APPENDIX 1.0 Notice of Preparation, Initial Study, and Scoping Comments

Notice of Preparation and Initial Study

ATTACHMENT A Initial Study

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center Draft Initial Study

The following Initial Study has been prepared in compliance with CEQA.

Prepared For: San José/Evergreen Community College District 4750 San Felipe Road San José, California 95135

Prepared By: Impact Sciences, Inc. 555 12th Street, Suite 1650 Oakland, California 94607 (510) 267-0494 Contact: Paul Stephenson

May 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS Section

Page

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 Initial Study ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Anticipated Project Approvals ................................................................................................................... 1 Public and Agency Review ......................................................................................................................... 1 Organization of the Initial Study ................................................................................................................ 2 I.

PROJECT INFORMATION ......................................................................................................................... 3

II.

PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................... 4

III.

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED .............................................................. 9

IV.

DETERMINATION: ................................................................................................................................... 10

V.

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ............................................................................. 11 1. Aesthetics................................................................................................................................................. 12 2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources .................................................................................................... 14 3. Air Quality............................................................................................................................................... 16 4. Biological Resources ............................................................................................................................... 18 5. Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................................. 21 6. Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................................... 24 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................................... 27 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...................................................................................................... 28 9. Hydrology and Water Quality.............................................................................................................. 31 10. Land Use and Planning ....................................................................................................................... 35 11. Mineral Resources ................................................................................................................................ 37 12. Noise....................................................................................................................................................... 38 13. Population and Housing ..................................................................................................................... 40 14. Public Services ...................................................................................................................................... 41 15. Recreation .............................................................................................................................................. 43 16. Transportation/Traffic.......................................................................................................................... 45 17. Utilities and Service Systems .............................................................................................................. 47 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................................................................................. 50

VI.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES ........................................................................................... 51

VII.

INITIAL STUDY PREPARERS ................................................................................................................. 53

Appendices A

California Natural Diversity Database Search Results Special-Status Plants Special-Status Wildlife

B

Archaeological and Historical Documentation Historical Records Search Archaeological survey

Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

i

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 2

Page Regional and Site Location .......................................................................................................................... 7 Surrounding Land Uses ............................................................................................................................... 8

Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

ii

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

INTRODUCTION Initial Study Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.), an Initial Study is a preliminary environmental analysis that is used by the lead agency as a basis for determining whether an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or a Negative Declaration is required for a project. The State CEQA Guidelines require that an Initial Study contain a project description, description of environmental setting, identification of environmental effects by checklist or other similar form, explanation of environmental effects, discussion of mitigation for significant environmental effects, evaluation of the project’s consistency with existing, applicable land use controls, and the names of persons who prepared the study. The purpose of this Initial Study is to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed JointUse 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center and to determine what level of additional environmental review, if any, is appropriate. As shown in the Determination in Section IV of this document and based on the analysis contained in this Initial Study, it has been determined that the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts; therefore, preparation of an EIR is appropriate. Anticipated Project Approvals The San José/Evergreen Community College District (SJECCD) will prepare an EIR that fully evaluates the environmental effects associated with the development of the proposed Joint-Use 21st Century PostSecondary Education Center. Necessary project approvals are anticipated to include, but are not limited to, consideration of the following by the SJECCD Board of Trustees (anticipated in fall 2014): •

Certification of the Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center EIR, and

•

Approval of the design and construction of the proposed Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center.

Public and Agency Review The Notice of Preparation (NOP) and this Initial Study will be circulated for public and agency review from May 9, 2014 through June 9, 2014. Copies of the Initial Study are available during normal operating hours at the Milpitas Unified School District (MUSD) office at the address below and online at http://www.musd.org. Comments on the NOP/Initial Study must be received by 5:00 PM on June 2, 2014. They may be e-mailed to [email protected] or sent to: Milpitas Unified School District Business Services 1331 E. Calaveras Blvd Milpitas, California 95035 Attn: Naomi Agraz A public scoping meeting for the Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center EIR will be held on May 28, 2014, in the MUSD Board Room located in Building 500 at 1331 East Calaveras Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

1

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

Boulevard, Milpitas, California, 95035 from 6:30 PM to 7:30 PM. The public and agency review period for the Draft EIR is anticipated to commence in summer 2014. Organization of the Initial Study This Initial Study is organized into the following sections. •

Section I – Project Information: provides summary background information about the proposed project, including project location, lead agency, and contact information.

•

Section II – Project Location and Description: includes a description of the proposed project, including the need for the project, the project’s objectives, and the elements included in the project.

•

Section III – Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: identifies what environmental resources, if any, would involve at least one significant or potentially significant impact that cannot be reduced to a less than significant level.

•

Section IV – Determination: indicates whether environmental impacts associated with the proposed project would be significant, and what, if any, additional environmental documentation is required.

•

Section V – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: contains the Environmental Checklist form for each resource. The checklist is used to assist in evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. This section also presents an explanation of all checklist answers.

•

Section VI – Supporting Information Sources: lists references used in the preparation of this document.

•

Section VII – Initial Study Preparers: lists the names of individuals involved in the preparation of this document.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

2

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

I. 1.

PROJECT INFORMATION Project title: Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center

2.

Lead agency name and address: San José/Evergreen Community College District Board of Trustees 4750 San Felipe Road San José, California 95135

3.

Contact person and phone number: Ms. Naomi Agraz Milpitas Unified School District Business Services (408) 635-2600 ext. 6022 [email protected]

4.

Project location: Russell Middle School 1500 Escuela Parkway Milpitas, California 95035

5.

Project sponsor’s name and address: San José/Evergreen Community College District 4750 San Felipe Road San José, California 95135

6.

Custodian of the administrative record for this project (if different from response to item 3 above.): Same as above.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

3

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

II. 1.

PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Description of project: Location: The project site is located on the campus of Thomas Russell Middle School located at 1500 Escuela Parkway in north central Milpitas in Santa Clara County. The location of the middle school within the City of Milpitas is shown in Figure 1, Regional and Site Location. The project site is located on the southwestern portion of the school campus and is bound by school buildings to the north, an athletic field to the east, single-family residential uses to the south, and Escuela Parkway to the west. A blacktop with four basketball courts and three volleyball courts, baseball diamond, and grass athletic field currently occupy the project site. Overall the project site encompasses about 4 acres. Project Need: The purpose of the Joint Use Education Center is to better serve the needs of the residents in Milpitas and surrounding areas with accessible and relevant post-secondary courses. The facility will allow Milpitas Unified School District high school students to access college level courses while completing their high school curriculum. This accelerated learning program, a unique blend of secondary and post-secondary education including Work Force Development courses, will benefit the Milpitas Unified students and the greater community. Project Characteristics: The proposed facility would be one to two stories and measure 20 to 30 feet in height (excluding the portion that encloses the mechanical equipment area on the roof). It would provide approximately 15,000 gross square feet (gsf) of space. The proposed facility would include “smart” classrooms, lecture classrooms, wet and/or dry lab(s), and appropriate office and support service space. The project would include both vehicle and bicycle parking. Construction of the proposed project would result in the partial loss of existing athletic fields. Programming and use of the lower athletic field will need to be relocated to a different location on the Russell Middle School campus. The proposed facility would operate from 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM during the daytime and from 5:00 PM to 10:00 PM during the nighttime. There is no expected overlap in start and finish times between the proposed facility and the existing schools in the area. Student Population: Table 1, Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center Student Population, below provides the estimated average daily population expected to use the proposed facility. As indicated in Table 1, the proposed project would accommodate approximately 130 adult high school students during the daytime hours and about 390 adult students during the daytime and nighttime hours for a maximum total population of about 520 students per day.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

4

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

Table 1 Joint-Use 21 Century Post-Secondary Education Center Student Population st

Type

Number of Persons

High School Students Daytime use (9:00 AM to 1:00 PM)

130

Nighttime use (5:00 PM to 10:00 PM) Subtotal

130

Adult Students Daytime use (9:00 AM to 1:00 PM)

150

Nighttime use (5:00 PM to 10:00 PM)

240

Subtotal

390

Total

520

Source: SJECCD, 2014

Construction Schedule and Details Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in fall 2015 and the building is expected to be occupied by fall 2016. 2.

Project objectives: The San Jose Evergreen Community College District (SJECCD) intends to develop a Joint Use Education Center for the purposes of better serving the needs of the residents in Milpitas and surrounding areas with accessible and relevant post-secondary courses. The facility will allow Milpitas Unified School District high school students to access college level courses while completing their high school curriculum. This accelerated learning program, a unique blend of secondary and post-secondary education including Work Force Development courses, will benefit the Milpitas Unified students and the greater community.

3.

Surrounding land uses and environmental setting: The project site is in an urban setting and is surrounded by a variety of land uses. They include Russell Middle School facilities and single-family residential uses to the north, athletic fields and single-family residential uses to the east, single-family residential uses to the south, and Pomeroy Elementary School and Milpitas High School to the west. Figure 2, Surrounding Land Uses depicts the location of these land uses in relation to the project site.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

5

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

4.

Discretionary approval authority and other public agencies whose approval is required: As the public entity principally responsible for approving or carrying out the proposed project, the SJECCD is the Lead Agency under CEQA and is responsible for reviewing and certifying the adequacy of the environmental document and approving the proposed project. The SJECCD Board of Trustees will make the decision on project approval. The project may also require approval from the following public agencies: •

Division of the State Architect (DSA) for buildings, handicap accessibility, fire and life safety;

•

City of Milpitas Public Works and Traffic for any encroachment on City roads; and

•

City of Milpitas Fire Department for emergency access and fire hydrants/water pressure.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

6

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Vacaville

Santa Rosa Napa US

101 Fairfield

INTERSTATE

80

Vallejo

Novato

San Rafael

Concord

Richmond Berkeley

Walnut Creek

Sa

INTERSTATE

n

680

Oakland

Fr

San Francisco

San Ramon

an

Alameda

ci

580

sc

P

INTERSTATE

o

ac

Daly City

if

Hayward

Ba

INTERSTATE

y

ic

280

Fremont

San Mateo

O

ce

Woodside

Redwood City

an

Mountain View

Project Site

n

INTERSTATE

880

US

101 INTERSTATE

280 San Jose

NOT TO SCALE

SOURCE: Impact Sciences, Inc., October 2013 FIGURE

1

Regional and Site Location 0461-006•04/14

Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential

Single-Family Residential Russell Middle School

Pomeroy Elementary School

Project Site

Single-Family Residential

Single-Family Residential

Milpitas High School 318 n

159

0

318

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET

SOURCE: Google Earth, April 2014 FIGURE

2

Surrounding Land Uses 0461.006•04/14

Initial Study

III.

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

The environmental factors checked below could be potentially affected by the development of the proposed project and/or by cumulative impacts resulting from development of the proposed project in conjunction with other expected developments. These factors will be evaluated in the EIR. □

Aesthetics

□

Agriculture and Forest Resources

▪

Air Quality

□

Biological Resources

□

Cultural Resources

□

Geology and Soils

▪

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

□

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

□

Hydrology and Water Quality

□

Land Use and Planning

□

Mineral Resources

▪

Noise

□

Population and Housing

□

Public Services

□

Recreation

Transportation and Circulation

□

Utilities and Service Systems

▪ ▪

Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

9

Mandatory Findings of Significance

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

V.

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

During the completion of the environmental evaluation, the SJECCD relied on the following categories of impacts, noted as column headings in the IS checklist. A)

“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that the project’s effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impacts” for which effective mitigation may not be possible, an EIR will be prepared.

B)

“Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of project-specific mitigation would reduce an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.”

C)

“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where the project would not result in a significant effect (i.e., the project impact would be less than significant without the need to incorporate mitigation).

D)

“No Impact” applies where the project would not result in any impact in the category or the category does not apply. This may be because the impact category does not apply to the proposed project (for instance, the project site is not within a surface fault rupture hazard zone), or because of other project-specific factors.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

11

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

Impact Questions and Responses

Potentially Significant Impact

Less than Significant with Project Mitigation

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

□

□

■

□

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

□

□

□

■

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

□

□

■

□

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

□

■

□

□

Issues 1. AESTHETICS – Would the project:

Relevant Elements of the Project and its Setting The proposed project consists of the construction and use of an educational facility on the Russell Middle School campus. The topography of the project site is flat and consists of an athletic field, asphalt black top, and a baseball diamond. Based on a review of the Milpitas General Plan, there are no scenic vistas that include the project site as a major part of the view. Interstate 680 (I-680), which is located less than a quarter mile to the east of the project site, is designated as a Scenic Connector in the City of Milpitas General Plan (City of Milpitas 2010).

Discussion of Potential Project Impacts a) A scenic vista is generally defined as an expansive view of highly valued landscape as observable from a publicly accessible vantage point. There are no scenic vistas that include the project site as a major part of the view. In addition, the project site and surrounding area are characterized by flat topography and do not contain any ridgelines or other topographic forms that would be affected by development or that provide views of the project site and its surroundings. However, views of the Mount Diablo Range to the east are available from Escuela Parkway across the project site, and hillsides and ridgelines along the range are designated as scenic resources in the City of Milpitas General Plan (City of Milpitas 2010). However, at one- to two-stories, the height of the proposed project would not substantially block views of the Mount Diablo Range from publicly accessible portions of Escuela Parkway. For these reasons, the impact of the project of views would be less than significant. b) There are no state-designated scenic highways in the vicinity of the project site (CSHP 2013). I-680, which is located less than a quarter mile to the east of the project site, is designated as a Scenic Connector in the City of Milpitas General Plan. However, the project site is a developed school site and does not contain any features that qualify as scenic resources. Therefore, the development of the site with the Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

12

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

proposed building would not affect visual resources associated with any state-designated or local scenic highway. There would be no impact with regard to this criterion. c) Development of the proposed project would result in the construction of one- to two-story educational facility that is approximately 22,000 gsf in size. While the specific design of the proposed facility is not known at this time, the mass and height of the proposed facility would be similar to existing buildings on the Russell Middle School campus, which consists of one-story buildings. In addition, landscaping would be included as part of the proposed project. For these reasons, the impact of the project on the visual character of the project area would be less than significant. d) The proposed project would introduce new sources of light into the southwest corner of the Russell Middle School campus, and these new sources of light would be located in close proximity (approximately 100 feet) to existing residential neighborhoods to the south. As a result, light spill over from these new sources could occur, and this represents a potentially significant impact. However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-1, which requires that all exterior lighting on the proposed structure incorporate downward-directed lighting or cutoff-type lighting in order to minimize light spill and nighttime glare, this impact would be reduce to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure AES-1: All exterior lighting on the proposed structure shall incorporate downward-directed lighting or cutoff-type lighting in order to minimize light spill and nighttime glare.

Discussion of Potential Cumulative Impacts Future development in the City of Milpitas may block views of scenic vistas or alter the visual character of the City. Development of the proposed project would not substantially alter views of scenic vistas located in the Mount Diablo Range to the east or substantially degrading the existing visual character of the Russell Middle School campus and its surroundings. Therefore, the proposed project would not combine with other existing and future development to result in significant cumulative impacts with regards to scenic vistas or visual character, and the contribution of the proposed project to cumulative visual impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. There are no state-designated scenic highways in the vicinity of the City of Milpitas (CSHP 2013). As a result, future development in the City of Milpitas, including the proposed project, would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. No cumulative impact would occur with regard to this criterion. Future development in the City of Milpitas may result in significant cumulative impacts with regard to light and glare. The proposed project includes mitigation to reduce the negative effects of project lighting. Therefore, the impact of the proposed project would not combine with other existing and future development to result in significant cumulative impacts with regards to light and glare, and the contribution of the proposed project to cumulative light and glare impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

13

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

Potentially Significant Impact

Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

□

□

□

■

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

□

□

□

■

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 4526), or Timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

□

□

□

■

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

□

□

□

■

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

□

□

□

■

Issues 2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES – Would the project:

Relevant Elements of the Project and its Setting The proposed project consists of the construction and use of an educational facility on the Russell Middle School campus. The project site is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land on maps prepared by the California State Department of Conservation pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) (FMMP 2011).

Discussion of Potential Project Impacts a) The project site consists of an athletic field, asphalt black top, and a baseball diamond, and is located in a developed area of the City of Milpitas. The project site is not used for agriculture, and is not designated as Farmland on maps prepared pursuant to the FMMP. There would be no impact with regard to this criterion.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

14

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

b-c) The project site is zoned for urban use by the City of Milpitas. No portion of the project site is zoned for agricultural use, forest land, or timberland. In addition, there is no Williamson Act contract applicable to the project site or its vicinity. Therefore, development of the proposed project on the project site would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural or forest land or timberland use or with a Williamson Act contract. There would be no impact with regard to these criteria. d) The project site and surrounding area does not include any forest land or timberland. There would be no impact with regard to this criterion. e) No Farmland or other agricultural land is present in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not involve any changes that could indirectly cause conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use. There would be no impact with regard to this criterion.

Discussion of Potential Cumulative Impacts The City of Milpitas is urban in nature, and while it does include some agricultural lands, it does not contain lands designated as Farmland on maps prepared pursuant to the FMMP, except for a small 35-acre strip of land between North McCarthy Boulevard and Coyote Creek, north of State Route 237. As a result, anticipated future development in Milpitas, including the proposed project, would not result in the loss of a substantial amount of Farmland. In addition, land in the City is zoned for urban uses. Therefore, anticipated future development in Milpitas would not displace land zoned for agricultural use or forest land or timberland, and would not conflict with land under a Williamson Act contact. The impact of cumulative development on agricultural and forest resources would be less than significant.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

15

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

Potentially Significant Impact

Less than Significant with Project Mitigation

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

■

□

□

□

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

■

□

□

□

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

■

□

□

□

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

■

□

□

□

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

□

□

■

□

Issues 3. AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:

Relevant Elements of the Project and its Setting The proposed project consists of the construction and use of an educational facility on the Russell Middle School campus. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site include educational uses adjacent to the north and east on the Russell Middle School campus, educational uses on the Pomeroy Elementary School campus to the west across Escuela Parkway, and single-family residential adjacent to the south. Other sensitive uses in the area include Milpitas High School to the southwest.

Discussion of Potential Project Impacts a-c) The project site is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, which is currently designated a non-attainment area for PM10 (particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter), PM2.5 (particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter), and ozone. Construction and operation of proposed project would be likely add incrementally to regional ambient air pollutant emissions including short- and longterm emissions of criteria air pollutants from mobile and stationary sources. This represents a potentially significant impact. The EIR will estimate the total emissions from construction and operation of the Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

16

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

proposed project and evaluate whether the emissions would exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) recommended significance thresholds for evaluating impacts from criteria pollutant emissions. d) Construction of the proposed project would result in on-site emissions of diesel particulate matter, which the California Air Resources Board has identified as a toxic air contaminant. In addition, operation of the proposed project could impact nearby sensitive receptors by creating the potential for localized carbon monoxide (CO) hotspots. This represents a potentially significant impact. The EIR will evaluate concentrations of CO, toxic air contaminants, and other pollutants associated with the proposed project to determine whether they would result in a significant effect on sensitive receptors. e) Construction of the proposed project would require the use of diesel-fueled equipment and architectural coatings, both of which have an associated odor. However, these odors would be short-term and temporary and would not be pervasive enough to affect a substantial number of people or to be objectionable. Routine operation of the proposed project would not involve activities that typically produce odors such as wastewater treatment, manufacturing, agriculture, etc. Occasional use of maintenance products on the project site could produce localized odors, but they would be temporary and limited in area. Consequently, short-term construction and long-term operation of the proposed project would not create objectionable odors that could affect a substantial number of persons, nor would the project expose project site occupants to substantial odors, and the impact would be less than significant.

Discussion of Potential Cumulative Impacts The construction and operation of the proposed project combined with the emissions from other current projects and probable future projects and projected regional growth could result in significant cumulative impacts with regard to air quality. This issue will be addressed in the EIR.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

17

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

Potentially Significant Impact

Less than Significant with Project Mitigation

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?

□

□

□

■

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?

□

□

□

■

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

□

□

□

■

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

□

■

□

□

e) Conflict with any applicable policies protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

□

□

□

■

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other applicable local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

□

□

□

■

Issues 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project:

Relevant Elements of the Project and its Setting The proposed project consists of the construction and use of an educational facility on the Russell Middle School campus. The project site consists of an athletic field, asphalt black top, and a baseball diamond, and is located in a developed area of the City of Milpitas. There are no waterways, wetlands, or other

Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

18

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

sensitive habitats located on or adjacent to the project site. The nearest waterway is Calera Creek located approximately 350 feet east of the project site. Vegetation in the vicinity of the project site includes landscaping which primarily consists of grass, shrubs, and street trees. There are no natural habitats present on the project site. The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (SCVHP) has recently been adopted by six local entities in Santa Clara County. However, the project site is not located within the area covered by the SCVHP as the City of Milpitas is not a signatory to this plan.

Discussion of Potential Project Impacts a) The most recent version of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) was reviewed for the project site and the surrounding area. A copy of the CNDDB search results for the project site is provided in Appendix A The CNDDB search indicated that there was no to very low potential for special-status plant and animal species to exist on the project site due to lack of suitable habitat and/or existing surrounding development. Furthermore the project site is developed with an athletic field, asphalt black top, and a baseball diamond and does not contain any habitat that could support special status plants and wildlife. As a result, development of the proposed project would not have a substantial effect on special status plant and animal species. There would be no impact with respect to this criterion. b) The project site consists of an athletic field, asphalt black top, and a baseball diamond, and no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community is present on the site. Therefore, the project would not affect riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. There would be no impact with regard to this criterion. c) No wetlands, as defined by the federal Clean Water Act or the California Fish and Game Code, are present on-site. There would be no impact with respect to this criterion. d) The project site is located in a developed area and is bordered on all sides by dense development. Therefore, it does not provide habitat connectivity between undeveloped lands and is not part of a regional wildlife movement corridor. There would be no impact with respect to wildlife movement. Although there are no special-status bird species known to inhabit the area, both state and federal laws protect birds and their nests and eggs. While there are no trees located on the project site, there are a number of trees located along the borders of the project site that are suitable for nesting, and noise resulting from the construction of the proposed project during breeding season could disrupt nesting activities. If noise associated with project construction activities were to result in the loss of an occupied special-status or migratory bird nest, this would be considered a potentially significant impact. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, which requires a preconstruction survey and contingency measures, the impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure BIO-1: If construction of proposed project would commence anytime during the nesting/breeding season of native bird species potentially nesting near the campus (typically February through August in the project region), a pre-construction survey of the project vicinity for nesting birds shall be conducted. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist (i.e., experienced with the nesting behavior of bird species of the region) two weeks before the commencement of construction activities. The intent of the survey would be to determine if active

Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

19

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

nests of special-status bird species or other species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and/or the California Fish and Game Code are present within the construction zone or within 500 feet of the construction zone. The survey area shall include all trees, shrubs, and buildings in the construction zone and a surrounding 500 feet area. If active nests are found in areas that could be directly affected or are within 500 feet of construction and would be subject to prolonged construction-related noise, a no-disturbance buffer zone shall be created around active nests during the breeding season or until a qualified biologist determines that all young have fledged. The size of the buffer zones and types of construction activities restricted within them will be determined by the qualified biologist taking into account factors such as the following: •

Noise and human disturbance levels at the construction site at the time of the survey and the noise and disturbance expected during the construction activity.

•

Distance and amount of vegetation or other screening between the construction site and the nest.

•

Sensitivity of individual nesting species and behaviors of the nesting birds.

