Refrigerants:0.000.00Sequestration:N/A0.00Purchase
of
Offsets:N/A0.00Total:7,267.576,689.13
Baseline
is
currently:
OFF
Baseline
Project
Name:
Go
to
Settings
Tab
to
Turn
On
Baselin
eUnmitigated
Project
‐
Baseline
CO2e
(metric
tons/year)
Mitigated
Project
‐
Baseline
CO2e
(metric
tons/year)
Project
‐
Baseline
CO2e
(metric
tons/year)
4,016.07
0.23
2,579.01
420.34
40.16 211.77
0.000.000.000.000.00
3,437.63
0.23
2,579.01
420.34
40.16 211.77
0.000.000.000.000.00
0.00500.001,000.001,500.002,000.002,500.003,000.003,500.004,000.004,500.00Transportation:Area
Source:Electricity:Natural
Gas:
Water
&
Wastewater:Solid
Waste:Agriculture:
Off
‐
Road
Equipment:
Refrigerants:
Sequestration:Purchase
of
Offsets:
UnmitigatedMitigated
Unmitigated
CO2
(metric
tpy)CH4
(metric
tpy)N2O
(metric
tpy)CO2e
(metric
tpy)%
of
Total
Baseline
CO2
(metric
tpy)CH4
(metric
tpy)N2O
(metric
tpy)CO2e
(metric
tpy)%
of
Total
Transportation*
:
4,016.0755.26%Transportation*
:0.00N/A
Area
Source:0.230.000.000.230.00%Area
Source:0.000.000.000.00N/A
Electricity:2,574.88
0.020.012,579.0135.49%Electricity:0.000.000.000.00N/A
Natural
Gas:419.260.040.00420.345.78%Natural
Gas:0.000.000.000.00N/A
Water
&
Wastewater:40.090.000.0040.160.55%Water
&
Wastewater:0.000.000.000.00N/A
Solid
Waste:1.5310.01N/A211.772.91%Solid
Waste:0.000.00N/A0.00N/AAgriculture:0.000.000.000.000.00%Agriculture:0.000.000.000.00N/A
Off
‐
Road
Equipment:0.000.000.000.000.00%Off
‐
Road
Equipment:0.000.000.000.00N/A
Refrigerants:N/AN/AN/A0.000.00%Refrigerants:N/AN/AN/A0.00N/ASequestration:N/AN/AN/AN/AN/ASequestration:N/AN/AN/AN/AN/APurchase
of
Offsets:N/AN/AN/AN/AN/APurchase
of
Offsets:N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
Total:
7,267.57100.00%Total:0.000.00%
*
Several
adjustments
were
made
to
transportation
emissions
after
they
have
been
imported
from
URBEMIS.
After
importing
from
URBEMIS,
CO2
emissions
are
converted
to
metric
tons
and
then
adjusted
to
account
for
the
"Pavley"
regulation.
Then,
CO2
is
converted
to
CO2e
by
multiplying
by
100/95
to
account
for
the
contribution
of
other
GHGs
(CH4,
N2O,
and
HFCs
[from
leaking
air
conditioners]
)
Finally,
CO2e
is
adjusted
to
account
for
th
low
carbon
fuels
rule.
Detailed
Results
Summary
ResultsProject
Name:Albright
Way
Scenario
C
Project
and
Baseline
Years:2016N/A
Results Transportation:2,426.752,426.75Area
Source:20.3920.39Electricity:2,555.862,555.86Natural
Gas:896.71896.71
Water
&
Wastewater:87.4687.46Solid
Waste:883.18883.18
Agriculture:0.000.00
Off
‐
Road
Equipment:0.000.00
Refrigerants:0.000.00Sequestration:N/A0.00Purchase
of
Offsets:N/A0.00Total:6,870.346,870.34
Baseline
is
currently:
OFF
Baseline
Project
Name:
Go
to
Settings
Tab
to
Turn
On
BaselineUnmitigated
Project
‐
Baseline
CO2e
(metric
tons/year)
Mitigated
Project
‐
Baseline
CO2e
(metric
tons/year)
Project
‐
Baseline
CO2e
(metric
tons/year)
2,426.75
20.39
2,555.86
896.71
87.46
883.18
0.000.000.000.000.00
2,426.75
20.39
2,555.86
896.71
87.46
883.18
0.000.000.000.000.00
0.00500.001,000.001,500.002,000.002,500.003,000.00Transportation:Area
Source:Electricity:Natural
Gas:
Water
&
Wastewater:Solid
Waste:
Agriculture:
Off
‐
Road
Equipment:
Refrigerants:Sequestration:Purchase
of
Offsets:
UnmitigatedMitigated
Summary
ResultsProject
Name:Albright
Way
Scenario
D
Project
and
Baseline
Years:2016N/A
Results Transportation:1,412.491,412.49Area
Source:20.3920.39Electricity:2,555.86
2,555.86
Natural
Gas:896.71896.71
Water
&
Wastewater:87.4687.46Solid
Waste:883.18883.18Agriculture:0.000.00
Off
‐
Road
Equipment:0.000.00
Refrigerants:0.000.00Sequestration:N/A0.00Purchase
of
Offsets:N/A0.00Total:5,856.095,856.09
Baseline
is
currently:
OFF
Baseline
Project
Name:
Go
to
Settings
Tab
to
Turn
On
BaselineUnmitigated
Project
‐
Baseline
CO2e
(metric
tons/year)
Mitigated
Project
‐
Baseline
CO2e
(metric
tons/year)
Project
‐
Baseline
CO2e
(metric
tons/year)1,412.49
20.39
2,555.86
896.71
87.46
883.18
0.000.000.000.000.00
1,412.49
20.39
2,555.86
896.71
87.46
883.18
0.000.000.000.000.00
0.00500.001,000.001,500.002,000.002,500.003,000.00Transportation:Area
Source:
Electricity:Natural
Gas:
Water
&
Wastewater:Solid
Waste:
Agriculture:
Off
‐
Road
Equipment:
Refrigerants:Sequestration:Purchase
of
Offsets:
UnmitigatedMitigated
INITIAL STUDY – 90-160 ALBRIGHT WAY AND 14600 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD
ATTACHMENT 3
ARBORIST REPORT
FOR
90-160 ALBRIGHT WAY AND 14600 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD
LOS GATOS
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PD-10-005
BY
DEBORAH ELLIS, MS
FEBRUARY 18, 2011
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 1 of 23
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
Joel Paulson, Senior Planner
Town of Los Gatos Community Planning Dept.
110 E. Main Street,
Los Gatos, CA 95031
February 18, 2011
Arborist Report for:
90-160 Albright Way and 14600 Winchester Boulevard, Los Gatos
Planned Development Application PD-10-005
Dear Joel:
I have reviewed the Tree Location Exhibit dated February 2011, the previous Arborist Report for the
site by McClenahan Consulting dated July 10, 2010, and the Memo from applicant Mike Keaney
dated February 4, 2011. I also spent several hours at the site on February 16, looking at the trees and
referring to the previous documents.
My assignment for this project is as follows:
1. Review the previous Arborist Report and Tree Location Exhibit (page 2)
2. Develop specific tree protection measures for those trees proposed to be retained (page 2)
3. Identify key specimen trees to retain on the site (if possible), and prepare
tree protection measures for these trees. (page 6)
4. Develop tree protection measures for any other tree that it may be possible to retain (page 10)
******************************
I certify that the information contained in this report is correct to the best of my knowledge, and that
this report was prepared in good faith. Thank you for the opportunity to provide service again.
Please call me if you have questions or if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Deborah Ellis
Deborah Ellis, MS.
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Certified Professional Horticulturist #30022
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #305
I.S.A. Board Certified Master Arborist WE-457B
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 2 of 23
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
1. Review of previous Arborist Report and Tree Location Exhibit:
There are 440 existing trees described in the previous arborist report. The majority these (391 trees)
are tentatively proposed for removal, as part of a “worst case scenario” for CEQA purposes. There
are three groups of trees along the perimeter of the property that the developer proposes to save
at this time, totaling 49 trees.
The condition of the great majority of the trees on this site is listed as “Fair” or less, as per the July 10
Arborist Report. Only one tree on the site is listed as having “Good” condition, and this is tree #283,
a 7-inch trunk diameter Chinese pistache tree. The next-best category of trees in terms of tree
condition is “Fair to Good”. There are 118 trees in this category, which is 27% of the entire tree
population. Although these “Fair to Good” trees are scattered throughout the site, the majority of
them are located in the west-central portion of the site including most of the trees that are
proposed to be saved along Winchester Boulevard. I have highlighted and labeled this area on the
Tree Location Exhibit Plan on the next page.
I did not recheck every tree and the tree data listed in the previous Arborist Report. Based upon
spending several hours at the site and referencing the information in the report on a dozen or so
trees, I can say that I agree with the tree condition ratings. The tree trunk diameters and tree sizes
listed also seem to be correct. In my opinion the Arborist Report by McClenahan is a good report
and it will be a useful tool in helping to make final decisions on which specific trees to save or
remove.
2. Develop specific tree protection measures for those trees proposed to be retained
a) The Town of Los Gatos General Tree Protection Directions are included on page 11. These
minimum standards will apply to all trees that will be retained on the site, and involve primarily
tree protection fencing. In these directions either 5 or 6-foot high chain link fencing is allowed.
In order to provide maximum protection for trees to be retained I require that only 6-foot high
chain link fencing be used.
b) In addition I have provided some Supplemental Tree Protection Specifications that address
construction zone/tree protection topics other than tree protection fencing; for example dealing
with tree roots, tree irrigation, pruning for construction clearance, etc. These Supplemental
Specifications begin on page 12.
c) There are 3 main groups of trees that are proposed to be saved; all located along the perimeter
of the project. I have labeled these trees as Groups A, B and C in the Tree Exhibit Location Plan
on the next page. I have also attached a separate, larger copy of this plan for your
convenience. To follow is a short description of each group, and the main tree protection
considerations for that group.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 3 of 23
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
Tree Location Exhibit Plan, February 2011 (with mark-ups by D. Ellis, 2/17/11)
A separate, larger copy of this plan is also enclosed
1) Group A on the southern property line adjacent to the existing residential area near Charter
Oaks Drive includes 17 trees (#124 – 132, 134 - 141): This row of trees includes mostly coast
redwoods with several deodar cedars and one red gum (#141). All trees are listed as having
“Fair” or less condition. Trunk diameters of the trees range from 8 to 25 inches, with most in
the 12 to 18 inch range. These trees serve as screen trees between adjacent properties.
There is a deep drainage swale between the trees and the adjacent property to the south.
This swale will make installing tree protection fencing on both sides of the trees difficult. Since
there will not be any construction on the neighboring property (and there may have to be a
perimeter construction fence along the property line anyway) the tree protection fencing
may be placed on the project (North) side and at each end of the tree row (East and West)
sides. Spacing will be tight between the tree protection fence and the existing buildings and
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 4 of 23
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
other improvements, but it can be done. Fencing should be placed as far from the tree
trunks as possible while still allowing demolition to proceed. After demolition is completed,
the tree protection fencing may need to be moved farther from the tree trunks; the setback
for proposed parking will be 15 feet from the property line. Before this location is finalized I
want to check and make sure this will be far enough from the trees. It is possible that some
trees may be recommended for removal if grading will be too close to the trunk. The final
tree protection fencing should be placed as far from the tree trunks as possible while still
allowing construction to take place. The project consulting arborist must assist in the fencing
location process in order to make sure that the fencing is not located unnecessarily close to
the tree trunks. This will depend somewhat on whether or not the existing swale will be filled
in between the trees and the proposed parking lot.
Group A trees to save, the
east end of the tree row with
red gum #141.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 5 of 23
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
2) Group B (Southwest corner of site, west of Group A, trees #25 – 28. 106, 107 and 113 – 116):
These10 trees include mostly Canary Island pines with trunk diameters greater than 18 inches.
There are also a few coast live oaks and one Aristocrat pear. Trunk diameters range from 7
to 23 inches. All of the trees are listed as having “Fair” or less condition. These trees are
located within or on the perimeter of an existing parking area, adjacent to a residential area
to the south. Recommendations for tree protection fencing are the same as for Group A
trees. I will also need to check the actual distances from tree trunks to improvements to
make sure all of the trees can actually be saved.
Group B trees to save.
Upper photo: The North end
of the tree row, with Canary
Island pine #108 in
foreground.
Lower photo: The South end
of the row with Canary Island
pine #28 at far right.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 6 of 23
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
3) Group C (Winchester Boulevard perimeter, along the railroad right-of-way, trees #324 and
326 – 346). There are 22 trees in this tree row; mostly redwoods and deodar cedars. The
applicant states that the majority of the site improvements will be in areas of the site that are
already developed with parking and other improvements, so it will be possible to save these
trees. Most of these trees are listed as having “Fair to Good” condition, a lesser number in
“Fair” condition and a few trees in “Fair to Poor” condition. Recommendations for tree
protection fencing are also the same as for Group A trees, and I will also need to check the
distances to improvements to make sure all of the trees can actually be saved.
3. Identify key specimen trees to retain on the site (if possible), and prepare tree protection
measures for these trees.
There are a lot of nice trees on this site, and although many of these trees are not perfect, they are
worth saving if possible. The best trees on site seem to be the large Canary Island pines, coast
redwoods and deodar cedars. There are also many nice smaller trees such as crape myrtles and
flowering pears. There are many similar trees to these and other species in various areas of the site,
Group C trees to save starting with Coast redwood #346 at the North end and progressing
South to #324.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 7 of 23
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
and it is difficult to differentiate between them in order to pick out “key” trees. So instead I
recommend trying to save as many trees in “Fair to Good” to “Good” condition as possible, with a
lesser number of trees in “Fair” condition. Trees listed in “Fair to Poor” condition should probably be
removed. Trees in “Poor” condition should definitely be removed. It is important to understand that
by “save” I mean designing improvements and landscaping around these trees so that the trees
can survive for a long time, for example 20 years or more. Do not try to fit the trees into too-small
spaces where they will quickly decline, die or fail. How much room does an individual tree need?
We never really know, but we (by we, I mean arborists including myself) have some guidelines that
we start with, for planning purposes. More on this in Section #4 of this report.
Some of the larger and most impressive trees on site (the numbers and locations of these trees are
included in the Tree Exhibit map in this report):
• Red oak #93: I think this is probably a pin oak (Quercus palustris) or another eastern U.S. oak
species. The tree’s trunk diameter is 16. 8 inches, overall tree size 50 feet tall by 20 feet wide,
“Fair to Good” condition, canopy overlaps with canopies of other trees. This is a very large
specimen for this oak in this area. Its relatively large size and fair to good condition on this site;
probably due to the large uncovered (no
buildings or pavement) ground surface
around the tree. I strongly encourage you to
design around this tree in order to save it.
Right now it is scheduled to be removed.
Root protection distances: This tree should
have a minimum of 7 feet undisturbed of soil
all around the trunk, including any over-
excavation margins required beyond
improvements. This means 7’ + 7’ + 2’ trunk
width = 16 foot diameter circle, with the trunk
in the center. Use this as a preliminary
planning guideline only – I will work with the
architects to come up with a final plan for
this tree. Distances to buildings or other
improvements that might interfere with the
canopy of this tree must also be taken into
consideration. Don’t locate a building close
to the tree so that a large amount of the
tree’s canopy will have to be removed – this
will ruin the aesthetic appeal of this fine oak.
On the Tree Exhibit Plan this oak may be
located far away enough from a proposed
parking lot and other improvements, if this
plan is implemented. This oak species is from
to the eastern United States and does require
summer irrigation in this area, as receives
now.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 8 of 23
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
• Valley oak #268: This is the largest tree on
the site in terms of trunk diameter, at 44.6
inches. It is 55 feet in height with a canopy
spread of 60 feet. Condition is listed as
“Fair”, and I would agree with this rating.
This is an impressive tree, and it is a native,
natural-growth oak that pre-existed site
development. So far this old oak has
survived less-than-ideal environmental
changes around it – such as an irrigated
landscape area filled with English ivy. The
reason for the tree’s survival is probably
due at least in part to the relatively large
uncovered ground-surface area in which is
it located. I would not make a final
decision to keep this tree until it is
evaluated in greater detail; especially to
see if there are any obvious root problems
close to the trunk (because the tree has
been located in an irrigated area). For
such an investigation a root collar
excavation1
would be necessary. I also
advise a thorough aerial inspection2
of the tree. If after these tests the tree is a candidate for
saving, the landscape area in which it is located should not be made any smaller width-wise,
and it should be at least as long as the dripline of the tree length-wise. Preferably the
uncovered ground area around the tree should be made larger. This tree really deserves a
“mini-park” around it in order to do it justice.
McClenahan listed this tree as in only “Fair” condition for a good reason – it is in “so-so”
condition and if there is something significantly wrong with it now or if it will be mistreated
through development and relandscaping in the future, then it should not be saved. Another
important consideration is whether or not this tree will be located in a frequently used high-
target area. Right now it is located alongside a proposed parking lot area and is shown to be
removed. If the tree remains, it should preferably be located in a large, unplanted, non-irrigated
and mulched area with none to infrequent irrigation. The tree should receive infrequent summer
irrigation for the first few years after relandscaping in order to wean it off the irrigation it is
receiving now.
1
Root collar excavation and examination: The root collar (junction between trunk and roots) is critical to whole-tree
health and stability. A root collar excavation carefully uncovers this area (with hand digging tools, water or pressurized
air). The area is then examined to assess its health and structural stability.
2
Aerial inspection: an experienced tree climber climbs into the tree and looks for and examines in greater detail, any
structural defects and concerns from within the tree canopy. Such defects may not be visible or may not be visible
enough from the ground in order to make a more accurate assessment of their significance. If reporting back to another
consulting arborist, the climber may notes, take photographs or perform certain tests (such as advanced decay detection
tests with certain decay detection instrumentation).
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 9 of 23
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
• Deodar cedars #118, 119 and 120: These
trees have trunk diameters of 26.6, 22.6 and
28.5 inches respectively, heights of 50, 48
and 45 feet and canopy spreads of 40, 35
and 45 feet. Functionally these trees are a
grove3
which should be preserved intact.
They are a very nice large group of trees of
a different species than most of the larger
trees on site, which are redwoods, Canary
Island pines and ash trees. The condition
rating for all three deodar cedars is “Fair”
with tree #119 and 120 listed as being
somewhat chlorotic4
. Chlorosis can be
caused by many things, but with these
trees it may something very minor. It may
be worthwhile to further evaluate these
trees and their present environment in more
detail, to determine whether it would be
worthwhile to try to save them. I would
start first with a root collar excavation. If
that checks out alright then I would
investigate soil pH5
in the planting area. If
the trees will remain, the landscape area in
which they are located should not be
reduced in size. The size of the present
landscape area probably has much to do
with the size and relatively good condition
of the trees.
3
Grove: is a group of trees that located close together that shelter each other from wind and the elements, having “knit”
canopies. If of the same species, there is usually root grafting between trees, which lends support from the ground, as
well as water and mineral sharing. Removal of one or some grove members could cause remaining members to be
unstable due to a reduction of previous shelter. Grove trees often have asymmetrical canopies when viewed as
individuals.
4
Chlorotic: a plant symptom of discolored (yellowish) plant tissue that should (usually) be green in color. The loss of
green color is due to the destruction of the green pigment chlorophyll, which can be due to many causes including certain
plant diseases. A high soil pH is a common cause of chlorosis in this area.
5
pH: a measure of acidity or alkalinity ranging from 1 to 14, on a logarithmic scale. A measurement of 1 is most acidic,
14 is most alkaline, and 7 is neutral. Soil pH influences the availability of plant nutrients. Most plants prefer soils with pH
between 6 and 7. Many acid soil adapted plants prefer soil pH in the 4 – 5 range, and plants adapted to alkaline
conditions prefer soil pH above 7, often 8 to 10. Few plants grow at the extreme ends of the pH scale (3 or less, or
greater than 10).
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 10 of 23
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
4. Develop tree protection measures for any other tree that it may be possible to retain
I have provided some specific tree protection measures for the Group A, B and C trees, as well as
for the specimen trees mentioned previously in Section 3. If other trees are retained I may develop
more specific measures for them as well, including minimum root and canopy protection zones. In
general however, the Town of Los Gatos Tree Protection Directions (page 11) must be followed, as
well as the more detailed Supplemental Tree Protection Specifications I have included beginning on
page 12.
For planning purposes I recommend keeping in mind the following information regarding tree
protection distances, which I use:
3 to 5 X DBH
No one can estimate and predict with absolute certainty how far a soil disturbance such as an excavation must
be from the edge of the trunk of an individual tree to affect tree stability or health at a low, moderate or
severe degree -- there are simply too many variable involved that we cannot see or anticipate. 3xDBH however,
is a reasonable “rule of thumb” minimum distance (in feet) any excavation should be from the edge of the trunk
on one side of the trunk. This is supported by several separate research studies including (Smiley, Fraedrich, &
Hendrickson 2002, Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories. DBH is trunk “diameter at breast height” (4.5 feet
above the ground). This distance is often used during the design and planning phases of a construction project
in order to estimate root damage to a tree due to the proposed construction. It tends to correlate reasonably
well with the zone of rapid taper, which is the area in which the large buttress roots (main support roots close
to the trunk) rapidly decrease in diameter with increasing distance from the trunk. For example, using the 3X
DBH guideline an excavation should be no closer than 4.5 feet from the trunk of an 18-inch DBH tree. Such
distances are guidelines only, and should be increased for trees with heavy canopies, significant leans, decay,
structural problems, etc. It is also important to understand that in actual field conditions we often find that
much less root damage occurs than was anticipated by the guidelines. 3xDBH may be more of an aid in
preserving tree stability and not necessarily long-term tree health. 5X DBH or greater is the “preferred”
minimum distance which should be strived for, and this distance or greater should probably be used when there
are multiple trenches on more than one side of the trunk. The roots beyond the zone of rapid taper form an
extensive network of long, rope-like roots one to two inches in diameter. These woody perennial roots are
referred to as transport roots because they function primarily to transport water and minerals. Maintaining a
5xDBH tree protection zone or greater around a tree will preserve more of these transport roots, which will
have less of an impact on tree health than if the excavation were closer to the trunk.
OTPZ (Optimum Tree Protection Zone)
OTPZ is the distance in feet from the trunk of the tree, all around the tree, that construction or other
disturbance should not encroach within. If this zone is respected, then chances of the tree surviving
construction disturbance are very good. This method takes into account tree age and the particular species
tolerance to root disturbance. Although there are no scientifically based methods to determine the minimum
distance for construction (for example, root severance) from trees to assure their survival and stability, there
are some guidelines that are often used in the arboricultural industry. The most current guideline comes from
the text, Trees & Development, Matheny et al., International Society of Arboriculture, 1998. The tree
protection zone calculation method in this text was used to obtain the OTPZ’s provided in this report. Due to
the crowded, constrained nature of many building sites it is often not be possible to maintain the OPTZ
distance recommended for many of the trees -- therefore I have also listed alternate distances of 3 and 5X
DBH (see paragraph above).
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 11 of 23
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
GENERAL TREE PROTECTION DIRECTIONS
From the Los Gatos Municipal Code, Sec. 29.10.1005 -- Protection of trees during
construction.
a) Protective tree fencing shall specify the following:
1) Size and materials: Six (6) foot high chain link fencing, mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized
iron posts, shall be driven into the ground to a depth of at least two (2) feet at no more than 10-foot
spacing. For paving area that will not be demolished and when stipulated in a tree preservation plan,
posts may be supported by a concrete base.
2) Area type to be fenced. Type I: Enclosure with chain link fencing of either the entire dripline area or
at the tree protection zone (TPZ), when specified by a certified or consulting arborist. Type II: Enclosure
for street trees located in a planter strip: chain link fence around the entire planter strip to the outer
branches. Type III: Protection for a tree located in a small planter cutout only (such as downtown): orange
plastic fencing shall be wrapped around the trunk from the ground to the first branch with 2-inch wooden
boards bound securely on the outside. Caution shall be used to avoid damaging any bark or branches.
3) Duration of Type I, II, III fencing. Fencing shall be erected before demolition, grading or construction
begins and remain in place until final landscaping is required. Contractor shall first obtain the approval of
the project arborist on record prior to removing a tree protection fence.
4) Warning sign. Each tree fence shall have prominently displayed an 8.5 x 11-inch sign stating:
"Warning—Tree Protection Zone-this fence shall not be removed and is subject to penalty according to
Town Code 29.10.1025".
b) All persons, shall comply with the following precautions:
1) Prior to the commencement of construction, install the fence at the dripline, or tree protection
zone (TPZ) when specified in an approved arborist report, around any tree and/or vegetation to be
retained which could be affected by the construction and prohibit any storage of construction materials or
other materials or vehicles inside the fence. The dripline shall not be altered in any way so as to increase
the encroachment of the construction.
2) Prohibit excavation, grading, drainage and leveling within the dripline of the tree unless
approved by the director.
3) Prohibit disposal or depositing of oil, gasoline, chemicals or other harmful materials within
the dripline of or in drainage channels, swales or areas that may lead to the dripline of a protected tree
4) Prohibit the attachment of wires, signs or ropes to any protected tree.
5) Design utility services and irrigation lines to be located outside of the dripline when feasible.
6) Retain the services of the certified or consulting arborist for periodic monitoring of the project
site and the health of those trees to be preserved. The certified or consulting arborist shall be present
whenever activities occur that pose a potential threat to the health of the trees to be preserved.
7) The director and project arborist shall be notified of any damage that occurs to a protected tree
during construction so that proper treatment may be administered.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 12 of 23
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
SUPPLEMENTAL TREE PROTECTION SPECIFICATIONS
(From Deborah Ellis, MS. Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist, 2/17/11)
1) GENERAL:
a Read and understand these entire Specifications prior to the beginning of any
work on site. Call the project arborist if you have any questions or concerns before any site
work begins.
b These Tree Protection Specifications Apply To Any Existing Tree On Site That Will
Not Be Removed And Will Be Within Or Near Any Area Where Demo Or
Construction Will Occur. This includes any tree that is not located in an area that is
completely fenced off from construction with a perimeter construction fence. If any portion of the
canopy of a tree outside the construction zone overhangs a perimeter construction fence, these
specifications shall apply to such trees as well.
c
The consulting arborist for this project may be Deborah Ellis or another consulting
arborist pre-approved by Deborah Ellis. The project arborist will be in charge of tree
protection site inspections and other arborist services on an as needed basis for the duration of
the project. The project arborist must be either an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA)
Board-Certified Master Arborist or an American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) Registered
Consulting Arborist.
d The general contractor or owner should arrange to hire laborers who’s specific job
it will be to carry out the tree protection work; for example installing (and moving if
necessary) tree protection fencing, obtaining and spreading mulch, watering trees, etc. Qualified
tree services (recommended by the project arborist) can do some of this work such as watering
trees (e.g. water jet irrigation), and other specialized tasks such as pruning. This recommendation
is designed to avoid the problem of not having the labor to do tree protection tasks as written in
these Specifications and also any additional work requested by the project arborist.
a
The contractor shall include a separate line item in their Schedule of Values for
Tree Protection
e Unexpected conditions occur and changes are necessary on all construction
projects. Such situations may necessitate that changes or modifications be made to these Tree
Protection Specifications. Any concerns or conflicts with these Specifications should be brought to
the attention of the project arborist immediately so that alternate methods may be agreed upon.
f
Notify the arborist as soon as there are changes in site and construction
management, for example a new site superintendent, a different construction management
company and/or contact, a different City planner working on the project, etc. The arborist must
always be provided with current contact information for the parties who are involved with the
project.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 13 of 23
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
2) DESIGN PHASE:
a Design The Site & Improvements so as to Stay as Far Away From Existing Tree
Trunks and Canopies as Possible. Use the least-damaging improvements possible when
working near trees, for example pier on grade beam foundation (with no excavation for grade
beam) instead of slab with concrete perimeter foundation, or a cantilevered foundation, or
pathways constructed on existing grade with little or no excavation and comprised of porous
material such as gold fines. Alterations of natural grade must ensure that water drains away
rather than toward tree trunks.
b
Landscaping should be compatible with existing trees. Refrain from rototilling within tree
driplines. Any planting within this area should be done by hand and not using power equipment
such as soil augers. Plants and new irrigation including irrigation trenching are best kept at least 5
to 10 feet away from the trunks of existing trees (or 3xDBH6
, whichever is greater), depending
upon the size and type of tree, and the environmental conditions. Farther is better. Some
established tree species should have no planting or irrigation in their vicinity, for example
California native oaks. Refrain from making any major changes to the present landscape
environment, as large mature trees often cannot adapt so such changes and may decline and die
over time because of them. Contact the project arborist for assistance in the landscape design
phase if necessary.
c
Underground utilities: Deborah Ellis has not reviewed the utility plans. Every attempt should be
made to keep underground utility lines outside tree protection zones. If any utility lines will pass
through tree protection zones, Deborah Ellis or the project arborist must review these plans and
prescribe any mitigation procedures that will reduce damage to trees such as tunneling below or
between roots to remain, air spade7
excavation of trenches, hand digging or a combination of such
methods. It utilities must pass through tree protection zones, the project arborist must be on site to
supervise this work and assist in dealing with roots. Abandoned pipes and utilities should be cut at
existing grade and not pulled out, if their removal would damage tree roots.
d
Bioswales are very “green” but they can also be very damaging to tree roots, which is
not green. Please do not locate bioswales near trees and especially not within tree protection
zones.
e Construction Vehicle Access: There should be a defined route for construction vehicles and
large equipment, in order to reduce damage to trees and other vegetation. Clearly show and label
6
DBH is tree trunk diameter in inches “at breast height”, measured at 4.5 feet above ground level. This is the forestry
and arboricultural standard measurement height that is also used in many tree-related calculations.
7
Air spade: a commercial grade, hand-held metal probe attached to a large air compressor by a hose. This equipment is
specialized, industrial equipment that is intended for use by trained professionals. Pressurized air is discharged from the
tip of the probe. The air is used to excavate soil away from items such as tree roots, or to dig trenches or remove soil
with minimal damage to tree roots (compared to traditional soil removal methods). Information for horticultural uses of
the air spade is available at on line at: http://www.air-spade.com/market_arboriculture.html. Pre-irrigation to soften the
soil a few days before is recommended, and is often done by the company that is providing the service. In addition it is
also helpful to use a pickaxe to loosen very hard surface soil before and often during the use of an air spade. Air spade
works is somewhat expensive, but it may be economical if a root collar or other excavation is extensive, difficult, the tree
species is very sensitive to root damage, if many roots must be exposed, the undersides of roots must be exposed, or
multiple excavations will occur. You may contact me for referrals to companies that provide this service.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 14 of 23
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
the construction vehicle route on the Tree Protection Plan as well as grading and other applicable
construction plans. Preferably there should be one entrance and one exit to the site.
f Designated Storage & Parking Areas: There must be designated storage and parking areas on
site, away from protected trees. Such areas must be shown on the Tree Protection Plan as well as
grading and other applicable construction plans.
g The existing trees that will be retained on the project site must be shown and numbered
(with the tree numbers used in the arborist report for this project) on all applicable
construction plans such as the general site plan, demo plan, grading/drainage/utility plan,
landscape and irrigation plans. Tree Protection Fencing locations for the trees must be shown on
the Demolition and Grading plans.
h These specifications must be included in their entirety on a separate, dedicated
plan sheet in the general plans. The plan sheet shall be entitled EXISTING TREE
PROTECTION.
3) PRE-DEMOLITION/CONSTRUCTION:
a
Pre-Demolition/Construction Meeting at the site shall be conducted with the project arborist,
the developer, and the general contractor. The general contractor is responsible to see that these
tree protection specifications are implemented and that all people working at the site are aware
and adhere to these specifications. A copy of these Specifications is to remain and be accessible
at the site at all times. Additional meetings on site with workers may be necessary and should be
organized with the project arborist. Tail-gate meetings may be recommended to include review of
unusual circumstances, conditions or procedures to be followed.
b
Irrigation. Make sure that any trees that will be near construction or demo disturbance are well
hydrated before any demo or construction work begins. Irrigate the trees if necessary
approximately 2 weeks before any work will begin if the soil is not moist to at least 12 inches
below the surface8
. This will help the trees go into the project strong and not drought-stressed, so
they will be better able to weather any damage they may experience. The frequency and amount
of water will depend upon the weather, the damage to the tree, and the soil moisture status. The
project arborist should provide directions for irrigation depending upon tree condition just prior to
construction, site conditions, weather and other factors. Be prepared to supply the trees with non-
recycled water from a water truck at least several times per week during the normally rainless
months, as well as if there is insufficient rain during the normal wet season.
c
Pruning for Site Access and Construction Clearance. Tree pruning should be as little as
possible, and only what is required to allow site access, demo and construction. An exception to
this would be pruning to mitigate an acute hazardous condition, which should always be done as
soon as possible. Aesthetic or other pruning can be done after the project has been completed so
do not mix this with site access or construction pruning. Prior any work begins on site perform
site access clearance pruning only. Do not do any construction clearance pruning until
improvements have been staked in the field, in order to avoid unnecessary pruning. Branches
8
At the Project Arborist’s discretion, such irrigation may include drought tolerant trees which should normally be “summer
dry” such as native California oaks, if they are expected to experience root damage during construction.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 15 of 23
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
that must be shortened should be cut back to appropriately sized lateral branches whenever
possible, and not to stubs. Use a qualified tree service with an ISA Certified Arborist on staff, in a
supervisory position for the work, and pre-approved by the project arborist. The tree pruner shall
follow the most current version of the arboriculture industry standards:
i) Tree Pruning Standards:
• Best Management Practices, Tree Pruning. 2008. International Society of
Arboriculture, PO Box 3129, Champaign, IL 61826-3129. 217-355-9411.
• ANSI Z1331 American National Standards for Tree Care Operations. 2006 Edition.
Secretariat: National Arborist Association, Inc. American National Standards Institute, 11
West 42nd St., New York, New York, 10036. (Covers safety).
• ANSI A300 Pruning Standards. 2008 Edition. Ibid. (Covers tree care methodology).
o If urgent pruning is necessary for immediate construction clearance this may be done
by the general or demo contractor. In this case a short stub should be left which can
be removed by a qualified tree service at a later time. Please consult with the project
arborist prior to such pruning.
d
Fencing (see also Town of Los Gatos General Tree Protection Directions, page 11.
i) The arborist must meet with the general contractor prior to any work beginning on site,
to discuss tree protection fencing requirements and to agree upon tree protection
fencing. The arborist must also inspect tree protection fencing after it has been
installed and before any work begins, and sign-off on the fencing before any work may
begin on site, including demolition. After inspection of the fencing the arborist must supply
a letter stating that the fencing is either adequate or inadequate. If the fencing is adequate,
work may begin on site. If the fencing is inadequate then directions to make the fencing
adequate will be included in the letter. Any changes to original tree protection fencing maps or
directions must be included in the letter from the arborist.
ii)
Install Tree Protection Fencing BEFORE any demolition or construction begins.
The area inside the fencing is termed the TPZ (Tree Protection Zone). In all cases place the
fencing as far from protected tree’s trunks as possible, in order to provide the maximum
amount of protected space for each tree or group of trees as well as future landscape areas in
general, while still allowing for site work to progress. The fencing shall not be taken down or
moved without the project arborist’s permission. The arborist should be on site during demo
near the trees and should also supervise any necessary work inside the fencing.
iii) Tree Protection Fencing and all Tree Protection Practices must also remain in
place and in effect during landscape installation to the greatest extent possible.
A great deal of damage can occur to trees during the landscaping phase of a project. Do not
remove fencing to begin landscape work until the project arborist approves fence removal or
moving. It is likely that some of the tree protection will need to remain in place during
landscaping. The arborist should be on site to supervise landscape work within the vicinity of
protected existing trees. The landscape contractor should meet on site with the project
arborist to review the Tree Protection Specifications and discuss how existing tree protection
will continue to be carried out during landscaping.
iv)
Four-foot high orange plastic fencing may be used for tree protection fencing in
certain areas where the terrain makes the use of the required cyclone fencing
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 16 of 23
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
difficult, or in certain other situations as approved by the project arborist. The
project arborist must pre-approve any plastic fencing locations. If plastic fencing is used, it
must be installed as follows:
(1) Metal T-posts shall be used as the fencing posts. These posts shall be driven at least 12
inches into the ground and shall extend up to the top of the 4-foot orange plastic fencing.
Stakes must be placed no further than 6 feet apart (closer if necessary to keep the fencing
taught). The plastic fencing must be attached to the metal posts with plastic wire ties –
one tie around fencing and post at the top, bottom and middle of the length of the post
above the ground. A top wire must be strung through the fencing and must loop around
near the top of the post to additionally stabilize the fencing.
v)
Tree Protection Fencing locations for the trees must be shown on the Demolition and
Grading plans.
vi) Durable neon-colored flagging tape can be woven through the top of the fence, or about
12 inches of orange plastic ski fencing can be attached to the top of the cyclone fencing to
increase visibility to vehicle operators.
vii) If it is not possible to fence off a particular tree, then the trunk of the tree must be
wrapped spirally with a commercial straw wattle roll from the ground up to at least the height
of the lowest branches or 10 feet, whichever is less. The wattling is then wrapped with orange
plastic fencing so that it covers the entire wattling. Meet with the project arborist to determine
how each tree will be specifically dealt with in this manner. Such trees also require ground
protection underneath as much of the dripline as possible as specified in item # 4.b.
viii) Alternate fencing for small areas: ¾ or 1” thick plywood, 4 or 5 feet tall can be supported
with an above-ground from constructed from 2x4” lumber, as tree protection for a small area
such as a cut-out planter in a paved area.
ix)
Fencing Phases & Locations:
x) Pre-Demo: Install this phase of tree protection fencing before any demolition begins. The
fencing shall be installed 1 to 2 feet beyond existing structures or pavement to be
removed (or slightly more if necessary to allow for work) required for each improvement.
In all cases place the fencing as far from protected tree’s trunks as possible, in order to
provide the maximum amount of protected space. For this particular project, the easiest
thing to do would be to fence off as much of the project from the trees, where this is
possible, instead of fencing off individual trees from construction. Of course, do fence off
individual trees or groups of trees, when necessary to protect them.
xi) Post-Demo, Pre-Construction: Move the fencing outward to 1 to 2 feet beyond proposed
structures or other improvement (or more if necessary to allow for work) required for each
improvement, otherwise at or beyond the dripline of the tree (or groups of trees),
whichever is greater. In all cases place the fencing as far from protected tree’s trunks as
possible, in order to provide the maximum amount of protected space the trees as well as
any additional future landscaping. As with pre-demo fencing, the fencing should enclose
as much of the site outside of the construction zone as possible, not just a small area
around the trunk, or the driplines of individual trees. You will need additional fencing for
this phase, since the fencing will have to enclose a larger area than for demo.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 17 of 23
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
xii) Trees located outside construction zone or on Neighboring Property. If any
portion of the canopy of a tree on adjacent property or on jobsite property overhangs the
construction zone and/or perimeter construction zone fencing, these specifications shall apply
to such trees as well. The portion of the canopy that overhangs the job site must be fenced off
at the dripline or as close to this distance as possible while allowing for construction work.
xiii) Tree Protection Signage shall be posted on the fencing every 25 feet or in each cardinal
direction (whichever is less), clearly proclaiming that there is to be no unauthorized work or
persons within the tree protection zone, no dumping of chemicals or storage of materials or
equipment, and who to contact regarding this. Use the template sign that I have provided.
Signs must be either laminated or metal. For more durable and reusable signs, you may send
the template and explanatory sheet (also available from me) to a sign company to have the
appropriate number of durable aluminum signs made for the project. Signs must be attached
to the fencing with plastic wire ties – 1 wire tie at each of the 4 corners.
e Mulching. No supplemental mulching is required for existing trees to remain on this project –
however; the existing natural topsoil, surface plant litter and live vegetation must remain in place
until landscaping, in order to protect the root system of the trees. No site clearing or grubbing
(e.g. scraping of surface of soil to remove vegetation and plant debris) shall occur except in the
distinct areas where improvements will be located. Depending upon tree and site conditions, the
project arborist may call for mulch material (tree trimming chippings from a local tree service) to be
delivered to the site and spread around trees as the project progresses.
4) DURING DEMO/CONSTRUCTION
a)
Except in the distinct areas where improvements will be located and soil disturbance is
necessary for construction, the existing natural topsoil, surface plant litter and live
vegetation must remain in place until landscaping, in order to protect the root system of
the trees. No site clearing or grubbing (e.g. scraping of surface of soil to remove vegetation and
plant debris) shall occur except in those areas approved for soil disturbance. Depending upon
tree and site conditions, the project arborist may call for mulch material (tree trimming chippings
from a local tree service) to be delivered to the site and spread around trees as the project
progresses.
b)
Unavoidable Vehicle Traffic within Tree Protection Zones: Where vehicles or equipment
must travel within tree protection zones, protection of the soil to reduce compaction must be
accomplished through one of the following:
i) Apply 6-12 inches of woodchip mulch to the area
ii) Lay ¾ inch thick plywood or 4 x 4 inch wood beams over a 4+ inch thick layer of mulch
iii) Apply 4 to 6 inches of gravel over a taut, staked geotextile fabric
iv) Placing commercial logging or road mats on top of a 4+ inch thick mulch layer
v) Note that stone, geotextile and mulch exceeding 4 inches in depth will need to be
removed after work in the area has been completed.
c)
Unavoidable foot traffic or worker access for construction within tree protection
zones: The ground surface should be cushioned with flakes taken from bales of hay and overlain
with ¾ or 1” thick sheets of plywood. Use at least 2 layers of flakes (or as many as needed to provide
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 18 of 23
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
a 4 to 6 inch height. Move this protection as needed to build the addition, but keep as much of this
protection in place as possible. Usually I specify 6-inches of mulch overlain by plywood, but the hay
bale flakes will provide a more uniform height and stable surface for the construction workers.
d) Do Not Dump Cement Tailings, Chemicals or Other Waste Products into any Future
Landscape Area, not just within tree protection zones. Preferably, have a
designated washout pit far from landscape areas.
e)
Liming of the soil for soil compaction is not allowed near trees. Liming is toxic to plant
roots! If there will be any liming on site consult with the project arborist long beforehand in order
to make sure that the lime is not anywhere near trees or other vegetation that is planned to be
saved. A very large lime-free buffer zone should be maintained between vegetation and liming.
f) Dealing with Roots that are exposed, must be removed or are damaged:
i) Covering Roots: Exposed roots 2-inches in diameter or larger within the Tree Protection
Zone shall be covered (either by backfilling or with other permanent covering) as soon as
possible. If possible spray uncovered exposed roots within one hour of uncovering with non-
recycled water to thoroughly moisten the roots and the surrounding soil. Trench walls must be
covered with draping at least 2 layers of non-synthetic burlap or bed sheets or carpet sections
(carpet surface facing roots) or cardboard over the upper 3 feet of trench walls. The covering
materials must be kept wet until backfilled to reduce evaporation from trench walls. Horizontal
cuts or root exposure on the soil surface: Spray with water within 1 hour of uncovering. If
possible spread mulch over the exposed surface and wet the mulch thoroughly with water
after spreading. Alternatively two or more layers of non-synthetic burlap, carpet sections,
cardboard or other material approved by the Project Arborist may be used for soil covering.
ii) Cutting Roots: Damaged roots 2-inches in diameter or larger shall be cut back to undamaged
root tissue whenever possible and practical. Damaged roots less than 2 inches in diameter in
the Tree Protection Zone may (and are encouraged) to be cut back to undamaged tissue.
Damaged roots 4 inches or greater in diameter may not be cut without the Project Arborist’s
approval – try to tunnel underneath or otherwise preserve these roots if possible. Exposed
roots that are not damaged but must be removed follow the same procedures as above. Root
cutting should be done with sharp tools, at a right angle and as close to the soil line as
possible. Cut back to a lateral root when possible when this will not increase the extent of root
loss or damage. It is strongly recommended that the Project Arborist (with their own root
cutting equipment) be on site during these times to assist with root assessment and cutting
and to document and make recommendations regarding root damage.
(1) Place all cut root sections in a pile near where the roots have been cut, so the Project
Arborist can review and document.
(2) Sometimes less root damage will occur if roots are precut 6 to 12 inches beyond the
planned excavation. Specialized root-pruning equipment such as a Vermeer™ or Dosco™
root pruner machine can be used. If roots are not precut, then encountered roots that
must be removed must be cut cleanly and at a right angle if possible. If you are uncertain
about the size or status of roots and what to do about them, contact the Project Arborist
for assistance.
(3) Methods of root pruning (in descending order of preference):
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 19 of 23
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
(a) Soil excavation using (1) air spade or pressurized water (hydro-excavation)9
(b) Hand digging with hand tools. Followed by selective root cutting, and leaving roots
intact (digging underneath) when possible.
(c) Using a root cutting machine (e.g. Dosco™ or Vermeer™ Root Pruner) cutting
along predetermined line on the soil surface. These machines cut roots cleanly, but
indiscriminately.
(d) Mechanically excavating (e.g. with trencher or backhoe) and hand pruning what is
left of roots. Preferably use backhoe, work slowly and have ground person cleanly cut
roots as soon as possible after encountered.
(4) The following root cutting tools are mandatory for the contractor:
(a) Round-blade shovel
(b) Large mattock
(c) Tree pruning saws designed for root cutting
(d) Pruning loppers with 1-inch diameter capacity
(5) The following root cutting tools are recommended for the contractor
:
(a) Hand mattock
(b) Hand trowel shovel
(c) Recipro-saw with wood cutting blades (especially pruning blades – have several
new blades on hand)
(d) Concrete circular saw (rock or root cutting saw, e.g. Stihl TS-400 with a 12-inch
blade, preferably carbon or diamond-tipped – start with a new blade and have extra
blades on hand).
(e) Chain saws (for large roots, e.g. over 4 inches in diameter start with a new chain and
have extra chains on hand)
iii) Management of construction activities that impact roots:
(1) If heavy equipment is used for grading, a ground person (preferably the project Arborist)
listens and watches for roots as does the equipment operator. When roots are
encountered that must be removed, grading stops and the roots are cut right away rather
than tearing them back toward the trunk by continuing to operate the heavy equipment. If
hand digging is used for grading the same procedure is followed. Use appropriate
tools for the root(s) in question. In order to properly cut roots you may have to carefully
dig back into the soil by hand with a shovel, hand trowel or mattock behind the root, so
have these tools on hand as well. Digging back behind or underneath roots may be
necessary in order to have room to operate the saw and cut the root. Grade cuts must be
kept moist by spraying frequently with water until they are covered or backfilled.
(2) Trench excavations: must be dug by hand, air spade or by mechanically tunneling under
roots within the area underneath the canopy of trees or the 3xDBH distance for that tree,
whichever is greater. Any exceptions to this requirement require written permission from
the Project Arborist.
(3) When mechanical tunneling (boring) is substituted for open trenching, maintain the
following depths per trunk DBH in Table 1 below. The nearest edge of the excavation for
launching and recovery pits must be located a minimum of 3xDBH distance from the edge
9
Hydro-excavation requires that the soil/water slurry be vacuumed up and placed somewhere. A temporary holding area
can be constructed with double-stacked railroad ties lined with polyethylene plastic. The slurry can be left to dry and
then picked up more easily.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 20 of 23
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
of the trunk of the tree. Less root damage will occur if the tunnel is located directly
underneath the trunk versus to the side of the trunk.
Table 1
4) When using a backhoe to remove soil near trees: The backhoe or other equipment must sit on
existing pavement (if available) and work backwards so as to remain on the pavement or
otherwise outside tree protection zones, or at least as far away from tree trunks as is possible.
Work very slowly with the backhoe, removing soil in no greater than 6 inch lifts, and have 2
workers on the ground with shovels and a large and small mattock (preferably one of the
workers is the Project Arborist) watching for roots. The backhoe operator should “feel” for
roots as well. As roots are uncovered and/or contacted the ground workers cut roots cleanly
with a saw as directed in item #4.c. above
5) For basement or underground garage excavations use soil nailing and shotcrete construction to
avoid over-excavation.
6) Structure demolition:
structures should be collapsed inward and/or away from adjacent trees.
Demolition equipment must sit outside tree protection zones.
7) Pavement removal: This may be done with a backhoe if done carefully so as not to damage the
trunk of the tree, and to disturb the roots of the tree as little as possible. The backhoe or other
equipment must sit on existing pavement and work backwards so as to remain on the pavement
or otherwise outside tree protection zones. Alternatively, pavement may be broken into
manageable pieces (e.g. by hand with jackhammer) and hand placed onto a loader. Where roots
larger than 2 inches in diameter have grown into the existing base course material, use the
existing material as the new material and do not remove and replace it.
8) Trees to be removed: Trees to be removed must be removed without damaging trees that will
remain. If tree canopies are knit together (branches from more than one tree intermingle
with each other) then the demo contractor may NOT remove these trees – they must instead
be removed by a qualified tree service that will cut the trees down carefully in order to avoid
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 21 of 23
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
damage to adjacent trees. If trees to be removed are far away from trees that will remain,
the demo contractor may remove these trees by pulling or pushing them over as long as
roots or aboveground portions of nearby remaining trees will not be damaged. Alternatively grind
the stumps of trees to be removed to 12 inches below grade, again if this grinding will not be near
trees that will remain. If trees to be removed are close to trees that will remain then do not push
or pull over the tree or grind the stump, but rather cut the trunk to a stump that is as flush with the
ground as possible. The method of tree removal should be agreed upon at the site on a tree by
tree basis between the Project Arborist and contractor prior to any tree removals.
9) Damage to trees
: Any damage or injury to trees shall be reported within 6-hours to the Project
Arborist, if applicable. All mechanical or chemical injury to branches, trunk or to roots over 2-
inches in diameter shall be reported in the monthly Tree Protection Inspection Report. In the
event of injury, the Project Arborist shall prescribe mitigation measures such as:
• Root injury: Bark or trunk wounding: Current bark tracing and treatment methods shall be
performed by a qualified tree care specialist within two days.
• Scaffold branch or leaf canopy injury: Remove broken or torn branches back to an
appropriate branch capable of resuming terminal growth within five days. If leaves are heat
scorched from equipment exhaust pipes, consult the Project Arborist within 6 hours.
• Penalty for damage to street trees: In the event that street trees or their roots have been
damaged, the contractor shall be subject to the penalty rate of $100.00 per inch of damage
Measurement of the damage shall be the width of the wound measured across the grain at
the widest point. Penalty fee shall be paid to the Town and deposited to the general fund as
required.