•

Limits of construction to avoid an active nest shall be established in the field with flagging, fencing, or another appropriate barrier and construction personnel shall be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas.

e) Chapter X-2 of the Milpitas Municipal Code provides protection for trees trunks of 37 inches or greater circumference of measured 4.5 feet from the ground located on a vacant, undeveloped, or underdeveloped property. No trees are located on the project site, and the trees located adjacent to the project site would not be removed to construct the proposed project. As the proposed project would not remove protected trees, the project would not conflict with any applicable policies protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. There would be no impact with regard to this criterion. f) The project site is not located within the area covered by the SCVHP. There would be no impact with respect to this criterion.

Discussion of Potential Cumulative Impacts Anticipated future development in some portions of Milpitas has the potential to adversely affect biological resources. However, as discussed above, the construction and operation of the proposed project would have no significant impacts on biological resources, and to the extent, noise impacts on nesting birds are a concern, they would be mitigated by the proposed mitigation measure. Therefore, the proposed project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulative impact on biological resources that could result from other development in the City.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

20

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

Potentially Significant Impact

Less than Significant with Project Mitigation

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?

□

□

□

■

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?

□

■

□

□

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

□

□

■

□

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

□

■

□

□

Issues 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:

Relevant Elements of the Project and its Setting The proposed project consists of the construction and use of an educational facility on the Russell Middle School campus. The project site consists of an athletic field, asphalt black top, and a baseball diamond, and no buildings exist on the site. The Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information conducted an archaeological records search for the project site and surrounding area. The results of the records search are included in Appendix B of this Initial Study. According to the NWIC, there is a high potential for identifying Native American archaeological resources on or near the project site (NWIC 2013). Construction of the proposed project would include site grading and excavation, and thus could uncover unknown resources.

Discussion of Potential Project Impacts a) The project site consists of an athletic field, asphalt black top, and a baseball diamond. There are no buildings or features on the project site that could be considered historic. There would be no impact with respect to this criterion. b) As discussed above, the NWIC conducted an archaeological records search for the project site and surrounding area. The records search indicated that no recorded archaeological resources are located on the project site and that no historic buildings have been identified on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. Based on a review of historic literature and maps, there is also a low potential of identifying unrecorded historic-period archaeological resource on the on the project. However, the NWIC assessed that there is a high potential for identifying Native American archaeological resources on or near the project site based on the project site’s proximity to Calera Creek. On this basis, the NWIC recommended that a qualified archaeologist survey the property and assess whether subsurface testing for potential buried archaeological sites is warranted. Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

21

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

An archaeological survey of the property was conducted by a qualified archaeologist in November 2013. A copy of the technical memorandum detailing the results of the archaeological survey is included in Appendix B of this Initial Study. The survey revealed no evidence of prehistoric or historic cultural or ecofactual materials on the project site. In addition, no subsurface testing for buried archaeological resources appears warranted and archaeological monitoring during ground disturbing construction does not appear necessary as the project appears to be located in an area of low- to low-moderate sensitivity for archaeological resources (Basin 2014). Nonetheless, there is a potential for significant undiscovered historical resources or unique archaeological resources to be present subsurface. Therefore, even though no archaeological resources are known to exist on the project site, the potential for a significant impact on previously unknown archaeological resources cannot be ruled out. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, which outlines procedures to be followed in the event that previously unidentified archaeological resources are discovered, would reduce any impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure CUL-1: During initial site preparation, the SJECCD shall retain a qualified archaeologist to inspect trench or excavation spoils and profiles for evidence of cultural deposits. If cultural deposits are present, the archaeologist will evaluate the find and provide direction for any treatment needed, consistent with all applicable federal and state regulations and policies protecting cultural resources. Based on the judgment of the archaeologist in consultation with the project proponent, treatment may include minor redesign to avoid the deposit, site capping, and/or further investigation (survey and/or subsurface excavation), followed by recovery. The SJECCD will be responsible for ensuring that the archaeologist’s recommendations are properly implemented. A written report documenting the find, the results of the initial evaluation, and the methods and results for any follow-up treatment will be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and filed with the SJECCD and with the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System. Further, in the event that previously unknown cultural resources are discovered during construction, all ground-disturbing work within 100 feet of the find shall cease and the find shall be protected in place, until archaeological assessments can be made as described above, and recommendations implemented. c) The project site is developed and flat, and thus has no unique geologic features. The City of Milpitas General Plan does not mention paleontological resources as an area of concern for the City (City of Milpitas 2010). Subsurface soils are classified as Flaskan and Cropley series soils (NRCS 2013). Both of these soils are well drained and located on alluvial fans. Such materials are considered to have a very low likelihood of containing significant paleontological features. In addition, the project site has been disturbed by past grading activities. Consequently, excavations on the project site are unlikely to disturb or damage paleontological resources. This impact is considered less than significant. d) See the response to Items 5(a) and (b), above. As the project site is not located in an area with identified archaeological resources, human remains are not expected to be present on the site, but the potential for their presence cannot be ruled out. Disturbance of human remains would represent a significant impact. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2, which outlines procedures to be followed in the event that previously unknown human remains are discovered, any impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure CUL-2: In the event of a discovery of human bone, potential human bone, or a known or potential human burial, all ground-disturbing work in the vicinity of the find will

Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

22

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

halt immediately and the area of the find will be protected until a qualified archaeologist determines whether the bone is human. If the qualified archaeologist determines the bone is human, the SJECCD will notify the County Coroner of the find. Consistent with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b), which prohibits disturbance of human remains uncovered by excavation until the Coroner has made a finding relative to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 5097, the SJECCD shall ensure that the remains and vicinity of the find are protected against further disturbance. If it is determined that the find is of Native American origin, the SJECCD shall comply with the provisions of Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 regarding identification and involvement of the most likely descendant. If the human remains cannot be protected in place following the Coroner’s determination, the SJECCD shall ensure that the qualified archaeologist and the most likely descendant are provided the opportunity to confer on repatriation and/or archaeological treatment of human remains, and that any appropriate studies, as identified through this consultation, are carried out prior to reinternment. The SJECCD shall provide results of all such studies to the Native American community, and shall provide an opportunity for Native American involvement in any interpretative reporting. As stipulated by the provisions of the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, the SJECCD shall ensure that human remains and associated artifacts recovered from the project are repatriated to the appropriate local tribal group if requested.

Discussion of Potential Cumulative Impacts Anticipated future development in some portions of Milpitas has the potential to adversely affect cultural resources in the City. However, with mitigation, the proposed project would have no project-level impacts on cultural resources. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulative impact on cultural resources that could result from other development in the City.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

23

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

Potentially Significant Impact

Less than Significant with Project Mitigation

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact

□

□

□

■

□ □ □ □

□ □ □ □

■ ■ □ ■

□ □ ■ □

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in onor off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

□

□

■

□

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the City’s adopted building code, creating substantial risks to life or property?

□

□

■

□

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

□

□

□

■

Issues 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

Relevant Elements of the Project and its Setting The proposed project consists of the construction and use of an educational facility on the Russell Middle School campus. The topography of the project site is relatively flat, and the site consists of an athletic field, asphalt black top, and a baseball diamond. Thus, no unique geologic features are located on the project site.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

24

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

Discussion of Potential Project Impacts a)(i) The project site is not located within an established Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for surface fault rupture hazards (CGS 2013). The closest Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone is located about 0.25 miles to the east along the Hayward fault (ABAG 2001). For these reasons, active or potentially active faults with the potential for surface fault rupture are not known to be located directly beneath the project site. As a result, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with the rupture of a known earthquake fault. There would be no impact with regard to this criterion. a)(ii) The proposed project could be subject to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake originating along one of the faults listed as active or potentially active in the Bay area. This hazard exists throughout the Bay Area and could pose a risk to public safety and property by exposing people, property, or infrastructure to potentially adverse effects including strong seismic ground shaking. However, the proposed project would be designed and constructed in accordance with the current California Building Code (CBC), and thus would be consistent with the current prevailing standard of care for structural and civil engineering and seismic safety. Impacts associated with exposure to seismic groundshaking are thus expected to be less than significant. a)(iii) The project site is located in an area that has a high susceptibility to liquefaction (ABAG 2006). As a result, the proposed project could expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with seismic-related ground failure. However, the proposed project would be designed and constructed in accordance with the current CBC, and thus would be consistent with the current prevailing standard of care for structural and civil engineering and seismic safety. Impacts associated with exposure to seismic-related ground failure are thus expected to be less than significant. a)(iv) The project site and the surrounding area are characterized by flat topography and are located at a substantial distance from the closest hilly or sloping areas that could generate landslides. The project site is therefore not subject to hazards related to landslides or landslide runout; this includes seismically induced and non-seismic landslides. No impact is anticipated with regard to this criterion. b) Construction of the proposed project would require activities such as vegetation removal and grading that would expose soil to erosion. As the proposed project would disturb more than 1 acre, coverage under the state’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity would be required prior to construction and the construction contractor would be required to file a notice of intent (NOI) with the State Water Resources Control Board and develop and implement a site-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP would include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control onsite erosion and off-site sedimentation, and to keep construction pollutants from coming into contact with storm water. The District would have oversight responsibility and would have the authority to shut down construction in the event the SWPPP is improperly implemented. With these measures in place, impacts related to accelerated erosion and sedimentation are expected to be less than significant. c) Issues related to seismically induced and non-seismic landslide hazards are discussed in response to Item 6(a)(iv), above. Issues related to liquefaction and related hazards are discussed in response to Item 6(a)(iii), above. Issues related to soil properties are discussed in response to Item 6(d), below. Construction of the proposed project may require shallow excavation. Excavated (cut) slopes could be unstable and subject to failure over the short term if they are improperly designed or implemented. Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

25

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

However, as identified above, development would be designed and constructed in accordance with the current CBC, which includes provisions that specifically address good grading practices and cut and fill slope stability. Impacts related to unstable cut or fill slopes are therefore expected to be less than significant. d) Expansive soils exist underneath the project site (City of Milpitas 2010). As discussed above, the proposed project will adhere to the current CBC, which includes detailed provisions to ensure that the design of new facilities is appropriate to site soil conditions, including requirements to address expansive and otherwise problematic soils. With adherence to the CBC, impacts related to site soil conditions— including but not limited to expansive soils, if any are present—would be less than significant. e) The proposed project would not involve the installation of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. There would be no impact with regard to this criterion.

Discussion of Potential Cumulative Impacts Most of the geologic impacts such as those related to risk from faults, liquefaction potential, slope stability, landslide potential, expansive and compressible soils are site specific and do not cumulate. Therefore, development of the proposed project and other development in the vicinity of the project site would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to geologic risks. The one area where the impacts of concurrent construction projects have the potential to cumulate is related to soil erosion and discharge of sediment into receiving waters during construction. This represents a significant cumulative impact. However, construction of the proposed project would comply with NPDES requirements to minimize erosion and sedimentation. Therefore, the contribution of the proposed project to this impact would not be cumulatively considerable.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

26

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

Potentially Significant Impact

Less than Significant with Project Mitigation

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

■

□

□

□

b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

■

□

□

□

Issues

7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project:

Relevant Elements of the Project and its Setting The proposed project consists of the construction and use of an educational facility on the Russell Middle School campus.

Discussion of Potential Project Impacts a-b) Construction and operation of the proposed project would generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that could result in a potentially significant impact. The EIR will estimate the direct and indirect GHG emissions from the operation of proposed project and discuss whether the emissions would exceed the BAAQMD’s recommended threshold for GHGs emitted by land use development projects. The EIR will also estimate and report GHG emissions that would be generated during construction of the proposed project.

Discussion of Potential Cumulative Impacts The contribution of the proposed project to the global cumulative impact will be addressed in the EIR.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

27

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

Potentially Significant Impact

Less than Significant with Project Mitigation

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

□

□

■

□

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

□

□

■

□

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

□

□

■

□

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

□

■

□

□

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

□

□

□

■

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

□

□

□

■

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

□

□

□

■

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

□

□

□

■

Issues 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the project:

Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

28

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

Relevant Elements of the Project and its Setting The proposed project consists of the construction and use of an educational facility on the Russell Middle School campus. In addition to the middle school facilities which are over 50 feet from the project site, other nearby schools are Pomeroy Elementary School, located approximately 200 feet west of the project site across Escuela Parkway and Milpitas High School, located about 325 feet southwest of the project site across Escuela Parkway. The nearest airport is San José International Airport, located approximately 6.5 miles southwest of the project site.

Discussion of Potential Project Impacts a-b) Although small quantities of hazardous materials would be used in the construction of the proposed project, compliance with local, state, and federal regulations would minimize risks associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during construction activities. Any hazardous materials used during the occupancy of the proposed building would be limited to those typically used in academic support and standard maintenance activities (e.g., laboratory chemicals, photo processing chemicals, solvents, paints, cleaning agents). The use of all hazardous materials during occupancy would be required to comply with stringent local, state, and federal regulations on hazardous materials use. Given the types and small quantities of hazardous materials that would be used as well as stringent regulations, the impacts related to the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials or the release of materials into the environment would be less than significant. c) The project site is located less than 0.25 mile of a number of schools. Risks associated with the use of hazardous materials on the project site would be addressed through compliance with applicable regulations as discussed in Item 8(a), above, and the proposed project would not involve the use of large quantities of such materials that could result in a substantial release that could affect off-site areas. Therefore, the impacts with respect to this criterion are considered less than significant. d) Based on a search conducted by EDR of databases of agencies that maintain lists of hazardous material sites, the project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites subject to corrective action compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List). However, according to the EDR report prepared for the project site, the Russell Middle School campus is included on the Hazardous Waste Information System (HAZNET) database, which is a database that contains information on facilities that ship hazardous wastes. The inclusion of the campus on this database stems from the shipment of organic solids, asbestos containing waste, household waste, aqueous solution with total organic residues less than 10 percent and waste oil from the campus between 1998 and 2001 (EDR 2013). The EDR report indicated that several sites with known or potential contamination, hazardous materials use, hazardous waste generation, or other hazardous-materials-related conditions are within 0.25 mile of the Russell Middle School campus. Known or potentially contaminated sites near the campus include an historical auto station located south of the project site on Columbus Drive, Milpitas High School located to the southwest of the project site across Escuela Parkway, the Milpitas Unified School District Corporation Yard located to the northeast of the project site adjacent to the Russell Middle School campus, and an historical cleaners located to the north of the project site on Coelho Street (EDR 2013). Groundwater in the area flows to the south and the historical auto station and high school are located downstream from the project site. Therefore, contamination on these sites does not pose a risk to the project site. However, it is possible that contamination from the corporation yard and the historical cleaners could have migrated to the project site and, if encountered during construction, could result in Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

29

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

the exposure of the public or construction workers to hazardous materials. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, which requires an assessment and cleanup of potential contamination that may be encountered during construction, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: If evidence of contaminated soil and/or groundwater, such as discolored soil, odors or oil sheen, is encountered during excavation and/or grading both on- and off-site, the construction contractors shall stop work and immediately inform District staff. An environmental hazardous materials professional shall be contracted to conduct an on-site assessment. If the materials are determined to pose a risk to the public or construction workers, the construction contractor shall prepare and submit a remediation plan to the appropriate agency and comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Soil remediation methods could include excavation and on-site treatment, excavation and off-site treatment or disposal, and/or treatment without excavation. Remediation alternatives for cleanup of contaminated groundwater could include in-situ treatment, extraction and on-site treatment, or extraction and off-site treatment and/or disposal. Construction plans shall be modified or construction postponed to ensure that construction will not inhibit remediation activities and will not expose the public or construction workers to hazardous conditions. e) The project site is not located in the immediate vicinity of the San José International Airport. Given the distance of the project site from the airport, development of the proposed project would not place persons within an airport hazard zone. There would be no impact with regard to this criterion. f) The project site is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip, and there would be no impact with regard to this criterion. g) The City of Milpitas Emergency Operations Plan does not list Escuela Parkway as an emergency evacuation route (City of Milpitas 2013). In addition, construction of the proposed project would occur within the boundary of the project site, and thus would not impede traffic on roadways surrounding site. There would be no impact with regard to this criterion. h) The project site is located in an urban area. It is not located in or adjacent to a wildland area, and there would be no impact with regard to this criterion.

Discussion of Potential Cumulative Impacts Anticipated future development in Milpitas has the potential to expose the public and the environment to risks associated with hazards from on-site contamination and routine use of hazardous materials. However, with mitigation, the proposed project would not expose the public or the environment to potential on-site contamination during construction. In addition, while the proposed project would involve the continued routine use of small amounts of hazardous materials during occupancy, the use of these materials on the project site would comply with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations. Therefore, it would not contribute to a cumulative impact during operation.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

30

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

Potentially Significant Impact

Less than Significant with Project Mitigation

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

□

□

■

□

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

□

□

□

■

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or of-site?

□

□

■

□

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

□

□

■

□

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

□

□

■

□

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

□

□

■

□

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

□

□

□

■

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?

□

□

□

■

Issues 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project:

Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

31

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

Potentially Significant Impact

Less than Significant with Project Mitigation

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

□

□

□

■

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

□

□

□

■

Issues

Relevant Elements of the Project and its Setting The proposed project consists of the construction and use of an educational facility on the Russell Middle School campus. Construction of the proposed project would include site grading and excavation. Runoff from the project site would be routed to the City of Milpitas’ storm drain system, which discharges into Calera Creek. The project site is underlain by the Santa Clara groundwater basin (DWR 2003). The project site is not located within a 100-year flood plain or a flood inundation zone (FEMA 2009). The nearest bodies of water are the Sandy Wool Lake, located 2 miles east of the project site, and the San Francisco Bay, located about 2 miles west of the project site.

Discussion of Potential Project Impacts a) During construction of the proposed project, there is a potential for increased erosion, sedimentation, and discharge of polluted runoff from the site. However, as identified in response to Geology and Soils Item 6(b), in compliance with NPDES regulations, the construction contractor would be required to implement a SWPPP, which will include erosion and pollution control measures to control the release of pollutants and sediment into receiving waters. Therefore, the impact on water quality from construction activities would be less than significant. The development of the proposed project would increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site that would increase the amount of runoff generated on the site. During operation, all site drainage would be routed to the City’s storm drain system. This drainage is subject to requirements listed in provision C.3 of the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (Regional Water Quality Board Order R2-2009-0074; and Order R2-2011-0083). This permit requires permittees to comply with the discharge prohibitions and receiving water limitations through the timely implementation of control measures and other actions as specified in the permit (San Francisco Bay RWQCB 2009). Development on the project site would be required by law to comply with applicable NPDES requirements for stormwater quality. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not result in any storm water discharges that would violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The impact to water quality would be less than significant during operation. b) The project site is underlain by the Santa Clara groundwater basin. The project would not use groundwater as a source of supply. Natural recharge in the basin occurs principally as infiltration from streambeds that flow from the upland areas within the drainage basin and from direct percolation of precipitation that falls on the basin floor (DWR 2003). Development of the proposed project would increase the amount of impervious surface on the project site. However, the increase in impervious

Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

32

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

surface would be small as the site is only about 4 acres in site, and therefore, there would not be a substantial reduction in the amount of land available for groundwater recharge. The impact would be less than significant. c) Storm water generated on the project site following the development of the proposed project would be directed toward existing storm drainage facilities serving the project site. As discussed in response to Item 6(b) above, the proposed project would be required to control for soil erosion or siltation during construction through the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP. Implementation of the SWPPP would reduce the potential for erosion on the project site and minimize the discharge of sediment into the storm drain system. Once the proposed project is constructed, the proposed project would be under impervious surfaces (buildings, pavement, etc.) and landscaping. This would minimize the potential for erosion and sedimentation in the long term. In addition, the project’s stormwater drainage system would be designed so that post-project runoff rates and durations shall not exceed estimated pre-project rates and duration in accordance with criteria listed in the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Stormwater Handbook, thus preventing erosion on- or off-site Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. d) There are no existing flooding problems on the project site, and the project built on-site would be designed to control for on-site flooding. As discussed in the previous response above, storm water generated by development of the proposed project would be directed toward existing storm drainage facilities serving the project site, and post-project runoff rates and durations shall not exceed estimated pre-project rates and duration, thus preventing flooding on- or off-site. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. e) As discussed above, post-project runoff rates and durations shall not exceed estimated pre-project rates and duration. See response to Item 9(a), above, with regard to water quality. The proposed project would be required to implement a SWPPP, which will include erosion and pollution control measures, to control off-site sediment delivery during construction. During operation all runoff generated on the project site would be subject to the requirements listed in provision C.3 of San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit. As a result, development of the proposed project would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. f) See responses to Items 9(a) through 9(d), above, and related discussions in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of this checklist. No other potential project impacts to water quality were identified. g-h) The project site is not located within a 100-year flood zone. The project site is located within Flood Zone X, which is defined as an area of minimal flood hazard, usually above the 500-year flood level (FEMA 2009). There are no existing residential uses on the project site and no residential uses are included in the proposed project. As a result, development of the proposed project would not place housing or structures within an area at risk of flood flows. There would be no impact with regard to this criterion. i) The project site is not located within the inundation area for the Sandy Wool Lake Dam or any other dam (City of Milpitas 2010). Therefore, development of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. There would be no impact with regard to this criterion.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

33

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

j) The project site is located well inland from the San Francisco Bay and no bodies of water are located in the vicinity of the site. As a result, the project site is not at risk of seiche or tsunami inundation. Because of the location of the project site in flat topography at a substantial distance from the Diablo range front, there is no risk of debris flow or mudflow. There would be no impact with regard to this criterion.

Discussion of Potential Cumulative Impacts Anticipated future development in Milpitas could result in the violation of water quality or waste discharge requirements during construction. However, construction projects involving more than 1 acre of land disturbance are required by NPDES regulations to prepare and implement a SWPPP that includes erosion and pollution control measures to minimize discharge of sediment into receiving waters. Furthermore, development on the project site would be required to adhere to requirements in the Regional NPDES permit. As a result, the project’s contribution to a cumulative impact on water quality would not be considerable. Anticipated future development in Milpitas would result in some alteration of drainage patterns on each of the cumulative development project sites. However, all site drainage from these sites would be designed and constructed in accordance with the current NPDES and applicable City requirements and as discussed above and be routed to the City’s storm drain system. As a result, the cumulative impact with regard to site drainage could result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or of-site or flooding on- or off-site would be less than significant. Anticipated future development in Milpitas could place housing or structures within a 100-year flood zone or within a dam inundation area. In addition, anticipated future development could place future development within a tsunami inundation area. However, as the project site is not located within either a 100-year flood zone or within a tsunami or dam inundation area, development of the proposed project would not contribute to any cumulative impacts related to flooding.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

34

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

Potentially Significant Impact

Less than Significant with Project Mitigation

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact

a) Physically divide an established community?

□

□

□

■

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

□

□

■

□

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

□

□

□

■

Issues 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project:

Relevant Elements of the Project and its Setting The proposed project consists of the construction and use of an educational facility on the Russell Middle School campus. The City of Milpitas General Plan is the land use plan applicable to the area surrounding the project site.

Discussion of Potential Project Impacts a) Development of the proposed project would not physically divide an established community since the project site is surrounded by existing development. There would be no impact with regard to this criterion. b) The proposed project would be constructed and operated by the SJECCD on land that is owned by Milpitas Unified School District. The project site is designated Public Facilities (PF) in the City of Milpitas General Plan (City of Milpitas 2010) and is zoned Institutional (I) by the Milpitas City Code (City of Milpitas 2012). The construction of a joint-use education center would be consistent with this designation. This impact is less than significant. c) There is no habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan applicable to the project site. There would be no impact related to this criterion.

Discussion of Potential Cumulative Impacts Anticipated future development in the City of Milpitas would be reviewed for consistency with adopted land use plans and policies by the City. For this reason, pending and approved projects are anticipated to be consistent with the General Plan and zoning requirements, or be subject to an allowable exception, and further, would be subject to review under CEQA, mitigation requirements, and design review. As the proposed project would be consistent with the general plan and zoning designations for the project site, the cumulative impact of the proposed project and future development would be less than significant.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

35

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

c) There is no habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan applicable to the project site. There would be no impact related to this criterion.

Discussion of Potential Cumulative Impacts Anticipated future development in the City of Milpitas would be reviewed for consistency with adopted land use plans and policies by the City. For this reason, pending and approved projects are anticipated to be consistent with the General Plan and zoning requirements, or be subject to an allowable exception, and further, would be subject to review under CEQA, mitigation requirements, and design review. As the proposed project would be consistent with the general plan and zoning designations for the project site, the cumulative impact of the proposed project and future development would be less than significant.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

36

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

Potentially Significant Impact

Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

□

□

□

■

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

□

□

□

■

Issues 11. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project:

Relevant Elements of the Project and its Setting The proposed project consists of the construction of educational facility on the Russell Middle School campus. The City of Milpitas General Plan does not designate the project site as a mineral resource zone (City of Milpitas 2010).

Discussion of Potential Project Impacts a, b) The project site is not designated as a mineral resource zone, and no known or potential mineral resources are located on the site (City of Milpitas 2010). In addition, existing zoning and land uses preclude the use of the project site for mineral extraction (for example, sand, and gravel). Therefore, development on the project site would not impede extraction or result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. There would be no impacts with regard to these criteria.

Discussion of Potential Cumulative Impacts The City of Milpitas is urban in nature, and minerals are not found to any appreciable extent in the developed part of the City. Mineral resource zones are located in the hills to the east of I-680, but these areas are located outside the City’s Urban Service Area (City of Milpitas 2010). No development is anticipated within these mineral resource zones. As a result, anticipated future development in Milpitas, including the proposed project, would not result in the loss of availability of a known resource. The cumulative impact would be less than significant.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

37

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

Potentially Significant Impact

Less than Significant with Project Mitigation

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in any applicable plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

■

□

□

□

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

■

□

□

□

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

■

□

□

□

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project (including construction)?

■

□

□

□

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

□

□

□

■

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

□

□

□

■

Issues 12. NOISE – Would the project result in:

Relevant Elements of the Project and its Setting The proposed project consists of the construction and use of an educational facility on the Russell Middle School campus. Construction of the proposed project would generate noise, and once construction is completed, the operation of the proposed project would add to current sources of traffic noise by increasing vehicle trips on nearby roadways. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site include educational uses adjacent to the north and east on the Russell Middle School campus, educational uses on the Pomeroy Elementary School campus to the west across Escuela Parkway, and single-family residences adjacent to the south. Other sensitive uses in the area include Milpitas High School to the southwest. The nearest airport is San José International Airport, located approximately 6.5 miles southwest of the project site. Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

38

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

Discussion of Potential Project Impacts a) Development of the proposed project could result in increases or changes in noise levels from sources such as construction activities, stationary sources, and increased vehicular traffic, which could exceed applicable noise standards. For example, construction activity or new stationary sources could result in noise levels that exceed the state’s exterior noise standard of 70 A-weighted decibels (dB(A)) community noise equivalent level (CNEL) for schools. These impacts are considered potentially significant. The EIR will evaluate the potential for the proposed project to expose people to noise in excess of applicable standards. b) Construction activities associated with the proposed project could generate excessive groundborne vibration and noise on and near the project site. This represents a potentially significant impact. The EIR will evaluate the potential for increased groundborne vibration or noise levels associated with construction of the proposed project to affect nearby sensitive receptors. c) Vehicle traffic associated with the proposed project could result in substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site. These impacts are considered potentially significant. The EIR will evaluate the potential for the traffic associated with the proposed project to substantially increase ambient noise levels. d) Construction activities associated with the proposed project could result in substantial temporary increases in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project. These impacts are considered potentially significant. The EIR will evaluate the potential for the construction of the proposed project to substantially increase ambient noise levels. e) The project site is not located within the immediate vicinity of an airport. Other than aircraft overflights, the project site would not be exposed to noise from public airports. There would be no impact with respect to this criterion. f) The proposed project is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip, and there would be no impact with regard to this criterion.

Discussion of Potential Cumulative Impacts The proposed project combined with other current projects and probable future projects and projected regional growth could result in significant cumulative impacts with regard to noise. This issue will be analyzed in the EIR.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

39

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

Potentially Significant Impact

Less than Significant with Project Mitigation

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact

a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

□

□

■

□

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

□

□

□

■

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

□

□

□

■

Issues 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project:

The proposed project consists of the construction and use of an educational facility on the Russell Middle School campus. The proposed project would accommodate approximately 130 adult high school students and about 390 adult college students. Faculty and employees would also be added to serve the student population.

Discussion of Potential Project Impacts a) The proposed project would serve the existing community. It does not provide housing and students would be drawn from the surrounding community. It is unlikely that students would move into Milpitas to attend classes at the proposed facility. Faculty required to serve students at the proposed facility would be drawn from existing faculty at Evergreen Community College located in eastern San Jose. Staff could be new hires or existing employees currently employed at the Evergreen Community College. The total number of employees at the project site would be small and it is unlikely that a large number of these employees would relocate to Milpitas to work at this location. Therefore, it is unlikely that the proposed project would substantially increase the residential population of Milpitas. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. b) The project site currently consists of an athletic field, asphalt black top, and a baseball diamond. No housing exists on the project site, and there would be no impact with respect to this criterion. c) See response to Item 13(b), above. There would be no impact with regard to this criterion.

Discussion of Potential Cumulative Impacts Anticipated future development in Milpitas would result in an increase in population throughout the City. As discussed above, the increase in population associated with the proposed project would not be substantial. Therefore, the contribution of the proposed project to this impact would not be cumulatively considerable.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

40

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

Issues

Potentially Significant Impact

Less than Significant with Project Mitigation

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact

□ □ □ □ □

□ □ □ □ □

■ ■ □ ■ ■

□ □ ■ □ □

14. PUBLIC SERVICES – Would the project: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Parks? e) Other public facilities?

Relevant Elements of the Project and its Setting The proposed project consists of the construction and use of an educational facility on the Russell Middle School campus. The City of Milpitas Fire Department (MFD) would provide fire protection services to the project site. The MFD has four fire stations and an administration facility. The closest fire station to the site is Station No. 3, located at 45 Midwick Drive, approximately 0.5 mile southwest of the project site. The City of Milpitas Police Department would provide law enforcement services to the project site. Services would be provided from one central station located at 1275 North Milpitas Boulevard. Several neighborhood parks are located approximately 1 mile from the project site. The closest parks to the project site are Albert Augustine Jr. Memorial Park, located 0.2 mile to the north, and Sandalwood Park, located 0.2 mile to the south. The closest library, the Milpitas Branch Library, is located about 1.5 miles southwest of the project site.

Discussion of Potential Project Impacts a) Development of the proposed project would result in the addition of up to approximately 280 adult high school and college students to the project site during the daytime and 240 adult college students to the project site during the nighttime. The increase in the population would likely result in additional calls for service, with the potential for increasing response times. To maintain adequate response times, additional personnel and equipment may be required. However, according to the MFD, the need for new fire station to house additional equipment and personnel is not anticipated at this time (Zamora 2014). As a new fire station would not be needed, there would be no potential for significant environmental Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

41

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

impacts from the construction of new facilities. Therefore, the impact related to the provision of fire services to the project site would be less than significant. b) As discussed above, the proposed project would increase the daytime and the nighttime population on the project site. This increase may result in additional calls for service, potentially increasing response times. To maintain adequate response times, additional personnel and equipment may be required. However, according to the Milpitas Police Department (MPD), the need for new police facilities to house additional equipment and personnel is not anticipated at this time (Sequeria 2014). No new facilities are needed, and therefore there would be no significant environmental impacts. c) No residential uses are associated with the proposed project. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not result in a direct impact on schools due to an increase in residential population. Students, facility, and staff associated with the proposed project would likely be living in the surrounding communities or Bay Area at the time of enrollment or hire. It is unlikely that new students or employees would move to the area to study or work at the proposed facility. As a result, the proposed project would not add a substantial number of school age students to Milpitas. This impact would be less than significant. d) No residential uses are associated with the proposed project. Furthermore, as explained above, the project is not expected to cause students, faculty, or staff to relocate to Milpitas to study or work at the facility. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an increased use of local parks due to an increase in residential population and this impact would be less than significant. e) No residential uses are associated with the proposed project and the project is not expected to cause students, faculty, or staff to relocate to Milpitas to study or work at the facility. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a direct impact on other public facilities such as libraries due to an increase in residential population. The closest public library is located approximately 1.5 miles from the project site. As a result, it is unlikely that students, faculty, and staff would utilize this facility. For these reasons, the impact on libraries would be less than significant.

Discussion of Potential Cumulative Impacts Although substantial portions of the City are built out, future development or redevelopment would increase population in the City, thus resulting in an increase in demand for fire, police, schools, parks, and other public facilities such as libraries. As a result of the increased demand, future growth in the City may require new or physically altered facilities to accommodate staff and equipment to meet increased demand, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. As the proposed project does not include a residential component and would not increase the City’s residential population indirectly, the proposed project would not have any direct impacts on fire, police, schools, parks, or libraries. Therefore, the project’s contribution to the cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

42

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

Potentially Significant Impact

Less than Significant with Project Mitigation

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact

a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

□

□

■

□

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

□

□

□

■

Issues 15. RECREATION – Would the project:

Relevant Elements of the Project and its Setting The proposed project consists of the construction of educational facility on the Russell Middle School campus. Several neighborhood parks are located approximately 1 mile from the project site. The closest parks to the project site are Albert Augustine Jr. Memorial Park, located 0.2 mile to the north, and Sandalwood Park, located 0.2 mile to the south.

Relevant Elements of the Project and its Setting The proposed project consists of the construction and use of an educational facility on the Russell Middle School campus. Several neighborhood parks are located approximately 1 mile from the project site. The closest parks to the project site are Albert Augustine Jr. Memorial Park, located 0.2 mile to the north, and Sandalwood Park, located 0.2 mile to the south.

Discussion of Potential Project Impacts a) See the response to Item 14(d), above. As the project is not expected to cause students, faculty, or staff to relocate to Milpitas to study or work at the facility, the proposed project would not result in an increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities that would cause substantial physical deterioration of existing facilities to occur or be accelerated. Therefore, the impact on recreation facilities would be less than significant. b) No public parks or recreational facilities would be constructed as part of the proposed project. There would be no impact with respect to this criterion.

Discussion of Potential Cumulative Impacts Anticipated future development in Milpitas would increase the extent of development in the City, thus resulting in a cumulative increase in the use of recreational facilities. As a result, future growth in the City may cause substantial physical deterioration of recreational facilities to occur or be accelerated, or may

Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

43

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. As discussed above, no residential population is associated with the proposed project that would require parks or other City recreational facilities. In addition, no public parks or recreational facilities would be constructed as part of the proposed project. Therefore, the project would make no contribution to the cumulative impact with regard to the deterioration or construction of recreational facilities.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

44

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

Less than Significant with Project Mitigation

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact

■

□

□

□

■

□

□

□

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

□

□

□

■

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

■

□

□

□

e) Result in inadequate emergency access?

□

□

□

■

f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

□

□

■

□

Potentially Significant Impact

Issues

16. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC – Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways, and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

Relevant Elements of the Project and its Setting The proposed project consists of the construction and use of an educational facility on the Russell Middle School campus. The project site is within close proximity of I-680 to the east and Escuela Parkway provides access to the project site.

Discussion of Potential Project Impacts a-b) The proposed project could potentially cause an increase in traffic on surrounding roadways or redirect traffic that is already in the area. These potential changes in traffic and circulation in the vicinity of the project site could result in congestion. This represents a potentially significant impact. A detailed

Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

45

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

Traffic Impact Study will be prepared to evaluate the impacts of the proposed project on the performance of local roadway system and this issue will be addressed in the EIR. c) The proposed project does not include uses that would affect air traffic or result in changes to air patterns. There would be no impact with regard to this criterion. d) The proposed project would be designed to utilize the existing network of regional arterial and local roadways located in the vicinity of the project site. The design of the proposed project in terms of pedestrian and vehicle access could result in pedestrian and vehicle conflicts in front of the project site. Similarly, the increase in pedestrian trips to and from the project site could result in an increase in pedestrian and vehicle conflicts at nearby intersections. This represents a potentially significant impact. The effects of the proposed project design and site access on public safety will be analyzed in the EIR. Short-term effects on pedestrian movement during project construction will also be analyzed in the EIR. e) The primary entry/exit to the proposed project would be provided on Escuela Parkway. This point would provide adequate emergency access to the project site. There would be no impact with respect to this criterion. f) The City of Milpitas General Plan contains several policies that promote the use of alternative transportation. General Plan Implementing Policy 3.d-I-9 requires developers to make new projects as bicycle and pedestrian “friendly” as feasible, especially through facilitating pedestrian and bicycle movements within sites and between surrounding civic, recreation, education, work, and retail centers while General Plan Implementing Policy 3.d-I-17 requires new developments to provide end-of-trip facilities such as secure bicycle parking, and on-site showers and clothing storage lockers, etc. where feasible. Concerning transit, General Plan Implementing Policy 3.c-l-4 encourages feeder services to carry commuters to transit stations, including shuttle connections from businesses, residences, and attractions to bus and rail services (City of Milpitas 2010). Development of the proposed project would not conflict with policies contained in the City of Milpitas General Plan that promote alternative modes of transportation. An existing sidewalk and bicycle lane is located adjacent to the project site on Escuela Parkway and construction of the proposed project would not eliminate or obstruct the use of these facilities. In addition, the proposed project would include bicycle parking. Finally, the project site is served by two bus routes, and there are stops located in the vicinity of the site. The increase in the number of students on the project site would increase transit ridership along these routes and construction of the proposed project would not block access to transit or remove existing bus stops. In addition, these bus lines provide a direct connection to several light rail stations. For these reasons, the impact with regard to potential conflicts with policies that promote alternative modes of transportation is less than significant.

Discussion of Potential Cumulative Impacts The proposed project combined with other current projects and probable future projects and projected regional growth could result in significant cumulative impacts with regard to transportation/traffic. This issue will be analyzed in the EIR.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

46

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

Potentially Significant Impact

Issues

Less than Significant with Project Mitigation

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact

17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

■

□

□

□

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

■

□

□

□

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

□

□

■

□

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

■

□

□

□

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project, that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

■

□

□

□

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

■

□

□

□

g) Comply with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

■

□

□

□

Relevant Elements of the Project and its Setting The proposed project consists of the construction and use of an educational facility on the Russell Middle School campus by the SJECCD. Sewer and water service to the project site is provided by the City of Milpitas. Wastewater is treated at the San José/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) while the City’s source of domestic water includes the San Francisco Public Utility Commission (SFPUC) and the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). With minor exceptions, SFPUC water is used to supply residential areas of the City and SCVWD water is used to supply industrial areas (City of Milpitas 2010). The project site is within the SFPUC wholesale distribution area. Solid waste is disposed of at the Newby Island Landfill.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

47

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

Discussion of Potential Project Impacts a) Wastewater generated by the proposed project would be treated at the San José/Santa Clara WPCP. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates water quality and quantity of effluent discharged from the San José/Santa Clara WPCP. The existing design capacity of the San José/Santa Clara WPCP is approximately 167 million gallons per day (mgd) average dry weather flow. However, the San José/Santa Clara WPCP is currently operating under a 120 mgd average dry weather effluent flow constraint due to concerns regarding the effects of freshwater discharges from the WPCP on the saltwater marsh habitat and pollutant loading to the Bay (City of San José 2011). The San José/Santa Clara WPCP serves eight cities in the South Bay region. The City of Milpitas’ share of the WPCP’s treatment capacity is approximately 14.25 mgd and the average daily dry weather sewage flow treated by the WPCP from sources in the City of Milpitas is approximately 7 mgd (Uppal 2014). Therefore, based on current sewage flows, the City has approximately 7.25 mgd of excess treatment capacity. As discussed in response to Item 17(b) below, the volume of wastewater generated by the proposed project could be accommodated by the City of Milpitas’ excess treatment capacity at the WPCP. Consequently, wastewater discharged from the proposed project is not expected to contribute to an exceedance of applicable wastewater treatment requirements. The impact would be less than significant. b) Domestic water in the vicinity of the proposed project is provided by supplies from the SFPUC. Approximately 85 percent of the SFPUC water supply water comes from the Hetch Hetchy watershed located in the Yosemite National Park while about 15 percent of the SFPUC water supply comes from local watersheds (SFPUC 2014). Water from the Hetch Hetchy watershed is treated at the Tesla Water Treatment Plant (WTP) in Tracy while water from the local watershed in the East Bay area is treated at the Sunol Valley WTP located in unincorporated Alameda County to the north of Milpitas. The Tesla WTP has a capacity to treat 315 mgd while the Sunol Valley WTP has a capacity of 160 mgd (Jones 2011; De Benedetti 2013). As discussed in response to Item 17(d), below, the proposed project would demand approximately 11,960 gallons per day (gpd) of water, which is a fraction of the treatment capacities at each plant. Therefore, there is enough capacity at the WTPs to serve the proposed project, and this impact would be less than significant. While the 2009 Water Master Plan Update does identify deficiencies in the water delivery system, the water delivery system that serves the project site is sufficient to serve the existing and planned development assumed in the Water Master Plan Update (City of Milpitas 2009a). The existing water delivery system infrastructure is adequate to serve the project. As discussed in response to Item 17(a), above, the proposed project would be served by the San José/Santa Clara WPCP. The City’s share of the WPCP’s treatment capacity is approximately 14.25 mgd which, based on current sewage flows, leaves the City with approximately 7.25 mgd of excess treatment capacity. The proposed project would generate about 10,764 gpd of wastewater. 1 Therefore, there is enough excess capacity at the WPCP to serve the proposed project, and no expansion of the WPCP would be required. The impact would be less than significant. While the 2009 Sewer Master Plan Update does identify deficiencies in the capacity of some lines within the system, the lines that serve the project site have sufficient capacity to serve the existing and planned

1

Based on 90 percent of campus water demand (11,960 gpd X 90 percent = 299,115 gpd).

Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

48

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

development assumed in the Sewer Master Plan Update (City of Milpitas 2009b). The existing sanitary sewer system infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the project. c) The proposed project would increase impervious surfaces on the project site, which could increase the volume of stormwater drainage conveyed to existing stormwater facilities. However, this increase in runoff would be small and would not substantially exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or the expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. d) It is estimated that the proposed project would generate a water demand of 11,960 gpd.2 Detailed information on the City’s water supply and water demands is documented in the City’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Water demand projections in the 2010 UWMP are based upon growth assumptions in the General Plan and water use factors for various land uses. The 2010 UWMP documents that there is sufficient water supply for all existing and planned growth from existing and planned future sources (City of Milpitas 2011). As the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan designation for the project site, it is reasonable to assume that the project is included in the growth assumptions used in the City’s 2010 UWMP. Based on the 2010 UWMP, sufficient water supplies are available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, and this impact is considered less than significant. f, g) It is estimated that the proposed project would generate 416 pounds of solid waste per day3. The Newby Island Landfill has a total capacity of 50,800,000 cubic yards. As of October 16, 2006, a total of approximately 32,525,000 cubic yards had been disposed at the landfill, leaving a remaining capacity of 18,275,000 cubic yards. Currently, the Newby Island Landfill is permitted to accept up to 4,000 tons of municipal solid waste per day, and in 2012 in the facility received an average of approximately 1,800 tons per day (Chew 2014).4 Under current projected development conditions, the landfill has a projected lifespan extending through 2025. Given the available capacity at the landfill, the additional solid waste generated by the proposed project is not anticipated to cause the facility to exceed its daily permitted capacity. Therefore, solid waste impacts would be less than significant.

Discussion of Potential Cumulative Impacts Anticipated future development in Milpitas would result in the demand for additional domestic and nonpotable water, water and wastewater treatment capacity, and solid waste disposal capacity. However, as indicated above, the increase in water demand, and the wastewater and solid waste generated under the proposed project, would be accommodated by existing water supplies, and available treatment and landfill capacity. As a result, the project’s contribution to the cumulative impacts on utilities would not be considerable.

2

Based on a water demand factor of 23 gpd/students (520 students X 23 gpd/students = 11,960 gpd).

3

Based on a solid waste generation rate of 0.8 pounds/day/student (520 students X 0.8 pounds/day/student = 416 pounds/day.

4

Based on total disposal of approximately 563,727 tons during calendar year 2012.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

49

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

Potentially Significant Impact

Less than Significant with Project Mitigation

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact

a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

□

□

■

□

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of past, present and probable future projects)?

■

□

□

□

c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

■

□

□

□

Issues 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

Discussion of Potential Project Impacts a) As discussed in response to Biological Resources Items 4(a) through 4(f), and Cultural Resources Items 5(a) through 5(d), above, the proposed project would not significantly affect fish or wildlife habitat, nor would it eliminate examples of California history or prehistory. The mitigation measures identified in this Initial Study would reduce all impacts to a less than significant level, and the SJECCD has determined that the proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment. Impacts under this criterion would be less than significant. b) An analysis of whether the potential impacts of the proposed project combined with other current projects and probable future projects and projected regional growth in the surrounding area would result in significant cumulative impacts will be included in the EIR. c) As indicated in the preceding discussion, development of the proposed project has the potential to result in potentially significant impacts in the areas of air quality, traffic, and noise. An evaluation of whether any of those impacts would have the potential to result in substantial effects to human beings will be included in the EIR.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

50

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

VI.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES

Association of Bay Area Governments. 2001. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Maps. Available at http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/FaultZones/index.html. (ABAG 2001) Association of Bay Area Governments. 2006. Liquefaction Hazard Areas. http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/LiquefactionCGS/index.html. (ABAG 2006)

Available

at

Basin Research Associates. 2014. Cultural Resources Field Inventory Report, Joint-Use 21st Century PostSecondary Education Center Project, Thomas Russell Middle School Campus, City of Milpitas, Santa Clara County. Feb 18. (Basin 2014) California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Maps. Accessed October 11, 2013. http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/ap/ap_maps.htm. (CGS 2013) California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mitigation and Monitoring Program. 2011. Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2010. (FMMP 2011) California Department of Transportation, California Scenic Highway Program. Accessed October 11, 2013. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/scenic_hwy.htm. (CSHP 2013) California Department of Water Resources. 2003. California’s Groundwater - Bulletin 118, Update 2003. (DWR 2003) Chew, Clifton. 2014. Management Analyst, Santa Clara County. Personal communication with Paul Stephenson, Impact Sciences, March 28. (Chew 2014) City of Milpitas. 1994. City of Milpitas General Plan, as amended 2010. (City of Milpitas 2010) City of Milpitas. 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. June 7. (City of Milpitas 2011) City of Milpitas. 2012. City of Milpitas Zoning Ordinance. (City of Milpitas 2012) City of Milpitas. 2013. Milpitas Emergency Operation Plan. (City of Milpitas 2013) City of San José. 2011. Environmental Impact Report for the Envision San José 2040 General Plan. Prepared by David J. Powers & Associates. (City of San José 2011) De Benedetti, Chris, “SFPUC completes Sunol Valley Water Treatment Plant's $140 million upgrade,” San Jose Mercury News, September 19, 2013, Online Edition. Available at: http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_24134559/sfpuc-completes-sunol-valley-watertreatment-plants-140. (De Benedetti 2013) Environmental Data Resources, Inc. 2013. EDR Radius Map Report with Geotech, Joint-Use Education Center. October 17. (EDR 2013) Federal Emergency Management Agency. May 18, 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06085C0059H for Santa Clara County, California. (FEMA 2009) Jones, Carolyn, “$114 million Tesla project aids Hetch Hetchy water,” San Francisco Chronicle, July 20, 2011, Online Edition. Available at: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/114-million-Teslaproject-aids-Hetch-Hetchy-water-2354053.php. (Jones 2011) Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2013. Web Soil Survey. Accessed October 16, 2013. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. (NRCS 2013) Northwest Information Center. 2013. Records search results for the proposed Joint-Use 21st Century PostSecondary Education Center project. (NWIC 2013) Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

51

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

Sequeria, Daryl. 2014. Commander, City of Milpitas Police Department. Personal communication with Paul Stephenson, Impact Sciences, April 30. (Sequeria 2014) San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2009. California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order R2-2009-0074, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008. (San Francisco Bay RWQCB 2009) San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. 2014. Overview of the Water System. Accessed May 6, 2014. http://www.sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=355. (SFPUC 2014) Uppal, Paramjit. 2014. Assistant Civil Engineer, City of Milpitas. Personal communication with Paul Stephenson, Impact Sciences, March 31. (Uppal 2014) Zamora, Albert. 2014. Division Chief/Fire Marshall, City of Milpitas Fire Department. Personal communication with Paul Stephenson, Impact Sciences, April 28. (Zamora 2014)

Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

52

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

Initial Study

VII.