5) OTHER:
a
No herbicides are allowed to be used underneath pavement or in any other area on site.
b
Dust Control Program. During periods of extended drought, wind or grading, spray wash trunk,
limbs and foliage to remove accumulated construction dust. The Project Arborist may request that
this be done at their discretion.
c
Trees shall not be fertilized before, during or after the construction process unless
specifically prescribed by the Project Arborist. Most fertilizer applications to established trees in
this area are unnecessary and often cause more harm than good. For example, nitrogen increases
plant metabolism and can put additional stress on trees that are already under stress from site
(environment) changes and root damage such as commonly occurs during construction projects.
Fertilization can also promote unnecessary growth of foliage which removes energy reserves from
roots and increases the tree water requirement. Fertilizers are salts that increase the osmotic
potential of the soil and can magnify drought stress injury to plants.
d
Moving/Transplanting Trees:
i) Use a qualified tree moving service pre-approved by the Project Arborist. The tree moving
service should irrigate the trees thoroughly 1 to 2 weeks prior to digging, move and replant the
trees, construct an 8-inch high water berm 12 inches beyond the edge of the newly planted tree
rootballs, irrigate the transplanted trees thoroughly after moving by hand with a hose and hose-
end watering wand, set up a temporary drip irrigation system for the newly planted trees, install a
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 22 of 23
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
4 inch depth of coarse wood chip mulch within the planting hole, and be hired by the contractor or
to inspect and maintain the trees during the duration of construction and until landscaping is
completed.
ii) If possible, it will assist the tree’s establishment in its new location to pre-cut roots 6 to 12
inches inside the root ball that will be dug when the tree is planted. Precutting should
preferably be done about 6 month prior to digging, but no later than 3 months prior to digging.
iii) If trees will be stored prior to planting there must be a designated storage area for the
trees on site, where non-recycled water is available. The trees must be fenced off (as a group if
necessary or as individual trees) from construction as per the previous fencing directions with the
addition that the fencing must be placed outside the dripline of the tree(s). During storage and
preferably at planting orient the tree in the same direction as it was positioned in the landscape.
To assist proper orientation draw a red `N’ (for North) with a construction crayon on the trunk of
the tree.
iv) If the trees will be planted immediately after digging, tree root collars must remain at the
same elevation above grade as existed prior to digging. Immediately after replanting into the
landscape construct an 8-inch high water berm 12 inches beyond the edge of the newly planted
tree rootball, irrigate the transplanted tree thoroughly after moving by hand with a hose and hose-
end watering wand, set up an adequate irrigation system for the newly planted tree and install a 4
inch depth of coarse wood chip mulch within the planting hole.
v) Tree protection fencing must be placed beyond the planting hole and also beyond the canopy
of the replanted tree.
6) TREE PROTECTION SUPERVISION
a
Tree Protection Inspections & Documentation: The Project Arborist must supervise any work
within the tree protection zone, or when roots or branches of the tree are encountered or are
expected to be encountered – whether or not these are within or above the TPZ. The Project Arborist
will inspect the site for tree protection specification compliance at least monthly from prior to
demolition until immediately after construction is completed. Immediately after each tree protection
inspection an inspection report should be submitted to the Project Manager for distribution. The
inspection report shall include status of the following:
i) Inspector name and contact information
ii) Date and time of inspection:
iii) Date of last inspection
iv) Reason for inspection
v) Weather (approximate temperature, any rainfall, etc.)
vi) Current demolition or construction work on site
vii) Additional demolition or construction work completed since last inspection
viii) Tree protection fencing status (including tree protection signage)
ix) Mulching status (if required)
x) Tree work done within last inspection period (pruning, irrigation, etc.)
xi) Grading, trenching, excavations, cut or exposed roots, root recutting and protection
xii) Other
b The following Project Arborist site inspections are mandatory and must be documented as
per the items listed in Tree Protection Inspections & Documentation, item 6.a. above:
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 23 of 23
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
i) Tree Protection Fencing. The project contractor and City Planning Department planner
assigned to the project shall be in receipt of a written statement from the Project Arborist verifying
that he/she has conducted a field inspection of the trees and that the protective tree fencing is in
place.
ii) Pre-Construction Meeting. Prior to commencement of demolition or construction, the Project
Arborist shall conduct a pre-demolition/construction meeting to discuss tree protection with the
site superintendent, grading equipment operators and the owner’s representatives.
iii) Inspections of Rough Grading or Trenching. The Project Arborist shall perform an inspection
during the course of rough grading adjacent to the Tree Protection Zone to ensure trees will not
be injured by compaction, but or fill, drainage and trenching, and if required, inspect tree wells,
drains and special paving. The contractor shall provide the Project Arborist at least 48 hours
advance notice of such activity.
iv) Monthly General Tree Protection Inspections: The Project Arborist shall perform monthly
inspections to monitor changing site and tree condition. These inspections should preferably be
unannounced. The City Planning Department planner assigned to the project, the general
contractor and the job superintendent shall be in receipt of the monthly inspection reports
containing status of the topics listed in item 6.a. above.
v) Special Activity within the Tree Protection Zone. Work within this area requires the direct
onsite supervision of the Project Arborist.
7) Enclosures:
a Tree Protection Sign Template (D. Ellis)
b Form letter to order metal signs from a sign company
8) References:
a Arboriculture – Integrated Management of Landscape Trees, Shrubs & Vines, 4th
edition.
Harris et al. Prentice Hall. 2004.
b Tree Technical Manual. Standards & Specifications. City of Palo Alto. Palo Alto Municipal
Code, Chapter 8.10030. Dave Dockter, June 2001 (First edition). Palo Alto Department of
Planning & Community Environment. Available online at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=6436
c Pruning Standards:
i) Best Management Practices, Tree Pruning. 2008. International Society of Arboriculture,
PO Box 3129, Champaign, IL 61826-3129. 217-355-9411
ii) ANSI Z133.1 American National Standards for Tree Care Operations. 2006 Edition.
Secretariat: National Arborist Association, Inc. American National Standards Institute, 11
West 42nd St., New York, New York, 10036.
iii) ANSI A300 Pruning Standards. 2008 Edition. Ibid.
d Trees & Development. Matheny et al. International Society of Arboriculture. 1998.
e The Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th edition. Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers.
International Society of Arboriculture. 2000.
f Species Classification and Group Assignment, Western Chapter of the International Society
of Arboriculture, 2004.
INITIAL STUDY – 90-160 ALBRIGHT WAY AND 14600 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD
ATTACHMENT 4
ACOUSTICAL ASSESSMENT
ALBRIGHT WAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
BY
RBF CONSULTING
MARCH 2011
Albright Way Development Project
ACOUSTICAL ASSESSMENT
Consultant:
RBF CONSULTING
14725 Alton Parkway
Irvine, California 92618
Contact: Mr. Eddie Torres, INCE, REA
Director of Technical Studies
949.855.3612
March 31, 2011
JN 40‐100419
Albright Way Development Project
Acoustical Assessment i March 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................1
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT SUMMARY...................................................................2
1.1 Project Location................................................................................................................2
1.2 Project Characteristics......................................................................................................2
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF NOISE METRICS....................................................................................6
2.1 Standard Unit of Measurement......................................................................................6
2.2 Health Effects of Noise....................................................................................................6
3.0 LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, AND STANDARDS.....................................11
3.1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.......................................................................11
3.2 California Environmental Quality Act........................................................................11
3.3 Local Jurisdiction............................................................................................................12
4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS.......................................................................................................18
4.1 Noise Measurements.....................................................................................................18
4.2 Sensitive Receptors.........................................................................................................18
4.3 Existing Noise Levels.....................................................................................................20
5.0 POTENTIAL ACOUSTICAL IMPACTS...............................................................................22
6.0 REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................................43
6.1 List of Preparers..............................................................................................................43
6.2 Documents.......................................................................................................................43
6.3 Software/Websites..........................................................................................................44
APPENDIX A – NOISE MEASUREMENT SHEETS
APPENDIX B – MODELING DATA
Albright Way Development Project
Acoustical Assessment ii March 2011
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 – Regional Vicinity....................................................................................................................3
Exhibit 2 – Local Vicinity..........................................................................................................................4
Exhibit 3 – Conceptual Site Layout..........................................................................................................5
Exhibit 4 – Common Environmental Noise Levels...............................................................................7
Exhibit 5 – Noise Measurement Locations...........................................................................................19
Exhibit 6 – On‐Site Sensitive Receptors................................................................................................30
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 – Noise Descriptors......................................................................................................................8
Table 2 – Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments........................................13
Table 3 – Outdoor Noise Limits.............................................................................................................13
Table 4 – Noise Measurements...............................................................................................................18
Table 5 – Sensitive Receptors..................................................................................................................20
Table 6 – Existing Traffic Noise Levels.................................................................................................21
Table 7 – Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment....................................25
Table 8 – Traffic Noise Levels ................................................................................................................27
Table 9 – Forecast Year Traffic Noise Levels .......................................................................................28
Table 10 – On‐Site Noise Levels ............................................................................................................31
Table 11 – Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment....................................................34
Table 12 – Cumulative Noise Scenario .................................................................................................40
Albright Way Development Project
Acoustical Assessment iii March 2011
DEFINITIONS OF COMMONLY USED TERMS IN NOISE CONTROL
The definitions that follow are in general agreement with those contained in publications of
various professional organizations, including the American National Standards Institute
(ANSI); the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM); the American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and Air‐Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE); the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO); and the International Electrotechnical Commission
(IEC).
TERMINOLOGY
acoustic; acoustical: Acoustic is usually used when the term being qualified designates
something that has the properties, dimensions, or physical characteristics associated with sound
waves (e.g., acoustic power); acoustical is usually used when the term which it modifies does not
explicitly designate something that has the properties, dimensions, or physical characteristics of
sound (e.g., acoustical material).
ambient noise: The all‐encompassing noise associated with a given environment at a specified
time, usually being a composite of sound from many sources arriving from many directions,
near and far; no particular sound is dominant.
attenuation: The decrease in level of sound, usually from absorption, divergence, scattering, or
the cancellation of the sound waves.
average sound level (Leq): The level of a steady sound which, in a stated time period and at a
stated location, has the same A‐weighted sound energy as the time‐varying sound.
Unit: decibel.
A‐weighted sound level (LA): The sound level measured with a sound‐level meter using A‐
weighting. Unit: decibel (dBA).
background noise: The total noise from all sources other than a particular sound that is of
interest (e.g., other than the noise being measured or other than the speech or music being
listened to).
decibel (dB): A unit of level which denotes the ratio between two quantities that are
proportional to power; the number of decibels correspond to the logarithm (to the base 10) of
this ratio. [In many sound fields, the sound pressure ratios are not proportional to the
corresponding power ratios, but it is common practice to extend the use of the decibel to such
cases. One decibel equals one‐tenth of a bel.]
equivalent continuous sound level (average sound level) (Leq): The level of a steady sound
which, in a stated time period and at a stated location, has the same A‐weighted sound energy
as the time‐varying sound. Unit: decibel (dBA).
Albright Way Development Project
Acoustical Assessment iv March 2011
frequency (ƒ): Of a periodic function, the number of times that a quantity repeats itself in one
second, i.e., the number of cycles per second. Unit: hertz (Hz).
noise: Any disagreeable or undesired sound, i.e., unwanted sound.
noise level: Same as sound level. Usually used to describe the sound level of an unwanted
sound.
noise reduction (NR): The difference in sound pressure level between any two points along a
path of sound propagation.
sound: (1) A change in air pressure that is capable of being detected by the human ear.
(2) The hearing sensation excited by a change in air pressure.
sound level: Ten times the logarithm to the base 10 of the square of the ratio of the frequency‐
weighted (and time‐averaged) sound pressure to the reference sound pressure of 20
micropascals. The frequency‐weightings and time‐weighting employed should be specified; if
they are not specified, it is understood that A‐frequency‐weighting is used and that an
averaging time of 0.125 is used. Unit: decibel (dBA).
Albright Way Development Project
Acoustical Assessment v March 2011
SYMBOLS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND ACRONYMS
ADT Average Daily Traffic
ANSI American National Standards Institute
AM Ante Meridiem
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
dB decibel
dBA A‐weighted decibel
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
INCE Institute of Noise Control Engineering
Ldn average day/night sound level
Leq equivalent sound level
Lmax maximum noise level
Lmin minimum noise level
Ln exceedance level
MPH miles per hour
PM Post Meridiem
RCNM Roadway Construction Noise Model
Albright Way Development Project
Acoustical Assessment 1 March 2011
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this Acoustical Assessment is to evaluate potential short‐ and long‐term noise
impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed Albright Way Development Project
(project). The project is located in the Town of Los Gatos (Town), along Albright Way,
southeast of the State Route 85 (SR‐85) and Winchester Boulevard interchange.
The project proposes a Planned Development zoning that will all for flexibility in the ultimate
mix of land uses on the site. The project may consist of office alone or a mix of office and high‐
density /senior residential units. As currently proposed, the project could include up to a
maximum of 550,000 square feet of office space, or a combination of less office space with
residential uses. Residential uses could include up to a maximum of 516 high‐density dwelling
units or 600 senior residential uses. This Acoustical Assessment evaluates Scenario 1 as
identified in the March 17, 2011 Albright Way Development Traffic Impact Analysis. Scenario 1
consists of the replacement of 250,000 square feet of existing office park buildings with new
office buildings totaling 550,000 square feet. Under Scenario 1, the new office buildings would
provide an additional 300,000 square feet of office space and result in additional 3,126 daily
vehicle trips. Three parking structures are also proposed under this Scenario. As noted, the
Planned Development zoning will provide flexibility for mixed use scenarios, provided that the
noise impacts of those scenarios are not substantially more severe than the noise impacts of
Scenario 1.
Temporary Impacts. Based upon the results of the analysis, construction activities would be
perceptible at nearby sensitive receptors. However, the Town’s Municipal Code exempts
construction activities during permitted hours. Implementation of the recommended mitigation
measures would further reduce short‐term noise impacts. Temporary noise impacts would be
less than significant for each scenario.
Long‐Term Impacts. The analysis has concluded that project implementation would result in less
than significant impacts in regard to mobile and stationary sources for each scenario.
Cumulative Impacts. The proposed project would increase traffic noise levels on local roadways
when comparing the “Existing” to “Cumulative With Project” scenario. However, the proposed
project would result in less than significant cumulative impacts to noise levels along local
roadway segments for each scenario.
Albright Way Development Project
Acoustical Assessment 2 March 2011
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT SUMMARY
The purpose of this Acoustical Assessment is to evaluate potential short‐ and long‐term noise
impacts resulting from implementation of the Albright Way Development Project (project),
located in the Town of Los Gatos (Town).
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The project is located in the Town of Los Gatos, California; refer to Exhibit 1, Regional Vicinity.
Specifically, the project site is located along Albright Way, southeast of the State Route 85 (SR‐
85) and Winchester Boulevard interchange; refer to Exhibit 2, Local Vicinity Map.
1.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
The project proposes a Planned Development zoning that will all for flexibility in the ultimate mix of
land uses on the site. The project may consist of office alone or a mix of office and high‐density
/senior residential units. As currently proposed, the project could include up to a maximum of
550,000 square feet of office space, or a combination of less office space with residential uses.
Residential uses could include up to a maximum of 516 high‐density dwelling units or 600 senior
residential uses. An evaluation of each of the potential land use scenarios indicates that the
development of the project site as all office uses would result in the greatest amount of traffic being
added to the roadway system.1
Therefore, as vehicle trips are typically largest source of noise for
development projects of this type, this analysis evaluates the Scenario 1 as identified in the March 17,
2011 Albright Way Development Traffic Impact Analysis. Scenario 1 consists of the replacement of
250,000 square feet (s.f.) of existing office park buildings with new office buildings totaling 550,000
s.f.; refer to Exhibit 3, Conceptual Site Layout.
It should be noted that the project may ultimately consist of office alone or a mix of office and high‐
density/senior residential uses. The Town has developed additional illustrative land use scenarios:
• Scenario 1: Replacement of the 250,000 s.f. of existing office park buildings on the site with
new office buildings totaling 550,000 s.f.
• Scenario 2: Minimum of 200,000 s.f. new office plus 141,000 s.f. (remaining) office
• Scenario 3: 200,000 s.f. new office plus up to 516 high‐density units
• Scenario 4: 200,000 s.f. new office plus up to 600 senior units
Because the office use would generate more daily and peak hour trips than would residential, this
study first presents the analysis of a proposed project scenario consisting of the replacement of the
250,000 s.f. of existing office park buildings on the site with new office buildings totaling 550,000 s.f.
Then, in order to determine whether the addition of residential uses would generate any greater
impacts than the 550,000 s.f. office scenario, supplemental analyses were completed for the three
additional scenarios.
1
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., Albright Way Development Traffic Impact Analysis, March 17, 2011.
PACIFIC OCEAN
STANISLAUS
COUNTY
SANTA
CLARA
COUNTY
ALAMEDA
COUNTY
CONTRA
COSTA
COUNTY
SOLANO
COUNTY
NAPA
COUNTY
MARIN
COUNTY
SAN
JOAQUIN
COUNTY
SACRAMENTO
COUNTY
SONOMA
COUNTY
YOLO
COUNTY
SAN MATEO
COUNTY
SAN FRANCISCO
COUNTY
SANTA CRUZ
COUNTY
MONTEREY
COUNTY
SAN BENITO
COUNTY
5
5
580
580
280
680
680
205
5
80
236
183
152
152
156
156
156
129
132
104
120
113
116
121
121
116
160
160
220
238
82
82
92
87
35
25
25
17
24
37
92
84
84
84
85
12
1212
12
29
29
84
13
99
33
35
1
1
9
9
4
4
44
1
1
101
101
101
101
101
680
780
505
580
580
880
880
280
80
80
SanFrancisco
SanMateo
Half MoonBay
Fremont
Tracy
San Jose
Lathrop
StocktonConcord
Berkley
Oakland
Sausalito
Walnut Creek
Martinez
Lafayette
Hercules
Lodi
SanRafael
Novato
Sonoma
Vallejo
Benicia
Vacaville
Fairfield
Petaluma
Cotati
Sebastopol
RohnertPark
BodegaBay
Napa
RioVista
Richmond
Milpitas
Galt
SanLeandro
Antioch
LivermoreHayward
Union
City
Dublin
San Ramon
Orinda
Palo Alto
RedwoodCity
Millbrae
DalyCity
Hillsborough
Los
Altos Santa
Clara
Saratoga
Cupertino
LosGatos
CapitolaSantaCruz Gilroy
ScottsValley
Hollister
SalinasMarina
Watsonville
Morgan
Hill
Pacifica
Alameda
Newark
Pleasanton
Danville
Suisun City
1/26/11 JN 40-100419-17193 MASExhibit 1
Regional Vicinity
ALBRIGHT WAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
ACOUSTICAL ASSESSMENT
Project
Site
01020 miles
APPROXIMATE
1/26/11 JN 40-100419-17193 MAS
Exhibit 2
Local Vicinitynot to scale
ALBRIGHT WAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
ACOUSTICAL ASSESSMENT
Source: Google Earth aerial.
1/26/11 JN 40-100419-17193 MAS
Exhibit 3
Conceptual Site Layout
ALBRIGHT WAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
ACOUSTICAL ASSESSMENT
Source: Form4 Architecture.
0160'
APPROXIMATE
Albright Way Development Project
Acoustical Assessment 6 March 2011
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF NOISE METRICS
2.1 STANDARD UNIT OF MEASUREMENT
Sound is described in terms of the loudness (amplitude) of the sound and frequency (pitch) of
the sound. The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (dB).
Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency‐
dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A‐weighted
decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by differentiating among frequencies in a
manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear.
Decibels are based on the logarithmic scale. The logarithmic scale compresses the wide range in
sound pressure levels to a more usable range of numbers in a manner similar to the Richter
scale used to measure earthquakes. In terms of human response to noise, a sound 10 dBA
higher than another is perceived to be twice as loud and 20 dBA higher is perceived to be four
times as loud, and so forth. Everyday sounds normally range from 30 dBA (very quiet) to 100
dBA (very loud). Examples of various sound levels in different environments are illustrated on
Exhibit 4, Common Environmental Noise Levels.
Many methods have been developed for evaluating community noise to account for, among
other things:
• The variation of noise levels over time;
• The influence of periodic individual loud events; and
• The community response to changes in the community noise environment.
Table 1, Noise Descriptors, provides a listing of methods to measure sound over a period of time.
2.2 HEALTH EFFECTS OF NOISE
Human response to sound is highly individualized. Annoyance is the most common issue
regarding community noise. The percentage of people claiming to be annoyed by noise
generally increases with the environmental sound level. However, many factors also influence
people’s response to noise. The factors can include the character of the noise, the variability of
the sound level, the presence of tones or impulses, and the time of day of the occurrence.
Additionally, non‐acoustical factors, such as the person’s opinion of the noise source, the ability
to adapt to the noise, the attitude towards the source and those associated with it, and the
predictability of the noise, all influence people’s response. As such, response to noise varies
widely from one person to another and with any particular noise, individual responses would
range from “not annoyed” to “highly annoyed.”
1/26/11 JN 40-100419-17193 MAS
Exhibit 4
Common Environmental Noise Levels
ALBRIGHT WAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
ACOUSTICAL ASSESSMENT
Albright Way Development Project
Acoustical Assessment 8 March 2011
Table 1
Noise Descriptors
Term Definition
Decibel (dB) The unit for measuring the volume of sound equal to 10 times the logarithm
(base 10) of the ratio of the pressure of a measured sound to a reference
pressure (20 micropascals).
A-Weighted Decibel (dBA) A sound measurement scale that adjusts the pressure of individual
frequencies according to human sensitivities. The scale accounts for the fact
that the region of highest sensitivity for the human ear is between 2,000 and
4,000 cycles per second (hertz).
Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) The sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal
over a given time period. The Leq is the value that expresses the time
averaged total energy of a fluctuating sound level.
Maximum Sound Level (Lmax) The highest individual sound level (dBA) occurring over a given time period.
Minimum Sound Level (Lmin) The lowest individual sound level (dBA) occurring over a given time period.
Community Noise Equivalent Level
(CNEL)
A rating of community noise exposure to all sources of sound that
differentiates between daytime, evening, and nighttime noise exposure.
These adjustments are +5 dBA for the evening, 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM, and
+10 dBA for the night, 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM.
Day/Night Average (Ldn) The Ldn is a measure of the 24-hour average noise level at a given location.
It was adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for developing
criteria for the evaluation of community noise exposure. It is based on a
measure of the average noise level over a given time period called the Leq.
The Ldn is calculated by averaging the Leq’s for each hour of the day at a
given location after penalizing the “sleeping hours” (defined as 10:00 PM to
7:00 AM) by 10 dBA to account for the increased sensitivity of people to
noises that occur at night.
Exceedance Level (Ln) The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 1%, 10%, 50%, and 90%
(L01, L10, L50, L90, respectively) of the time during the measurement period.
Source: Cyril M. Harris, Handbook of Noise Control, 1979.
When the noise level of an activity rises above 70 dBA, the chance of receiving a complaint is
possible, and as the noise level rises, dissatisfaction among the public steadily increases.
However, an individual’s reaction to a particular noise depends on many factors, such as the
source of the sound, its loudness relative to the background noise, and the time of day. The
reaction to noise can also be highly subjective; the perceived effect of a particular noise can vary
widely among individuals in a community.
The effects of noise are often only transitory, but adverse effects can be cumulative with
prolonged or repeated exposure. The effects of noise on the community can be organized into
six broad categories:
• Noise‐Induced Hearing Loss;
• Interference with Communication;
• Effects of Noise on Sleep;
• Effects on Performance and Behavior;
Albright Way Development Project
Acoustical Assessment 9 March 2011
• Extra‐Auditory Health Effects; and
• Annoyance.
Although it often causes discomfort and sometimes pain, noise‐induced hearing loss usually
takes years to develop. Noise‐induced hearing loss can impair the quality of life through a
reduction in the ability to hear important sounds and to communicate with family and friends.
Hearing loss is one of the most obvious and easily quantified effects of excessive exposure to
noise. While the loss may be temporary at first, it could become permanent after continued
exposure. When combined with hearing loss associated with aging, the amount of hearing loss
directly caused by the environment is difficult to quantify. Although the major cause of noise‐
induced hearing loss is occupational, substantial damage can be caused by non‐occupational
sources.
According to the United States Public Health Service, nearly ten million of the estimated 21
million Americans with hearing impairments owe their losses to noise exposure. Noise can
mask important sounds and disrupt communication between individuals in a variety of
settings. This process can cause anything from a slight irritation to a serious safety hazard,
depending on the circumstance. Noise can disrupt face‐to‐face communication and telephone
communication, and the enjoyment of music and television in the home. It can also disrupt
effective communication between teachers and pupils in schools, and can cause fatigue and
vocal strain in those who need to communicate in spite of the noise.
Interference with communication has proved to be one of the most important components of
noise‐related annoyance. Noise‐induced sleep interference is one of the critical components of
community annoyance. Sound level, frequency distribution, duration, repetition, and
variability can make it difficult to fall asleep and may cause momentary shifts in the natural
sleep pattern, or level of sleep. It can produce short‐term adverse effects on mood changes and
job performance, with the possibility of more serious effects on health if it continues over long
periods. Noise can cause adverse effects on task performance and behavior at work, and non‐
occupational and social settings. These effects are the subject of some controversy, since the
presence and degree of effects depends on a variety of intervening variables. Most research in
this area has focused mainly on occupational settings, where noise levels must be sufficiently
high and the task sufficiently complex for effects on performance to occur.