INITIAL STUDY PREPARERS

Milpitas Unified School District Naomi Agraz, Executive Secretary, Business Services

San José/Evergreen Community College District Andrew Spiller, Project Manager, Gilbane Companies

Impact Sciences, Inc. Shabnam Barati, Ph.D., Managing Principal Paul Stephenson, Project Manager Ian Hillway, B.S., Publications Manager

Impact Sciences, Inc. 0461.006

53

Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center May 2014

APPENDIX A California Natural Diversity Database Search Results

Summary of Special Status Plant Species Recorded From the Project Vicinity Status Scientific and Common Name Anderson’s manzanita

State

CNPS

--

--

1B.2

Openings and edges of broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, north coast coniferous forest

--

--

1B.2

Playas, valley and foothill grassland (adobe clay), vernal pools

--

--

1B.2

--

--

--

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site. Site below documented elevational range.

1-60m AH March-June

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site. Site is mostly a sports field that is regularly irrigated and mowed.

Chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps, playas, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools (alkaline, clay)

1-320m AH April-October

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site. Site is mostly a sports field that is regularly irrigated and mowed.

1B.2

Chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps, playas, valley and foothill grassland (alkaline)

1-835m AH April-October

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site. Site is mostly a sports field that is regularly irrigated and mowed.

--

1B.1

Chenopod scrub, playas, valley and foothill grassland (alkaline, sandy)

15-200m AH March-October

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site. Site is mostly a sports field that is regularly irrigated and mowed.

--

--

1B.2

Chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland (sometimes serpentinite)

90-1555m PH March-June

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site. Site below documented elevational range.

--

--

1B.1

Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland; clay soils

15-1200m AH March-May

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site. Site is mostly a sports field that is regularly irrigated and mowed.

--

--

1B.2

Chaparral (rocky, usually serpentinite)

275-1250m AH May-June

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site. Site below documented elevational range.

Astragalus tener var. tener Brittlescale Atriplex depressa San Joaquin spearscale Atriplex joaquinana Lesser saltscale Atriplex minuscula Big-scale balsamroot Balsamorhiza macrolepis Round-leaved filaree California macrophylla Chaparral harebell Campanula exigua

Impact Sciences, Inc. 461.006

Potential Occurrence

60-760m S(e) November-May

Astragalus brauntonii Alkali milk-vetch

Habitat Requirements

Federal

Elevation Range, Life Form, and Flowering Period

October 2013

Summary of Special Status Plant Species Recorded From the Project Vicinity Status Scientific and Common Name Congdon’s tarplant

--

--

1B.1

Valley and foothill grassland (alkaline)

--

--

1B.2

Marshes and swamps (coastal salt)

0-10m AH(h) June-October

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site.

FE

--

1B.1

Chaparral (maritime), cismontane woodlands (openings), coastal dunes, coastal scrub; (sandy, gravelly)

3-300m AH April-September

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site.

--

--

1B.2

Chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland; (serpentinite seeps)

100-890m PH February-October

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site. Site below documented elevational range.

--

--

1B.2

Closed cone coniferous forest, coastal scrub; (sometines serpentinite)

30-250m AH March-May

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site.

--

--

1B.2

Chaparral (openings), cismontane woodland (mesic), coastal scrub

195-1095m PH April-June

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site. Site below documented elevational range.

--

--

1B.2

Broadleafed upland forest, closed cone coniferous forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, north coast coniferous forest, riparian forest, riparian woodland, mesic

25-425m S(d) January-April

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site.

FE

--

1B.1

Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland; serpentinite, rocky

60-455m PH April-October

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site. Site below documented elevational range.

--

--

1B.1

Chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest (maritime ponderosa pine sandhills); sandy

50-800m PH June-October

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site. Site below documented elevational range.

Cirsium fontinale var. campylon San Francisco collinsia Collinsia multicolor Hospital Canyon larkspur Delphinium californicum ssp. interius Western leatherwood Dirca occidentalis

Santa Clara Valley dudleya Dudleya abramsii ssp.

setchellii

Ben Lomond buckwheat Erogonum nudum var. decurrens

Impact Sciences, Inc. 461-006

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site. Site is mostly a sports field that is regularly irrigated and mowed.

CNPS

Chroizanthe robusta var. robusta Mt. Hamilton fountain thistle

0-230m AH May-November

State

Chloropyron maritimum ssp. palustre Robust spineflower

Potential Occurrence

Federal

Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii Point Reyes bird’s-beak

Habitat Requirements

Elevation Range, Life Form, and Flowering Period

October 2013

Summary of Special Status Plant Species Recorded From the Project Vicinity Status Scientific and Common Name Hoover’s button-celery

Habitat Requirements

Federal

State

CNPS

--

--

1B.1

Vernal pools

--

--

1B.2

--

--

FE

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site.

Cismontane woodland, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland; often serpentinite

3-410m PH(b) February-April

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site. Site is mostly a sports field that is regularly irrigated and mowed.

1B.1

Chaparral, cismontane woodland, riparian woodland; usually serpentinite, mesic

30-860m PH May-October

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site.

--

1B.1

Cismontane woodland, playas (alkaline), valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools

0-470m AH March-June

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site. Site is mostly a sports field that is regularly irrigated and mowed.

--

--

1B.2

Chaparral, cismontane woodland; rocky, granitic, often in burned areas

150-1700m S(d) April-October

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site.

--

--

1B.2

Chaparral, cismontane woodland

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site.

--

--

1B.2

Chaparral, coastal scrub

15-355m S(e) April-September 10-760m S(e) May-October

--

--

1B.2

Broadleafed upland forest (openings), chaparral (openings), cismontane woodland, north coast coniferous forest (openings), valley and foothill grassland

100-1200m AH February-July

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site.

--

--

1B.1

Coastal scrub, meadows and seeps, valley and foothill grassland (alkaline), vernal pools; mesic

15-1210m AH April-July

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site. Site is mostly a sports field that is regularly irrigated and mowed.

Fritillaria liliacea Loma Prieta hoita Hoita strobilina Contra Costa goldfields Lesthenia conjugens Indian Valley bush-mallow Malcothamnus aboriginum Arcuate bush-mallow Malcothamnus arcuatus Hall’s bush-mallow Malcothamnus Hallii Woodland woolythreads Monolopia gracilens

Prostrate vernal pool navarretia Navaretia prostrata

Impact Sciences, Inc. 461-006

Potential Occurrence

3-45m AH/PH July-August

Eryngium arisulatum var. hooveri Fragrant fritillary

Elevation Range, Life Form, and Flowering Period

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site.

October 2013

Summary of Special Status Plant Species Recorded From the Project Vicinity Status Scientific and Common Name

Federal

State

CNPS

--

--

1A

--

--

2B.2

Hairless popcornflower Plagiobothrys glaber Chaparral ragwort Senecio aphanactis Metcalf Canyon jewel-flower

Meadows and seeps (alkaline), marshes and swamps (coastal salt) Chaparral, coastal scrub, cismontanie woodland; sometimes alkaline

FE

--

1B.1

Valley and foothill grassland (serpentinite)

--

--

1B.2

Chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland; serpentinite

--

--

2B.2

Marshes and swamps (assorted freshwater)

FE

--

1B.1

Marshes and swamps (coastal salt)

--

--

1B.2

Marshes and swamps, valley and foohill grassland (mesic, alkaline), vernal pools

Streptanthus albidus ssp. albidus Most beautiful jewel-flower

Habitat Requirements

Streptanthus albidu ssp. peramoenus Slender-leaved pondweed Stuckenia filformis ssp. alpina California seablite Suaeda californica Saline clover Trifolium hydrophilum STATUS KEY: Federal FE: FT: FC:

Federally Endangered Federally Threatened Federal Candidate for listing

Elevation Range, Life Form, and Flowering Period

Potential Occurrence

15-180m AH March-May

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site.

15-800m

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site.

AH January - April 45-800m AH April-July 95-1000m AH March-October 300-2150m PH(r) May-July 0-15m S(e) July-October 0-300m AH April-June

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site. Site below documented elevational range. Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site. Site below documented elevational range. Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site. Site below documented elevational range. Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site. Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site.

LIFE FORM KEY: State CE: CR: CNPS List 1B: List 2B:

State Endangered State Rare

AH: PH: RH: S:

Annual Herb Perennial Herb Rhizomatous Herb Shrub

(b): (d): (e): (h):

bulb deciduous evergreen hemiparasitic

Plants rare and endangered in California and elsewhere Plants rare, threatened and endangered in CA but more common elsewhere .1 : Seriously Endangered in California .2 : Fairly Endangered in California

Impact Sciences, Inc. 461-006

October 2013

Special-Status Wildlife Species Recorded From the Project Vicinity Common Name

Status

Scientific Name

Federal

State

Habitat Requirements

Potential Occurrence on the Project Site

--

sa

Meadows and grasslands; commonly associated with the plant Platystemon californicus

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site.

--

sa

Winter roost sites located in wind-protected tree groves (gum trees, Monterey pine, and cypress trees), with water sources nearby.

Not Expected; individual monarchs likely occur, but no suitable habitat is present to support wintering populations.

FT

--

Native grasslands on serpentine or similar infertile soils. The plant Plantago erecta is required for reproduction.

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site.

FE

--

Vernal pools, persistent seasonal rain pools.

Low Potential. Vernal pools not identified on site, but if suitable rainpools formed, there is a minimum potential for the species to occur.

--

sa

Vernal pools, persistent seasonal rain pools.

Low Potential. Vernal pools not identified on site, but if suitable rainpools formed, there is a minimum potential for the species to occur.

--

sa

Under rocks

Not Expected, known only from one site in the hills above Berkely campus.

--

sa

Brackish water habitats

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site.

INVERTEBRATES Opler’s longhorn moth Adela oplerella

Monarch butterfly

(wintering sites)

Danaus plexippus

Bay checkerspot Euphydryas editha bayensis

Vernal pool tadpole shrimp Lepidurus packardi California linderiella fairy shrimp Linderiella occidentalis Hom’s micro-blind harvestman Microcina homi Mimic tryonia Tryonia imitator

Impact Sciences, Inc. 461.006

October 2013

Special-Status Wildlife Species Recorded From the Project Vicinity Common Name

Status

Scientific Name

Federal

State

Habitat Requirements

Potential Occurrence on the Project Site

FISHES Steelhead

(central coast DPS)

FT

Oncorhynchus mykiss

Coastal streams and rivers from the Russian River through and including Soquel Creek. Includes san Pablo and San Francisco Bay steelhead.

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site.

--

ST

Open waters of San Francisco Bay estuary

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site.

FT

CT

Vernal pools, grasslands, woodlands

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site.

--

SSC

Streams, rivers, ponds, freshwater marshes, and lakes with growth of aquatic vegetation.

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site.

Alameda whipsnake Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus

FT

ST

Coastal scrub, chaparral, grasslands

Low Potential, though grasses are present on site, the level of disturbance and surrounding development likely preclude this species from occurring.

Foothill yellow-legged frog

--

SSC

Foothill streams

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site.

FT

SSC

Aquatic, artificial flowing & standing waters, freshwater marsh, riparian scrub, riparian woodland

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site.

Longfin smelt Sprinchus thaleichthys AMPHIBIANS & REPTILES California tiger salamander Anaxyrus californicus Western pond turtle Emys marmorata

Rana boylii California red-legged frog Rana draytonii

Impact Sciences, Inc. 461.006

October 2013

Special-Status Wildlife Species Recorded From the Project Vicinity Common Name Scientific Name

Status Federal

State

Habitat Requirements

Potential Occurrence on the Project Site

WL

Dense stands of live oaks and riparian woodlands.

Low Potential, may infrequently forage in area, but no suitable nesting habitat present.

Breed in deep forests, non-breeding season they typically hunt ridgelinesand forest edges.

Low Potential, may infrequently forage in area, but no suitable nesting habitat present.

Freshwater marsh, marsh and swamp, wetlands

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site.

Mountains, deserts, and open country.

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site.

Variety of habitats from marshes, open coasts, sloughs, riverbanks, lakes, open fields. Colonial nesters

Low Potential, may infrequently forage in area, but no suitable nesting habitat present.

Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, deserts & scrublands

Not Expected; no suitable habitat on site.

Pacific coastal shores, peninuslas, offshore islands, bays, estuaries and rivers

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site.

Marshes and grasslands, occasionally open scrub

Low Potential, may infrequently forage in area, but no suitable nesting habitat present.

BIRDS Cooper's hawk

--

(nesting)

Accipiter cooperi Sharp-shinned hawk

--

(nesting)

Accipiter striatus

Tri-colored blackbird

--

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos

--

Great blue heron Ardea herodias

--

Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia

--

Western snowy plover

FT

CFP (nesting & wintering) sa (nesting colony)

SSC (burrowing sites & some wintering sites) SSC (nesting)

Charadrius alexandrines nivosus

Impact Sciences, Inc. 461.006

SSC (nesting colony)

Agelaius tricolor

Northern harrier Circus cyaneus

WL

--

SSC (nesting)

October 2013

Special-Status Wildlife Species Recorded From the Project Vicinity Common Name Scientific Name

Status Federal

State

Snowy egret Egretta thula

--

sa

White-tailed kite

--

(nesting colony) (nesting)

Elanus leucurus

Prairie falcon

--

Delisted

CFP (nesting)

Falco peregrinus anatum

Saltmarsh common yellowthroat

WL (nesting)

Falco mexicanus

American peregrine falcon

CFP

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site.

Open woodlands, marshes, grasslands, agricultural fields. Nests in trees

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site.

Typically nests on cliffs. Forages over grassland, deserts, shrub-steppe, cultivated lands

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site.

Breeds on cliffs or tall buildings and structures. Most common along coastline. May hunt over near almost any open habitat.

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site.

Coastal wetlands, saltmarshes

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site.

--

ST

Salt and freshwater marshes, wet meadows and flooded grasslands

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site.

--

SSC

Restricted to fringes of San Francisco Bay

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site.

FE

SE

Saltmarshes

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site.

--

ST

River and streamside banks. Colonial nester.

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site.

Shorelines, estuaries, lagoons and banks of rivers or lakes.

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site.

Melspiza melodia pusillula California clapper rail

Most common along coast, some inland wetlands.

SSC

Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus Alameda song sparrow

Potential Occurrence on the Project Site

--

Geothlypis trichas sinuosa California black rail

Habitat Requirements

Rallus longirostris obsoletus Bank swallow

(nesting)

Riparia riparia California least tern Sternula antillarum browni

Impact Sciences, Inc. 461.006

FE

SE (nesting colony)

October 2013

Special-Status Wildlife Species Recorded From the Project Vicinity Common Name Scientific Name

Status Federal

State

Habitat Requirements

Potential Occurrence on the Project Site

--

SSC

Caves, mines, buildings, bridges in nand near deserts, forests and woodlands.

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site.

--

sa

Variety of habitats including coniferous forests, montane forests, rock outcrops in and near wooded areas.

Low Potential; may infrequently forage in the area, but no suitable roosting or hibernacula present on site.

--

sa

Open forests and woodlands with sources of water over which to feed.

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site.

--

sa

Dense trees for cover and open areas or habitat edges for feeding; requires water

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site.

--

SSC

Deserts, grasslands, woodlands & forests; open dry habitats with rocky areas for roosting

Low Potential; may infrequently forage in the area, but no suitable roosting or hibernacula present on site.

--

sa

Bare ridge tops, rocky outcrops, thin soils, scattered chaparral, annual grassland

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site.

--

sa

Silverleaf manzanita mixed chaparral, sandy soils.

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site.

MAMMALS Townsend’s big-eared bat Myotis ciliolabrum

Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis

Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis

Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus

Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus

Berkeley kangaroo rat Dipodomys heermanni berkeleyensis

Santa Cruz kangaroo rat Dipodomys venustus venustus

Impact Sciences, Inc. 461.006

October 2013

Special-Status Wildlife Species Recorded From the Project Vicinity Common Name

Status Habitat Requirements

Potential Occurrence on the Project Site

Scientific Name

Federal

State

Saltmarsh harvest mouse

FE

SE

Coastal salt marshes

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site.

--

SSC

Coastal salt marshes

Not Expected, no suitable habitat on site.

Reithrodontomys raviventris Saltmarsh wandering shrew Sorex vagrans halicoetes

KEY: (nesting) = For most taxa the CNDDB is interested in sightings for the presence of resident populations. For some species (primarily birds), the CNDDB only tracks certain parts of the species range or life history (e.g., nesting locations). The area or life stage is indicated in parenthesis after the common name. Status: Federal -- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FE: Federally Endangered FT: Federally Threatened

State -- California Department of Fish and Game CE: State-listed Endangered Species CT: State-listed Threatened Species CFP: SSC: WL: sa:

Impact Sciences, Inc. 461.006

California Fully Protected Species California Species of Special Concern CDFG Watch List California Special Animal (species with no official federal or state status, but are included on CDFG’s Special Animals list)

October 2013

APPENDIX B Archaeological and Historical Documentation

February 18, 2014

Mr. Paul Stephenson Impact Sciences, Inc. 555 12th Street, Suite 1650 Oakland, CA 94607 RE: Cultural Resources Field Inventory Report Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center Project Thomas Russell Middle School Campus, City of Milpitas, Santa Clara County Dear Mr. Stephenson, Please let this letter serve as Basin Research Associates’ (BASIN) Cultural Resources Field Inventory Report to comply with City of Milpitas requirements for the Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center to be located on the Thomas Russell Middle School campus, 1500 Escuela Parkway, City of Milpitas [Fig. 1]. The approximately four acre project area is currently used as athletic fields. The project proposes the construction of several 12,000-15,000 square foot buildings comprising of smart classrooms, large lecture rooms and laboratories (San Jose Evergreen Community College District 2013). IDENTIFICATION EFFORT An archival records search completed by the California Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center (CHRIS/NWIC) for Impact Sciences on October 21, 2013 (File No. 13-0631) did not identify any previous cultural resources within the project area. However, the CHRIS/NWIC recommended further research including both archival and field studies to identify archaeological resources. In addition, contact with the Native American Heritage Commission for a review of their files was also recommended. BASIN also reviewed their files for Santa Clara County and noted no recorded prehistoric or historic archaeological resources within or adjacent to the project area. NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION The Native American Heritage Commission was contacted for a search of the Sacred Lands Inventory (Busby 2013a). The NAHC responded that their record search of the sacred lands file

failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area (Pilas-Treadway 2013). The names of 11 Native American individuals/organizations who may have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area were provided and contacted (Busby 2013b-l). Comments and recommendations were provided by four individuals. One indicated that the area is outside of their traditional territory; two recommend cultural sensitivity training and both archaeological and Native American monitors; and, one recommended compliance with applicable laws if cultural materials were discovery. No other responses were received by February 15, 2014 [see Attachments for Correspondence]. ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD INVENTORY] Mr. Christopher Canzonieri (M.A.) conducted a field inventory on November 11, 2013. The project area is currently includes a baseball diamond, grass field and blacktop basketball courts. Field transects were oriented east to west and spaced approximately 10 meters apart. Surface visibility varied within the project area. The existing baseball diamond was covered in imported sand – no native soils were exposed. The surrounding grass field (outfield) presented low visibility with approximately 5-10% of the surface observable. The basketball courts were paved over. Visibility along the east and south edge of the project area were excellent with nearly 100% of the surface observable. Observed sediments included dark brown clayey silt with some rounded and subrounded sandstone cobbles and pebbles. FINDINGS No prehistoric or historic cultural or ecofactual materials were observed within the proposed project area. RECOMMENDATIONS No subsurface testing for buried archaeological resources appears warranted and archaeological monitoring during ground disturbing construction does not appear necessary as the project appears to be located in an area of low to low-moderate sensitivity for archaeological resources. If any potentially significant prehistoric 1 or historic 2 archaeological materials are exposed or 1.

Significant prehistoric cultural resources may include: a. b. c.

d.

e. 2

Human bone - either isolated or intact burials. Habitation (occupation or ceremonial structures as interpreted from rock rings/features, distinct ground depressions, differences in compaction (e.g., house floors). Artifacts including chipped stone objects such as projectile points and bifaces; groundstone artifacts such as manos, metates, mortars, pestles, grinding stones, pitted hammerstones; and shell and bone artifacts including ornaments and beads. Various features and samples including hearths (fire-cracked rock; baked and vitrified clay), artifact caches, faunal and shellfish remains (which permit dietary reconstruction), distinctive changes in soil stratigraphy indicative of prehistoric activities. Isolated artifacts.

Historic cultural materials may include finds from the late 19th through early 20th centuries. Objects and features associated with the Historic Period can include. a. Structural remains or portions of foundations (brick, cobbles/boulders, stacked field stone, postholes, etc.).

discovered during either site preparation or subsurface construction activities within the project area, operations should stop within 100 feet of the find and a qualified professional archaeologist contacted for further review, evaluation and recommendations consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act. State law shall be followed in the event of the exposure of Native American skeletal remains. CLOSING REMARKS This report should be filed with the appropriate review agency(ies) for the City of Milpitas to demonstrate compliance with the project's cultural resources conditions. If I can provide any further information, please don’t hesitate to contact me. Thank you for retaining BASIN for this project. Sincerely, BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC.

Colin I. Busby, Ph.D., RPA Principal

CIB/j

b. Trash pits, privies, wells and associated artifacts. c. Isolated artifacts or isolated clusters of manufactured artifacts (e.g., glass bottles, metal cans, manufactured wood items, etc.). d. Human remains. In addition, cultural materials including both artifacts and structures that can be attributed to Hispanic, Asian and other ethnic or racial groups are potentially significant. Such features or clusters of artifacts and samples included remains of structures, trash pits, and privies.