Recent research indicates that more moderate noise levels can produce disruptive after‐effects,
commonly manifested as a reduced tolerance for frustration, increased anxiety, decreased
incidence of “helping” behavior, and increased incidence of “hostile” behavior. Noise has been
implicated in the development or exacerbation of a variety of health problems, ranging from
hypertension to psychosis. As with other categories, quantifying these effects is difficult due to
the amount of variables that need to be considered in each situation. As a biological stressor,
noise can influence the entire physiological system. Most effects seem to be transitory, but with
continued exposure some effects have been shown to be chronic in laboratory animals.
Albright Way Development Project
Acoustical Assessment 10 March 2011
Annoyance can be viewed as the expression of negative feelings resulting from interference
with activities, as well as the disruption of one’s peace of mind and the enjoyment of one’s
environment. Field evaluations of community annoyance are useful for predicting the
consequences of planned actions involving highways, airports, road traffic, railroads, or other
noise sources. The consequences of noise‐induced annoyance are privately held dissatisfaction,
publicly expressed complaints to authorities, and potential adverse health effects, as discussed
above. In a study conducted by the United States Department of Transportation, the effects of
annoyance to the community were quantified. In areas where noise levels were consistently
above 60 dBA CNEL, approximately nine percent of the community is highly annoyed. When
levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL, that percentage rises to 15 percent. Although evidence for the
various effects of noise have differing levels of certainty, it is clear that noise can affect human
health. Most of the effects are, to a varying degree, stress related.
Albright Way Development Project
Acoustical Assessment 11 March 2011
3.0 LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, AND STANDARDS
Land uses deemed sensitive by the State of California (State) include schools, hospitals, rest
homes, and long‐term care and mental care facilities. Many jurisdictions also consider
residential uses particularly noise‐sensitive because families and individuals expect to use time
in the home for rest and relaxation, and noise can interfere with those activities. Some
jurisdictions may also identify other noise‐sensitive uses such as churches, libraries, and parks.
Land uses that are relatively insensitive to noise include office, commercial, and retail
developments. There is a range of insensitive noise receptors that include uses that generate
significant noise levels and that typically have a low level of human occupancy.
This noise analysis was conducted in accordance with Federal, State, and local criteria described
in the following sections.
3.1 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) offers guidelines for community noise
exposure in the publication Noise Effects Handbook – A Desk Reference to Health and Welfare Effects
of Noise. These guidelines consider occupational noise exposure as well as noise exposure in
homes. The EPA recognizes an exterior noise level of 55 decibels day‐night level (dB Ldn) as a
general goal to protect the public from hearing loss, activity interference, sleep disturbance, and
annoyance. The EPA and other Federal agencies have adopted suggested land use
compatibility guidelines that indicate that residential noise exposures of 55 to 65 dB Ldn are
acceptable. However, the EPA notes that these levels are not regulatory goals, but are levels
defined by a negotiated scientific consensus, without concern for economic and technological
feasibility or the needs and desires of any particular community.
3.2 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was enacted in 1970 and requires that all
known environmental effects of a project be analyzed, including environmental noise impacts.
Under CEQA, a project has a potentially significant impact if the project exposes people to noise
levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance.
Additionally, under CEQA, a project has a potentially significant impact if the project creates a
substantial increase in the ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project. If a project has a potentially significant impact, mitigation measures must
be considered. If mitigation measures to reduce the impact to less than significant are not
feasible due to economic, social, environmental, legal, or other conditions, the most feasible
mitigation measures must be considered.
Albright Way Development Project
Acoustical Assessment 12 March 2011
3.3 LOCAL JURISDICTION
Town of Los Gatos General Plan
The Noise Element of the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan (General Plan) dated January 7,
2011, identifies and evaluates unwanted noise sources in the Town, and establishes goals and
policies for reducing noise levels in the Town. Policies aimed at reducing noise levels must
address specific sources of unwanted noise, as well as noise‐sensitive receptors. Noise level
generation, intensity, and related impacts should be considered in determining the placement of
housing, open space areas, and other noise‐sensitive land uses.
The State of California Office of Planning and Research Noise Element Guidelines (Guidelines) include
recommended interior and exterior noise level standards for local jurisdictions to identify and
prevent the creation of incompatible land uses due to noise. These Guidelines describe the
compatibility of various land uses with a range of environmental noise levels in terms of dBA
CNEL, as explained in Table 1, above.
According to the State, a noise environment of 50 dBA CNEL to 60 dBA CNEL is considered to
be “normally acceptable” for residential uses. Therefore, locating residential units, parks, and
institutions (such as churches, schools, libraries, and hospitals) in areas where exterior ambient
noise levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL is undesirable. Additionally, more restrictive standards for
quiet suburban and rural communities may be reduced by 5 to 10 dB to reflect their lower
existing outdoor noise levels in comparison with urban environments.
Title 25, Section 1092 of the California Code of Regulations also sets forth requirements for the
insulation of multiple‐family residential dwelling units from excessive and potentially harmful
noise. Whenever multiple‐family residential dwelling units are proposed in areas with
excessive noise exposure, the developer must incorporate construction features into the
building’s design that reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA CNEL.
Table 2, Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments, depicts the State guidelines
established by the State Department of Health Services for acceptable noise levels for each
jurisdiction. These standards and criteria are incorporated into the land use planning process to
reduce future noise and land use incompatibilities. These guidelines help the Town ensure
integrated planning for compatibility between land uses and outdoor noise.
Albright Way Development Project
Acoustical Assessment 13 March 2011
Table 2
Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments
Community Noise Exposure (CNEL)
Land Use Category Normally
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acceptable
Normally
Unacceptable
Clearly
Unacceptable
Residential-Low Density, Single-Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes 50 - 60 55 - 70 70 – 75 75 – 85
Residential – Multiple Family 50 – 65 60 – 70 70 – 75 70 – 85
Transient Lodging – Motel, Hotels 50 – 65 60 – 70 70 – 80 80 – 85
Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes 50 – 70 60 – 70 70 – 80 80 – 85
Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters NA 50 – 70 NA 65 – 85
Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator Sports NA 50 – 75 NA 70 – 85
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 50 – 70 NA 67.5 – 77.5 72.5 – 85
Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries 50 – 70 NA 70 – 80 80 – 85
Office Buildings, Business Commercial and Professional 50 – 70 67.5 – 77.5 75 – 85 NA
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture 50 – 75 70 – 80 75 – 85 NA
CNEL = community noise equivalent level; NA = not applicable
NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional
construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.
CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction
requirements is made and needed noise insulation features have been included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and
fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice.
NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE: New construction or development should be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed
analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise-insulation features must be included in the design.
CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.
Source: Office of Planning and Research, California, General Plan Guidelines, October 2003.
Los Gatos has established outdoor noise limits, which represent long‐range community goals
for different land use designations within the Town. The General Plan acknowledges that some
of these may be presently unattainable. These outdoor noise limits are shown in Table 3,
Outdoor Noise Limits. Based on Section 16.20.015 (Exterior Noise Levels for Residential Zones) of
the Los Gatos Municipal Code indicates that these noise limits apply to stationary sources. 2
The
land use compatibility guidelines are followed for noise limits from mobile sources; refer to
Table 2, above.
Table 3
Outdoor Noise Limits
Land Use Max Ldn Value Max Leq 24 Value Comparable Noise Source Response
Residential 55 dBA -- Light auto traffic (100 feet) Quiet
Commercial -- 70 dBA Freeway traffic (50 feet) Telephone use difficult
Industrial -- 70 dBA Freeway traffic (50 feet) Telephone use difficult
Open Space
Intensive
(Developed Park) -- 55 dBA Light auto traffic
(100 feet) Quiet
2
Town of Los Gatos, 2020 General Plan EIR, 2010.
Albright Way Development Project
Acoustical Assessment 14 March 2011
Table 3 (continued)
Outdoor Noise Limits
Land Use Max Ldn Value Max Leq 24 Value Comparable Noise Source Response
Passive
(Nature Park) -- 50 dBA Light auto traffic (100 feet) Quiet
Hospital -- 55 dBA Light auto traffic (100 feet) Quiet
Education -- 55 dBA Light auto traffic (100 feet) Quiet
Source: Town of Los Gatos, Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan, dated January 7, 2011.
The following goal, policy, and action statements are intended to limit the exposure of the
community to excessive noise levels, and are applicable to the proposed project.
Goal NOI‐1 To ensure that noise from new development and new land uses does
not adversely affect neighboring land uses.
Policy NOI‐1.1 The Town, as part of the Environmental Review process, shall require
applicants to submit an acoustical analysis of projects. All input
related to noise levels shall use the adopted standard of measurement
shown in Table 3. Noise impacts of new development shall be
evaluated in terms of any increase of the existing ambient noise levels
and the potential for adverse noise and groundborne vibrations
impacts on nearby or adjacent properties. The evaluation shall
consider short‐term construction noise and on‐going operational
noise.
Policy NOI‐1.3 Employ the Ldn scale for the evaluation of outdoor noise for
residential land uses and the Leq scale for evaluation of outdoor noise
for non‐residential uses, as shown in Table 3. Pursue the outdoor
noise limits shown in Table 3 as representing the long range
community aspirations and work toward their accomplishment, even
though some may be presently unattainable.
Policy NOI‐1.4 Apply the same indoor noise levels standards for single family
residential uses and multi‐family dwellings.
Goal NOI‐2 To ensure that proposed development is not adversely affected by
existing noise levels.
Policy NOI‐2.1 Evaluate the potential for existing ambient and/or intrusive noise to
adversely affect new development.
Albright Way Development Project
Acoustical Assessment 15 March 2011
Policy NOI‐2.2 Require all noise‐sensitive developments adjacent to or within an area
where noise levels exceed community aspirations to include a noise
study and recommendation for reducing noise impact to an
acceptable level.
Goal NOI‐5 To ensure that residential land uses are not adversely affected by
noise.
Policy NOI‐5.1 Protect residential areas from noise by requiring appropriate site and
building design, sound walls, and landscaping and by the use of noise
attenuating construction techniques and materials.
Policy NOI‐5.2 For commercial and industrial developments adjacent to residential
neighborhoods, additional restrictions beyond the Noise Ordinance
may be applied to reduce noise intrusions in residential districts to an
acceptable level.
Goal NOI‐6 To ensure that sensitive receptors are not exposed to unacceptable
noise levels.
Policy NOI‐6.1 The Town shall not approve land use patterns and traffic patterns that
expose sensitive land uses or sensitive noise receptors to unacceptable
noise levels.
Action NOI‐7.3 Any Environmental Review document prepared for the Town for a
project that identifies noise factors shall relate the noise data to the
Townʹs Noise Ordinance to give the Planning Commission and Town
Council a standard for comparison.
Town of Los Gatos Municipal Code
The Chapter 16, Noise, of the Town of Los Gatos Municipal Code (Municipal Code) includes
standards and regulations pertaining to noise.
Section 16.20.035, Construction, describes when and how construction activities may occur, with
the goal of reducing any short‐term impacts from construction noise, as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00
p.m., weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekends and holidays, construction, alteration
or repair activities which are authorized by a valid Town permit or as otherwise allowed by
Town permit, shall be allowed if they meet at least one of the following noise limitations:
(1) No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding
eighty‐five (85) dBA at twenty‐five (25) feet. If the device is located within
Albright Way Development Project
Acoustical Assessment 16 March 2011
a structure on the property, the measurement shall be made at distances as
close to twenty‐five (25) feet from the device as possible.
(2) The noise level at any point outside of the property plane shall not exceed
eighty‐five (85) dBA.
Chapter 16.20.015, Exterior Noise Levels for Residential Zones, states the following:
No person shall cause, make, suffer or allow to be made by any machine, animal, device or
any combination of same in a residential zone, a noise level more than six (6) dB above the
noise level specified for that particular noise zone, as shown on the Noise Zone Map, during
that particular time frame, at any point outside of the property plane.
Chapter 16.20.020, Interior Noise Levels for Multi‐Family Residences, states the following:
No person shall cause, make, suffer or allow to be made by any machine, animal, device or
any combination of same, in a multi‐family residential zone, a noise level more than six (6)
dB above the local ambient (interior), three (3) feet from any common wall, floor or ceiling
inside any dwelling unit on the same or adjacent property, except within the dwelling unit
in which the noise source or sources may be located.
Chapter 16.20.025, Noise Levels for Commercial and Industrial Zones, states the following:
No person shall cause, make, suffer or allow to be made by any machine, animal, device or
any combination of same, in any commercial or industrial zone, a noise level more than
eight (8) dB above the noise level specified for that particular noise zone, as shown on the
Noise Zone Map, during that particular time frame, at any point outside of the property
plane.
Chapter 16.20.030, Public Property Noise Limits, states the following:
(a) No person shall cause, make, suffer or allow to be made by any machine, animal,
device or combination of same, on public property a noise level more than fifteen
(15) dB noise level specified for that particular noise zone, as shown on the Noise
Zone Map, during that particular time frame, at any point outside of the property
plane.
(b) Public performances or special events not exceeding seventy (70) dBA at the
property plane are exempt from this chapter when approval therefore has been
obtained from the appropriate governmental entity.
(c) Vehicle horns or other devices primarily intended to create a loud noise for warning
purposes, shall not be used when the vehicle is at rest, or when a situation
endangering life, health, or property is not imminent.
Albright Way Development Project
Acoustical Assessment 17 March 2011
Chapter 16.20.060, Powered Equipment, states the following:
(a) Miscellaneous nonstationary noise sources such as; electric or gasoline lawn
mowers, leafblowers, edge trimmers, hedge trimmers and other similar moveable
noise sources shall be operated only during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekends and holidays in residential or noise
sensitive zones. The use of powered equipment in commercial, industrial or public
space shall not be time limited. Powered equipment shall be exempt from all other
limitations and provisions of this chapter.
(b) The provisions of this section shall not apply to emergency work as defined in article
I of this chapter.
(c) Powered toys and models. No person shall operate or permit to be operated any
powered toy or model, as defined in article I of this chapter, so as to cause a noise
disturbance across a residential property plane or violate the limitations and
provisions of this chapter.
Albright Way Development Project
Acoustical Assessment 18 March 2011
4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
4.1 NOISE MEASUREMENTS
In order to quantify existing ambient noise levels in the project area, RBF Consulting conducted
four noise measurements on December 3, 2010; refer to Table 4, Noise Measurements. The noise
measurement sites were representative of typical existing noise exposure within and
immediately adjacent to the project site. Ten‐minute measurements were taken, between 1:00
PM and 2:15 PM, at each site during the day. Short‐term (Leq) measurements are considered
representative of the noise levels throughout the day and relate closely with the Town’s noise
standards which are expressed in Ldn. Ldn values are calculated from hourly Leq values, with
penalties for the nighttime period (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) to reflect the greater disturbance
potential from nighttime noise. Noise sources in the project area (i.e., traffic and mechanical
equipment) become less active and generate less noise in the project area during the nighttime
period. As a result, the variance between Leq and Ldn is typically less than one dBA in areas such
as the project site.
Meteorological conditions were clear skies, cool temperatures, with light wind speeds (0 to 5
miles per hour), and low humidity. Measured noise levels during the daytime measurements
ranged from 52.3 to 67.4 dBA Leq. Noise monitoring equipment used for the ambient noise
survey consisted of a Brüel & Kjær Hand‐held Analyzer Type 2250 equipped with a Type 4189
pre‐polarized microphone. The monitoring equipment complies with applicable requirements
of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for Type I (precision) sound level meters.
The results of the field measurements are included in Appendix A, Noise Measurement Sheets.
Refer to Exhibit 5, Noise Measurement Locations for the noise measurements sites.
Table 4
Noise Measurements
Site No. Location Leq
(dBA)
Lmin
(dBA)
Lmax
(dBA)
L10
(dBA)
L50
(dBA)
L90
(dBA) Time
1 Center of the project site 57.7 53.6 68.8 57.0 55.5 54.7 1:22 PM
2 Northern portion of the project site 67.4 58.1 72.2 68.5 66.4 63.9 1:38 PM
3 Northern terminus of Charter Oaks Lane 52.3 45.8 63.8 52.5 50.5 48.3 1:54 PM
4 Smith Ranch Court (across Winchester
Boulevard) 55.9 43.4 67.4 56.8 51.7 46.1 2:11 PM
Source: RBF Consulting, December 3, 2010.
4.2 SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Certain land uses are particularly sensitive to noise, including schools, hospitals, rest homes,
long‐term medical and mental care facilities, and parks and recreation areas. Residential areas
are also considered noise sensitive, especially during the nighttime hours. Existing sensitive
receptors located in the project vicinity include residential uses, recreational uses, schools,
hospitals, and places of worship. Sensitive receptors are outlined in Table 5, Sensitive Receptors.
2
1
3
4
1/26/11 JN 40-100419-17193 MAS
Exhibit 5
Noise Measurement Locationsnot to scale
ALBRIGHT WAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
ACOUSTICAL ASSESSMENT
Source: Google Earth aerial.
Noise Measurement Locations1
Albright Way Development Project
Acoustical Assessment 20 March 2011
Table 5
Sensitive Receptors
Type Name Distance from Project
Site (feet) Direction from Project Site
475 North
875 Northeast
230 East
1,660 Southeast
Adjoining South
1,200 South
900 Southwest
130 West
Residential Residential Uses
600 Northwest
Schools Yavneh Day School 820 Southeast
Los Gatos Swim and Racquet Club 1,000 East Parks/Recreation Courtside Club 350 Southwest
Places of Worship Addison Penzack Jewish Community Center 820 Southeast
First Assembly of God 1,400 South
Congregation Tsemach Adonai 1,450 South
Hospitals El Camino Hospital Los Gatos 1,900 Northwest
Source: Google Earth 2010.
4.3 EXISTING NOISE LEVELS
MOBILE SOURCES
In order to assess the potential for mobile source noise impacts, it is necessary to determine the
noise currently generated by vehicles traveling through the project area. Noise models were
run using the Federal Highway Administration’s Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA‐
RD‐77‐108) together with several roadway and site parameters; please refer to Appendix B,
Modeling Data. These parameters determine the projected impact of vehicular traffic noise and
include the roadway cross‐section (e.g., number of lanes), roadway width, average daily traffic
(ADT), vehicle travel speed, percentages of auto and truck traffic, roadway grade, angle‐of‐
view, and site conditions (“hard” or “soft”). The model does not account for ambient noise
levels (i.e., noise from adjacent land uses) or topographical differences between the roadway
and adjacent land uses.
Noise projections are based on modeled vehicular traffic as derived from the Albright Way
Development Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. on
March 17, 2011. The posted speed limits are 35 miles per hour (mph) on Winchester Boulevard,
30 mph on Lark Avenue, and 25 mph on Wimbledon Drive. Existing modeled traffic noise
levels are presented in Table 6, Existing Traffic Noise Levels.
Albright Way Development Project
Acoustical Assessment 21 March 2011
Table 6
Existing Traffic Noise Levels
Distance from Roadway Centerline to: (Feet)
Roadway Segment ADT
dBA @ 100 Feet
from Roadway
Centerline
60 CNEL Noise
Contour
65 CNEL Noise
Contour
70 CNEL Noise
Contour
Winchester Boulevard
North of SR-85 25,860 65.7 446 141 45
SR-85 to Wimbledon Drive 21,080 64.9 363 115 36
Wimbledon Drive to Lark Avenue 20,450 64.7 353 112 35
Lark Avenue
Winchester Boulevard to Oka Road 10,040 60.4 124 39 12
Wimbledon Drive
West of Winchester Boulevard 2,410 52.5 21 7 2
ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = community noise equivalent level
Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., Albright Way Development Traffic Impact Analysis, dated March 17, 2011.
STATIONARY NOISE SOURCES
The primary sources of stationary noise in the project vicinity are those associated with on‐site
HVAC units and off‐site residential uses.
Albright Way Development Project
Acoustical Assessment 22 March 2011
5.0 POTENTIAL ACOUSTICAL IMPACTS
CEQA THRESHOLDS
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines contains analysis guidelines related to the assessment of
noise impacts. These guidelines have been utilized as thresholds of significance for this
analysis. As stated in Appendix G, a project would create a significant environmental impact if
it would:
• Expose persons to, or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies (refer to
Impact Statements NOI‐1);
• Expose persons to or generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise
levels (refer to Impact Statement NOI‐2);
• Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project (refer to Impact Statement NOI‐1);
• Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project (refer to Impact Statement NOI‐
1);
• For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels (refer to Impact
Statement NOI‐3); and
• For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels (refer to Impact Statement NOI‐3).
Based on these standards and thresholds, the effects of the proposed project have been
categorized as either a “less than significant impact” or a “potentially significant impact.”
Mitigation measures are recommended for potentially significant impacts.
SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANGES IN TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
If the ambient noise environment is quiet and the new noise source greatly increases the noise
exposure, an impact may occur even though a criterion level might not be exceeded. The
project would create a significant impact for traffic noise levels when the following occurs:
• An increase of the existing ambient noise levels by 5 dBA or more, where the ambient
level is less than 60 dBA CNEL;
Albright Way Development Project
Acoustical Assessment 23 March 2011
• An increase of the existing ambient noise level by 3 dBA or more, where the ambient
level is 60 to 65 dBA CNEL; or
• An increase of the existing ambient noise level by 1.5 dBA or more, where the ambient
level is greater than 65 dBA CNEL.
SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANGES IN CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
The project’s contribution to a cumulative traffic noise increase would be considered
cumulatively considerable when the combined effect exceeds perception level (i.e., auditory
level increase) threshold. The combined effect compares the “cumulative with project”
condition to “existing” conditions. This comparison accounts for the traffic noise increase from
the project generated in combination with traffic generated by projects in the cumulative
projects list. The following criteria have been utilized to evaluate the combined effect of the
cumulative noise increase.
Combined Effects: The cumulative with project noise level (“Cumulative With Project”) causes
the following:
• An increase of the existing noise level by 5 dBA or more, where the existing level is less
than 60 dBA CNEL;
• An increase of the existing noise level by 3 dBA or more, where the existing level is 60 to
65 CNEL; or
• An increase of the existing noise level by 1.5 dBA or more, where the existing level is
greater than 65 dBA CNEL.
Although there may be a significant noise increase due to the proposed project in combination
with other related projects (combined effects), it must also be demonstrated that the project has
an incremental effect. In other words, a significant portion of the noise increase must be due to
the proposed project. The following criteria have been utilized to evaluate the incremental
effect of the cumulative noise increase.
Incremental Effects: The “Cumulative With Project” causes a 1 dBA increase in noise over the
“Cumulative Without Project” noise level.
A significant impact would result only if both the combined and incremental effects criteria
have been exceeded.
NOI‐1
• EXPOSE PERSONS TO, OR GENERATE NOISE LEVELS IN EXCESS OF
STANDARDS ESTABLISHED IN THE LOCAL GENERAL PLAN OR NOISE
ORDINANCE, OR APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF OTHER AGENCIES?
Albright Way Development Project
Acoustical Assessment 24 March 2011
• A SUBSTANTIAL PERMANENT INCREASE IN AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS IN
THE PROJECT VICINITY ABOVE LEVELS EXISTING WITHOUT THE
PROJECT?
• A SUBSTANTIAL TEMPORARY OR PERIODIC INCREASE IN AMBIENT
NOISE LEVELS IN THE PROJECT VICINITY ABOVE LEVELS EXISTING
WITHOUT THE PROJECT?
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant.
Scenario 1
SHORT‐TERM CONSTRUCTION
Construction activities are generally temporary and short in duration, resulting in periodic
increases in the ambient noise environment. Project construction would occur over six phases,
including demolition of existing buildings, site grading, trenching, paving, building
construction, and architectural coating. Staging for construction equipment would occur within
the boundaries of the project site. Groundborne noise and other types of construction‐related
noise impacts would typically occur during the initial site preparation, which can create the
highest levels of noise. However, site preparation typically has the shortest duration of all
construction phases. Activities that occur during this phase include demolition, earthmoving,
and soils compaction. High groundborne noise levels and other miscellaneous noise levels can
be created during this phase due to the operation of heavy‐duty trucks, backhoes, and front‐end
loaders. A reasonable worst‐case assumption is that the three loudest pieces of equipment
would operate simultaneously within a focused area and occur continuously over at least one
hour.
Table 7, Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment, indicates the anticipated
noise levels of construction equipment based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment
and noise receptor. It should be noted that the noise levels identified in Table 7 are maximum
sound levels (Lmax) which are the highest individual sound occurring at an individual time
period. The Town’s noise ordinance limits construction noise to 85 dBA at the property line and
is based on the on the Ldn scale which is a noise level over a 24‐hour period. The Lmax values
presented in Table 7 would be lower on the Ldn scale. Operating cycles for these types of
construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by
three or four minutes at lower power settings. The site preparation phase, which includes
grading of the site, tends to generate the highest noise levels.
Albright Way Development Project
Acoustical Assessment 25 March 2011
Table 7
Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment
Type of Equipment Acoustical Use Factor1
Lmax at 50 Feet
(dBA)
Cement/Mortar Mixer 40 79
Concrete/Industrial Saw 20 90
Crane 16 81
Dozer 40 82
Excavator 40 81
Forklift 40 79
Generator 50 81
Grader 40 85
Other Equipment (greater than five horse power) 50 85
Paver 50 77
Roller 20 80
Tractor 40 84
Truck 40 80
Welder 40 73
Note:
1 – Acoustical use factor (percent): Estimates the fraction of time each piece of construction equipment is operating at full power (i.e., its
loudest condition) during a construction operation.
Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA-HEP-05-054), dated January 2006.
Actual construction‐related noise activities would cease upon completion of construction.
Construction would occur throughout the project site and would not be concentrated or
confined in the area directly adjacent to residential neighborhood to the north and west; Los
Gatos Creek Trail to the east; or the office building to the south. Therefore, construction noise
would be acoustically dispersed throughout the project site and not concentrated in one area
near adjacent sensitive uses (i.e., residents adjoining the project site to the north and west).
Furthermore, Mitigation Measure NOI‐1 would require best management practices to reduce
noise from engine exhausts and provide for Noise Disturbance Coordinator whom would be
required to immediately address any noise complaints received. Property occupants located
adjacent to the project boundary shall be sent a notice, at least 15 days prior to commencement
of construction of each phase, regarding the construction schedule of the proposed project, and
provided with the contact information for the Noise Disturbance Coordinator.
Pursuant to the Town of Los Gatos Municipal Code Section 16.20.035, construction activities may
occur between the hours of 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM on weekdays and 9:00 AM and 7:00 PM
weekends and holidays. This exemption is included in the code in recognition that construction
activities undertaken during daytime hours are a typical part of living in an urban environment
and does not cause a significant disruption. It should be noted that Section 16.20.035(2) of the
Town Code also limits construction noise to 85 dBA at the property line. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure NOI‐1 would further minimize impacts from construction noise as it
requires construction equipment to be equipped with properly operating and maintained
mufflers and other state required noise attenuation devices. The required noise disturbance
coordinator would ensure that construction noise levels comply with the Town’s limits. Also,
Albright Way Development Project
Acoustical Assessment 26 March 2011
nighttime construction would not occur. Thus, a less than significant noise impact would result
from construction activities.
OPERATIONAL MOBILE NOISE SOURCES
The following analysis compares the “Existing” to the “Existing Plus Project” condition. There
are often circumstances in which an “Existing Plus Project” analysis would result in only a
hypothetical comparison of impacts which will not occur.
Project implementation would result in additional traffic on adjacent roadways, thereby
increasing vehicular generated noise in the vicinity of the existing residential uses. Traffic
volumes were analyzed under the “Existing” and “Existing Plus Project” conditions. As
previously discussed when the resultant noise level exceeds Town standards, an increase of 5
dBA or greater in noise levels occurring from project‐related activities would be significant
when the “No Project” noise level is below 60 dBA CNEL. An increase of 3 dBA or greater in
noise levels occurring from project‐related activities would be significant when the “No Project”
noise level is between 60 to 65 dBA CNEL. Finally, an increase of 1.5 dBA or greater would be
significant if the “No Project” noise level is above 65 dBA CNEL.
According to Table 8, Traffic Noise Levels, under the “Existing” scenario, noise levels at a
distance of 100 feet from the centerline would range from 52.5 dBA to 65.7 dBA. Under the
“Existing Plus Project” scenario, noise levels at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline would
range from 53.0 dBA to 65.8 dBA. The highest noise level for both scenarios would occur along
Winchester Boulevard, north of SR‐85. The lowest noise levels for both scenarios would occur
along Wimbledon Drive, west of Winchester Boulevard. Traffic noise levels would be higher
with the Existing Plus Project traffic volumes as compared to Existing conditions. As indicated
in Table 8, the maximum noise increase is 0.9 dBA. Thus, per the significance criteria
mentioned above, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Albright Way Development Project
Acoustical Assessment 27 March 2011
Table 8
Traffic Noise Levels
Existing Existing Plus Project
Roadway Segment ADT
dBA CNEL @
100 Feet from
Roadway
Centerline
ADT
dBA CNEL
@ 100 Feet
from
Roadway
Centerline
Difference
in dBA @
100 Feet
from
Roadway
Significant
Impact?
Winchester Boulevard
North of SR-85 25,860 65.7 26,710 65.8 0.1 No
SR-85 to Wimbledon Drive 21,080 64.9 24.090 65.5 0.6 No
Wimbledon Drive to Lark Avenue 20,450 64.7 22,780 65.1 0.4 No
Lark Avenue
Winchester Boulevard to Oka Road 10,040 60.4 12,490 61.3 0.9 No
Wimbledon Drive
West of Winchester Boulevard 2,410 52.5 2,480 53.0 0.5 No
Notes:
dBA = Decibel; ADT = Average Daily Traffic; CNEL = community noise equivalent level
Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., Albright Way Development Traffic Impact Analysis, dated March 17, 2011.
Table 9, Future Traffic Noise Levels, depicts the mobile source noise under the Future scenario.
The Future scenario condition is defined as existing plus approved (but not yet constructed)
plus project conditions. According to Table 9, under the “Future Without Project” scenario,
noise levels at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline would range from 53.0 dBA to 66.1 dBA.
Under the “Future With Project” scenario, noise levels at a distance of 100 feet from the
centerline would range from 53.1 dBA to 66.2 dBA. The highest noise level for both scenarios
would occur along Winchester Boulevard, north of SR‐85. The lowest noise levels for both
scenarios would occur along Wimbledon Drive, west of Winchester Boulevard. Traffic noise
levels would be higher with the Future traffic volumes as compared to existing conditions. As
indicated in Table 9, the maximum noise increase is 0.8 dBA. Thus, per the significance criteria
mentioned above, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Albright Way Development Project
Acoustical Assessment 28 March 2011
Table 9
Future Traffic Noise Levels
Future Without Project Future With Project
Roadway Segment ADT
dBA CNEL
@ 100 Feet
from
Roadway
Centerline
ADT
dBA CNEL
@ 100 Feet
from
Roadway
Centerline
Difference
in dBA @
100 Feet
from
Roadway
Significant
Impact?
Winchester Boulevard
North of SR-85 28,330 66.1 29,180 66.2 0.1 No
SR-85 to Wimbledon Drive 24,030 65.4 27,040 66.0 0.6 No
Wimbledon Drive to Lark Avenue 23,990 65.4 26,320 65.8 0.4 No
Lark Avenue
Winchester Boulevard to Oka Road 12,110 61.2 14,560 62.0 0.8 No
Wimbledon Drive
West of Winchester Boulevard 2,460 53.0 2,530 53.1 0.1 No
Notes:
dBA = Decibel; ADT = Average Daily Traffic; CNEL = community noise equivalent level
Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., Albright Way Development Traffic Impact Analysis, dated March 17, 2011.
OPERATIONAL STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE
Stationary noise sources associated with Scenario 1 would include noise associated with
delivery truck loading and unloading, truck movements on driveways, and parking
lot/structure activities. Noise impacts from these sources associated with the office uses in
Scenario 1 would be infrequent and intermittent. Such isolated peak noises are measured in
dBA Lmax, as the volume or frequency of such events is not critical, and the noises are not an
averaged calculation, such as CNEL or Ldn. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)
systems would be installed for the new buildings within the project site. HVAC systems result
in noise levels that average between 40 and 50 dBA Leq at 50 feet from the equipment. The
closest sensitive receptors would be more than 50 feet from the potential locations of the HVAC
equipment.
Any new stationary noise source would be required to provide adequate sound attenuation
such that Town noise standards are achieved. On‐site stationary sources or activities would be
shielded by on‐ and off‐site buildings, vegetation, and traffic along adjacent streets and would
not occur at distances closer to any existing residential uses in the project vicinity. Noise
associated with these stationary sources would result in a less than significant impact on
adjacent uses.
Albright Way Development Project
Acoustical Assessment 29 March 2011
Scenario 2
The development of Scenario 2 would result in less commercial office space than considered
under Scenario 1. Construction related noise impacts would be reduced due to the reduction
construction activities required. At full development, Scenario 2 would result in 948 daily net
new trips (as opposed to 3,126 for Scenario 1). Thus, operational noise impacts would be
proportionately reduced. Therefore, as with Scenario 1, mobile source impacts would be less
than significant. Additionally, stationary source impacts would also be less than significant, as
Scenario 2 would result in development that is less intense than Scenario 1.
Scenario 3
The development of Scenario 3 would result in less commercial office space than considered
under Scenario 1. However, Scenario 3 also includes up to 516 high‐density units. Construction
related noise impacts would be similar to that presented for Scenario 1. Therefore, as with
Scenario 1, construction noise impacts would be less than significant with the incorporation of
the recommended mitigation. At full development, Scenario 3 would result in 2,000 daily net
new trips (as opposed to 3,126 for Scenario 1). Thus, operational noise impacts would be
proportionately reduced. However, with the inclusion of residential uses on‐site, it is necessary
to evaluate the traffic noise exposure to the residential uses and determine if they resultant on‐
site noise levels fall below the Town’s threshold of 65 dBA CNEL exterior and 45 dBA CNEL
interior.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) TNM 2.5 model was used to evaluate the future
with project traffic noise for future project traffic volumes. The Future project conditions were
modeled with the residential sensitive receptor located immediately adjacent to Winchester
Boulevard between SR‐85 and Wimbledon Drive within the proposed project area; resulting in a
total of 8 modeled receptor locations. Exhibit 6, On‐Site Sensitive Receptors, indicates the
receptor locations selected to determine noise levels within the project site. Table 10, On‐Site
Noise Levels, illustrates the anticipated noise levels at each on‐site sensitive receptor.
As indicated in Table 10, on‐site noise levels would not exceed 64.6 dBA. The highest noise
levels are located adjacent to SR‐85. Therefore, noise levels would be consistent with the
established noise standards of 65 dBA at exterior living areas. Standard building construction
practices typically results in approximately 20 dBA of noise attenuation with windows closed,
which would result in interior noise levels being below 45 dBA. Therefore, operational noise
impacts would be less than significant and no additional mitigation is required.
Residential not
permitted within
this area
8
7
6
54
3
2
1
1 Sensitive Receptor Location
LEGEND
HIGHWAY 85
WINCHESTER HIGHWAY
C H A R T E R OA K SD RI V E
C H A R T E R OA K SD RI V E
C R E E K T R A IL
3/31/11 JN 40-100419-17193 MAS
Exhibit 6
On-Site Sensitive Receptorsnot to scale
ALBRIGHT WAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
ACOUSTICAL ASSESSMENT
Source: Form4 Architecture.
Albright Way Development Project
Acoustical Assessment 31 March 2011
Table 10
On‐Site Noise Levels
Location Number1
Exterior
Noise Level2
(dBA CNEL)
Interior Noise
Level3
(dBA CNEL)
1 57.0 37.0
2 61.0 41.0
3 55.1 35.1
4 59.8 39.8
5 61.5 41.5
6 59.7 39.7
7 58.1 38.1
8 64.6 44.6
Notes:
1. Refer to Exhibit 6, On-Site Sensitive Receptors for a depiction of each lot
orientation in regards to Winchester Boulevard between SR-85 and Wimbledon
Drive.
2. It should be noted that the TNM 2.5 model has a tolerance standard deviation of
+/-0.5 dBA.
3. A 20 dBA noise attenuation rate was utilized to determine the interior noise
standards.
Mobile noise sources may also occur from adjacent rail operations. Past noise measurements
collected on properties to the west and north of the project site (also adjacent to SR‐85 and
Winchester Boulevard) indicate similar relationships between daytime Leq and Ldn. Noise
measurements taken on the property west of the site also indicate that train operations on the
tracks along the west side of the site increase Ldn noise levels by up to 2 dBA in proximity to
the railroad tracks along Winchester Boulevard. With train operations, noise levels could reach
70 dBA along the western site boundary on the days when train operations occur. The planned
Vasona Light Rail Station would be located on Winchester Boulevard, approximately 550 feet to
the north of the site and SR‐85. Since the route for the light rail train ends at this station and this
would be the closest distance between the site and these rail operations, noise from light rail
operations or the station is not expected to affect noise levels at the project site.
Using the future traffic volumes on Winchester Boulevard (between SR‐85 and Wimbledon
Drive) and the FHWA TNM 2.5 model, noise levels were estimated at eight potential receptor
locations on the site; refer to Table 10. The highest levels (58 to 65 dBA) would be located
adjacent to SR‐85, while future noise levels along Winchester Boulevard would be 55 to 62 dBA
without train operations and 55 to 64 dBA along Winchester Boulevard with train operations.
Standard building construction practices typically result in approximately 20 dBA of noise
attenuation with windows closed, which would result in interior noise levels of less than 45
dBA. Therefore, noise impacts to on‐site sensitive uses (residents) from rail operations would
be less than significant.
As with Scenario 1, stationary noise sources associated with the Scenario 3 would include noise
from delivery truck loading and unloading, truck movements on driveways, and parking
lot/structure activities. Noise impacts from these sources associated with office and residential
Albright Way Development Project
Acoustical Assessment 32 March 2011
uses would be infrequent and intermittent. HVAC systems installed for the proposed office
uses would result in noise levels that average between 40 and 50 dBA Leq at 50 feet from the
equipment, which are within the Town’s noise standards. Although Scenario 3 proposes a mix
of commercial and residential uses, the residential uses would be more than 50 feet from the
potential locations of the HVAC equipment based on distances required for building setbacks
and drive aisles. Pursuant to Section 16 (Noise) of the Town’s Municipal Code, any new
stationary noise source would be required to provide adequate sound attenuation such that
Town noise standards are achieved. This can be achieved through the use of HVAC silencers,
acoustical enclosures, and/or locating mechanical equipment away from sensitive receptors.
Compliance with the Town’s standards would reduce potential stationary source noise impacts
to less than significant levels.
On‐site stationary sources or activities would be shielded by on‐ and off‐site buildings,
vegetation, and traffic along adjacent streets and not occur at distances closer to any existing or
proposed residential uses in the project vicinity, noise associated with these stationary sources
would result in a less than significant impact.
Scenario 4
The development of Scenario 4 would result in a similar development plan as envisioned within
Scenario 3. The primary difference would be that Scenario 3 proposes 516 high‐density units
instead of 600 senior units. Although the proposed residential dwelling units would increase
by 84, impacts would not increase because Scenario 3 analyzed a worst‐case noise scenario
when modeling traffic noise impacts to on‐site residents. At full development, Scenario 4
would result in 1,442 daily net new trips (as opposed to 2,000 for Scenario 3). Thus, operational
noise impacts would be proportionately reduced. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant with the incorporation of the recommended mitigation.
Exposure of on‐site residents to noise from adjacent rail operations would be similar to that
described for Scenario 3. Senior units would not be exposed to interior noise levels in excess of
45 dBA from rail operations. Therefore, noise impacts to on‐site sensitive uses (senior unit
residents) from rail operations would be less than significant.
Stationary source noise generally produced in mixed‐use districts includes slow‐moving truck
deliveries, traffic in parking areas and equipment noise from landscape maintenance. HVAC
systems installed for the proposed office uses would result in noise levels that average between
40 and 50 dBA Leq at 50 feet from the equipment. As with Scenario 3, Scenario 4 proposes a mix
of commercial and residential uses. The residential uses would be more than 50 feet from the
potential locations of the HVAC equipment due to requirements for building setbacks and drive
aisles. On‐site buildings, adjacent streets, street trees, and vegetation would serve as a buffer
between the project site and nearby sensitive receptors. Pursuant to Section 16 (Noise) of the
Town’s Municipal Code, these noise levels would not exceed the Town of Los Gatos’ exterior
noise standards. Any new stationary noise source would be required to provide adequate
sound attenuation such that Town noise standards are achieved. Impacts would be less than
significant.
Albright Way Development Project
Acoustical Assessment 33 March 2011
Mitigation Measures:
NOI‐1 Prior to Grading Permit issuance, the Contractor shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of
the Town of Los Gatos Public Works Department that the project complies with the
following:
• Construction contracts specify that all construction equipment, fixed or mobile,
shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other
state required noise attenuation devices.
• Property occupants located adjacent to the project boundary shall be sent a notice,
at least 15 days prior to commencement of construction of each phase, regarding
the construction schedule of the proposed project. A sign, legible at a distance of
50 feet shall also be posted at the project construction site. All notices and signs
shall be reviewed and approved by the Town of Los Gatos Public Works
Department prior to mailing or posting and shall indicate the dates and duration
of construction activities, as well as provide a contact name and a telephone
number where residents can inquire about the construction process and register
complaints.
• The Contractor shall provide, to the satisfaction of the Town of Los Gatos Public
Works Department, a qualified “Noise Disturbance Coordinator.” The
Disturbance Coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any local
complaints about construction noise. When a complaint is received, the
Disturbance Coordinator shall notify the Town within 24‐hours of the complaint
and determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad
muffler, etc.) and shall implement reasonable measures to resolve the complaint,
as deemed acceptable by the Public Works Department. All notices that are sent
to residential units immediately surrounding the construction site and all signs
posted at the construction site shall include the contact name and the telephone
number for the Disturbance Coordinator.
• Construction haul routes shall be designed to avoid noise sensitive uses (e.g.,
residences, convalescent homes, etc.).
• During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that
emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers.
• Pursuant to the Town of Los Gatos Municipal Code Section 16.20.035, construction
activities shall occur between the hours of 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM on weekdays
and 9:00 AM and 7:00 PM on weekends and holidays. Additionally, pursuant to
Municipal Code Section 16.20.035(2) the Contractor shall demonstrate, to the
satisfaction of the Town of Los Gatos Public Works Department, that construction
noise shall not exceed 85 dBA outside of the property line. This shall be
accomplished with implementation of methods previously described in this
mitigation measure, above.
Albright Way Development Project
Acoustical Assessment 34 March 2011
Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
NOI‐2 EXPOSURE OF PERSONS TO OR GENERATION OF EXCESSIVE
GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION OR GROUNDBORNE NOISE LEVELS?
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
Scenario 1
Short‐Term (Construction) Impacts
Project construction can generate varying degrees of groundborne vibration, depending on the
construction procedure and the construction equipment used. Operation of construction
equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude
with distance from the source. The effect on buildings located in the vicinity of the construction
site often varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and construction characteristics of the
receiver building(s). The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the
lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to
slight damage at the highest levels. Groundborne vibrations from construction activities rarely
reach levels that damage structures.
The types of construction vibration impact include human annoyance and building damage.
Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold
of human perception for extended periods of time. Building damage can be cosmetic or
structural. Ordinary buildings that are not particularly fragile would not experience any
cosmetic damage (e.g., plaster cracks) at distances beyond 30 feet. This distance can vary
substantially depending on the soil composition and underground geological layer between
vibration source and receiver. In addition, not all buildings respond similarly to vibration
generated by construction equipment. The vibration produced by construction equipment is
illustrated in Table 11, Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment.
Table 11
Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment
Equipment Approximate peak particle velocity
at 25 feet (inches/second)
Approximate peak particle velocity
at 75 feet (inches/second)
Large bulldozer 0.089 0.017
Loaded trucks 0.076 0.015
Small bulldozer 0.003 0.001
Notes:
1 - Peak particle ground velocity measured at 25 feet unless noted otherwise.
2 - Root mean square amplitude ground velocity in decibels (VdB) referenced to 1 micro-inch/second.
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines, May 2006.
Albright Way Development Project
Acoustical Assessment 35 March 2011
Groundborne vibration decreases rapidly with distance. As indicated in Table 11, based on the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction
equipment operation that would be used during project construction range from 0.003 to 0.089
inch‐per‐second peak particle velocity (PPV) at 25 feet from the source of activity. At 75 feet
from the source activity, vibration velocities range from 0.001 to 0.017 inch‐per‐second peak
PPV. With regard to the proposed project, groundborne vibration would be generated
primarily during site clearing and grading activities on‐site and by off‐site haul‐truck travel.
Although the closest occupied residential uses are located within 25 feet of the project site
(adjacent to the south), the proposed construction activities would not be capable of exceeding
the 0.2 inch‐per‐second PPV significance threshold for vibration. Therefore, vibration impacts
would be less than significant.
Long‐Term (Operational) Impacts
The project site is located adjacent to the east of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) alignment.
The freight operations along UPRR currently operate at or below what it did 10 years ago (three
times per week, twice per day). The sharp turn across Winchester Boulevard requires freight
trains to reduce their speed significantly, which results in lower noise and vibration levels.
According to the Federal Transit System’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (April
1995), typical transit vibration levels are approximately 70 VdB at 50 feet, and heavy
locomotives average approximately five to 10 decibels higher than rail transit vehicles.
Therefore, freight operations adjacent to the project site to the west would result in vibration
levels of 75 to 80 VdB at 50 feet. However, it is noted that the levels are expected to be lower
due to the sharp turn across Winchester Boulevard and the reduced speed of the trains.
According to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) (Transit Noise and Vibration Impact
Assessment, May 2006) and Federal Railroad Administration (High‐Speed Ground Transportation
Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, December 1998), vibration levels of 85 VdB are acceptable
if there are an infrequent number of events per day. The FTA screening procedure for vibration
impacts in the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment applies to FTA‐assisted projects only
and is intended to apply only to transit and commuter rail with 30 or more vibration events per
day. Therefore, as the proposed project does not FTA assistance and would not be exposed to
more than two vibration events per day, the FTA’s screening procedure does not apply. As
freight trains pass by the project site very infrequently (up to three times per week, twice per
day), and the trains would not result in vibration levels exceeding 85 VdB, no significant
vibration impacts would occur.
Scenario 2
The development of Scenario 2 would result in less commercial office space than considered
under Scenario 1. Construction related vibration impacts would be reduced due to the reduced
construction activities required. Therefore, construction related activities associated with
Scenario 2 would not be capable of exceeding the 0.2 inch‐per‐second PPV significance
threshold at the residential uses to the south. Operational vibration impacts from freight
operations along the adjacent UPRR alignment would be similar to those identified in
Albright Way Development Project
Acoustical Assessment 36 March 2011
Scenario 1. As with Scenario 1, vibration impacts for Scenario 2 would be less than significant,
and no mitigation would be required.
Scenario 3
The development of Scenario 3 would result in less commercial office space than considered
under Scenario 1. However, Scenario 3 also includes up to 516 high‐density units. These high‐
density units could be developed and occupied while construction of the commercial
component is in progress. However, the proposed residential units would not be within 25 feet
of the construction areas for the office uses. Additionally, the majority of construction activities
would occur throughout the project site, and would not occur immediately adjacent to the
residential dwelling units. Construction related vibration impacts would be similar to that
presented for Scenario 1. Operational vibration impacts from freight operations along the
adjacent UPRR alignment would also be similar to those identified in Scenario 1. Therefore, as
with Scenario 1, vibration impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Scenario 4
The development of Scenario 4 would result in a similar development plan as envisioned within
Scenario 3. The primary difference would be that Scenario 3 proposes 516 high‐density units
instead of 600 senior units. As a result, construction related vibration impacts would be similar
to that presented for Scenario 1 and Scenario 3. No significant construction activity associated
with construction of the proposed office uses would occur within 25 feet of any previously
developed senior units on‐site. Additionally, the majority of construction activities would occur
throughout the project site, and would not occur immediately adjacent to the residential
dwelling units. Therefore, construction vibration impacts would be less than significant and no
mitigation is required.
Operational vibration impacts from freight operations along the adjacent UPRR alignment
would be similar to those identified in Scenario 1. Therefore, vibration impacts would be less
than significant and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation: Not Applicable.
NOI‐3
• FOR A PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN AN AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN OR,
WHERE SUCH A PLAN HAS NOT BEEN ADOPTED, WITHIN TWO MILES OF
A PUBLIC AIRPORT OR PUBLIC USE AIRPORT, EXPOSE PEOPLE
RESIDING OR WORKING IN THE PROJECT AREA TO EXCESSIVE NOISE
LEVELS?
Albright Way Development Project
Acoustical Assessment 37 March 2011
• FOR A PROJECT WITHIN THE VICINITY OF A PRIVATE AIRSTRIP, EXPOSE
PEOPLE RESIDING OR WORKING IN THE PROJECT AREA TO EXCESSIVE
NOISE LEVELS?
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
Scenario 1
The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan. There is no public airport,
public use airport, or private airstrip located within the Town’s boundaries or within two miles
of the project site. For air travel, the closest international airports are San Jose International
Airport (SJC), San Francisco International Airport (SFO), and Oakland International Airport.
The proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the area to excessive
noise levels. Therefore, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Scenario 2
Development of Scenario 2 would not change the location of the project site. There is no public
or private airport within two miles of the project site and Scenario 2 would not expose people to
excessive noise levels. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Scenario 3
Development of Scenario 3 would not expose people to excessive noise levels, as there is no
public or private airport within two miles of the project site. Therefore, impacts would be less
than significant in this regard.
Scenario 4
Development of Scenario 4 would not expose people to excessive noise levels. There is no
public or private airport within two miles of the project site and Scenario 4. Therefore, impacts
would be less than significant in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation: Not Applicable.
Albright Way Development Project
Acoustical Assessment 38 March 2011
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
Scenario 1
Cumulative Operational Noise
Scenario 1 would introduce the use of stationary equipment that would increase noise levels
within the area. Based on the long‐term stationary noise impacts analysis above under Impact
NOI‐1, impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, Scenario 1 would not result in
stationary long‐term equipment that would significantly affect surrounding sensitive receptors.
Furthermore, future development proposals, other than the project, within the Town would
require separate discretionary approval and CEQA assessment, which would address potential
noise impacts and identify necessary attenuation measures, where appropriate. Thus,
cumulative noise exposure for long‐term operations would result in a less than significant
impact.