REFERENCES Busby, Colin I. (Basin Research Associates) 2013a Letter to Ms. Cynthia Gomez, Executive Secretary, Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), Sacramento. Regarding: Request for Review of Sacred Lands Inventory Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center Project, City of Milpitas, Santa Clara County. Dated November 13, 2013. 2013b-l

California 2013

Letters to Ms. Jakki Kehl, Patterson; Ms. Katherine Erolinda Perez, Linden; Ms. Linda G. Yamane, Seaside; The Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, Valentin Lopez, Galt; The Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, Edward Ketchum Davis; Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, Ms. Irene Zwierlein, Chairperson and Ms. Michelle Zimmer; Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson, Hollister; The Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area, Ms. Rosemary Cambra, Milpitas; The Ohlone Indian Tribe, Mr. Andrew Galvan, Mission San Jose; and, Ms. Ramona Garibay, Representative, Trina Marine Ruano Family, Union City. Regarding: Request for Information, Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center Project, City of Milpitas, Santa Clara County. Dated January 21, 2014. Historical Resources Information System/Northwest Information Center (CHRIS/NWIC) Record search results for the proposed Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center Project. NWIC File No. 13-0631. Dated October 21, 2013.

Pilas-Treadway, Debbie (Native American Heritage Commission) (NAHC) 2013 Letter to Colin I. Busby, Basin Research Associates, San Leandro. Regarding: [Request for Review of Sacred Lands Inventory] Joint-Use 21st Century PostSecondary Education Center Project, City of Milpitas, Santa Clara County. Dated December 4, 2013. San Jose-Evergreen Community College District 2013 Request for Statements of Qualifications Architectural Services. San JoseEvergreen Community College District. RFQ#0809-13.

ATTACHMENTS FIGURES FIGURE 1

Project Location (Regional and Site Location)

FIGURE 2

View east at project location

FIGURE 3

View north at project location

CORRESPONDENCE NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION LETTER 1

Letter to Ms. Cynthia Gomez, Executive Secretary, Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), Sacramento. Regarding: Request for Review of Sacred Lands Inventory JointUse 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center Project, City of Milpitas, Santa Clara County. Dated November 13, 2013.

LETTER 2

Letter to Colin I. Busby, Basin Research Associates, San Leandro. Request for Review of Sacred Lands Inventory JointUse 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center Project, City of Milpitas, Santa Clara County. Dated December 4, 2013.

LETTER 3

Letters to Ms. Jakki Kehl, Patterson; Ms. Katherine Erolinda Perez, Linden; Ms. Linda G. Yamane, Seaside; The Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, Valentin Lopez, Galt; The Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, Edward Ketchum Davis; Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, Ms. Irene Zwierlein, Chairperson and Ms. Michelle Zimmer; Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson, Hollister; The Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area, Ms. Rosemary Cambra, Milpitas; The Ohlone Indian Tribe, Mr. Andrew Galvan, Mission San Jose; and, Ms. Ramona Garibay, Representative, Trina Marine Ruano Family, Union City. Regarding: Request for Information, Joint-Use 21st Century PostSecondary Education Center Project, City of Milpitas, Santa Clara County. Dated January 21, 2014.

MEMO

Record of Native American Contacts. Dated February 14, 2014.

Santa Rosa

Napa

Vacaville

US

101 Fairfield

INTERSTATE

80

Vallejo

Novato

San Rafael

Concord

Richmond Berkeley

Walnut Creek

Sa

INTERSTATE

680

Oakland

n

San Francisco

Fr

San Ramon

an

Alameda

ci

P

580

sc

o

ac

Daly City

INTERSTATE

if

INTERSTATE

Hayward

Ba

y

ic

280

Fremont

San Mateo

O

ce

an

Woodside

Project Site

n

INTERSTATE

880 Redwood City Mountain View

US

101 INTERSTATE

280

San Jose

NOT TO SCALE

SOURCE: Impact Sciences, Inc., October 2013 FIGURE

1

Regional and Site Location 0461-006•10/13

Figure 2: View east at project location

Figure 3: View north at project location

Record of Native American Contacts Proposed Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center Project, Thomas Russell Middle School, City of Milpitas, Santa Clara County. 11/13/13

Letter to Ms. Cynthia Gomez, Executive Secretary, Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), Sacramento. Regarding: Request for Review of Sacred Lands Inventory for project.

12/4/13

Letter response by Debbie Pilas-Treadway, NAHC

1/21/14

Letters sent to all parties recommended by NAHC

Letters to Jakki Kehl, Patterson; Katherine E. Perez, Linden; Linda G. Yamane, Seaside; Valentin Lopez, Chairperson, Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, Galt; Edward Ketchum, Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, Davis; Irenne Zwierlein, Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, Woodside; Michelle Zimmer Amah/Mutsun Tribal Band, Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, Woodside; Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson, Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, Hollister; Rosemary Cambra, Chairperson, Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area, Milpitas; Andrew Galvan, The Ohlone Indian Tribe, Mission San Jose; and Ramona Garibay, Representative, Trina Marine Ruano Family, Lathrop. 2/12/14

Telephone calls and/or emails made by Basin Research Associates (Christopher Canzonieri) in the morning to non-responding parties.

Jakki Kehl – called at 8:58 AM, unable to leave a message – mailbox is full Katherine Perez – called at 8:59 AM; left a detailed message on answering machine Linda G. Yamane – called at 9:00 AM; left a detailed message on her answering machine Valentin Lopez – called at 9:21 AM; Mr. Lopez stated that the project is outside their/his traditional territory Edward Ketchum – emailed at the document at 9:20 AM; no phone number Irenne Zwierlein – Responded via email dated 1/23/14: See attachment Michelle Zimmer – Responded via email dated 1/23/14: See attachment Ann Marie Sayers – called at 9:29 AM; left a detailed message Rosemary Cambra – called at 9:30 AM; unable to leave message Andrew Galvan – called at 9:32: left message. Per previously discussed conversation, Andy has no immediate concerns, but recommends that if something is encountered the proper measures should be implemented (i.e., contact County Coroner and Native American Heritage Commission if Native American remains are exposed and follow recommendations) Ramona Garibay – called at 9:31 AM; left a detailed message on her answering machine

Scoping Comments

STATE OF CAU!'ORNIA-CAUFQllli!A..SJ.aA..uTEuT"'l.RA~N~S~PO~R>-LTAw·l!..l.I'IO~Nu:A~!.!G&~EN:!!.CuY .._

_ _ _ __

_ __

_

_ __

_

---'.!.C.......,B!.!.>R.O :..<.Wn.NI!..J&r.w.G&'OI'Jllli!'rW.I!!.o\or

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTR[CT4 P.O. BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 PHONE (510) 286-6053 PAX (510) 286-5559 'fTY 71 1 www.dot.ca.gov

Serious Drought. lfclp save water!

June 9, 2014 SCL680115 SCL/680/PM M9 .3 SCH# 2014052022 ~s. ~aonniJ\graz

San Jose-Evergreen Community College District 4750 San Felipe Road San Jose, CA 95135 Dear Ms. Agraz:

.Joint-Use 21st Century Post-Secondary Education Center- Notice of Preparation (NOP) Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the project referenced above. We have reviewed the NOP and have the following comments to offer.

Traffic Impact Study (TIS) One ofCaltrans' ongoing responsibilities is to collaborate with local agencies to avoid, eliminate, or reduce to insignificance potential adverse impacts by local development on State highways. We recommend using the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation ofTraffic Impact Studies (TIS Guide) for determining which scenarios and methodologies to use in the analysis. The TIS Guide is a starting point for collaboration between the lead agency and Caltrans in determining when a TIS is needed. The appropriate level of study is determined by the particulars of a project, the prevailing highway conditions, and the forecasted traffic. The TIS Guide is available at the following website address: http://dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ocp/igr_ceqa_files/tisguide.pdf. The TIS should include: l. Vicinity map, regional location map, and a site plan clearly showing project access in relation to nearby State roadways. Ingress and egress for all project components should be clearly identified. The State right-of-way (ROW) should be clearly identified. The maps should also include project driveways, local roads and intersections, parking, and transit facilities. 2. Project-related trip generation, distribution, and assignment. The assumptions and methodologies used to develop this information should be detailed in the study, and should be supported with appropriate documentation.

"Provide a safe, sus/ainabl~. i111egrated a11d ejJ/clent transportatio11 system to enhance California's economy and /ivabiltty"

Ms. Naomi Agraz/San Jose~Evergrccn Community College District June 9, 2014 Page2 3. Average Daily Traffic, AM and PM peak hom volumes and levels of service (LOS) on all roadways where potentially significant impacts may occur, including crossroads and controlled intersections for existing, existing plus project, cumulative and cumulative plus project scenarios. Calculation of cumulative traffic volumes should consider all trafficgenerating developments, both existing and future, that would affect study area roadways and intersections. The analysis should clearly identify the projecfs contribution to area traffic and any degradation to existing and cumulative LOS. Caltrans' LOS threshold, which is the transition between LOS C and D, and is explained in detail in the TIS Guide, sho'l\ld be applied to all State facilities. 4. Schematic illustration of traffic conditions including the project site and study area roadways, trip distribution percentages and volumes as well as intersection geometries (i.e., lane configurations) for the scenarios described above. 5. The project site building potential as identified in the City of San Jose's Envision San Jose General Plan. The project's consistency with both the Circulation Element of the General Plan and the Congestion Management Agency's Congestion Management Plan should be evaluated. 6. Identification of mitigation for any roadway mainline section or intersection with insufficient capacity to maintain an acceptable LOS with the addition of project~related and/or cumulative traffic.

Lead Agency As the lead agency, the San Jose-Evergreen Community College District (SJECCD) is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to State highways. The project's fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures. This information should also be presented in the Mitigation Monitoring and Repotting Plan of the environmental document. Required roadway improvements should be completed prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Vehicle Trip Reduction Caltrans encourages you to develop Travel Demand Management (TDM) policies to promote usage of nearby public transit lines and reduce vehicle trips on the State Highway System. These policies could include lower parking ratios, car-sharing programs, bicycle parking and showers for employees and students, and providing transit passes to students and employees, among others. In addition, please ensure secondary impacts on pedestrians and bicyclists resulting from any traffic impact mitigation measures are analyzed. The analysis should describe any pedestrian and bicycle mitigation measures and safety countermeasures that would in turn be needed as a means of maintaining and improving access to transit facilities and reducing vehicle trips and traffic impacts on State highways.

"Pmvide a sa,fe. SI/Siainahle, integrated and i!,[ficienttranspol'latlmt system to cnhanc:e Califomln 's ~cnnomy and livability ..

Ms. Naomi Agraz/San Jose-Evergreen Community College District June 9, 2014 Page 3

Traffic Impact Fees Please identify traffic impact fees to be used for project mitigation. Development plans should require traffic impact fees based on projected traffic and/or based on associated cost estimates for public transportation facil ities necessitated by development. Scheduli ng and costs associated with planned improvements on State ROW should be listed, in addition to identifying viable funding sources correlated to the pace of improvements for roadway improvements, if any. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Brian Brandert of my staff at (51 0) 286~5505 or [email protected]. Sincerely,

ERIK ALM, AICP District Branch Chief Local Development - Intergovernmental Review

c: Scott Morgan, State Clearinghouse

"Provide a safe, suslalnable, inlegraled and efficie•lt transportation system to enhan~·e Calij'ur•1ia '.r er:onomy and livability "

Scoping Comments and Responses Scoping Comment

Response

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) It is recommended that the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (TIS Guide) be used to determine which scenarios and methodologies should be included in the Traffic Impact Study (TIS). Items to include in the TIS were also suggested by the commenter.

See Section 4.4, Traffic and Transportation, for an evaluation of this issue.

The project’s fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities, and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures.

See Section 4.4, Traffic and Transportation, for an evaluation of this issue.

Travel Demand Management (TDM) policies should be developed to promote usage of nearby public transit lines and reduce vehicle trips on the state highway system.

See Section 4.4, Traffic and Transportation, for an evaluation of this issue.

Secondary impacts on pedestrians and bicyclists resulting from any traffic mitigation measures should be analyzed.

See Section 4.4, Traffic and Transportation, for an evaluation of this issue.

Traffic impact fees should be utilized for project mitigation.

See Section 4.4, Traffic and Transportation, for an evaluation of this issue.

City of Milpitas The proposed joint-use facility will be 20-30 feet tall, with taller projections related to rooftop mechanical equipment. The discussion of aesthetics should address this issue and should also cite City of Milpitas requirements for roof top screening.

See Section V.1, Aesthetics, in the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (Appendix 1.0[a]) for a complete discussion of the project’s mass and height. The proposed project would also comply with the City’s requirements for roof top screening.

The project site is located in the City’s Site and Architectural Overlay District (S).The EIR should acknowledge this and the project should also be submitted to the Planning & Neighborhood Services Department for site plan and architectural review.

Chapter 3.0, Project Description, states that the project site is located in the City’s Site and Architectural Overlay District (S). The proposed project will be submitted to the City’s Planning & Neighborhood Services Department for site plan and architectural review.

The EIR should include an increased demand analysis to City of Milpitas services, including Police, Fire, Public Works, and Crossing Guards.

See Section V.14, Public Services, in the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (Appendix 1.0[a]) for a complete discussion of the project’s impacts to public services, including Police, Fire and Public Works (e.g., water, sewer, and storm drain infrastructure). Concerning crossing guards, the proposed project is not expected to substantially affect crossing guard operations in the area (Jackson 2014).

The EIR should add increased demand impact analysis to City of Milpitas utilities, infrastructure, vehicular/bicycle/ pedestrian street networks, lighting, traffic signals, and signage

See Section V.17, Utilities and Service System, in the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (Appendix 1.0[a]) for a complete discussion of the project’s impacts to utilities and infrastructure. See Section 4.4, Traffic and Transportation, for an evaluation for an evaluation of vehicular/bicycle/pedestrian street network and traffic signals. See Section V.1, Aesthetics, in the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project for a complete discussion of the project’s impacts to lighting.

Include the City in the development of the Traffic Impact Study work scope to ensure all impacted transportation facilities are evaluated.

See Section 4.4, Traffic and Transportation, for an evaluation of this issue.

Potential cumulatively considerable impact analysis shall include traffic and pedestrian/bicycle/vehicle traffic at all vicinity intersections and crosswalks serving Thomas Russell Middle Scholl, Milpitas High School, and Marshall Pomeroy Elementary School.

See Section 4.4, Traffic and Transportation, for an evaluation of this issue.

Scoping Comment Please address the amount of pervious surface coverage and increase over existing site conditions to ensure it is a less than significant impact.

Response See Section V.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, in the Initial Study (Appendix 1.0[a]) prepared for the proposed project for discussion of effects due to an increase of impervious surfaces on the project site.

APPENDIX 4.1 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Modeling Data

CalEEMod Project Data

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 1 of 27

Date: 7/22/2014 10:31 AM

Joint Use Education Center Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual

1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses

Size

Metric

Lot Acreage

Floor Surface Area

Population

Junior College (2Yr)

15.00

1000sqft

0.34

15,000.00

0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization

Urban

Wind Speed (m/s)

Climate Zone

4

Utility Company

Pacific Gas & Electric Company

CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr)

641.35

CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr)

2.2

0.029

Precipitation Freq (Days)

64

Operational Year

2017

N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr)

0.006

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data Project Characteristics Land Use - 15,000 sqft educational building Construction Phase - Grading: 9/1/15-10/11/15 Const: 10/12/15-8/31/16 Paving: 10/12/15-10/28/15 Coating: 7/29/16-8/31/16 Vehicle Trips - Trip generation rate calculated from the traffic study, which indicated 638 daily trips. Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Assume watering 3x per day per BAAQMD recommendations. Diesel particulate filters on large equipment. Mobile Land Use Mitigation Area Mitigation -

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 2 of 27

Date: 7/22/2014 10:31 AM

Table Name

Column Name

Default Value

New Value

tblArchitecturalCoating

EF_Nonresidential_Exterior

150.00

250.00

tblArchitecturalCoating

EF_Nonresidential_Interior

100.00

250.00

tblArchitecturalCoating

EF_Residential_Exterior

150.00

250.00

tblArchitecturalCoating

EF_Residential_Interior

100.00

250.00

tblConstEquipMitigation

DPF

No Change

Level 3

tblConstEquipMitigation

DPF

No Change

Level 3

tblConstEquipMitigation

DPF

No Change

Level 3

tblConstEquipMitigation

DPF

No Change

Level 3

tblConstEquipMitigation

DPF

No Change

Level 3

tblConstEquipMitigation

DPF

No Change

Level 3

tblConstEquipMitigation

NumberOfEquipmentMitigated

0.00

1.00

tblConstEquipMitigation

NumberOfEquipmentMitigated

0.00

2.00

tblConstEquipMitigation

NumberOfEquipmentMitigated

0.00

1.00

tblConstEquipMitigation

NumberOfEquipmentMitigated

0.00

1.00

tblConstEquipMitigation

NumberOfEquipmentMitigated

0.00

1.00

tblConstEquipMitigation

NumberOfEquipmentMitigated

0.00

5.00

tblConstEquipMitigation

Tier

No Change

Tier 3

tblConstEquipMitigation

Tier

No Change

Tier 3

tblConstEquipMitigation

Tier

No Change

Tier 3

tblConstEquipMitigation

Tier

No Change

Tier 3

tblConstEquipMitigation

Tier

No Change

Tier 3

tblConstEquipMitigation

Tier

No Change

Tier 3

tblConstructionPhase

NumDays

5.00

24.00

tblConstructionPhase

NumDays

100.00

233.00

tblConstructionPhase

NumDays

2.00

29.00

tblConstructionPhase

NumDays

5.00

13.00

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseEndDate

12/1/2015

8/31/2016

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 3 of 27

Date: 7/22/2014 10:31 AM

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseEndDate

10/9/2015

10/11/2015

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseEndDate

9/19/2016

10/28/2015

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseStartDate

10/29/2015

7/29/2016

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseStartDate

9/1/2016

10/12/2015

tblProjectCharacteristics

OperationalYear

2014

2017

tblVehicleTrips

ST_TR

11.23

0.00

tblVehicleTrips

WD_TR

27.49

42.50

2.0 Emissions Summary

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 4 of 27

Date: 7/22/2014 10:31 AM

2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Fugitive PM10

Year

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

2015

0.0739

0.6818

0.4560

6.4000e004

0.0153

0.0470

0.0623

7.1700e003

0.0437

0.0509

0.0000

59.1669

59.1669

0.0147

0.0000

59.4761

2016

0.3027

1.2413

0.7912

1.1200e003

5.9600e003

0.0844

0.0904

1.6100e003

0.0779

0.0795

0.0000

104.2402

104.2402

0.0287

0.0000

104.8427

Total

0.3766

1.9231

1.2472

1.7600e003

0.0212

0.1315

0.1527

8.7800e003

0.1216

0.1304

0.0000

163.4070

163.4070

0.0434

0.0000

164.3188

CO

SO2

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

Mitigated Construction

ROG

NOx

Year

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

MT/yr

2015

0.0259

0.3448

0.4341

6.4000e004

8.6200e003

8.4900e003

0.0171

3.5100e003

8.4800e003

0.0120

0.0000

59.1668

59.1668

0.0147

0.0000

59.4761

2016

0.2066

0.5795

0.7666

1.1200e003

5.9600e003

7.6800e003

0.0136

1.6100e003

7.6500e003

9.2600e003

0.0000

104.2401

104.2401

0.0287

0.0000

104.8426

Total

0.2325

0.9244

1.2007

1.7600e003

0.0146

0.0162

0.0308

5.1200e003

0.0161

0.0212

0.0000

163.4069

163.4069

0.0434

0.0000

164.3186

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

CH4

N20

CO2e

38.26

51.93

3.73

0.00

31.36

87.70

79.86

41.69

86.74

83.71

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Percent Reduction

NBio-CO2 Total CO2

0.00

0.00

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 5 of 27

Date: 7/22/2014 10:31 AM

2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

Area

0.0664

0.0000

1.4000e004

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

2.7000e004

2.7000e004

0.0000

0.0000

2.8000e004

Energy

2.0400e003

0.0185

0.0156

1.1000e004

1.4100e003

1.4100e003

1.4100e003

1.4100e003

0.0000

59.2424

59.2424

2.1500e003

7.4000e004

59.5156

Mobile

0.2859

0.6993

2.9989

6.1800e003

9.1100e003

0.4418

8.3800e003

0.1245

0.0000

476.3251

476.3251

0.0197

0.0000

476.7380

Waste

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

3.9583

0.0000

3.9583

0.2339

0.0000

8.8709

Water

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.2334

2.3298

2.5633

0.0241

5.9000e004

3.2512

0.0105

0.4432

9.7900e003

0.1259

4.1917

537.8976

542.0893

0.2798

1.3300e003

548.3759

Total

0.3543

0.7178

3.0146

6.2900e003

0.4327

0.4327

0.1161

0.1161

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 6 of 27

Date: 7/22/2014 10:31 AM

2.2 Overall Operational Mitigated Operational

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Fugitive PM10

Category

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

Area

0.0664

0.0000

1.4000e004

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

2.7000e004

2.7000e004

0.0000

0.0000

2.8000e004

Energy

2.0400e003

0.0185

0.0156

1.1000e004

1.4100e003

1.4100e003

1.4100e003

1.4100e003

0.0000

59.2424

59.2424

2.1500e003

7.4000e004

59.5156

Mobile

0.2859

0.6993

2.9989

6.1800e003

9.1100e003

0.4418

8.3800e003

0.1245

0.0000

476.3251

476.3251

0.0197

0.0000

476.7380

Waste

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

3.9583

0.0000

3.9583

0.2339

0.0000

8.8709

Water

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.2334

2.3298

2.5633

0.0241

5.9000e004

3.2508

0.0105

0.4432

9.7900e003

0.1259

4.1917

537.8976

542.0893

0.2798

1.3300e003

548.3755

Total

Percent Reduction

0.3543

0.7178

3.0146

6.2900e003

0.4327

0.4327

0.1161

0.1161

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase

NBio-CO2 Total CO2

0.00

0.00

CH4

N20

CO2e

0.00

0.00

0.00

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Phase Number

Phase Name

Page 7 of 27 Phase Type

Start Date

End Date

Date: 7/22/2014 10:31 AM Num Days Week

Num Days

Phase Description

1

Grading

Grading

9/1/2015

10/11/2015

5

29

2

Building Construction

Building Construction

10/12/2015

8/31/2016

5

233

3

Paving

Paving

10/12/2015

10/28/2015

5

13

4

Architectural Coating

Architectural Coating

7/29/2016

8/31/2016

5

24

Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 22,500; Non-Residential Outdoor: 7,500 (Architectural Coating – sqft) OffRoad Equipment Phase Name

Offroad Equipment Type

Amount

Usage Hours

Horse Power

Load Factor

Grading

Concrete/Industrial Saws

1

8.00

81

0.73

Grading

Rubber Tired Dozers

1

1.00

255

0.40

Grading

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

2

6.00

97

0.37

Building Construction

Cranes

1

4.00

226

0.29

Building Construction

Forklifts

2

6.00

89

0.20

Building Construction

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

2

8.00

97

0.37

Paving

Cement and Mortar Mixers

4

6.00

9

0.56

Paving

Pavers

1

7.00

125

0.42

Paving

Rollers

1

7.00

80

0.38

Paving

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

1

7.00

97

0.37

Architectural Coating

Air Compressors

1

6.00

78

0.48

Trips and VMT

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Phase Name

Offroad Equipment Count

Page 8 of 27

Worker Trip Number

Vendor Trip Number

Hauling Trip Number

Worker Trip Length

Date: 7/22/2014 10:31 AM

Vendor Trip Length

Hauling Trip Length

Worker Vehicle Class

Vendor Hauling Vehicle Class Vehicle Class

Grading

4

10.00

0.00

0.00

12.40

7.30

20.00 LD_Mix

HDT_Mix

HHDT

Building Construction

5

6.00

2.00

0.00

12.40

7.30

20.00 LD_Mix

HDT_Mix

HHDT

Paving

7

18.00

0.00

0.00

12.40

7.30

20.00 LD_Mix

HDT_Mix

HHDT

Architectural Coating

1

1.00

0.00

0.00

12.40

7.30

20.00 LD_Mix

HDT_Mix

HHDT

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment Use DPF for Construction Equipment Water Exposed Area Clean Paved Roads

3.2 Grading - 2015 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

0.0109

Off-Road

0.0205

0.1731

0.1278

1.7000e004

Total

0.0205

0.1731

0.1278

1.7000e004

0.0109

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0109

0.0127

0.0127

0.0127

0.0236

6.0000e003

6.0000e003

0.0000

6.0000e003

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0121

0.0121

0.0000

15.7934

15.7934

3.2200e003

0.0000

15.8611

0.0121

0.0181

0.0000

15.7934

15.7934

3.2200e003

0.0000

15.8611

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 9 of 27

Date: 7/22/2014 10:31 AM

3.2 Grading - 2015 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

Worker

6.1000e004

8.9000e004

8.6400e003

2.0000e005

1.3200e003

1.0000e005

1.3300e003

3.5000e004

1.0000e005

3.6000e004

0.0000

1.2360

1.2360

7.0000e005

0.0000

1.2375

Total

6.1000e004

8.9000e004

8.6400e003

2.0000e005

1.3200e003

1.0000e005

1.3300e003

3.5000e004

1.0000e005

3.6000e004

0.0000

1.2360

1.2360

7.0000e005

0.0000

1.2375

SO2

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

Fugitive Dust

4.2600e003

Off-Road

0.0124

0.1177

0.1146

1.7000e004

Total

0.0124

0.1177

0.1146

1.7000e004

4.2600e003

MT/yr

0.0000

4.2600e003

6.0600e003

6.0600e003

6.0600e003

0.0103

2.3400e003

2.3400e003

0.0000

2.3400e003

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

6.0600e003

6.0600e003

0.0000

15.7934

15.7934

3.2200e003

0.0000

15.8611

6.0600e003

8.4000e003

0.0000

15.7934

15.7934

3.2200e003

0.0000

15.8611

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 10 of 27

Date: 7/22/2014 10:31 AM

3.2 Grading - 2015 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

Worker

6.1000e004

8.9000e004

8.6400e003

2.0000e005

1.3200e003

1.0000e005

1.3300e003

3.5000e004

1.0000e005

3.6000e004

0.0000

1.2360

1.2360

7.0000e005

0.0000

1.2375

Total

6.1000e004

8.9000e004

8.6400e003

2.0000e005

1.3200e003

1.0000e005

1.3300e003

3.5000e004

1.0000e005

3.6000e004

0.0000

1.2360

1.2360

7.0000e005

0.0000

1.2375

SO2

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

3.3 Building Construction - 2015 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

MT/yr

Off-Road

0.0429

0.4241

0.2448

3.3000e004

0.0295

0.0295

0.0271

0.0271

0.0000

31.8923

31.8923

9.5200e003

0.0000

32.0922

Total

0.0429

0.4241

0.2448

3.3000e004

0.0295

0.0295

0.0271

0.0271

0.0000

31.8923

31.8923

9.5200e003

0.0000

32.0922

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 11 of 27

Date: 7/22/2014 10:31 AM

3.3 Building Construction - 2015 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

Vendor

8.4000e004

6.8000e003

9.3500e003

1.0000e005

3.8000e004

1.1000e004

4.9000e004

1.1000e004

1.0000e004

2.1000e004

0.0000

1.2909

1.2909

1.0000e005

0.0000

1.2912

Worker

7.5000e004

1.0900e003

0.0106

2.0000e005

1.6100e003

1.0000e005

1.6200e003

4.3000e004

1.0000e005

4.4000e004

0.0000

1.5087

1.5087

9.0000e005

0.0000

1.5106

Total

1.5900e003

7.8900e003

0.0199

3.0000e005

1.9900e003

1.2000e004

2.1100e003

5.4000e004

1.1000e004

6.5000e004

0.0000

2.7996

2.7996

1.0000e004

0.0000

2.8017

SO2

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

MT/yr

Off-Road

8.1900e003

0.1800

0.2339

3.3000e004

1.7000e003

1.7000e003

1.7000e003

1.7000e003

0.0000

31.8922

31.8922

9.5200e003

0.0000

32.0922

Total

8.1900e003

0.1800

0.2339

3.3000e004

1.7000e003

1.7000e003

1.7000e003

1.7000e003

0.0000

31.8922

31.8922

9.5200e003

0.0000

32.0922

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 12 of 27

Date: 7/22/2014 10:31 AM

3.3 Building Construction - 2015 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

Vendor

8.4000e004

6.8000e003

9.3500e003

1.0000e005

3.8000e004

1.1000e004

4.9000e004

1.1000e004

1.0000e004

2.1000e004

0.0000

1.2909

1.2909

1.0000e005

0.0000

1.2912

Worker

7.5000e004

1.0900e003

0.0106

2.0000e005

1.6100e003

1.0000e005

1.6200e003

4.3000e004

1.0000e005

4.4000e004

0.0000

1.5087

1.5087

9.0000e005

0.0000

1.5106

Total

1.5900e003

7.8900e003

0.0199

3.0000e005

1.9900e003

1.2000e004

2.1100e003

5.4000e004

1.1000e004

6.5000e004

0.0000

2.7996

2.7996

1.0000e004

0.0000

2.8017

SO2

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

3.3 Building Construction - 2016 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

MT/yr

Off-Road

0.1202

1.1924

0.7145

9.9000e004

0.0818

0.0818

0.0752

0.0752

0.0000

93.0175

93.0175

0.0281

0.0000

93.6067

Total

0.1202

1.1924

0.7145

9.9000e004

0.0818

0.0818

0.0752

0.0752

0.0000

93.0175

93.0175

0.0281

0.0000

93.6067

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 13 of 27

Date: 7/22/2014 10:31 AM

3.3 Building Construction - 2016 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

Vendor

2.2100e003

0.0174

0.0257

4.0000e005

1.1200e003

2.6000e004

1.3800e003

3.2000e004

2.4000e004

5.6000e004

0.0000

3.7629

3.7629

3.0000e005

0.0000

3.7636

Worker

1.9800e003

2.8700e003

0.0278

6.0000e005

4.7400e003

4.0000e005

4.7700e003

1.2600e003

4.0000e005

1.3000e003

0.0000

4.2971

4.2971

2.4000e004

0.0000

4.3020

Total

4.1900e003

0.0203

0.0535

1.0000e004

5.8600e003

3.0000e004

6.1500e003

1.5800e003

2.8000e004

1.8600e003

0.0000

8.0600

8.0600

2.7000e004

0.0000

8.0656

SO2

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

MT/yr

Off-Road

0.0242

0.5307

0.6898

9.9000e004

5.0200e003

5.0200e003

5.0200e003

5.0200e003

0.0000

93.0174

93.0174

0.0281

0.0000

93.6066

Total

0.0242

0.5307

0.6898

9.9000e004

5.0200e003

5.0200e003

5.0200e003

5.0200e003

0.0000

93.0174

93.0174

0.0281

0.0000

93.6066

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 14 of 27

Date: 7/22/2014 10:31 AM

3.3 Building Construction - 2016 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

Vendor

2.2100e003

0.0174

0.0257

4.0000e005

1.1200e003

2.6000e004

1.3800e003

3.2000e004

2.4000e004

5.6000e004

0.0000

3.7629

3.7629

3.0000e005

0.0000

3.7636

Worker

1.9800e003

2.8700e003

0.0278

6.0000e005

4.7400e003

4.0000e005

4.7700e003

1.2600e003

4.0000e005

1.3000e003

0.0000

4.2971

4.2971

2.4000e004

0.0000

4.3020

Total

4.1900e003

0.0203

0.0535

1.0000e004

5.8600e003

3.0000e004

6.1500e003

1.5800e003

2.8000e004

1.8600e003

0.0000

8.0600

8.0600

2.7000e004

0.0000

8.0656

SO2

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

3.4 Paving - 2015 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

Off-Road

7.8600e003

Paving

0.0000

Total

7.8600e003

0.0750

0.0750

0.0478

0.0478

7.0000e005

7.0000e005

MT/yr

4.7100e003

4.7100e003

4.3600e003

4.3600e003

0.0000

6.4483

6.4483

1.7500e003

0.0000

6.4851

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

4.7100e003

4.7100e003

4.3600e003

4.3600e003

0.0000

6.4483

6.4483

1.7500e003

0.0000

6.4851

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 15 of 27

Date: 7/22/2014 10:31 AM

3.4 Paving - 2015 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

Worker

5.0000e004

7.2000e004

6.9700e003

1.0000e005

1.0600e003

1.0000e005

1.0700e003

2.8000e004

1.0000e005

2.9000e004

0.0000

0.9973

0.9973

6.0000e005

0.0000

0.9985

Total

5.0000e004

7.2000e004

6.9700e003

1.0000e005

1.0600e003

1.0000e005

1.0700e003

2.8000e004

1.0000e005

2.9000e004

0.0000

0.9973

0.9973

6.0000e005

0.0000

0.9985

SO2

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

Off-Road

2.5800e003

Paving

0.0000

Total

2.5800e003

0.0377

0.0377

0.0501

0.0501

7.0000e005

7.0000e005

MT/yr

5.8000e004

5.8000e004

5.8000e004

5.8000e004

0.0000

6.4483

6.4483

1.7500e003

0.0000

6.4851

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

5.8000e004

5.8000e004

5.8000e004

5.8000e004

0.0000

6.4483

6.4483

1.7500e003

0.0000

6.4851

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 16 of 27

Date: 7/22/2014 10:31 AM

3.4 Paving - 2015 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

Worker

5.0000e004

7.2000e004

6.9700e003

1.0000e005

1.0600e003

1.0000e005

1.0700e003

2.8000e004

1.0000e005

2.9000e004

0.0000

0.9973

0.9973

6.0000e005

0.0000

0.9985

Total

5.0000e004

7.2000e004

6.9700e003

1.0000e005

1.0600e003

1.0000e005

1.0700e003

2.8000e004

1.0000e005

2.9000e004

0.0000

0.9973

0.9973

6.0000e005

0.0000

0.9985

SO2

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2016 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

Archit. Coating

0.1738

Off-Road

4.4200e003

0.0285

0.0226

Total

0.1782

0.0285

0.0226

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

4.0000e005

2.3600e003

2.3600e003

2.3600e003

2.3600e003

0.0000

3.0639

3.0639

3.6000e004

0.0000

3.0715

4.0000e005

2.3600e003

2.3600e003

2.3600e003

2.3600e003

0.0000

3.0639

3.0639

3.6000e004

0.0000

3.0715

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 17 of 27

Date: 7/22/2014 10:31 AM

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2016 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

Worker

5.0000e005

7.0000e005

6.4000e004

0.0000

1.1000e004

0.0000

1.1000e004

3.0000e005

0.0000

3.0000e005

0.0000

0.0988

0.0988

1.0000e005

0.0000

0.0989

Total

5.0000e005

7.0000e005

6.4000e004

0.0000

1.1000e004

0.0000

1.1000e004

3.0000e005

0.0000

3.0000e005

0.0000

0.0988

0.0988

1.0000e005

0.0000

0.0989

SO2

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

Archit. Coating

0.1738

Off-Road

4.4200e003

0.0285

0.0226

Total

0.1782

0.0285

0.0226

MT/yr

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

4.0000e005

2.3600e003

2.3600e003

2.3600e003

2.3600e003

0.0000

3.0639

3.0639

3.6000e004

0.0000

3.0715

4.0000e005

2.3600e003

2.3600e003

2.3600e003

2.3600e003

0.0000

3.0639

3.0639

3.6000e004

0.0000

3.0715

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 18 of 27

Date: 7/22/2014 10:31 AM

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2016 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

Worker

5.0000e005

7.0000e005

6.4000e004

0.0000

1.1000e004

0.0000

1.1000e004

3.0000e005

0.0000

3.0000e005

0.0000

0.0988

0.0988

1.0000e005

0.0000

0.0989

Total

5.0000e005

7.0000e005

6.4000e004

0.0000

1.1000e004

0.0000

1.1000e004

3.0000e005

0.0000

3.0000e005

0.0000

0.0988

0.0988

1.0000e005

0.0000

0.0989

SO2

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

MT/yr

Mitigated

0.2859

0.6993

2.9989

6.1800e003

0.4327

9.1100e003

0.4418

0.1161

8.3800e003

0.1245

0.0000

476.3251

476.3251

0.0197

0.0000

476.7380

Unmitigated

0.2859

0.6993

2.9989

6.1800e003

0.4327

9.1100e003

0.4418

0.1161

8.3800e003

0.1245

0.0000

476.3251

476.3251

0.0197

0.0000

476.7380

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 19 of 27

Date: 7/22/2014 10:31 AM

4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Land Use

Weekday

Saturday

Junior College (2Yr)

637.50

0.00

Total

637.50

0.00

Unmitigated

Mitigated

Annual VMT

Annual VMT

18.15

1,162,981

1,162,981

18.15

1,162,981

1,162,981

Sunday

4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Land Use

H-W or C-W

H-S or C-C

Junior College (2Yr)

9.50

7.30

LDA 0.546114

Trip % H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C 7.30

6.40

LDT1

LDT2

MDV

LHD1

LHD2

MHD

0.062902

0.174648

0.122995

0.034055

0.004856

0.015640

5.0 Energy Detail 4.4 Fleet Mix Historical Energy Use: N

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

88.60

HHD 0.024397

Trip Purpose % H-O or C-NW

Primary

Diverted

Pass-by

5.00

92

7

1

OBUS

UBUS

MCY

SBUS

0.002087

0.003279

0.006673

0.000688

MH 0.001667

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Page 20 of 27

Fugitive PM10

Category

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

Date: 7/22/2014 10:31 AM

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

Electricity Mitigated

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

39.0549

39.0549

1.7700e003

3.7000e004

39.2052

Electricity Unmitigated

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

39.0549

39.0549

1.7700e003

3.7000e004

39.2052

NaturalGas Mitigated

2.0400e003

0.0185

0.0156

1.1000e004

1.4100e003

1.4100e003

1.4100e003

1.4100e003

0.0000

20.1875

20.1875

3.9000e004

3.7000e004

20.3104

NaturalGas Unmitigated

2.0400e003

0.0185

0.0156

1.1000e004

1.4100e003

1.4100e003

1.4100e003

1.4100e003

0.0000

20.1875

20.1875

3.9000e004

3.7000e004

20.3104

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

CH4

N2O

CO2e

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated

NaturalGa s Use Land Use

kBTU/yr

Junior College (2Yr)

378300

Total

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

MT/yr

2.0400e003

0.0185

0.0156

1.1000e004

1.4100e003

1.4100e003

1.4100e003

1.4100e003

0.0000

20.1875

20.1875

3.9000e004

3.7000e004

20.3104

2.0400e003

0.0185

0.0156

1.1000e004

1.4100e003

1.4100e003

1.4100e003

1.4100e003

0.0000

20.1875

20.1875

3.9000e004

3.7000e004

20.3104

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 21 of 27

Date: 7/22/2014 10:31 AM

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated

NaturalGa s Use Land Use

kBTU/yr

Junior College (2Yr)

378300

Total

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

kWh/yr

Junior College (2Yr)

134250

Total

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

2.0400e003

0.0185

0.0156

1.1000e004

1.4100e003

1.4100e003

1.4100e003

1.4100e003

0.0000

20.1875

20.1875

3.9000e004

3.7000e004

20.3104

2.0400e003

0.0185

0.0156

1.1000e004

1.4100e003

1.4100e003

1.4100e003

1.4100e003

0.0000

20.1875

20.1875

3.9000e004

3.7000e004

20.3104

Unmitigated

Land Use

Exhaust PM10

tons/yr

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity

Electricity Use

Fugitive PM10

Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

39.0549

1.7700e003

3.7000e004

39.2052

39.0549

1.7700e003

3.7000e004

39.2052

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 22 of 27

Date: 7/22/2014 10:31 AM

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Mitigated

Electricity Use Land Use

kWh/yr

Junior College (2Yr)

134250

Total

Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

39.0549

1.7700e003

3.7000e004

39.2052

39.0549

1.7700e003

3.7000e004

39.2052

6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area No Hearths Installed

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

Mitigated

0.0664

0.0000

1.4000e004

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

2.7000e004

2.7000e004

0.0000

0.0000

2.8000e004

Unmitigated

0.0664

0.0000

1.4000e004

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

2.7000e004

2.7000e004

0.0000

0.0000

2.8000e004

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 23 of 27

Date: 7/22/2014 10:31 AM

6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

SubCategory

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

Architectural Coating

7.8200e003

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

Consumer Products

0.0586

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

Landscaping

1.0000e005

0.0000

1.4000e004

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

2.7000e004

2.7000e004

0.0000

0.0000

2.8000e004

Total

0.0664

0.0000

1.4000e004

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

2.7000e004

2.7000e004

0.0000

0.0000

2.8000e004

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

Mitigated

SubCategory

Fugitive PM10

Fugitive PM2.5

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

tons/yr

MT/yr

Architectural Coating

7.8200e003

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

Consumer Products

0.0586

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

Landscaping

1.0000e005

0.0000

1.4000e004

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

2.7000e004

2.7000e004

0.0000

0.0000

2.8000e004

Total

0.0664

0.0000

1.4000e004

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

2.7000e004

2.7000e004

0.0000

0.0000

2.8000e004

7.0 Water Detail

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 24 of 27

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

Total CO2

CH4

Category

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

Mitigated

2.5633

0.0241

5.9000e004

3.2508

Unmitigated

2.5633

0.0241

5.9000e004

3.2512

CH4

N2O

CO2e

7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated

Indoor/Out door Use Land Use

Mgal

Junior College (2Yr)

0.735735 / 1.15077

Total

Total CO2

MT/yr

2.5633

0.0241

5.9000e004

3.2512

2.5633

0.0241

5.9000e004

3.2512

Date: 7/22/2014 10:31 AM

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 25 of 27

7.2 Water by Land Use Mitigated

Indoor/Out door Use Land Use

Mgal

Junior College (2Yr)

0.735735 / 1.15077

Total

Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

2.5633

0.0241

5.9000e004

3.2508

2.5633

0.0241

5.9000e004

3.2508

8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Category/Year

Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

Mitigated

3.9583

0.2339

0.0000

8.8709

Unmitigated

3.9583

0.2339

0.0000

8.8709

Date: 7/22/2014 10:31 AM

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 26 of 27

Date: 7/22/2014 10:31 AM

8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated

Waste Disposed Land Use

tons

Junior College (2Yr)

19.5

Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

MT/yr

3.9583

0.2339

0.0000

8.8709

3.9583

0.2339

0.0000

8.8709

Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

Total

Mitigated

Waste Disposed Land Use

tons

Junior College (2Yr)

19.5

Total

MT/yr

3.9583

0.2339

0.0000

8.8709

3.9583

0.2339

0.0000

8.8709

9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type

Number

Hours/Day

Days/Year

Horse Power

Load Factor

Fuel Type

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

10.0 Vegetation

Page 27 of 27

Date: 7/22/2014 10:31 AM

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 1 of 22

Date: 7/21/2014 5:04 PM

Joint Use Education Center Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer

1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses

Size

Metric

Lot Acreage

Floor Surface Area

Population

Junior College (2Yr)

15.00

1000sqft

0.34

15,000.00

0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization

Urban

Wind Speed (m/s)

Climate Zone

4

Utility Company

Pacific Gas & Electric Company

CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr)

641.35

CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr)

2.2

0.029

Precipitation Freq (Days)

64

Operational Year

2017

N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr)

0.006

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data Project Characteristics Land Use - 15,000 sqft educational building Construction Phase - Grading: 9/1/15-10/11/15 Const: 10/12/15-8/31/16 Paving: 10/12/15-10/28/15 Coating: 7/29/16-8/31/16 Vehicle Trips - Trip generation rate calculated from the traffic study, which indicated 638 daily trips. Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Assume watering 3x per day per BAAQMD recommendations. Diesel particulate filters on large equipment. Mobile Land Use Mitigation Area Mitigation -