Cumulative Mobile Noise
The cumulative condition is defined as the background conditions plus pending (but not yet
approved) project trips. The cumulative mobile noise analysis is conducted in a two step
process. First, the combined effects from both the proposed project and other projects are
compared. Second, for combined effects that are determined to be cumulatively significant, the
project’s incremental effects then are analyzed. The project’s cumulatively considerable
contribution to a cumulative traffic noise increase would be considered significant when the
combined effect exceeds perception level (i.e., auditory level increase) threshold. The combined
effect compares the “cumulative with project” condition to “existing” conditions. This
comparison accounts for the traffic noise increase from the project generated in combination
with traffic generated by projects in the cumulative projects list. The following criteria have
been utilized to evaluate the combined effect of the cumulative noise increase.
Combined Effects: The cumulative with project noise level (“Cumulative With Project”) causes
the following:
• An increase of the existing noise level by 5 dBA or more, where the existing level is less
than 60 dBA CNEL;
• An increase of the existing noise level by 3 dBA or more, where the existing level is 60 to
65 dBA CNEL; or
• An increase of the existing noise level by 1.5 dBA or more, where the existing level is
greater than 65 dBA CNEL.
Albright Way Development Project
Acoustical Assessment 39 March 2011
Although there may be a significant noise increase due to the proposed project in combination
with other related projects (combined effects), it must also be demonstrated that the project has
an incremental effect. In other words, a significant portion of the noise increase must be due to
the proposed project. The following criteria have been utilized to evaluate the incremental
effect of the cumulative noise increase.
Incremental Effects: The “Cumulative With Project” causes a 1 dBA increase in noise over the
“Cumulative Without Project” noise level.
A significant impact would result only if both the combined and incremental effects criteria
have been exceeded.
Noise by definition is a localized phenomenon, and drastically reduces as distance from the
source increases. Consequently, only proposed projects and growth due to occur in the general
vicinity of the project site would contribute to cumulative noise impacts. Table 12, Cumulative
Noise Scenario, lists the traffic noise effects along roadway segments in the project vicinity for
“Existing,” “Cumulative Without Project,” and “Cumulative With Project,” including
incremental and net cumulative impacts.
First, it must be determined whether the Cumulative With Project Increase Above Existing
Conditions (Combined Effects) is exceeded. Per Table 12, this criteria is not exceeded.
Under the Incremental Effects criteria, cumulative noise impacts are defined by determining if the
ambient (“Cumulative Without Project”) noise level is increased by 1 dBA or more. Per Table
12, this criteria is not exceeded.
Based on the results of Table 12, the maximum noise increase for combined effects criteria
would be 1.8 dBA and 0.8 dBA for incremental effects criteria. Under the “Cumulative With
Project” scenario noise levels at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline for Lark Avenue,
between Winchester Boulevard and Oka Road are 62.2 dBA, which is below the Town’s
standard of 65 dBA for residential exterior land uses. Furthermore, there would not be any
roadway segments that would result in significant impacts, as they would not exceed the
combined and incremental effects criteria. Therefore, the proposed project, in combination with
cumulative background traffic noise levels, implementation of recommended mitigation
measures, and compliance with Town noise standards, would not result in a cumulatively
considerable contribution to noise in the area. Impacts in this regard would be less than
significant.
Albright Way Development Project
Acoustical Assessment 40 March 2011
Table 12
Cumulative Noise Scenario
Existing
Cumulative
Without
Project
Cumulative
With Project
Combined
Effects
Incremental
Effects
Roadway Segment dBA CNEL @
100 Feet from
Roadway
Centerline
dBA CNEL @
100 Feet from
Roadway
Centerline
dBA CNEL @
100 Feet from
Roadway
Centerline
Difference In
dBA Between
Existing and
Cumulative With
Project
Difference In dBA
between
Cumulative
Without Project
and Cumulative
With Project
Cumulatively
Significant
Impact?
Winchester Boulevard
North of SR-85 65.7 66.2 66.3 0.6 0.1 No
SR-85 to Wimbledon
Drive 64.9 65.6 66.1 1.2 0.5 No
Wimbledon Drive to
Lark Avenue 64.7 65.5 65.9 1.2 0.4 No
Lark Avenue
Winchester Boulevard
to Oka Road 60.4 61.4 62.2 1.8 0.8 No
Wimbledon Drive
West of Winchester
Boulevard 52.5 54.1 54.2 1.7 0.1 No
dBA = A-weighted decibel(s); ADT = Average Daily Traffic; CNEL = community noise equivalent level
Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., Albright Way Development Traffic Impact Analysis, dated March 17, 2011.
Scenario 2
Cumulative Operational Noise
Scenario 2 would introduce the use of stationary equipment that would increase noise levels
within the area. Based on the long‐term stationary noise impacts analysis, stationary noise
would not significantly affect surrounding sensitive receptors and impacts would be less than
significant. As with Scenario 1, cumulative noise exposure for long‐term operations associated
with Scenario 2 would result in a less than significant impact.
Cumulative Mobile Noise
At full development, Scenario 2 would result in 948 daily net new trips (as opposed to 3,126 for
Scenario 1). Scenario 2 would contribute fewer trips to the surrounding roadway network,
thereby generating less noise. Thus, cumulative noise impacts would be proportionately
reduced. Therefore, as with Scenario 1, there would not be any roadway segments that would
result in significant impacts, as they would not exceed the combined and incremental effects
criteria. Therefore, Scenario 2, in combination with cumulative background traffic noise levels,
implementation of recommended mitigation measures, and compliance with Town noise
standards, would result in a less than significant impact in this regard.
Albright Way Development Project
Acoustical Assessment 41 March 2011
Scenario 3
Cumulative Operational Noise
Scenario 3 involves a combination of office and residential uses and would introduce the use of
stationary equipment that would increase noise levels within the area. Based on the long‐term
stationary noise impacts analysis, stationary noise would not significantly affect the proposed
on‐site or existing surrounding sensitive receptors and impacts would be less than significant.
As with Scenario 1, cumulative noise exposure for long‐term operations associated with
Scenario 3 would result in a less than significant impact.
Cumulative Mobile Noise
At full development, Scenario 3 would result in 2,000 daily net new trips (as opposed to 3,126
for Scenario 1). Thus, cumulative noise impacts would be proportionately reduced, as Scenario
3 would contribute fewer trips to the surrounding roadway network. As with Scenario 1, there
would not be any roadway segments that would result in significant impacts, as they would not
exceed the combined and incremental effects criteria. Additionally, the lower traffic volumes in
Scenario 3 would ensure that residential uses on‐site would not experience traffic noise impacts.
Therefore, Scenario 3, in combination with cumulative background traffic noise levels,
implementation of recommended mitigation measures, and compliance with Town noise
standards, would result in a less than significant impact in this regard.
Scenario 4
Cumulative Operational Noise
As with Scenario 3, Scenario 4 involves a combination of office and residential uses. This
scenario would not significantly affect the proposed on‐site or existing surrounding sensitive
receptors and impacts would be less than significant. As with Scenario 1, cumulative noise
exposure for long‐term operations associated with Scenario 4D would result in a less than
significant impact.
Cumulative Mobile Noise
At full development, Scenario 4 would result in 1,442 daily net new trips (as opposed to 2,000
for Scenario 3). Thus, cumulative noise impacts would be proportionately reduced as Scenario
4 would contribute fewer trips to the surrounding roadway network. As with Scenario 1, there
would not be any roadway segments that would result in significant impacts, as they would not
exceed the combined and incremental effects criteria. Additionally, the lower traffic volumes in
Scenario 4 would ensure that residential uses on‐site would not experience traffic noise impacts.
Therefore, Scenario 4, in combination with cumulative background traffic noise levels,
implementation of recommended mitigation measures, and compliance with Town noise
standards, would result in a less than significant impact in this regard.
Albright Way Development Project
Acoustical Assessment 42 March 2011
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation: Not Applicable.
Albright Way Development Project
Acoustical Assessment 43 March 2011
6.0 REFERENCES
6.1 LIST OF PREPARERS
RBF CONSULTING
14725 Alton Parkway
Irvine, California 95618
949/472‐3505
Eddie Torres, INCE, REA, Director of Technical Studies
Kristen Bogue, Environmental Analyst
Brian Allee, Environmental Analyst
Kelly Chiene, Environmental Analyst
Gary Gick, Word Processor
Linda Bo, Graphics
6.2 DOCUMENTS
1. Harris, Cyril, Handbook of Noise Control, 1979.
2. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., Albright Way Development Traffic Impact
Analysis, dated March 17, 2011.
3. Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment
Guidelines, May 2006.
4. Leo L. Beraneck and Istvan L. Ver, Noise and Control Engineering: Principles and
Applications, 1992.
5. State of California, Governors Office of Planning and Research, General Plan
Guidelines, October 2003.
6. Town of Los Gatos, Town of Los Gatos Municipal Code, codified through Ordinance
No. 2182, adopted November 2, 2009.
7. Town of Los Gatos, Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan, dated January 7, 2011.
8. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, The Noise Guidebook, undated.
9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Noise Effects Handbook – A Desk Reference to
Health and Welfare Effects of Noise, October 1979 (revised July 1981).
Albright Way Development Project
Acoustical Assessment 44 March 2011
6.3 SOFTWARE/WEBSITES
1. FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, FHWA‐RD‐77‐108, Initial release
date of December 1978.
2. FHWA TNM 2.5, Initial release date of April 2004.
3. Google Earth, 2010.
4. Town of Los Gatos website, http://www.town.los‐gatos.ca.us/index.aspx
APPENDIX
A. NOISE MEASUREMENT SHEETS
Site Number: 1
Recorded By: Malisos
Job Number: 40-100419
Date: 12.3.10
Time: 1:22 PM
Location: Center of Project Site
Source of Peak Noise: HVAC units
Noise Data
Leq (dB) Lmin (dB) Lmax (dB) Peak (dB)
57.7 53.6 68.8 87.3
Equipment
Category Type Vendor Model Serial No. Cert. Date Note
Sound
Sound Level Meter Brüel & Kjær 2250 2548189 9/10/2009
Microphone Brüel & Kjær 4189 2543364 9/10/2009
Preamp Brüel & Kjær ZC 0032 4265 9/10/2009
Calibrator Brüel & Kjær 4231 2545667 9/10/2009
Weather Data
Est.
Duration: 10 minutes Sky: ☼ Cloudy
Note: dBA Offset = 0.00 Sensor Height (ft): 5 ft
Wind Ave Speed (mph / m/s) Temperature (degrees Fahrenheit) Barometer Pressure (hPa)
>5 58 1017
Photo of Measurement Location
2250
Instrument:2250
Application:BZ7225 Version 2.0.2
Start Time:12/03/2010 14:22:25
End Time:12/03/2010 14:32:25
Elapsed Time:00:10:00
Bandwidth:Broadband
Max Input Level:140.14
TimeFrequency
Broadband (excl. Peak):FSIAC
Broadband Peak:C
Spectrum:FSZ
Instrument Serial Number: 2548189
Microphone Serial Number: 2543364
Input:Top Socket
Windscreen Correction:None
Sound Field Correction:Diffuse-field
Calibration Time: 12/03/2010 13:32:41
Calibration Type: External reference
Sensitivity:54.86 mV/Pa
ALB001
StartEndOverloadLAIeqLAFmaxLAFmin
timetime[%][dB][dB][dB]
Value---57.768.853.6
Time02:22:25 PM02:32:25 PM
Date12/03/201012/03/2010
Cursor: (A) Leq=56.8 dB LFmax=68.8 dB LFmin=53.6 dB
ALB001
12.5031.5063125250500100020004000800016000AC
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
dB 12/03/2010 02:22:25 PM - 02:32:25 PM
Hz
LZeqLZFmaxLZFmin
Cursor: [76.2 ; 76.4[ dB Level: 0.0% Cumulative: 0.0%
ALB001
2030405060708090100110120130140
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
%Based on LAF , 10ms Class width: 0.2 dB 12/03/2010 02:22:25 PM - 02:32:25 PM
dB
L1=65.6 dB
L5=60.1 dB
L10=57.0 dB
L50=55.5 dB
L90=54.7 dB
L95=54.5 dB
L99=54.1 dB
LevelCumulative
Cursor: 12/03/2010 02:27:24 PM - 02:27:25 PM LAIeq=59.3 dB LAFmax=59.4 dB LCpeak=85.2 dB LAFmin=58.2 dB
ALB001
02:23:00 PM02:25:00 PM02:27:00 PM02:29:00 PM02:31:00 PM
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Sound
dB
LAIeqLAFmaxLCpeakLAFmin
ALB001
StartElapsedLAIeqLAFmaxLAFmin
timetime[dB][dB][dB]
Value59.359.458.2
Time02:27:24 PM0:00:01
Date12/03/2010
Cursor: (A) Leq=59.0 dB LFmax=59.4 dB LFmin=58.2 dB
ALB001
12.5031.5063125250500100020004000800016000AC
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
dB 12/03/2010 02:27:24 PM - 02:27:25 PM
Hz
LZeqLZFmaxLZFmin
Cursor: [76.2 ; 76.4[ dB Level: 0.0% Cumulative: 0.0%
ALB001
2030405060708090100110120130140
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
%Based on LAF , 10ms Class width: 0.2 dB 12/03/2010 02:27:24 PM - 02:27:25 PM
dB
L1=59.5 dB
L5=59.3 dB
L10=59.2 dB
L50=58.9 dB
L90=58.5 dB
L95=58.4 dB
L99=58.3 dB
LevelCumulative
Cursor: 12/03/2010 02:22:25 PM - 03:22:25 PM LAIeq=57.7 dB LAFmax=68.8 dB LCpeak=87.3 dB LAFmin=53.6 dB
ALB001 Periodic reports
02:30:00 PM02:40:00 PM02:50:00 PM03:00:00 PM03:10:00 PM03:20:00 PM
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Sound
dB
LAIeqLAFmaxLCpeakLAFmin
ALB001 Periodic reports
StartElapsedOverloadLAIeqLAFmaxLAFmin
timetime[%][dB][dB][dB]
Value 0.0057.768.853.6
Time02:22:25 PM0:10:00
Date12/03/2010
Cursor: (A) Leq=56.8 dB LFmax=68.8 dB LFmin=53.6 dB
ALB001 Periodic reports
12.5031.5063125250500100020004000800016000AC
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
dB 12/03/2010 02:22:25 PM - 02:32:25 PM
Hz
LZeqLZFmaxLZFmin
Cursor: [76.2 ; 76.4[ dB Level: 0.0% Cumulative: 0.0%
ALB001 Periodic reports
2030405060708090100110120130140
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
%Based on LAF , 10ms Class width: 0.2 dB 12/03/2010 02:22:25 PM - 02:32:25 PM
dB
L1=65.6 dB
L5=60.1 dB
L10=57.0 dB
L50=55.5 dB
L90=54.7 dB
L95=54.5 dB
L99=54.1 dB
LevelCumulative
Cursor: 12/03/2010 02:27:24 PM.900 - 02:27:25 PM.000 LAeq=59.5 dB LAF =59.4 dB
ALB001 - Fast Logged
02:23:00 PM02:25:00 PM02:27:00 PM02:29:00 PM02:31:00 PM
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Sound
dB
LAeqLAF
ALB001 - Fast Logged
StartElapsedLAeq
timetime[dB]
Value59.5
Time02:27:24 PM.9000:00:00.100
Date12/03/2010
Site Number: 2
Recorded By: Malisos
Job Number: 40-100419
Date: 12.3.10
Time: 1:38 PM
Location: Northern portion of the site
Source of Peak Noise: freeway traffic
Noise Data
Leq (dB) Lmin (dB) Lmax (dB) Peak (dB)
67.4 58.1 72.2 91.6
Equipment
Category Type Vendor Model Serial No. Cert. Date Note
Sound
Sound Level Meter Brüel & Kjær 2250 2548189 9/10/2009
Microphone Brüel & Kjær 4189 2543364 9/10/2009
Preamp Brüel & Kjær ZC 0032 4265 9/10/2009
Calibrator Brüel & Kjær 4231 2545667 9/10/2009
Weather Data
Est.
Duration: 10 minutes Sky: ☼ Cloudy
Note: dBA Offset = 0.00 Sensor Height (ft): 5 ft
Wind Ave Speed (mph / m/s) Temperature (degrees Fahrenheit) Barometer Pressure (hPa)
>5 59 1017
Photo of Measurement Location
2250
Instrument:2250
Application:BZ7225 Version 2.0.2
Start Time:12/03/2010 14:38:17
End Time:12/03/2010 14:48:17
Elapsed Time:00:10:00
Bandwidth:Broadband
Max Input Level:140.14
TimeFrequency
Broadband (excl. Peak):FSIAC
Broadband Peak:C
Spectrum:FSZ
Instrument Serial Number: 2548189
Microphone Serial Number: 2543364
Input:Top Socket
Windscreen Correction:None
Sound Field Correction:Diffuse-field
Calibration Time: 12/03/2010 13:32:41
Calibration Type: External reference
Sensitivity:54.86 mV/Pa
ALB002
StartEndOverloadLAIeqLAFmaxLAFmin
timetime[%][dB][dB][dB]
Value---67.472.258.1
Time02:38:17 PM02:48:17 PM
Date12/03/201012/03/2010
Cursor: (A) Leq=66.6 dB LFmax=72.2 dB LFmin=58.1 dB
ALB002
12.5031.5063125250500100020004000800016000AC
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
dB 12/03/2010 02:38:17 PM - 02:48:17 PM
Hz
LZeqLZFmaxLZFmin
Cursor: [76.2 ; 76.4[ dB Level: 0.0% Cumulative: 0.0%
ALB002
2030405060708090100110120130140
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
%Based on LAF , 10ms Class width: 0.2 dB 12/03/2010 02:38:17 PM - 02:48:17 PM
dB
L1=70.0 dB
L5=69.1 dB
L10=68.5 dB
L50=66.4 dB
L90=63.9 dB
L95=62.9 dB
L99=60.8 dB
LevelCumulative
Cursor: 12/03/2010 02:43:16 PM - 02:43:17 PM LAIeq=68.0 dB LAFmax=68.4 dB LCpeak=84.0 dB LAFmin=66.4 dB
ALB002
02:39:00 PM02:41:00 PM02:43:00 PM02:45:00 PM02:47:00 PM
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Sound
dB
LAIeqLAFmaxLCpeakLAFmin
ALB002
StartElapsedLAIeqLAFmaxLAFmin
timetime[dB][dB][dB]
Value68.068.466.4
Time02:43:16 PM0:00:01
Date12/03/2010
Cursor: (A) Leq=67.3 dB LFmax=68.4 dB LFmin=66.4 dB
ALB002
12.5031.5063125250500100020004000800016000AC
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
dB 12/03/2010 02:43:16 PM - 02:43:17 PM
Hz
LZeqLZFmaxLZFmin
Cursor: [76.2 ; 76.4[ dB Level: 0.0% Cumulative: 0.0%
ALB002
2030405060708090100110120130140
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
%Based on LAF , 10ms Class width: 0.2 dB 12/03/2010 02:43:16 PM - 02:43:17 PM
dB
L1=68.4 dB
L5=68.3 dB
L10=68.3 dB
L50=67.6 dB
L90=66.5 dB
L95=66.4 dB
L99=66.3 dB
LevelCumulative
Cursor: 12/03/2010 02:38:17 PM - 03:38:17 PM LAIeq=67.4 dB LAFmax=72.2 dB LCpeak=91.6 dB LAFmin=58.1 dB
ALB002 Periodic reports
02:40:00 PM02:50:00 PM03:00:00 PM03:10:00 PM03:20:00 PM03:30:00 PM
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Sound
dB
LAIeqLAFmaxLCpeakLAFmin
ALB002 Periodic reports
StartElapsedOverloadLAIeqLAFmaxLAFmin
timetime[%][dB][dB][dB]
Value 0.0067.472.258.1
Time02:38:17 PM0:10:00
Date12/03/2010
Cursor: (A) Leq=66.6 dB LFmax=72.2 dB LFmin=58.1 dB
ALB002 Periodic reports
12.5031.5063125250500100020004000800016000AC
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
dB 12/03/2010 02:38:17 PM - 02:48:17 PM
Hz
LZeqLZFmaxLZFmin
Cursor: [76.2 ; 76.4[ dB Level: 0.0% Cumulative: 0.0%
ALB002 Periodic reports
2030405060708090100110120130140
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
%Based on LAF , 10ms Class width: 0.2 dB 12/03/2010 02:38:17 PM - 02:48:17 PM
dB
L1=70.0 dB
L5=69.1 dB
L10=68.5 dB
L50=66.4 dB
L90=63.9 dB
L95=62.9 dB
L99=60.8 dB
LevelCumulative
Cursor: 12/03/2010 02:43:16 PM.900 - 02:43:17 PM.000 LAeq=67.5 dB LAF =67.2 dB
ALB002 - Fast Logged
02:39:00 PM02:41:00 PM02:43:00 PM02:45:00 PM02:47:00 PM
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Sound
dB
LAeqLAF
ALB002 - Fast Logged
StartElapsedLAeq
timetime[dB]
Value67.5
Time02:43:16 PM.9000:00:00.100
Date12/03/2010
Site Number: 3
Recorded By: Malisos
Job Number: 40-100419
Date: 12.3.10
Time: 1:54 PM
Location: Northern terminus of Charter Oaks Lane
Source of Peak Noise: Pedestrians using trail along Charter Oaks Lane
Noise Data
Leq (dB) Lmin (dB) Lmax (dB) Peak (dB)
52.3 45.8 63.8 87.0
Equipment
Category Type Vendor Model Serial No. Cert. Date Note
Sound
Sound Level Meter Brüel & Kjær 2250 2548189 9/10/2009
Microphone Brüel & Kjær 4189 2543364 9/10/2009
Preamp Brüel & Kjær ZC 0032 4265 9/10/2009
Calibrator Brüel & Kjær 4231 2545667 9/10/2009
Weather Data
Est.
Duration: 10 minutes Sky: ☼ Cloudy
Note: dBA Offset = 0.00 Sensor Height (ft): 5 ft
Wind Ave Speed (mph / m/s) Temperature (degrees Fahrenheit) Barometer Pressure (hPa)
>5 59 1017
Photo of Measurement Location
2250
Instrument:2250
Application:BZ7225 Version 2.0.2
Start Time:12/03/2010 14:54:12
End Time:12/03/2010 15:04:44
Elapsed Time:00:10:00
Bandwidth:Broadband
Max Input Level:140.14
TimeFrequency
Broadband (excl. Peak):FSIAC
Broadband Peak:C
Spectrum:FSZ
Instrument Serial Number: 2548189
Microphone Serial Number: 2543364
Input:Top Socket
Windscreen Correction:None
Sound Field Correction:Diffuse-field
Calibration Time: 12/03/2010 13:32:41
Calibration Type: External reference
Sensitivity:54.86 mV/Pa
ALB003
StartEndOverloadLAIeqLAFmaxLAFmin
timetime[%][dB][dB][dB]
Value---52.363.845.8
Time02:54:12 PM03:04:44 PM
Date12/03/201012/03/2010
Cursor: (A) Leq=50.8 dB LFmax=63.8 dB LFmin=45.8 dB
ALB003
12.5031.5063125250500100020004000800016000AC
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
dB 12/03/2010 02:54:12 PM - 03:04:44 PM
Hz
LZeqLZFmaxLZFmin
Cursor: [76.2 ; 76.4[ dB Level: 0.0% Cumulative: 0.0%
ALB003
2030405060708090100110120130140
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
%Based on LAF , 10ms Class width: 0.2 dB 12/03/2010 02:54:12 PM - 03:04:44 PM
dB
L1=54.3 dB
L5=53.1 dB
L10=52.5 dB
L50=50.5 dB
L90=48.3 dB
L95=47.7 dB
L99=46.8 dB
LevelCumulative
Cursor: 12/03/2010 02:59:43 PM - 02:59:44 PM LAIeq=48.1 dB LAFmax=48.2 dB LCpeak=69.4 dB LAFmin=46.9 dB
ALB003
02:56:00 PM02:58:00 PM03:00:00 PM03:02:00 PM03:04:00 PM
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Sound
dB
LAIeqLAFmaxLCpeakLAFmin
ALB003
StartElapsedLAIeqLAFmaxLAFmin
timetime[dB][dB][dB]
Value48.148.246.9
Time02:59:43 PM0:00:01
Date12/03/2010
Cursor: (A) Leq=47.5 dB LFmax=48.2 dB LFmin=46.9 dB
ALB003
12.5031.5063125250500100020004000800016000AC
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
dB 12/03/2010 02:59:43 PM - 02:59:44 PM
Hz
LZeqLZFmaxLZFmin
Cursor: [76.2 ; 76.4[ dB Level: 0.0% Cumulative: 0.0%
ALB003
2030405060708090100110120130140
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
%Based on LAF , 10ms Class width: 0.2 dB 12/03/2010 02:59:43 PM - 02:59:44 PM
dB
L1=48.2 dB
L5=48.1 dB
L10=48.0 dB
L50=47.6 dB
L90=47.2 dB
L95=47.0 dB
L99=46.9 dB
LevelCumulative
Cursor: 12/03/2010 02:59:28 PM - 03:00:00 PM LAIeq=0.0 dB LAFmax=0.0 dB LCpeak=0.0 dB LAFmin=0.0 dB
ALB003 Periodic reports
03:00:00 PM03:10:00 PM03:20:00 PM03:30:00 PM03:40:00 PM03:50:00 PM04:00:00 PM
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Sound
dB
LAIeqLAFmaxLCpeakLAFmin
ALB003 Periodic reports
StartElapsedOverloadLAIeqLAFmaxLAFmin
timetime[%][dB][dB][dB]
Value 0.000.00.00.0
Time02:59:28 PM0:00:32
Date12/03/2010
Cursor: (A) Leq=0.0 dB LFmax=0.0 dB LFmin=0.0 dB
ALB003 Periodic reports
12.5031.5063125250500100020004000800016000AC
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
dB 12/03/2010 02:59:28 PM - 03:00:00 PM
Hz
LZeqLZFmaxLZFmin
Cursor: [76.2 ; 76.4[ dB Level: 0.0% Cumulative: 0.0%
ALB003 Periodic reports
2030405060708090100110120130140
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
%Based on LAF , 10ms Class width: 0.2 dB 12/03/2010 02:59:28 PM - 03:00:00 PM
dB
L1=54.2 dB
L5=53.3 dB
L10=52.6 dB
L50=50.2 dB
L90=48.1 dB
L95=47.6 dB
L99=47.0 dB
LevelCumulative
Cursor: 12/03/2010 02:59:43 PM.900 - 02:59:44 PM.000 LAeq=47.0 dB LAF =47.3 dB
ALB003 - Fast Logged
02:56:00 PM02:58:00 PM03:00:00 PM03:02:00 PM03:04:00 PM
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Sound
dB
LAeqLAF
ALB003 - Fast Logged
StartElapsedLAeq
timetime[dB]
Value47.0
Time02:59:43 PM.9000:00:00.100
Date12/03/2010
Site Number: 4
Recorded By: Malisos
Job Number: 40-100419
Date: 12.3.10
Time: 2:11 PM
Location: Smith Ranch Court (across Winchester Boulevard)
Source of Peak Noise: traffic along Winchester Boulevard
Noise Data
Leq (dB) Lmin (dB) Lmax (dB) Peak (dB)
55.9 43.4 67.4 91.9
Equipment
Category Type Vendor Model Serial No. Cert. Date Note
Sound
Sound Level Meter Brüel & Kjær 2250 2548189 9/10/2009
Microphone Brüel & Kjær 4189 2543364 9/10/2009
Preamp Brüel & Kjær ZC 0032 4265 9/10/2009
Calibrator Brüel & Kjær 4231 2545667 9/10/2009
Weather Data
Est.