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 2 of 22

Date: 7/21/2014 5:04 PM

Table Name

Column Name

Default Value

New Value

tblArchitecturalCoating

EF_Nonresidential_Exterior

150.00

250.00

tblArchitecturalCoating

EF_Nonresidential_Interior

100.00

250.00

tblArchitecturalCoating

EF_Residential_Exterior

150.00

250.00

tblArchitecturalCoating

EF_Residential_Interior

100.00

250.00

tblConstEquipMitigation

DPF

No Change

Level 3

tblConstEquipMitigation

DPF

No Change

Level 3

tblConstEquipMitigation

DPF

No Change

Level 3

tblConstEquipMitigation

DPF

No Change

Level 3

tblConstEquipMitigation

DPF

No Change

Level 3

tblConstEquipMitigation

DPF

No Change

Level 3

tblConstEquipMitigation

NumberOfEquipmentMitigated

0.00

1.00

tblConstEquipMitigation

NumberOfEquipmentMitigated

0.00

2.00

tblConstEquipMitigation

NumberOfEquipmentMitigated

0.00

1.00

tblConstEquipMitigation

NumberOfEquipmentMitigated

0.00

1.00

tblConstEquipMitigation

NumberOfEquipmentMitigated

0.00

1.00

tblConstEquipMitigation

NumberOfEquipmentMitigated

0.00

5.00

tblConstructionPhase

NumDays

5.00

24.00

tblConstructionPhase

NumDays

100.00

233.00

tblConstructionPhase

NumDays

2.00

29.00

tblConstructionPhase

NumDays

5.00

13.00

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseEndDate

12/1/2015

8/31/2016

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseEndDate

10/9/2015

10/11/2015

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseEndDate

9/19/2016

10/28/2015

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseStartDate

10/29/2015

7/29/2016

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseStartDate

9/1/2016

10/12/2015

tblProjectCharacteristics

OperationalYear

2014

2017

tblVehicleTrips

ST_TR

11.23

0.00

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 3 of 22

tblVehicleTrips

WD_TR

Date: 7/21/2014 5:04 PM

27.49

42.50

2.0 Emissions Summary 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Year

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

lb/day

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

2015

2.7967

26.2733

17.4275

0.0257

0.8471

1.7298

1.9694

0.4388

1.5950

1.6589

0.0000

2,575.841 3

2,575.841 3

0.6663

0.0000

2,589.834 1

2016

16.2854

16.3059

10.7247

0.0156

0.0793

1.1399

1.2192

0.0213

1.0645

1.0858

0.0000

1,576.064 1

1,576.064 1

0.3926

0.0000

1,584.307 7

Total

19.0821

42.5792

28.1522

0.0413

0.9264

2.8697

3.1886

0.4601

2.6595

2.7446

0.0000

4,151.905 5

4,151.905 5

1.0589

0.0000

4,174.141 8

CO

SO2

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e

Mitigated Construction

ROG

NOx

Year

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

lb/day

lb/day

2015

2.7967

26.2733

17.4275

0.0257

0.3879

0.4618

0.8497

0.1864

0.4559

0.6423

0.0000

2,575.841 3

2,575.841 3

0.6663

0.0000

2,589.834 1

2016

16.2854

16.3059

10.7247

0.0156

0.0793

0.3411

0.4204

0.0213

0.3295

0.3508

0.0000

1,576.064 1

1,576.064 1

0.3926

0.0000

1,584.307 7

Total

19.0821

42.5792

28.1522

0.0413

0.4672

0.8029

1.2701

0.2077

0.7854

0.9931

0.0000

4,151.905 4

4,151.905 4

1.0589

0.0000

4,174.141 8

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Percent Reduction

Page 4 of 22

Date: 7/21/2014 5:04 PM

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

49.57

72.02

60.17

54.86

70.47

63.82

0.00

NBio-CO2 Total CO2

0.00

0.00

CH4

N20

CO2e

0.00

0.00

0.00

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 5 of 22

Date: 7/21/2014 5:04 PM

2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

lb/day

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

Area

0.3640

1.0000e005

1.5600e003

0.0000

1.0000e005

1.0000e005

1.0000e005

1.0000e005

3.2800e003

3.2800e003

1.0000e005

3.4700e003

Energy

0.0112

0.1016

0.0854

6.1000e004

7.7200e003

7.7200e003

7.7200e003

7.7200e003

121.9339

121.9339

2.3400e003

Mobile

2.2398

5.0169

22.3082

0.0501

3.4383

0.0696

3.5079

0.9198

0.0641

0.9839

4,244.967 1

4,244.967 1

0.1659

Total

2.6150

5.1185

22.3951

0.0507

3.4383

0.0774

3.5156

0.9198

0.0718

0.9916

4,366.904 3

4,366.904 3

0.1683

2.2400e003

4,371.130 4

NOx

CO

SO2

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

CH4

N2O

CO2e

2.2400e003

122.6760

4,248.451 0

Mitigated Operational

ROG

Category

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

lb/day

lb/day

Area

0.3640

1.0000e005

1.5600e003

0.0000

1.0000e005

1.0000e005

1.0000e005

1.0000e005

3.2800e003

3.2800e003

1.0000e005

Energy

0.0112

0.1016

0.0854

6.1000e004

7.7200e003

7.7200e003

7.7200e003

7.7200e003

121.9339

121.9339

2.3400e003

Mobile

2.2398

5.0169

22.3082

0.0501

3.4383

0.0696

3.5079

0.9198

0.0641

0.9839

4,244.967 1

4,244.967 1

0.1659

Total

2.6150

5.1185

22.3951

0.0507

3.4383

0.0774

3.5156

0.9198

0.0718

0.9916

4,366.904 3

4,366.904 3

0.1683

3.4700e003 2.2400e003

122.6760

4,248.451 0 2.2400e003

4,371.130 4

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Percent Reduction

Page 6 of 22

Date: 7/21/2014 5:04 PM

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

NBio-CO2 Total CO2

0.00

0.00

CH4

N20

CO2e

0.00

0.00

0.00

3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number

Phase Name

Phase Type

Start Date

End Date

Num Days Week

Num Days

1

Grading

Grading

9/1/2015

10/11/2015

5

29

2

Building Construction

Building Construction

10/12/2015

8/31/2016

5

233

3

Paving

Paving

10/12/2015

10/28/2015

5

13

4

Architectural Coating

Architectural Coating

7/29/2016

8/31/2016

5

24

Phase Description

Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 22,500; Non-Residential Outdoor: 7,500 (Architectural Coating – sqft) OffRoad Equipment

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Phase Name

Page 7 of 22

Offroad Equipment Type

Amount

Date: 7/21/2014 5:04 PM

Usage Hours

Horse Power

Load Factor

Grading

Concrete/Industrial Saws

1

8.00

81

0.73

Grading

Rubber Tired Dozers

1

1.00

255

0.40

Grading

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

2

6.00

97

0.37

Building Construction

Cranes

1

4.00

226

0.29

Building Construction

Forklifts

2

6.00

89

0.20

Building Construction

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

2

8.00

97

0.37

Paving

Cement and Mortar Mixers

4

6.00

9

0.56

Paving

Pavers

1

7.00

125

0.42

Paving

Rollers

1

7.00

80

0.38

Paving

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

1

7.00

97

0.37

Architectural Coating

Air Compressors

1

6.00

78

0.48

Worker Vehicle Class

Vendor Hauling Vehicle Class Vehicle Class

Trips and VMT Phase Name

Offroad Equipment Count

Worker Trip Number

Vendor Trip Number

Hauling Trip Number

Worker Trip Length

Vendor Trip Length

Hauling Trip Length

Grading

4

10.00

0.00

0.00

12.40

7.30

20.00 LD_Mix

HDT_Mix

HHDT

Building Construction

5

6.00

2.00

0.00

12.40

7.30

20.00 LD_Mix

HDT_Mix

HHDT

Paving

7

18.00

0.00

0.00

12.40

7.30

20.00 LD_Mix

HDT_Mix

HHDT

Architectural Coating

1

1.00

0.00

0.00

12.40

7.30

20.00 LD_Mix

HDT_Mix

HHDT

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Use DPF for Construction Equipment Water Exposed Area Clean Paved Roads

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 8 of 22

Date: 7/21/2014 5:04 PM

3.2 Grading - 2015 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.7528

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.7528

0.8748

0.8748

0.4138

0.0000

0.4138

0.8359

0.8359

1,200.638 6

1,200.638 6

0.2451

1,205.786 1

1,200.638 6

1,200.638 6

0.2451

1,205.786 1

Off-Road

1.4120

11.9409

8.8138

0.0120

Total

1.4120

11.9409

8.8138

0.0120

0.7528

0.8748

1.6276

0.4138

0.8359

1.2496

SO2

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

0.0000

0.0000

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

lb/day

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

Worker

0.0451

0.0542

0.6329

1.1600e003

0.0943

8.0000e004

0.0951

0.0250

7.4000e004

0.0258

100.9183

100.9183

5.4800e003

101.0334

Total

0.0451

0.0542

0.6329

1.1600e003

0.0943

8.0000e004

0.0951

0.0250

7.4000e004

0.0258

100.9183

100.9183

5.4800e003

101.0334

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 9 of 22

Date: 7/21/2014 5:04 PM

3.2 Grading - 2015 Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

lb/day

Fugitive Dust

0.2936

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.2936

0.4610

0.4610

0.1614

0.0000

0.1614

0.0000

0.4551

0.4551

0.0000

1,200.638 6

1,200.638 6

0.2451

1,205.786 1

1,200.638 6

1,200.638 6

0.2451

1,205.786 1

Off-Road

1.4120

11.9409

8.8138

0.0120

Total

1.4120

11.9409

8.8138

0.0120

0.2936

0.4610

0.7546

0.1614

0.4551

0.6165

0.0000

SO2

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

0.0000

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

lb/day

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

Worker

0.0451

0.0542

0.6329

1.1600e003

0.0943

8.0000e004

0.0951

0.0250

7.4000e004

0.0258

100.9183

100.9183

5.4800e003

101.0334

Total

0.0451

0.0542

0.6329

1.1600e003

0.0943

8.0000e004

0.0951

0.0250

7.4000e004

0.0258

100.9183

100.9183

5.4800e003

101.0334

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 10 of 22

Date: 7/21/2014 5:04 PM

3.3 Building Construction - 2015 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

lb/day

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

Off-Road

1.4538

14.3777

8.2983

0.0113

0.9995

0.9995

0.9195

0.9195

1,191.702 1

1,191.702 1

0.3558

1,199.173 3

Total

1.4538

14.3777

8.2983

0.0113

0.9995

0.9995

0.9195

0.9195

1,191.702 1

1,191.702 1

0.3558

1,199.173 3

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive PM10

Fugitive PM2.5

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

lb/day

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

Vendor

0.0254

0.2228

0.2517

4.8000e004

0.0133

3.7200e003

0.0170

3.8000e003

3.4200e003

7.2100e003

48.3921

48.3921

4.3000e004

48.4011

Worker

0.0271

0.0325

0.3797

7.0000e004

0.0566

4.8000e004

0.0571

0.0150

4.4000e004

0.0155

60.5510

60.5510

3.2900e003

60.6201

Total

0.0525

0.2553

0.6315

1.1800e003

0.0699

4.2000e003

0.0741

0.0188

3.8600e003

0.0227

108.9430

108.9430

3.7200e003

109.0212

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 11 of 22

Date: 7/21/2014 5:04 PM

3.3 Building Construction - 2015 Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

lb/day

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

Off-Road

1.4538

14.3777

8.2983

0.0113

0.1499

0.1499

0.1379

0.1379

0.0000

1,191.702 1

1,191.702 1

0.3558

1,199.173 3

Total

1.4538

14.3777

8.2983

0.0113

0.1499

0.1499

0.1379

0.1379

0.0000

1,191.702 1

1,191.702 1

0.3558

1,199.173 3

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive PM10

Fugitive PM2.5

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

lb/day

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

Vendor

0.0254

0.2228

0.2517

4.8000e004

0.0133

3.7200e003

0.0170

3.8000e003

3.4200e003

7.2100e003

48.3921

48.3921

4.3000e004

48.4011

Worker

0.0271

0.0325

0.3797

7.0000e004

0.0566

4.8000e004

0.0571

0.0150

4.4000e004

0.0155

60.5510

60.5510

3.2900e003

60.6201

Total

0.0525

0.2553

0.6315

1.1800e003

0.0699

4.2000e003

0.0741

0.0188

3.8600e003

0.0227

108.9430

108.9430

3.7200e003

109.0212

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 12 of 22

Date: 7/21/2014 5:04 PM

3.3 Building Construction - 2016 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

lb/day

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

Off-Road

1.3816

13.7058

8.2122

0.0113

0.9398

0.9398

0.8646

0.8646

1,178.554 9

1,178.554 9

0.3555

1,186.020 2

Total

1.3816

13.7058

8.2122

0.0113

0.9398

0.9398

0.8646

0.8646

1,178.554 9

1,178.554 9

0.3555

1,186.020 2

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive PM10

Fugitive PM2.5

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

lb/day

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

Vendor

0.0226

0.1938

0.2313

4.8000e004

0.0133

2.9800e003

0.0163

3.8000e003

2.7400e003

6.5300e003

47.8306

47.8306

3.8000e004

47.8386

Worker

0.0243

0.0291

0.3406

7.0000e004

0.0566

4.5000e004

0.0570

0.0150

4.2000e004

0.0154

58.4834

58.4834

3.0000e003

58.5464

Total

0.0470

0.2230

0.5718

1.1800e003

0.0699

3.4300e003

0.0733

0.0188

3.1600e003

0.0220

106.3140

106.3140

3.3800e003

106.3849

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 13 of 22

Date: 7/21/2014 5:04 PM

3.3 Building Construction - 2016 Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

lb/day

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

Off-Road

1.3816

13.7058

8.2122

0.0113

0.1410

0.1410

0.1297

0.1297

0.0000

1,178.554 9

1,178.554 9

0.3555

1,186.020 2

Total

1.3816

13.7058

8.2122

0.0113

0.1410

0.1410

0.1297

0.1297

0.0000

1,178.554 9

1,178.554 9

0.3555

1,186.020 2

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive PM10

Fugitive PM2.5

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

lb/day

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

Vendor

0.0226

0.1938

0.2313

4.8000e004

0.0133

2.9800e003

0.0163

3.8000e003

2.7400e003

6.5300e003

47.8306

47.8306

3.8000e004

47.8386

Worker

0.0243

0.0291

0.3406

7.0000e004

0.0566

4.5000e004

0.0570

0.0150

4.2000e004

0.0154

58.4834

58.4834

3.0000e003

58.5464

Total

0.0470

0.2230

0.5718

1.1800e003

0.0699

3.4300e003

0.0733

0.0188

3.1600e003

0.0220

106.3140

106.3140

3.3800e003

106.3849

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 14 of 22

Date: 7/21/2014 5:04 PM

3.4 Paving - 2015 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

lb/day

Off-Road

1.2092

Paving

0.0000

Total

1.2092

11.5427

11.5427

7.3586

7.3586

0.0111

0.0111

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.7247

0.7247

0.6703

0.6703

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.7247

0.7247

0.6703

0.6703

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

1,093.543 3

1,093.543 3

0.2970

1,099.779 4

0.0000

1,093.543 3

1,093.543 3

0.0000

0.2970

1,099.779 4

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive PM10

Fugitive PM2.5

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

lb/day

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

Worker

0.0812

0.0976

1.1392

2.0900e003

0.1698

1.4500e003

0.1712

0.0450

1.3200e003

0.0463

181.6529

181.6529

9.8700e003

181.8602

Total

0.0812

0.0976

1.1392

2.0900e003

0.1698

1.4500e003

0.1712

0.0450

1.3200e003

0.0463

181.6529

181.6529

9.8700e003

181.8602

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 15 of 22

Date: 7/21/2014 5:04 PM

3.4 Paving - 2015 Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

lb/day

Off-Road

1.2092

Paving

0.0000

Total

1.2092

11.5427

11.5427

7.3586

7.3586

0.0111

0.0111

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.1475

0.1475

0.1393

0.1393

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.1475

0.1475

0.1393

0.1393

0.0000

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

1,093.543 3

1,093.543 3

0.2970

1,099.779 4

0.0000

1,093.543 3

1,093.543 3

0.0000

0.2970

1,099.779 4

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive PM10

Fugitive PM2.5

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

lb/day

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

Worker

0.0812

0.0976

1.1392

2.0900e003

0.1698

1.4500e003

0.1712

0.0450

1.3200e003

0.0463

181.6529

181.6529

9.8700e003

181.8602

Total

0.0812

0.0976

1.1392

2.0900e003

0.1698

1.4500e003

0.1712

0.0450

1.3200e003

0.0463

181.6529

181.6529

9.8700e003

181.8602

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 16 of 22

Date: 7/21/2014 5:04 PM

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2016 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

lb/day

Archit. Coating

14.4844

Off-Road

0.3685

2.3722

1.8839

Total

14.8528

2.3722

1.8839

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

2.9700e003

0.1966

0.1966

0.1966

0.1966

281.4481

281.4481

0.0332

282.1449

2.9700e003

0.1966

0.1966

0.1966

0.1966

281.4481

281.4481

0.0332

282.1449

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive PM10

Fugitive PM2.5

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

lb/day

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

Worker

4.0600e003

4.8600e003

0.0568

1.2000e004

9.4300e003

8.0000e005

9.5100e003

2.5000e003

7.0000e005

2.5700e003

9.7472

9.7472

5.0000e004

9.7577

Total

4.0600e003

4.8600e003

0.0568

1.2000e004

9.4300e003

8.0000e005

9.5100e003

2.5000e003

7.0000e005

2.5700e003

9.7472

9.7472

5.0000e004

9.7577

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 17 of 22

Date: 7/21/2014 5:04 PM

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2016 Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

lb/day

Archit. Coating

14.4844

Off-Road

0.3685

2.3722

1.8839

Total

14.8528

2.3722

1.8839

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

2.9700e003

0.1966

0.1966

0.1966

0.1966

0.0000

281.4481

281.4481

0.0332

282.1449

2.9700e003

0.1966

0.1966

0.1966

0.1966

0.0000

281.4481

281.4481

0.0332

282.1449

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Category

Fugitive PM10

Fugitive PM2.5

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

lb/day

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

Worker

4.0600e003

4.8600e003

0.0568

1.2000e004

9.4300e003

8.0000e005

9.5100e003

2.5000e003

7.0000e005

2.5700e003

9.7472

9.7472

5.0000e004

9.7577

Total

4.0600e003

4.8600e003

0.0568

1.2000e004

9.4300e003

8.0000e005

9.5100e003

2.5000e003

7.0000e005

2.5700e003

9.7472

9.7472

5.0000e004

9.7577

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 18 of 22

Date: 7/21/2014 5:04 PM

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Fugitive PM10

Category

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

lb/day

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

Mitigated

2.2398

5.0169

22.3082

0.0501

3.4383

0.0696

3.5079

0.9198

0.0641

0.9839

4,244.967 1

4,244.967 1

0.1659

4,248.451 0

Unmitigated

2.2398

5.0169

22.3082

0.0501

3.4383

0.0696

3.5079

0.9198

0.0641

0.9839

4,244.967 1

4,244.967 1

0.1659

4,248.451 0

4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Sunday

Unmitigated

Mitigated

Annual VMT

Annual VMT

Land Use

Weekday

Saturday

Junior College (2Yr)

637.50

0.00

18.15

1,162,981

1,162,981

Total

637.50

0.00

18.15

1,162,981

1,162,981

4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Land Use

H-W or C-W

H-S or C-C

Junior College (2Yr)

9.50

7.30

LDA 0.546114

Trip % H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C 7.30

6.40

LDT1

LDT2

MDV

LHD1

LHD2

MHD

0.062902

0.174648

0.122995

0.034055

0.004856

0.015640

5.0 Energy Detail 4.4 Fleet Mix Historical Energy Use: N

88.60

HHD 0.024397

Trip Purpose % H-O or C-NW

Primary

Diverted

Pass-by

5.00

92

7

1

OBUS

UBUS

MCY

SBUS

0.002087

0.003279

0.006673

0.000688

MH 0.001667

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 19 of 22

Date: 7/21/2014 5:04 PM

Historical Energy Use: N

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Fugitive PM10

Category

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

lb/day

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

NaturalGas Mitigated

0.0112

0.1016

0.0854

6.1000e004

7.7200e003

7.7200e003

7.7200e003

7.7200e003

121.9339

121.9339

2.3400e003

2.2400e003

122.6760

NaturalGas Unmitigated

0.0112

0.1016

0.0854

6.1000e004

7.7200e003

7.7200e003

7.7200e003

7.7200e003

121.9339

121.9339

2.3400e003

2.2400e003

122.6760

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

CH4

N2O

CO2e

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated

NaturalGa s Use Land Use

kBTU/yr

Junior College (2Yr)

1036.44

Total

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

lb/day

lb/day

0.0112

0.1016

0.0854

6.1000e004

7.7200e003

7.7200e003

7.7200e003

7.7200e003

121.9339

121.9339

2.3400e003

2.2400e003

122.6760

0.0112

0.1016

0.0854

6.1000e004

7.7200e003

7.7200e003

7.7200e003

7.7200e003

121.9339

121.9339

2.3400e003

2.2400e003

122.6760

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 20 of 22

Date: 7/21/2014 5:04 PM

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated

NaturalGa s Use Land Use

kBTU/yr

Junior College (2Yr)

1.03644

Total

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

lb/day

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

0.0112

0.1016

0.0854

6.1000e004

7.7200e003

7.7200e003

7.7200e003

7.7200e003

121.9339

121.9339

2.3400e003

2.2400e003

122.6760

0.0112

0.1016

0.0854

6.1000e004

7.7200e003

7.7200e003

7.7200e003

7.7200e003

121.9339

121.9339

2.3400e003

2.2400e003

122.6760

SO2

Fugitive PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area No Hearths Installed

ROG

NOx

CO

Category

Exhaust PM10

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

lb/day

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

Mitigated

0.3640

1.0000e005

1.5600e003

0.0000

1.0000e005

1.0000e005

1.0000e005

1.0000e005

3.2800e003

3.2800e003

1.0000e005

3.4700e003

Unmitigated

0.3640

1.0000e005

1.5600e003

0.0000

1.0000e005

1.0000e005

1.0000e005

1.0000e005

3.2800e003

3.2800e003

1.0000e005

3.4700e003

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 21 of 22

Date: 7/21/2014 5:04 PM

6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

SubCategory

Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

lb/day

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

Architectural Coating

0.0429

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

Consumer Products

0.3210

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

Landscaping

1.5000e004

1.0000e005

1.5600e003

0.0000

1.0000e005

1.0000e005

1.0000e005

1.0000e005

3.2800e003

3.2800e003

1.0000e005

3.4700e003

Total

0.3640

1.0000e005

1.5600e003

0.0000

1.0000e005

1.0000e005

1.0000e005

1.0000e005

3.2800e003

3.2800e003

1.0000e005

3.4700e003

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Mitigated

SubCategory

Fugitive PM10

Fugitive PM2.5

Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2

lb/day

CH4

N2O

CO2e

lb/day

Architectural Coating

0.0429

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

Consumer Products

0.3210

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

Landscaping

1.5000e004

1.0000e005

1.5600e003

0.0000

1.0000e005

1.0000e005

1.0000e005

1.0000e005

3.2800e003

3.2800e003

1.0000e005

3.4700e003

Total

0.3640

1.0000e005

1.5600e003

0.0000

1.0000e005

1.0000e005

1.0000e005

1.0000e005

3.2800e003

3.2800e003

1.0000e005

3.4700e003

7.0 Water Detail

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2

Page 22 of 22

Date: 7/21/2014 5:04 PM

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type

10.0 Vegetation

Number

Hours/Day

Days/Year

Horse Power

Load Factor

Fuel Type

HRA Modeled Output

Evergreen Joint Use Education Center Maximum Individual Cancer Risk and Noncarcinogenic Hazards ISC Model Table HRA-1 Emissions Estimates Year

Education Center 2015-2016 2015-2016

Primary Activities

Construction Construction

Source: Diesel particulate matter emissions were obtained from CalEEMod

Source

Diesel Exhaust Fugitive Dust

Exhaust DPM Emissions (pounds/day)

N/A N/A

Duration (days)

N/A N/A

Total Emissions (pounds)

243.20 10.24

Evergreen Joint Use Education Center Maximum Individual Cancer Risk and Noncarcinogenic Hazards ISC Model Table HRA-2 Average Emissions (Grams per Second) Source

Diesel Exhaust Fugitive Dust

EF (per source) (g/s) 1.0494E-02 4.4186E-04

TE (pounds) 243.20 10.24

Years

Unit Conversions Hours/day

Days/year 1.00 1.00

365 365

Seconds/hour 8 8

3,600 3,600

Grams/pound 453.5924 453.5924

Equation: Emission Factor (EF) = TE ÷ Exposure Duration (years) ÷ 365 days/year ÷ 8 hours/day ÷ 3600 seconds/hour × 453.5924 grams/pound ÷ number of model sources

Note: Emission factors (EF) are divided to distribute the emissions among the total number of sources in the modeling run.

Evergreen Joint Use Education Center Maximum Individual Cancer Risk and Noncarcinogenic Hazards ISC Model

Table HRA-4 Maximum Individual Cancer Risk (MICR) Pollutant

CPF

CAIR,ANN

DBR

A

EF

ED

AT

Dose

ASF

MICR

Threshold

Over?

MEI - Adult

DPM

1.10E+00

2.08E+00

393

1

350

1

25550

1.12E-05

1

1.23E-05

10

NO

MEI - Child

DPM

1.10E+00

2.08E+00

581

1

350

1

25550

1.66E-05

10

3.44E-04

10

NO

Receptor

Exposure factors used to calculate cancer risk: Cancer Potency Factor (mg/kg-day) -1. CPF Annual concentration (µg/m 3). CAIR,ANN DBR

Daily breathing rate (L/kg (body weight) per day).