Duration: 10 minutes Sky: ☼ Cloudy
Note: dBA Offset = 0.00 Sensor Height (ft): 5 ft
Wind Ave Speed (mph / m/s) Temperature (degrees Fahrenheit) Barometer Pressure (hPa)
>5 59 1017
Photo of Measurement Location
2250
Instrument:2250
Application:BZ7225 Version 2.0.2
Start Time:12/03/2010 15:11:30
End Time:12/03/2010 15:21:30
Elapsed Time:00:10:00
Bandwidth:Broadband
Max Input Level:140.14
TimeFrequency
Broadband (excl. Peak):FSIAC
Broadband Peak:C
Spectrum:FSZ
Instrument Serial Number: 2548189
Microphone Serial Number: 2543364
Input:Top Socket
Windscreen Correction:None
Sound Field Correction:Diffuse-field
Calibration Time: 12/03/2010 13:32:41
Calibration Type: External reference
Sensitivity:54.86 mV/Pa
ALB004
StartEndOverloadLAIeqLAFmaxLAFmin
timetime[%][dB][dB][dB]
Value---55.967.443.4
Time03:11:30 PM03:21:30 PM
Date12/03/201012/03/2010
Cursor: (A) Leq=53.5 dB LFmax=67.4 dB LFmin=43.4 dB
ALB004
12.5031.5063125250500100020004000800016000AC
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
dB 12/03/2010 03:11:30 PM - 03:21:30 PM
Hz
LZeqLZFmaxLZFmin
Cursor: [76.2 ; 76.4[ dB Level: 0.0% Cumulative: 0.0%
ALB004
2030405060708090100110120130140
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
%Based on LAF , 10ms Class width: 0.2 dB 12/03/2010 03:11:30 PM - 03:21:30 PM
dB
L1=60.6 dB
L5=58.0 dB
L10=56.8 dB
L50=51.7 dB
L90=46.1 dB
L95=45.4 dB
L99=44.4 dB
LevelCumulative
Cursor: 12/03/2010 03:16:29 PM - 03:16:30 PM LAIeq=49.4 dB LAFmax=49.3 dB LCpeak=72.9 dB LAFmin=46.1 dB
ALB004
03:12:00 PM03:14:00 PM03:16:00 PM03:18:00 PM03:20:00 PM
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Sound
dB
LAIeqLAFmaxLCpeakLAFmin
ALB004
StartElapsedLAIeqLAFmaxLAFmin
timetime[dB][dB][dB]
Value49.449.346.1
Time03:16:29 PM0:00:01
Date12/03/2010
Cursor: (A) Leq=47.9 dB LFmax=49.3 dB LFmin=46.1 dB
ALB004
12.5031.5063125250500100020004000800016000AC
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
dB 12/03/2010 03:16:29 PM - 03:16:30 PM
Hz
LZeqLZFmaxLZFmin
Cursor: [76.2 ; 76.4[ dB Level: 0.0% Cumulative: 0.0%
ALB004
2030405060708090100110120130140
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
%Based on LAF , 10ms Class width: 0.2 dB 12/03/2010 03:16:29 PM - 03:16:30 PM
dB
L1=49.4 dB
L5=49.3 dB
L10=49.0 dB
L50=47.5 dB
L90=46.5 dB
L95=46.3 dB
L99=46.1 dB
LevelCumulative
Cursor: 12/03/2010 03:11:30 PM - 04:11:30 PM LAIeq=55.9 dB LAFmax=67.4 dB LCpeak=91.1 dB LAFmin=43.4 dB
ALB004 Periodic reports
03:20:00 PM03:30:00 PM03:40:00 PM03:50:00 PM04:00:00 PM04:10:00 PM
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Sound
dB
LAIeqLAFmaxLCpeakLAFmin
ALB004 Periodic reports
StartElapsedOverloadLAIeqLAFmaxLAFmin
timetime[%][dB][dB][dB]
Value 0.0055.967.443.4
Time03:11:30 PM0:10:00
Date12/03/2010
Cursor: (A) Leq=53.5 dB LFmax=67.4 dB LFmin=43.4 dB
ALB004 Periodic reports
12.5031.5063125250500100020004000800016000AC
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
dB 12/03/2010 03:11:30 PM - 03:21:30 PM
Hz
LZeqLZFmaxLZFmin
Cursor: [76.2 ; 76.4[ dB Level: 0.0% Cumulative: 0.0%
ALB004 Periodic reports
2030405060708090100110120130140
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
%Based on LAF , 10ms Class width: 0.2 dB 12/03/2010 03:11:30 PM - 03:21:30 PM
dB
L1=60.6 dB
L5=58.0 dB
L10=56.8 dB
L50=51.7 dB
L90=46.1 dB
L95=45.4 dB
L99=44.4 dB
LevelCumulative
Cursor: 12/03/2010 03:16:29 PM.900 - 03:16:30 PM.000 LAeq=47.9 dB LAF =47.5 dB
ALB004 - Fast Logged
03:12:00 PM03:14:00 PM03:16:00 PM03:18:00 PM03:20:00 PM
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Sound
dB
LAeqLAF
ALB004 - Fast Logged
StartElapsedLAeq
timetime[dB]
Value47.9
Time03:16:29 PM.9000:00:00.100
Date12/03/2010
B. MODELING DATA
Project Name:Scenario:
Job #:
Roadway:
Centerline Dist to Barrier0Road Grade:0
Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm):0Average Daily Traffic:25860
Receiver Barrier Dist:0Peak Hour Traffic:2586
Centerline Dist. To Observer:100Vehicle Speed:35
Barrier Near Lane CL Dist:0Centerline Separation:45
Barrier Far lane CL Dist:0
Pad Elevation:0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE
Road Elevation:0
Observer Height (above grade):0TypeDayEveningNightDaily
Barrier Height:0Auto0.7750.1290.0960.9742
Rt View:90Lft View:-90Med. Truck0.8480.0490.1030.0184
Heavy Truck0.8650.0270.1080.0074
Autos:0
Medium Trucks:2.3
Heavy Trucks:8
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:53.862.660.854.763.464.0
Medium Trucks:63.555.549.147.556.056.2
Heavy Trucks:68.756.847.749.058.959.0
Vehicle Noise:71.264.561.456.765.265.7
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Vehicle Noise:
-446446-305305
-141141-9696
-4545-4545
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Unmitigated
CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR
Mitigated
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108
Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO)
Albright Way Office Development Project
Kelly Chiene
PROJECT DATA
Existing
40-100419
SITE DATA
Road Segment:North of SR-85
Winchester Boulevard
Analyst:
UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation)
MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation)
NOISE INPUTS
FLEET MIX
NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet)
Roadway Centerline Noise Contour
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
Roadway Centerline
Feet
Project Name:Scenario:
Job #:
Roadway:
Centerline Dist to Barrier0Road Grade:0
Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm):0Average Daily Traffic:21080
Receiver Barrier Dist:0Peak Hour Traffic:2108
Centerline Dist. To Observer:100Vehicle Speed:35
Barrier Near Lane CL Dist:0Centerline Separation:40
Barrier Far lane CL Dist:0
Pad Elevation:0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE
Road Elevation:0
Observer Height (above grade):0TypeDayEveningNightDaily
Barrier Height:0Auto0.7750.1290.0960.9742
Rt View:90Lft View:-90Med. Truck0.8480.0490.1030.0184
Heavy Truck0.8650.0270.1080.0074
Autos:0
Medium Trucks:2.3
Heavy Trucks:8
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:53.061.860.053.962.663.2
Medium Trucks:62.754.648.346.755.255.4
Heavy Trucks:67.956.046.948.258.158.2
Vehicle Noise:70.463.760.555.964.464.9
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Vehicle Noise:
-363363-248248
-115115-7979
-3636-3636
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Unmitigated
CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR
Mitigated
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108
Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO)
Albright Way Office Development Project
Kelly Chiene
PROJECT DATA
Existing
40-100419
SITE DATA
Road Segment:SR-85 to Wimbeldon Drive
Winchester Boulevard
Analyst:
UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation)
MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation)
NOISE INPUTS
FLEET MIX
NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet)
Roadway Centerline Noise Contour
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
Roadway Centerline
Feet
Project Name:Scenario:
Job #:
Roadway:
Centerline Dist to Barrier0Road Grade:0
Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm):0Average Daily Traffic:20450
Receiver Barrier Dist:0Peak Hour Traffic:2045
Centerline Dist. To Observer:100Vehicle Speed:35
Barrier Near Lane CL Dist:0Centerline Separation:45
Barrier Far lane CL Dist:0
Pad Elevation:0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE
Road Elevation:0
Observer Height (above grade):0TypeDayEveningNightDaily
Barrier Height:0Auto0.7750.1290.0960.9742
Rt View:90Lft View:-90Med. Truck0.8480.0490.1030.0184
Heavy Truck0.8650.0270.1080.0074
Autos:0
Medium Trucks:2.3
Heavy Trucks:8
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:52.861.659.853.762.362.9
Medium Trucks:62.554.448.146.555.055.2
Heavy Trucks:67.755.846.747.957.958.0
Vehicle Noise:70.263.560.355.664.264.7
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Vehicle Noise:
-353353-241241
-112112-7676
-3535-3535
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Unmitigated
CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR
Mitigated
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108
Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO)
Albright Way Office Development Project
Kelly Chiene
PROJECT DATA
Existing
40-100419
SITE DATA
Road Segment:Wimbeldon Drive to Lark Avenue
Winchester Boulevard
Analyst:
UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation)
MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation)
NOISE INPUTS
FLEET MIX
NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet)
Roadway Centerline Noise Contour
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
Roadway Centerline
Feet
Project Name:Scenario:
Job #:
Roadway:
Centerline Dist to Barrier0Road Grade:0
Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm):0Average Daily Traffic:10040
Receiver Barrier Dist:0Peak Hour Traffic:1004
Centerline Dist. To Observer:100Vehicle Speed:30
Barrier Near Lane CL Dist:0Centerline Separation:30
Barrier Far lane CL Dist:0
Pad Elevation:0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE
Road Elevation:0
Observer Height (above grade):0TypeDayEveningNightDaily
Barrier Height:0Auto0.7750.1290.0960.9742
Rt View:90Lft View:-90Med. Truck0.8480.0490.1030.0184
Heavy Truck0.8650.0270.1080.0074
Autos:0
Medium Trucks:2.3
Heavy Trucks:8
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:48.056.855.048.957.658.2
Medium Trucks:58.650.544.242.651.151.3
Heavy Trucks:64.352.343.344.554.654.7
Vehicle Noise:66.859.355.751.459.960.4
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Vehicle Noise:
-124124-8585
-3939-2727
-1212-1212
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Unmitigated
CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR
Mitigated
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108
Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO)
Albright Way Office Development Project
Kelly Chiene
PROJECT DATA
Existing
40-100419
SITE DATA
Road Segment:Winchester Boulevard to Oka Road
Lark Avenue
Analyst:
UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation)
MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation)
NOISE INPUTS
FLEET MIX
NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet)
Roadway Centerline Noise Contour
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
Roadway Centerline
Feet
Project Name:Scenario:
Job #:
Roadway:
Centerline Dist to Barrier0Road Grade:0
Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm):0Average Daily Traffic:2410
Receiver Barrier Dist:0Peak Hour Traffic:241
Centerline Dist. To Observer:100Vehicle Speed:25
Barrier Near Lane CL Dist:0Centerline Separation:12
Barrier Far lane CL Dist:0
Pad Elevation:0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE
Road Elevation:0
Observer Height (above grade):0TypeDayEveningNightDaily
Barrier Height:0Auto0.7750.1290.0960.9742
Rt View:90Lft View:-90Med. Truck0.8480.0490.1030.0184
Heavy Truck0.8650.0270.1080.0074
Autos:0
Medium Trucks:2.3
Heavy Trucks:8
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:39.948.646.840.849.450.0
Medium Trucks:51.543.437.035.544.044.2
Heavy Trucks:57.745.736.737.948.348.4
Vehicle Noise:60.351.947.844.052.552.9
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Vehicle Noise:
-2121-1414
-77-44
-22-22
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Unmitigated
CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR
Mitigated
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108
Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO)
Albright Way Office Development Project
Kelly Chiene
PROJECT DATA
Existing
40-100419
SITE DATA
Road Segment:West of Winchester
Wimbeldon Drive
Analyst:
UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation)
MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation)
NOISE INPUTS
FLEET MIX
NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet)
Roadway Centerline Noise Contour
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
Roadway Centerline
Feet
Project Name:Scenario:
Job #:
Roadway:
Centerline Dist to Barrier0Road Grade:0
Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm):0Average Daily Traffic:28330
Receiver Barrier Dist:0Peak Hour Traffic:2833
Centerline Dist. To Observer:100Vehicle Speed:35
Barrier Near Lane CL Dist:0Centerline Separation:45
Barrier Far lane CL Dist:0
Pad Elevation:0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE
Road Elevation:0
Observer Height (above grade):0TypeDayEveningNightDaily
Barrier Height:0Auto0.7750.1290.0960.9742
Rt View:90Lft View:-90Med. Truck0.8480.0490.1030.0184
Heavy Truck0.8650.0270.1080.0074
Autos:0
Medium Trucks:2.3
Heavy Trucks:8
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:54.263.061.255.163.864.4
Medium Trucks:63.955.949.547.956.456.6
Heavy Trucks:69.157.248.149.459.359.4
Vehicle Noise:71.664.961.857.165.666.1
UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation)
NOISE INPUTS
FLEET MIX
NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet)
PROJECT DATA
Future
40-100419
SITE DATA
Road Segment:North of SR-85
Winchester Boulevard
Analyst:
Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108
Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO)
Albright Way Office Development Project
Kelly Chiene
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Vehicle Noise:
-488488-334334
-154154-106106
-4949-4949
MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation)
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Unmitigated
CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR
Mitigated
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
FeetRoadway Centerline
Roadway Centerline Noise Contour
Project Name:Scenario:
Job #:
Roadway:
Centerline Dist to Barrier0Road Grade:0
Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm):0Average Daily Traffic:24030
Receiver Barrier Dist:0Peak Hour Traffic:2403
Centerline Dist. To Observer:100Vehicle Speed:35
Barrier Near Lane CL Dist:0Centerline Separation:40
Barrier Far lane CL Dist:0
Pad Elevation:0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE
Road Elevation:0
Observer Height (above grade):0TypeDayEveningNightDaily
Barrier Height:0Auto0.7750.1290.0960.9742
Rt View:90Lft View:-90Med. Truck0.8480.0490.1030.0184
Heavy Truck0.8650.0270.1080.0074
Autos:0
Medium Trucks:2.3
Heavy Trucks:8
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:53.662.360.654.563.163.7
Medium Trucks:63.355.248.847.355.756.0
Heavy Trucks:68.556.647.548.758.658.8
Vehicle Noise:70.964.361.156.465.065.4
UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation)
NOISE INPUTS
FLEET MIX
NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet)
PROJECT DATA
Future
40-100419
SITE DATA
Road Segment:SR-85 to Wimbeldon Drive
Winchester Boulevard
Analyst:
Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108
Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO)
Albright Way Office Development Project
Kelly Chiene
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Vehicle Noise:
-414414-283283
-131131-9090
-4141-4141
MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation)
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Unmitigated
CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR
Mitigated
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
FeetRoadway Centerline
Roadway Centerline Noise Contour
Project Name:Scenario:
Job #:
Roadway:
Centerline Dist to Barrier0Road Grade:0
Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm):0Average Daily Traffic:23990
Receiver Barrier Dist:0Peak Hour Traffic:2399
Centerline Dist. To Observer:100Vehicle Speed:35
Barrier Near Lane CL Dist:0Centerline Separation:45
Barrier Far lane CL Dist:0
Pad Elevation:0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE
Road Elevation:0
Observer Height (above grade):0TypeDayEveningNightDaily
Barrier Height:0Auto0.7750.1290.0960.9742
Rt View:90Lft View:-90Med. Truck0.8480.0490.1030.0184
Heavy Truck0.8650.0270.1080.0074
Autos:0
Medium Trucks:2.3
Heavy Trucks:8
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:53.562.360.554.463.063.6
Medium Trucks:63.255.148.747.255.755.9
Heavy Trucks:68.456.547.448.658.558.7
Vehicle Noise:70.964.261.056.364.965.4
UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation)
NOISE INPUTS
FLEET MIX
NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet)
PROJECT DATA
Future
40-100419
SITE DATA
Road Segment:Wimbeldon Drive to Lark Avenue
Winchester Boulevard
Analyst:
Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108
Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO)
Albright Way Office Development Project
Kelly Chiene
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Vehicle Noise:
-414414-283283
-131131-8989
-4141-4141
MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation)
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Unmitigated
CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR
Mitigated
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
FeetRoadway Centerline
Roadway Centerline Noise Contour
Project Name:Scenario:
Job #:
Roadway:
Centerline Dist to Barrier0Road Grade:0
Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm):0Average Daily Traffic:12110
Receiver Barrier Dist:0Peak Hour Traffic:1211
Centerline Dist. To Observer:100Vehicle Speed:30
Barrier Near Lane CL Dist:0Centerline Separation:30
Barrier Far lane CL Dist:0
Pad Elevation:0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE
Road Elevation:0
Observer Height (above grade):0TypeDayEveningNightDaily
Barrier Height:0Auto0.7750.1290.0960.9742
Rt View:90Lft View:-90Med. Truck0.8480.0490.1030.0184
Heavy Truck0.8650.0270.1080.0074
Autos:0
Medium Trucks:2.3
Heavy Trucks:8
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:48.857.655.849.758.459.0
Medium Trucks:59.451.445.043.451.952.1
Heavy Trucks:65.153.144.145.355.455.5
Vehicle Noise:67.660.156.552.260.861.2
UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation)
NOISE INPUTS
FLEET MIX
NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet)
PROJECT DATA
Future
40-100419
SITE DATA
Road Segment:Winchester Boulevard to Oka Road
Lark Avenue
Analyst:
Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108
Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO)
Albright Way Office Development Project
Kelly Chiene
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Vehicle Noise:
-150150-102102
-4747-3232
-1515-1515
MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation)
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Unmitigated
CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR
Mitigated
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
FeetRoadway Centerline
Roadway Centerline Noise Contour
Project Name:Scenario:
Job #:
Roadway:
Centerline Dist to Barrier0Road Grade:0
Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm):0Average Daily Traffic:2460
Receiver Barrier Dist:0Peak Hour Traffic:246
Centerline Dist. To Observer:100Vehicle Speed:25
Barrier Near Lane CL Dist:0Centerline Separation:12
Barrier Far lane CL Dist:0
Pad Elevation:0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE
Road Elevation:0
Observer Height (above grade):0TypeDayEveningNightDaily
Barrier Height:0Auto0.7750.1290.0960.9742
Rt View:90Lft View:-90Med. Truck0.8480.0490.1030.0184
Heavy Truck0.8650.0270.1080.0074
Autos:0
Medium Trucks:2.3
Heavy Trucks:8
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:39.948.746.940.849.550.1
Medium Trucks:51.643.537.135.644.144.3
Heavy Trucks:57.745.836.738.048.448.5
Vehicle Noise:60.452.047.944.152.653.0
UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation)
NOISE INPUTS
FLEET MIX
NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet)
PROJECT DATA
Future
40-100419
SITE DATA
Road Segment:West of Winchester
Wimbeldon Drive
Analyst:
Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108
Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO)
Albright Way Office Development Project
Kelly Chiene
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Vehicle Noise:
-2121-1414
-77-55
-22-22
MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation)
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Unmitigated
CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR
Mitigated
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
FeetRoadway Centerline
Roadway Centerline Noise Contour
Project Name:Scenario:
Job #:
Roadway:
Centerline Dist to Barrier0Road Grade:0
Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm):0Average Daily Traffic:29180
Receiver Barrier Dist:0Peak Hour Traffic:2918
Centerline Dist. To Observer:100Vehicle Speed:35
Barrier Near Lane CL Dist:0Centerline Separation:45
Barrier Far lane CL Dist:0
Pad Elevation:0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE
Road Elevation:0
Observer Height (above grade):0TypeDayEveningNightDaily
Barrier Height:0Auto0.7750.1290.0960.9742
Rt View:90Lft View:-90Med. Truck0.8480.0490.1030.0184
Heavy Truck0.8650.0270.1080.0074
Autos:0
Medium Trucks:2.3
Heavy Trucks:8
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:54.363.161.355.263.964.5
Medium Trucks:64.056.049.648.056.556.7
Heavy Trucks:69.357.348.349.559.459.5
Vehicle Noise:71.765.161.957.265.866.2
Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108
Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO)
Albright Way Office Development Project
Kelly Chiene
PROJECT DATA
Future Plus Project
40-100419
SITE DATA
Road Segment:North of SR-85
Winchester Boulevard
Analyst:
UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation)
NOISE INPUTS
FLEET MIX
NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet)
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Vehicle Noise:
-503503-344344
-159159-109109
-5050-5050
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Unmitigated
CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR
Mitigated
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation)
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
FeetRoadway Centerline
Roadway Centerline Noise Contour
Project Name:Scenario:
Job #:
Roadway:
Centerline Dist to Barrier0Road Grade:0
Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm):0Average Daily Traffic:27040
Receiver Barrier Dist:0Peak Hour Traffic:2704
Centerline Dist. To Observer:100Vehicle Speed:35
Barrier Near Lane CL Dist:0Centerline Separation:40
Barrier Far lane CL Dist:0
Pad Elevation:0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE
Road Elevation:0
Observer Height (above grade):0TypeDayEveningNightDaily
Barrier Height:0Auto0.7750.1290.0960.9742
Rt View:90Lft View:-90Med. Truck0.8480.0490.1030.0184
Heavy Truck0.8650.0270.1080.0074
Autos:0
Medium Trucks:2.3
Heavy Trucks:8
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:54.162.961.155.063.664.2
Medium Trucks:63.855.749.347.856.356.5
Heavy Trucks:69.057.148.049.259.159.3
Vehicle Noise:71.464.861.656.965.566.0
Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108
Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO)
Albright Way Office Development Project
Kelly Chiene
PROJECT DATA
Future Plus Project
40-100419
SITE DATA
Road Segment:SR-85 to Wimbeldon Drive
Winchester Boulevard
Analyst:
UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation)
NOISE INPUTS
FLEET MIX
NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet)
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Vehicle Noise:
-467467-319319
-148148-101101
-4747-4747
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Unmitigated
CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR
Mitigated
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation)
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
FeetRoadway Centerline
Roadway Centerline Noise Contour
Project Name:Scenario:
Job #:
Roadway:
Centerline Dist to Barrier0Road Grade:0
Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm):0Average Daily Traffic:26320
Receiver Barrier Dist:0Peak Hour Traffic:2632
Centerline Dist. To Observer:100Vehicle Speed:35
Barrier Near Lane CL Dist:0Centerline Separation:45
Barrier Far lane CL Dist:0
Pad Elevation:0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE
Road Elevation:0
Observer Height (above grade):0TypeDayEveningNightDaily
Barrier Height:0Auto0.7750.1290.0960.9742
Rt View:90Lft View:-90Med. Truck0.8480.0490.1030.0184
Heavy Truck0.8650.0270.1080.0074
Autos:0
Medium Trucks:2.3
Heavy Trucks:8
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:53.962.760.954.863.464.0
Medium Trucks:63.655.549.147.656.156.3
Heavy Trucks:68.856.947.849.058.959.1
Vehicle Noise:71.364.661.456.765.365.8
Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108
Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO)
Albright Way Office Development Project
Kelly Chiene
PROJECT DATA
Future Plus Project
40-100419
SITE DATA
Road Segment:Wimbeldon Drive to Lark Avenue
Winchester Boulevard
Analyst:
UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation)
NOISE INPUTS
FLEET MIX
NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet)
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Vehicle Noise:
-454454-310310
-143143-9898
-4545-4545
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Unmitigated
CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR
Mitigated
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation)
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
FeetRoadway Centerline
Roadway Centerline Noise Contour
Project Name:Scenario:
Job #:
Roadway:
Centerline Dist to Barrier0Road Grade:0
Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm):0Average Daily Traffic:14560
Receiver Barrier Dist:0Peak Hour Traffic:1456
Centerline Dist. To Observer:100Vehicle Speed:30
Barrier Near Lane CL Dist:0Centerline Separation:30
Barrier Far lane CL Dist:0
Pad Elevation:0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE
Road Elevation:0
Observer Height (above grade):0TypeDayEveningNightDaily
Barrier Height:0Auto0.7750.1290.0960.9742
Rt View:90Lft View:-90Med. Truck0.8480.0490.1030.0184
Heavy Truck0.8650.0270.1080.0074
Autos:0
Medium Trucks:2.3
Heavy Trucks:8
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:49.658.456.650.559.259.8
Medium Trucks:60.252.245.844.252.752.9
Heavy Trucks:65.953.944.946.156.256.3
Vehicle Noise:68.460.957.353.061.662.0
Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108
Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO)
Albright Way Office Development Project
Kelly Chiene
PROJECT DATA
Future Plus Project
40-100419
SITE DATA
Road Segment:Winchester Boulevard to Oka Road
Lark Avenue
Analyst:
UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation)
NOISE INPUTS
FLEET MIX
NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet)
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Vehicle Noise:
-180180-123123
-5757-3939
-1818-1818
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Unmitigated
CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR
Mitigated
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation)
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
FeetRoadway Centerline
Roadway Centerline Noise Contour
Project Name:Scenario:
Job #:
Roadway:
Centerline Dist to Barrier0Road Grade:0
Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm):0Average Daily Traffic:2530
Receiver Barrier Dist:0Peak Hour Traffic:253
Centerline Dist. To Observer:100Vehicle Speed:25
Barrier Near Lane CL Dist:0Centerline Separation:12
Barrier Far lane CL Dist:0
Pad Elevation:0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE
Road Elevation:0
Observer Height (above grade):0TypeDayEveningNightDaily
Barrier Height:0Auto0.7750.1290.0960.9742
Rt View:90Lft View:-90Med. Truck0.8480.0490.1030.0184
Heavy Truck0.8650.0270.1080.0074
Autos:0
Medium Trucks:2.3
Heavy Trucks:8
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:40.148.847.141.049.650.2
Medium Trucks:51.743.637.335.744.244.4
Heavy Trucks:57.945.936.938.148.548.6
Vehicle Noise:60.552.148.044.252.753.1
Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108
Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO)
Albright Way Office Development Project
Kelly Chiene
PROJECT DATA
Future Plus Project
40-100419
SITE DATA
Road Segment:West of Winchester
Wimbeldon Drive
Analyst:
UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation)
NOISE INPUTS
FLEET MIX
NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet)
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Vehicle Noise:
-2222-1515
-77-55
-22-22
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Unmitigated
CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR
Mitigated
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation)
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
FeetRoadway Centerline
Roadway Centerline Noise Contour
Project Name:Scenario:
Job #:
Roadway:
Centerline Dist to Barrier0Road Grade:0
Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm):0Average Daily Traffic:29014
Receiver Barrier Dist:0Peak Hour Traffic:2901.4
Centerline Dist. To Observer:100Vehicle Speed:35
Barrier Near Lane CL Dist:0Centerline Separation:45
Barrier Far lane CL Dist:0
Pad Elevation:0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE
Road Elevation:0
Observer Height (above grade):0TypeDayEveningNightDaily
Barrier Height:0Auto0.7750.1290.0960.9742
Rt View:90Lft View:-90Med. Truck0.8480.0490.1030.0184
Heavy Truck0.8650.0270.1080.0074
Autos:0
Medium Trucks:2.3
Heavy Trucks:8
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:54.363.161.355.263.964.5
Medium Trucks:64.056.049.648.056.556.7
Heavy Trucks:69.257.348.249.559.459.5
Vehicle Noise:71.765.061.957.265.766.2
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Vehicle Noise:
-500500-342342
-158158-108108
-5050-5050
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Unmitigated
Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108
Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO)
Albright Way Office Development Project
Kelly Chiene
Other
40-100419Analyst:
CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR
Mitigated
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
SITE DATA
Road Segment:North of SR-85
Winchester Boulevard
PROJECT DATA
UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation)
MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation)
NOISE INPUTS
FLEET MIX
NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet)
Roadway Centerline Noise Contour
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
Roadway Centerline
Feet
Project Name:Scenario:
Job #:
Roadway:
Centerline Dist to Barrier0Road Grade:0
Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm):0Average Daily Traffic:24714
Receiver Barrier Dist:0Peak Hour Traffic:2471.4
Centerline Dist. To Observer:100Vehicle Speed:35
Barrier Near Lane CL Dist:0Centerline Separation:40
Barrier Far lane CL Dist:0
Pad Elevation:0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE
Road Elevation:0
Observer Height (above grade):0TypeDayEveningNightDaily
Barrier Height:0Auto0.7750.1290.0960.9742
Rt View:90Lft View:-90Med. Truck0.8480.0490.1030.0184
Heavy Truck0.8650.0270.1080.0074
Autos:0
Medium Trucks:2.3
Heavy Trucks:8
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:53.762.560.754.663.263.8
Medium Trucks:63.455.349.047.455.956.1
Heavy Trucks:68.656.747.648.858.858.9
Vehicle Noise:71.164.461.256.565.165.6
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Vehicle Noise:
-426426-291291
-135135-9292
-4343-4343
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Unmitigated
Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108
Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO)
Albright Way Office Development Project
Kelly Chiene
Other
40-100419Analyst:
CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR
Mitigated
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
SITE DATA
Road Segment:SR-85 to Wimbeldon Drive
Winchester Boulevard
PROJECT DATA
UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation)
MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation)
NOISE INPUTS
FLEET MIX
NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet)
Roadway Centerline Noise Contour
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
Roadway Centerline
Feet
Project Name:Scenario:
Job #:
Roadway:
Centerline Dist to Barrier0Road Grade:0
Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm):0Average Daily Traffic:24674
Receiver Barrier Dist:0Peak Hour Traffic:2467.4
Centerline Dist. To Observer:100Vehicle Speed:35
Barrier Near Lane CL Dist:0Centerline Separation:45
Barrier Far lane CL Dist:0
Pad Elevation:0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE
Road Elevation:0
Observer Height (above grade):0TypeDayEveningNightDaily
Barrier Height:0Auto0.7750.1290.0960.9742
Rt View:90Lft View:-90Med. Truck0.8480.0490.1030.0184
Heavy Truck0.8650.0270.1080.0074
Autos:0
Medium Trucks:2.3
Heavy Trucks:8
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:53.662.460.654.563.263.8
Medium Trucks:63.355.348.947.355.856.0
Heavy Trucks:68.556.647.548.858.758.8
Vehicle Noise:71.064.361.256.565.065.5
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Vehicle Noise:
-425425-291291
-134134-9292
-4343-4343
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Unmitigated
Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108
Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO)
Albright Way Office Development Project
Kelly Chiene
Other
40-100419Analyst:
CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR
Mitigated
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
SITE DATA
Road Segment:Wimbeldon Drive to Lark Avenue
Winchester Boulevard
PROJECT DATA
UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation)
MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation)
NOISE INPUTS
FLEET MIX
NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet)
Roadway Centerline Noise Contour
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
Roadway Centerline
Feet
Project Name:Scenario:
Job #:
Roadway:
Centerline Dist to Barrier0Road Grade:0
Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm):0Average Daily Traffic:12794
Receiver Barrier Dist:0Peak Hour Traffic:1279.4
Centerline Dist. To Observer:100Vehicle Speed:30
Barrier Near Lane CL Dist:0Centerline Separation:30
Barrier Far lane CL Dist:0
Pad Elevation:0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE
Road Elevation:0
Observer Height (above grade):0TypeDayEveningNightDaily
Barrier Height:0Auto0.7750.1290.0960.9742
Rt View:90Lft View:-90Med. Truck0.8480.0490.1030.0184
Heavy Truck0.8650.0270.1080.0074
Autos:0
Medium Trucks:2.3
Heavy Trucks:8
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:49.157.856.050.058.659.2
Medium Trucks:59.751.645.243.652.152.4
Heavy Trucks:65.353.444.345.555.755.8
Vehicle Noise:67.860.356.852.461.061.4
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Vehicle Noise:
-158158-108108
-5050-3434
-1616-1616
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Unmitigated
Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108
Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO)
Albright Way Office Development Project
Kelly Chiene
Other
40-100419Analyst:
CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR
Mitigated
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
SITE DATA
Road Segment:Winchester Boulevard to Oka Road
Lark Avenue
PROJECT DATA
UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation)
MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation)
NOISE INPUTS
FLEET MIX
NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet)
Roadway Centerline Noise Contour
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
Roadway Centerline
Feet
Project Name:Scenario:
Job #:
Roadway:
Centerline Dist to Barrier0Road Grade:0
Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm):0Average Daily Traffic:3144
Receiver Barrier Dist:0Peak Hour Traffic:314.4
Centerline Dist. To Observer:100Vehicle Speed:25
Barrier Near Lane CL Dist:0Centerline Separation:12
Barrier Far lane CL Dist:0
Pad Elevation:0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE
Road Elevation:0
Observer Height (above grade):0TypeDayEveningNightDaily
Barrier Height:0Auto0.7750.1290.0960.9742
Rt View:90Lft View:-90Med. Truck0.8480.0490.1030.0184
Heavy Truck0.8650.0270.1080.0074
Autos:0
Medium Trucks:2.3
Heavy Trucks:8
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:41.049.848.041.950.651.2
Medium Trucks:52.744.638.236.645.145.3
Heavy Trucks:58.846.937.839.049.449.5
Vehicle Noise:61.553.049.045.253.754.1
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Vehicle Noise:
-2727-1818
-99-66
-33-33
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Unmitigated
Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108
Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO)
Albright Way Office Development Project
Kelly Chiene
Other
40-100419Analyst:
CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR
Mitigated
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
SITE DATA
Road Segment:West of Winchester
Wimbeldon Drive
PROJECT DATA
UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation)
MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation)
NOISE INPUTS
FLEET MIX
NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet)
Roadway Centerline Noise Contour
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
Roadway Centerline
Feet
Project Name:Scenario:
Job #:
Roadway:
Centerline Dist to Barrier0Road Grade:0
Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm):0Average Daily Traffic:29864
Receiver Barrier Dist:0Peak Hour Traffic:2986.4
Centerline Dist. To Observer:100Vehicle Speed:35
Barrier Near Lane CL Dist:0Centerline Separation:45
Barrier Far lane CL Dist:0
Pad Elevation:0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE
Road Elevation:0
Observer Height (above grade):0TypeDayEveningNightDaily
Barrier Height:0Auto0.7750.1290.0960.9742
Rt View:90Lft View:-90Med. Truck0.8480.0490.1030.0184
Heavy Truck0.8650.0270.1080.0074
Autos:0
Medium Trucks:2.3
Heavy Trucks:8
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:54.463.261.455.364.064.6
Medium Trucks:64.156.149.748.156.656.8
Heavy Trucks:69.457.448.449.659.559.6
Vehicle Noise:71.865.262.057.365.966.3
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Vehicle Noise:
-515515-352352
-163163-111111
-5151-5151
Winchester Boulevard
Analyst:
UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation)
MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation)
NOISE INPUTS
FLEET MIX
NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet)
PROJECT DATASITE DATA
Road Segment:
Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108
Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO)
Albright Way Office Development Project
Kelly Chiene
Other
40-100419
North of SR-85
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Unmitigated
CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR
Mitigated
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Roadway Centerline Noise Contour
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
Roadway Centerline
Feet
Project Name:Scenario:
Job #:
Roadway:
Centerline Dist to Barrier0Road Grade:0
Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm):0Average Daily Traffic:27724
Receiver Barrier Dist:0Peak Hour Traffic:2772.4
Centerline Dist. To Observer:100Vehicle Speed:35
Barrier Near Lane CL Dist:0Centerline Separation:40
Barrier Far lane CL Dist:0
Pad Elevation:0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE
Road Elevation:0
Observer Height (above grade):0TypeDayEveningNightDaily
Barrier Height:0Auto0.7750.1290.0960.9742
Rt View:90Lft View:-90Med. Truck0.8480.0490.1030.0184
Heavy Truck0.8650.0270.1080.0074
Autos:0
Medium Trucks:2.3
Heavy Trucks:8
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:54.263.061.255.163.764.3
Medium Trucks:63.955.849.547.956.456.6
Heavy Trucks:69.157.248.149.359.359.4
Vehicle Noise:71.664.961.757.065.666.1
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Vehicle Noise:
-478478-327327
-151151-103103
-4848-4848
Winchester Boulevard
Analyst:
UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation)
MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation)
NOISE INPUTS
FLEET MIX
NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet)
PROJECT DATASITE DATA
Road Segment:
Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108
Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO)
Albright Way Office Development Project
Kelly Chiene
Other
40-100419
SR-85 to Wimbeldon Drive
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Unmitigated
CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR
Mitigated
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Roadway Centerline Noise Contour
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
Roadway Centerline
Feet
Project Name:Scenario:
Job #:
Roadway:
Centerline Dist to Barrier0Road Grade:0
Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm):0Average Daily Traffic:27004
Receiver Barrier Dist:0Peak Hour Traffic:2700.4
Centerline Dist. To Observer:100Vehicle Speed:35
Barrier Near Lane CL Dist:0Centerline Separation:45
Barrier Far lane CL Dist:0
Pad Elevation:0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE
Road Elevation:0
Observer Height (above grade):0TypeDayEveningNightDaily
Barrier Height:0Auto0.7750.1290.0960.9742
Rt View:90Lft View:-90Med. Truck0.8480.0490.1030.0184
Heavy Truck0.8650.0270.1080.0074
Autos:0
Medium Trucks:2.3
Heavy Trucks:8
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:54.062.861.054.963.664.2
Medium Trucks:63.755.649.347.756.256.4
Heavy Trucks:68.957.047.949.259.159.2
Vehicle Noise:71.464.761.556.965.465.9
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Vehicle Noise:
-465465-318318
-147147-101101
-4747-4747
Winchester Boulevard
Analyst:
UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation)
MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation)
NOISE INPUTS
FLEET MIX
NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet)
PROJECT DATASITE DATA
Road Segment:
Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108
Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO)
Albright Way Office Development Project
Kelly Chiene
Other
40-100419
Wimbeldon Drive to Lark Avenue
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Unmitigated
CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR
Mitigated
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Roadway Centerline Noise Contour
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
Roadway Centerline
Feet
Project Name:Scenario:
Job #:
Roadway:
Centerline Dist to Barrier0Road Grade:0
Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm):0Average Daily Traffic:15244
Receiver Barrier Dist:0Peak Hour Traffic:1524.4
Centerline Dist. To Observer:100Vehicle Speed:30
Barrier Near Lane CL Dist:0Centerline Separation:30
Barrier Far lane CL Dist:0
Pad Elevation:0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE
Road Elevation:0
Observer Height (above grade):0TypeDayEveningNightDaily
Barrier Height:0Auto0.7750.1290.0960.9742
Rt View:90Lft View:-90Med. Truck0.8480.0490.1030.0184
Heavy Truck0.8650.0270.1080.0074
Autos:0
Medium Trucks:2.3
Heavy Trucks:8
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:49.858.656.850.759.460.0
Medium Trucks:60.452.446.044.452.953.1
Heavy Trucks:66.154.145.146.356.456.5
Vehicle Noise:68.661.157.553.261.862.2
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Vehicle Noise:
-188188-129129
-6060-4141
-1919-1919
Lark Avenue
Analyst:
UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation)
MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation)
NOISE INPUTS
FLEET MIX
NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet)
PROJECT DATASITE DATA
Road Segment:
Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108
Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO)
Albright Way Office Development Project
Kelly Chiene
Other
40-100419
Winchester Boulevard to Oka Road
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Unmitigated
CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR
Mitigated
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Roadway Centerline Noise Contour
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
Roadway Centerline
Feet
Project Name:Scenario:
Job #:
Roadway:
Centerline Dist to Barrier0Road Grade:0
Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm):0Average Daily Traffic:3214
Receiver Barrier Dist:0Peak Hour Traffic:321.4
Centerline Dist. To Observer:100Vehicle Speed:25
Barrier Near Lane CL Dist:0Centerline Separation:12
Barrier Far lane CL Dist:0
Pad Elevation:0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE
Road Elevation:0
Observer Height (above grade):0TypeDayEveningNightDaily
Barrier Height:0Auto0.7750.1290.0960.9742
Rt View:90Lft View:-90Med. Truck0.8480.0490.1030.0184
Heavy Truck0.8650.0270.1080.0074
Autos:0
Medium Trucks:2.3
Heavy Trucks:8
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:41.149.948.142.050.751.3
Medium Trucks:52.744.738.336.745.245.4
Heavy Trucks:58.947.037.939.149.549.6
Vehicle Noise:61.653.149.145.353.854.2
Vehicle TypePeak LeqLeq DayLeq EveningLeq NightLdnCNEL
Autos:
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Vehicle Noise:
-2828-1919
-99-66
-33-33
Wimbeldon Drive
Analyst:
UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation)
MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation)
NOISE INPUTS
FLEET MIX
NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet)
PROJECT DATASITE DATA
Road Segment:
Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108
Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO)
Albright Way Office Development Project
Kelly Chiene
Other
40-100419
West of Winchester
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Unmitigated
CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR
Mitigated
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Roadway Centerline Noise Contour
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
Roadway Centerline
Feet
60940006094200609440060946006094800609500060952006095400609560060958006096000
Albright Way Office Development Project
Plan View
Run name: Albright
Scale: 200 feet
Sheet 1 of 126 Jan 2011
RBF Consulting
Project/Contract No. Albright
TNM Version 2.5, Feb 2004
Analysis By: Brian Allee
Roadway:
Receiver:
Barrier:
Building Row:
Terrain Line:
Ground Zone: polygon
Tree Zone: dashed polygon
Contour Zone: polygon
Parallel Barrier:
Skew Section:
RESULTS: SOUND LEVELS
Albright
RBF Consulting
26 January 2011
Brian Allee
TNM 2.5
Calculated with TNM 2.5
RESULTS: SOUND LEVELS
PROJECT/CONTRACT:
Albright
RUN:
Albright Way Office Development Project
BARRIER DESIGN:
INPUT HEIGHTS
Average pavement type shall be used unless a State highway agency substantiates the use
ATMOSPHERICS:
68 deg F, 50% RH
of a different type with approval of FHWA.
ReceiverName
No.
#DUs
Existing
No Barrier
With Barrier
Ldn
Ldn
Increase over existingType
Calculated
Noise Reduction
Calculated
Crit'n
Calculated
Crit'n
Impact
Ldn
Calculated
Goal
Calculated
Sub'l Inc
minusGoaldBAdBAdBAdBdBdBAdBdBdB Receiver393910.057.06657.010
----
57.00.08-8.0
Receiver404010.061.06661.010
----
61.00.08-8.0
Receiver414110.055.16655.110
----
55.10.08-8.0
Receiver424210.059.86659.810
----
59.80.08-8.0
Receiver434310.061.56661.510
----
61.50.08-8.0
Receiver444410.059.76659.710
----
59.70.08-8.0
Receiver454510.058.16658.110
----
58.10.08-8.0
Receiver464610.064.66664.610
----
64.60.08-8.0
Dwelling Units
# DUs
Noise Reduction Min Avg Max dB dB dB
All Selected
80.00.00.0
All Impacted
00.00.00.0
All that meet NR Goal
00.00.00.0
C:\TNM25\Program\Albright\Albright
1
26 January 2011
INPUT: RECEIVERS
Albright
RBF Consulting
26 Januar
y
2011
Brian Allee
TNM 2.5
INPUT: RECEIVERS
PROJECT/CONTRACT:
Albright
RUN:
Albright Way
Office Development Project
ReceiverName
No.
#DUs
Coordinates (ground)
Height
Input Sound Levels and CriteriaActive
X
Y
Z
above
Existing
Impact CriteriaNR
in
Ground
Ldn
Ldn
Sub'l
Goal
Calc.
ftftftftdBAdBAdBdB
Receiver393916,094,614.52,194,143.2291.505.000.006610.08.0
Y
Receiver404016,094,580.52,194,328.0291.505.000.006610.08.0
Y
Receiver414116,094,707.02,194,377.8281.005.000.006610.08.0
Y
Receiver424216,094,609.02,194,519.5281.005.000.006610.08.0
Y
Receiver434316,094,588.02,194,722.0279.005.000.006610.08.0
Y
Receiver444416,094,667.52,194,883.8279.005.000.006610.08.0
Y
Receiver454516,094,810.02,194,888.2276.005.000.006610.08.0
Y
Receiver464616,095,056.02,194,949.5276.005.000.006610.08.0
Y
C:\TNM25\Program\Albright\Albright
1
26 Januar
y
2
INPUT: BUILDING ROWS
Albright
RBF Consulting
26 January 2011
Brian Allee
TNM 2.5
INPUT: BUILDING ROWS
PROJECT/CONTRACT:
Albright
RUN:
Albright Way
Office Developme
Building Row
Points
Name
Average
Building
No.
Coordinates (ground)
HeightPercent
X
Y
Z
ft%
ftftft
Building1012.0020376,094,624.52,194,140.0291.50386,094,588.52,194,331.5291.50396,094,674.52,194,353.2291.50406,094,713.02,194,163.5291.50416,094,624.52,194,141.8291.50 Building1112.0020426,094,719.52,194,374.2281.00436,094,613.52,194,525.0281.00446,094,687.02,194,582.8281.00456,094,794.02,194,428.2281.00466,094,719.52,194,374.0281.00 Building1512.0020626,094,596.52,194,713.5279.00636,094,677.52,194,882.8279.00646,094,767.02,194,826.8279.00656,094,697.52,194,664.8279.00666,094,596.02,194,712.8279.00 Building1712.0020676,094,808.02,194,881.2276.00686,095,064.52,194,944.5276.00696,095,088.02,194,827.5276.00706,094,825.52,194,760.2276.00716,094,807.52,194,881.0276.00 Building1936.0020746,094,555.52,195,121.5278.00756,095,051.52,195,121.5278.00766,095,051.52,195,026.0278.00776,094,552.02,195,025.8278.00
C:\TNM25\Program\Albright\Albright
1
26 Januar
y
2
INPUT: BUILDING ROWS
Albright
786,094,555.02,195,121.2278.00
C:\TNM25\Program\Albright\Albright
2
26 Januar
y
2
INPUT: ROADWAYS
Albright
RBF Consulting
26 January 2011
Brian Allee
TNM 2.5
INPUT: ROADWAYS
Average pavement type shall be used unless
PROJECT/CONTRACT:
Albright
a State highway agency substantiates the use
RUN:
Albright Way Office Development Project
of a different type with the approval of FHWA
Roadway
Points
Name
Width
Name
No.
Coordinates (pavement)
Flow Control
Segment
X
Y
Z
Control
Speed
Percent
Pvmt
On
Device
Constraint
Vehicles
Type
Struct?
Affectedftftftftmph%
Winchester NB12.0 point35356,094,454.02,194,126.8289.00 Average
point36366,094,454.02,194,498.5285.00 Average
point37376,094,453.02,194,689.8284.00 Average
point38386,094,453.02,195,154.0280.00
Winchester SB12.0 point39396,094,418.52,195,151.8280.00 Average
point40406,094,418.52,194,694.0284.00 Average
point41416,094,418.52,194,496.0285.00 Average
point42426,094,418.52,194,131.0289.00
SR-85 SB12.0 point43436,094,351.52,195,217.2260.00 Average
point44446,094,939.52,195,217.2263.00 Average
point45456,095,517.02,195,217.2267.00
SR-85 NB12.0 point46466,095,508.02,195,269.2267.00 Average
point47476,094,935.52,195,269.2263.00 Average
point48486,094,350.02,195,269.2260.00
C:\TNM25\Program\Albright\Albright
1
26 January 2011
INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR Ldn
Albright
RBF Consulting
26 Januar
y
201
1
Brian Allee
TNM 2.5
INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR Ldn
PROJECT/CONTRACT:
Albright
RUN:
Albright Way
Office Development Project
RoadwayPointsName
Name
No.
SegmentADT
A
utos
MTrucks HTrucks
Buses Motorc
y
cles %D%NS%D%NS%D%NS%D%NS%D%NS
veh/24hrs%%mph%%mph%%mph%%mph%%mph
Winchester NB point35351244097973522351135000000 point36361244097973522351135000000 point37371244097973522351135000000 point3838
Winchester SB point39391244097973522351135000000 point40401244097973522351135000000 point41411244097973522351135000000 point4242
SR-85 SB point43435300097976522651165000000 point44445300097976522651165000000 point4545
SR-85 NB point46465300097976522651165000000 point47475300097976522651165000000 point4848
C:\TNM25\Program\Albright\Albright
1
26 Januar
y
2