A EF ED AT Dose ASF

DBR Sources: 1. California Air Resources Board and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Recommended Interim Risk Management Policy for Inhalation-Based Residential Cancer Risk , (2003). 2. California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments , (2003). 3. California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Integrated Risk Assessment Section, Guidance for School Site Risk Assessment Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 901(f): Guidance for Assessing Exposures and Health Risks at Existing and Proposed School Sites , (2003). Inhalation absorption factor (default = 1). Exposure frequency (days/year). Exposure duration (years). Average time period over which exposure is averaged in days (days). Dose = DBR × A × EF × ED x 10 -6/ AT. Age sensitivity factor, 1 for adults and 10 for children

Evergreen Joint Use Education Center Maximum Individual Cancer Risk and Noncarcinogenic Hazards ISC Model

Table HRA-5 Maximum Non-carcinogenic Hazards / Toxicological Endpoints* Receptor Group MEI

Where: CREL HQ HI MEI

Pollutant

CREL

CAIR,ANN

HQ

RESP

DPM

5.00E+00

2.08E+00

4.16E-01

4.16E-01

Chronic Reference Exposure Level Hazard Quotient Health Index Maximally Exposed Individual

* Key to Toxicological Endpoints RESP Respiratory System. CNS/PNS Central/Peripheral Nervous System. CV/BL Cardiovascular/Blood System. IMMUN Immune System. KIDN Kidney. GI/LV Gastrointestinal System/Liver. REPRO Reproductive System. EYES Eye irritation and/or other effects.

CNS/PNS -

CV/BL -

IMMUN -

KIDN -

GI/LV -

REPRO -

EYES -

Threshold

Over?

1

NO

2. Milpitas_unmitigated_output.txt ** **************************************** ** ** ISCST3 Input Produced by: ** AERMOD View Ver. 8.2.0 ** Lakes Environmental Software Inc. ** Date: 7/21/2014 ** File: C:\AERMOD\Milpitas\Milpitas.INP ** **************************************** ** ** **************************************** ** ISCST3 Control Pathway **************************************** ** ** CO STARTING TITLEONE C:\AERMOD\Milpitas\Milpitas.isc MODELOPT DFAULT CONC NOCMPL

URBAN

AVERTIME ANNUAL POLLUTID PM_2.5 TERRHGTS ELEV FLAGPOLE 2.00 RUNORNOT RUN ERRORFIL Milpitas.err CO FINISHED ** **************************************** ** ISCST3 Source Pathway **************************************** ** Page 1

2. Milpitas_unmitigated_output.txt ** SO STARTING ** Source Location ** ** Source ID - Type - X Coord. - Y Coord. ** LOCATION EXHAUST

AREAPOLY

597152.401

4145786.283

16.050

LOCATION FUGITIVE

AREAPOLY

597162.842

4145781.642

16.060

** Source Parameters ** SRCPARAM EXHAUST

1.4849E-06

4.000

4

AREAVERT EXHAUST

597152.401 4145786.283 597267.250 4145829.206

AREAVERT EXHAUST

597292.772 4145753.800 597179.083 4145708.556

SRCPARAM FUGITIVE

7.7737E-08

AREAVERT FUGITIVE

597162.842 4145781.642 597261.450 4145818.765

AREAVERT FUGITIVE

597281.171 4145758.440 597182.563 4145718.997

1.000

4

SRCGROUP ALL SO FINISHED ** **************************************** ** ISCST3 Receptor Pathway **************************************** ** ** RE STARTING ** DESCRREC "" "" DISCCART

597194.13

4145691.64

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597208.49

4145698.10

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597223.57

4145702.41

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597236.49

4145709.59

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597250.85

4145715.33

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597265.93

4145719.64

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597278.85

4145725.38

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597293.93

4145731.84

0.00

2.00

Page 2

DISCCART

2. Milpitas_unmitigated_output.txt 597308.28 4145736.87 0.00 2.00

DISCCART

597323.36

4145741.89

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597337.00

4145745.48

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597351.36

4145749.79

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597230.75

4145661.48

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597246.54

4145667.23

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597261.62

4145672.25

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597275.26

4145676.56

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597289.62

4145683.02

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597301.82

4145687.33

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597339.87

4145698.82

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597354.23

4145695.23

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597092.19

4145914.91

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597085.73

4145931.42

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597123.06

4145951.53

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597148.19

4145961.58

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597174.03

4145971.63

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597201.31

4145983.83

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597227.88

4145996.04

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597252.29

4146003.94

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597270.95

4146013.27

0.00

2.00

** DESCRREC "school" "Cartesian plant boundary Primary Receptors" DISCCART

597168.29

4145816.56

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597193.42

4145826.61

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597162.55

4145835.94

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597186.24

4145845.27

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597215.67

4145835.22

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597207.77

4145853.17

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597225.00

4145875.43

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597245.82

4145852.45

0.00

2.00

** Discrete Cartesian Plant Boundary - Primary Receptors ** Plant Boundary Name PLBN1 Page 3

2. Milpitas_unmitigated_output.txt ** DESCRREC "school" "Cartesian plant boundary Primary Receptors" DISCCART

597140.80

4145795.56

16.05

2.00

DISCCART

597276.53

4145846.61

18.99

2.00

DISCCART

597307.85

4145754.96

17.37

2.00

DISCCART

597177.92

4145700.44

14.78

2.00

RE FINISHED ** **************************************** ** ISCST3 Meteorology Pathway **************************************** ** ** ME STARTING INPUTFIL ALV006RA.ASC ANEMHGHT 10 METERS SURFDATA 7905 2000 UAIRDATA 7905 2000 ME FINISHED ** **************************************** ** ISCST3 Output Pathway **************************************** ** ** OU STARTING ** Auto-Generated Plotfiles PLOTFILE ANNUAL ALL Milpitas.IS\AN00GALL.PLT 31 OU FINISHED *********************************** *** SETUP Finishes Successfully *** *********************************** *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 ***

***

*** C:\AERMOD\Milpitas\Milpitas.isc 07/21/14 Page 4

2. Milpitas_unmitigated_output.txt *** *** 15:23:18 **MODELOPTs: CONC

URBAN ELEV NOCMPL

PAGE 1 FLGPOL DFAULT

*** MODEL SETUP OPTIONS SUMMARY *** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - **Simple Terrain Model is Selected **Model Is Setup For Calculation of Average CONCentration Values. -- SCAVENGING/DEPOSITION LOGIC -**Model Uses NO DRY DEPLETION. DDPLETE = F **Model Uses NO WET DEPLETION. WDPLETE = F **NO WET SCAVENGING Data Provided. **NO GAS DRY DEPOSITION Data Provided. **Model Does NOT Use GRIDDED TERRAIN Data for Depletion Calculations **Model Uses URBAN Dispersion. **Model Uses Regulatory DEFAULT Options: 1. Final Plume Rise. 2. Stack-tip Downwash. 3. Buoyancy-induced Dispersion. 4. Use Calms Processing Routine. 5. Not Use Missing Data Processing Routine. 6. Default Wind Profile Exponents. 7. Default Vertical Potential Temperature Gradients. 8. "Upper Bound" Values for Supersquat Buildings. 9. No Exponential Decay for URBAN/Non-SO2 **Model Accepts Receptors on ELEV Terrain. **Model Accepts FLAGPOLE Receptor Heights. **Model Calculates ANNUAL Averages Only **This Run Includes: Receptor(s)

2 Source(s);

**The Model Assumes A Pollutant Type of:

1 Source Group(s); and

41

PM_2.5

**Model Set To Continue RUNning After the Setup Testing. **Output Options Selected: Model Outputs Tables of ANNUAL Averages by Receptor Model Outputs External File(s) of High Values for Plotting (PLOTFILE Keyword) **NOTE: Hours

The Following Flags May Appear Following CONC Values:

c for Calm m for Missing

Hours b for Both Calm and Missing Hours **Misc. Inputs: Rot. Angle =

Anem. Hgt. (m) = 0.0

10.00 ; Page 5

Decay Coef. =

0.000

;

2. Milpitas_unmitigated_output.txt Emission Units = GRAMS/SEC Emission Rate Unit Factor = 0.10000E+07 Output Units = MICROGRAMS/M**3 **Approximate Storage Requirements of Model = **Input Runstream File:

Milpitas.INP

**Output Print File:

Milpitas.OUT

**Detailed Error/Message File:

Milpitas.err

*** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 ***

*** ***

;

1.2 MB of RAM.

*** C:\AERMOD\Milpitas\Milpitas.isc 07/21/14 *** 15:23:18

**MODELOPTs: CONC

URBAN ELEV NOCMPL

PAGE 2 FLGPOL DFAULT

*** AREAPOLY SOURCE DATA *** NUMBER EMISSION RATE LOCATION OF AREA BASE RELEASE NUMBER INIT. EMISSION RATE SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC X Y ELEV. HEIGHT OF VERTS. SZ SCALAR VARY ID CATS. /METER**2) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - EXHAUST 0 0.14849E-05 597152.4 4145786.2 16.0 4.00 0.00 FUGITIVE 0 0.77737E-07 597162.8 4145781.8 16.1 1.00 0.00 *** C:\AERMOD\Milpitas\Milpitas.isc *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** 07/21/14 *** *** 15:23:18 **MODELOPTs: PAGE 3 CONC URBAN ELEV FLGPOL DFAULT NOCMPL

*** SOURCE IDs DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS *** GROUP ID

ALL

SOURCE IDs

EXHAUST , FUGITIVE,

*** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 ***

*** ***

*** C:\AERMOD\Milpitas\Milpitas.isc 07/21/14 *** 15:23:18

**MODELOPTs: PAGE Page 6

4

4 4

2. Milpitas_unmitigated_output.txt URBAN ELEV FLGPOL DFAULT NOCMPL

CONC

*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS *** (X-COORD, Y-COORD, ZELEV, ZFLAG) (METERS) ( 597194.1, 4145698.0, ( 597223.6, 4145709.5, ( 597250.9, 4145719.8, ( 597278.9, 4145731.8, ( 597308.3, 4145742.0, ( 597337.0, 4145749.8, ( 597230.8, 4145667.2, ( 597261.6, 4145676.5, ( 597289.6, 4145687.2, ( 597339.9, 4145695.2, ( 597092.2, 4145931.5, ( 597123.1, 4145961.5, ( 597174.0, 4145983.8, ( 597227.9, 4146004.0, ( 597270.9, 4145816.5, ( 597193.4, 4145836.0, ( 597186.2, 4145835.3, ( 597207.8, 4145875.5, ( 597245.8, 4145795.5, ( 597276.5, 4145755.0, ( 597177.9,

4145691.8, 0.0, 4145702.5, 0.0, 4145715.3, 0.0, 4145725.5, 0.0, 4145736.8, 0.0, 4145745.5, 0.0, 4145661.5, 0.0, 4145672.2, 0.0, 4145683.0, 0.0, 4145698.8, 0.0, 4145915.0, 0.0, 4145951.5, 0.0, 4145971.8, 0.0, 4145996.0, 0.0, 4146013.2, 0.0, 4145826.5, 0.0, 4145845.2, 0.0, 4145853.2, 0.0, 4145852.5, 16.0, 4145846.5, 17.4, 4145700.5,

0.0, 2.0); 0.0, 2.0); 0.0, 2.0); 0.0, 2.0); 0.0, 2.0); 0.0, 2.0); 0.0, 2.0); 0.0, 2.0); 0.0, 2.0); 0.0, 2.0); 0.0, 2.0); 0.0, 2.0); 0.0, 2.0); 0.0, 2.0); 0.0, 2.0); 0.0, 2.0); 0.0, 2.0); 0.0, 2.0); 0.0, 2.0); 19.0, 2.0); 14.8,

*** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 ***

*** ***

2.0);

( 597208.5,

2.0);

( 597236.5,

2.0);

( 597265.9,

2.0);

( 597293.9,

2.0);

( 597323.4,

2.0);

( 597351.4,

2.0);

( 597246.6,

2.0);

( 597275.2,

2.0);

( 597301.8,

2.0);

( 597354.2,

2.0);

( 597085.8,

2.0);

( 597148.2,

2.0);

( 597201.3,

2.0);

( 597252.3,

2.0);

( 597168.3,

2.0);

( 597162.6,

2.0);

( 597215.7,

2.0);

( 597225.0,

2.0);

( 597140.8,

2.0);

( 597307.9,

2.0);

*** C:\AERMOD\Milpitas\Milpitas.isc 07/21/14 *** 15:23:18

**MODELOPTs: CONC

URBAN ELEV NOCMPL

PAGE 5 FLGPOL DFAULT

*** METEOROLOGICAL DAYS SELECTED FOR PROCESSING *** Page 7

2. Milpitas_unmitigated_output.txt (1=YES; 0=NO) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1

1 1

NOTE: METEOROLOGICAL DATA ACTUALLY PROCESSED WILL ALSO DEPEND ON WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE DATA FILE.

*** UPPER BOUND OF FIRST THROUGH FIFTH WIND SPEED CATEGORIES *** (METERS/SEC) 1.54,

3.09,

5.14,

8.23,

10.80, *** WIND PROFILE EXPONENTS *** STABILITY CATEGORY 5 A .15000E+00 B .15000E+00 C .20000E+00 D .25000E+00 E .30000E+00 F .30000E+00

.15000E+00 .15000E+00 .20000E+00 .25000E+00 .30000E+00 .30000E+00

1

2

6 .15000E+00 .15000E+00 .15000E+00 .15000E+00 .20000E+00 .20000E+00 .25000E+00 .25000E+00 .30000E+00 .30000E+00 .30000E+00 .30000E+00

WIND SPEED CATEGORY 3

.15000E+00

.15000E+00

.15000E+00

.15000E+00

.20000E+00

.20000E+00

.25000E+00

.25000E+00

.30000E+00

.30000E+00

.30000E+00

.30000E+00

4

*** VERTICAL POTENTIAL TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS *** (DEGREES KELVIN PER METER) STABILITY CATEGORY 5 .00000E+00

A .00000E+00 B

1 6 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 Page 8

2

WIND SPEED CATEGORY 3

.00000E+00

.00000E+00

.00000E+00

.00000E+00

4

2. Milpitas_unmitigated_output.txt .00000E+00 .00000E+00 C .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 D .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 E .20000E-01 .20000E-01 .20000E-01 .20000E-01 .20000E-01 .20000E-01 F .35000E-01 .35000E-01 .35000E-01 .35000E-01 .35000E-01 .35000E-01 *** C:\AERMOD\Milpitas\Milpitas.isc *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** 07/21/14 *** *** 15:23:18 **MODELOPTs: PAGE 6 CONC URBAN ELEV FLGPOL DFAULT NOCMPL .00000E+00

*** THE FIRST FILE:

24 HOURS OF METEOROLOGICAL DATA ***

ALV006RA.ASC

FORMAT: (4I2,2F9.4,F6.1,I2,2F7.1,f9.4,f10.1,f8.4,i4,f7.2) SURFACE STATION NO.:

7905

UPPER AIR STATION NO.:

7905 NAME: UNKNOWN

NAME:

YEAR:

YEAR:

UNKNOWN 2000

2000 FLOW Z-0 IPCODE PRATE YR MN DY HR VECTOR (M) (mm/HR) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000

01 0 02 0 03 0 04 0 05 0 06 0 07 0 08 0 09 0 10 0 11 0 12 0

329.1 0.00 332.8 0.00 323.6 0.00 330.0 0.00 21.9 0.00 112.1 0.00 151.2 0.00 173.4 0.00 36.7 0.00 86.2 0.00 65.4 0.00 19.1 0.00

SPEED

TEMP

(M/S)

(K)

STAB CLASS

MIXING HEIGHT (M) RURAL

URBAN

USTAR (M/S)

M-O LENGTH (M)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.79

283.3

4

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

1.92

283.3

4

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

2.10

283.3

4

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

1.97

283.1

4

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

1.61

283.1

5

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

1.88

282.9

5

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

1.48

282.6

5

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

1.00

282.2

6

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

1.00

282.8

5

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

2.28

283.3

4

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

1.43

283.4

3

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

2.01

283.9

2

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

Page 9

00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000

13 0 14 0 15 0 16 0 17 0 18 0 19 0 20 0 21 0 22 0 23 0 24 0

51.2 0.00 96.0 0.00 106.8 0.00 123.5 0.00 109.9 0.00 112.9 0.00 115.4 0.00 120.2 0.00 97.1 0.00 93.1 0.00 129.0 0.00 139.4 0.00

2. Milpitas_unmitigated_output.txt 1.70 284.0 2 600.0 600.0

0.0000

0.0

1.92

284.1

2

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

3.44

285.1

3

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

5.59

284.6

4

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

6.35

284.0

4

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

5.32

283.3

4

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

4.38

283.0

4

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

4.16

282.8

4

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

3.49

283.0

4

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

2.95

282.0

4

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

2.32

282.0

4

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

3.44

282.4

4

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

*** NOTES:

STABILITY CLASS 1=A, 2=B, 3=C, 4=D, 5=E AND 6=F. FLOW VECTOR IS DIRECTION TOWARD WHICH WIND IS BLOWING. *** C:\AERMOD\Milpitas\Milpitas.isc *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** 07/21/14 *** *** 15:23:18 **MODELOPTs: PAGE 7 CONC URBAN ELEV FLGPOL DFAULT NOCMPL VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: ALL

*** THE ANNUAL ( 1 YRS) AVERAGE CONCENTRATION *** INCLUDING SOURCE(S): EXHAUST , FUGITIVE, *** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR

POINTS *** ** CONC OF PM_2.5

IN MICROGRAMS/M**3

** X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 597194.12 4145691.75 1.04787 597208.50 4145698.00 1.50934 597223.56 4145702.50 1.75488 597236.50 4145709.50 1.97897 597250.88 4145715.25 2.05992 597265.94 4145719.75 2.01138 597278.88 4145725.50 1.96731 597293.94 4145731.75 1.77977 597308.25 4145736.75 1.38394 597323.38 4145742.00 0.94501 Page 10

597337.00 4145749.75 597230.75 4145667.25 597261.63 4145676.50 597289.62 4145687.25 597339.88 4145695.25 597092.19 4145931.50 597123.06 4145961.50 597174.00 4145983.75 597227.88 4146004.00 597270.94 4145816.50 597193.44 4145836.00 597186.25 4145835.25 597207.75 4145875.50 597245.81 4145795.50 597276.50 4145755.00 597177.94

2. Milpitas_unmitigated_output.txt 4145745.50 0.68020 0.49616 4145661.50 0.75773 0.87416 4145672.25 0.93655 0.95549 4145683.00 0.96998 0.93353 4145698.75 0.64783 0.52121 4145915.00 0.45513 0.39832 4145951.50 0.40470 0.36990 4145971.75 0.30592 0.23150 4145996.00 0.17206 0.13737 4146013.25 0.11636 2.02226 4145826.50 2.08004 1.51991 4145845.25 1.53439 1.95205 4145853.25 1.42123 0.87875 4145852.50 1.14481 1.48877 4145846.50 0.66139 1.33463 4145700.50 0.83809

*** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 ***

*** ***

597351.38 597246.56 597275.25 597301.81 597354.25 597085.75 597148.19 597201.31 597252.31 597168.31 597162.56 597215.69 597225.00 597140.81 597307.88

*** C:\AERMOD\Milpitas\Milpitas.isc 07/21/14 *** 15:23:18

**MODELOPTs: CONC

URBAN ELEV NOCMPL

PAGE 8 FLGPOL DFAULT *** THE SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM ANNUAL (

1 YRS) RESULTS *** ** CONC OF PM_2.5

IN MICROGRAMS/M**3

** NETWORK GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID-ID - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ALL 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00,

1ST HIGHEST 2.00) DC 2ND HIGHEST 2.00) DC 3RD HIGHEST 2.00) DC 4TH HIGHEST 2.00) DC

VALUE IS NA VALUE IS NA VALUE IS NA VALUE IS NA

2.08004 AT (

597193.44,

4145826.50,

2.05992 AT (

597250.88,

4145715.25,

2.02226 AT (

597168.31,

4145816.50,

2.01138 AT (

597265.94,

4145719.75,

Page 11

0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00,

5TH HIGHEST 2.00) DC 6TH HIGHEST 2.00) DC 7TH HIGHEST 2.00) DC 8TH HIGHEST 2.00) DC 9TH HIGHEST 2.00) DC 10TH HIGHEST 2.00) DC

2. Milpitas_unmitigated_output.txt VALUE IS 1.97897 AT ( 597236.50, NA VALUE IS 1.96731 AT ( 597278.88, NA VALUE IS 1.95205 AT ( 597215.69, NA VALUE IS 1.77977 AT ( 597293.94, NA VALUE IS 1.75488 AT ( 597223.56, NA VALUE IS 1.53439 AT ( 597186.25, NA

*** RECEPTOR TYPES:

4145709.50, 4145725.50, 4145835.25, 4145731.75, 4145702.50, 4145845.25,

GC = GRIDCART GP = GRIDPOLR DC = DISCCART DP = DISCPOLR BD = BOUNDARY *** C:\AERMOD\Milpitas\Milpitas.isc *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** 07/21/14 *** *** 15:23:18 **MODELOPTs: PAGE 9 CONC URBAN ELEV FLGPOL DFAULT NOCMPL *** Message Summary : ISCST3 Model Execution *** --------- Summary of Total Messages -------A Total of A Total of A Total of

0 Fatal Error Message(s) 0 Warning Message(s) 4 Informational Message(s)

A Total of

4 Calm Hours Identified

******** FATAL ERROR MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ********

WARNING MESSAGES *** NONE ***

********

************************************ *** ISCST3 Finishes Successfully *** ************************************

Page 12

Evergreen Joint Use Education Center Maximum Individual Cancer Risk and Noncarcinogenic Hazards ISC Model Table HRA-1 Emissions Estimates Year

Education Center 2015-2016 2015-2016

Primary Activities

Construction Construction

Source: Diesel particulate matter emissions were obtained from CalEEMod

Source

Diesel Exhaust Fugitive Dust

Exhaust DPM Emissions (pounds/day)

N/A N/A

Duration (days)

N/A N/A

Total Emissions (pounds)

32.20 10.24

Evergreen Joint Use Education Center Maximum Individual Cancer Risk and Noncarcinogenic Hazards ISC Model Table HRA-2 Average Emissions (Grams per Second) Source

Diesel Exhaust Fugitive Dust

EF (per source) (g/s) 1.3894E-03 4.4186E-04

TE (pounds)

Years 32.20 10.24

Unit Conversions Hours/day

Days/year 1.00 1.00

365 365

Seconds/hour 8 8

3,600 3,600

Grams/pound 453.5924 453.5924

Equation: Emission Factor (EF) = TE ÷ Exposure Duration (years) ÷ 365 days/year ÷ 8 hours/day ÷ 3600 seconds/hour × 453.5924 grams/pound ÷ number of model sources

Note: Emission factors (EF) are divided to distribute the emissions among the total number of sources in the modeling run.

Evergreen Joint Use Education Center Maximum Individual Cancer Risk and Noncarcinogenic Hazards ISC Model

Table HRA-4 Maximum Individual Cancer Risk (MICR) Pollutant

CPF

CAIR,ANN

DBR

A

EF

ED

AT

Dose

ASF

MICR

Threshold

Over?

MEI - Adult

DPM

1.10E+00

2.08E+00

393

1

350

1

25550

1.12E-05

1

1.23E-05

10

NO

MEI - Child

DPM

1.10E+00

2.08E+00

581

1

350

1

25550

1.66E-05

10

3.44E-04

10

NO

Receptor

Exposure factors used to calculate cancer risk: Cancer Potency Factor (mg/kg-day) -1. CPF Annual concentration (µg/m 3). CAIR,ANN DBR

Daily breathing rate (L/kg (body weight) per day).

A EF ED AT Dose ASF

DBR Sources: 1. California Air Resources Board and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Recommended Interim Risk Management Policy for Inhalation-Based Residential Cancer Risk , (2003). 2. California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments , (2003). 3. California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Integrated Risk Assessment Section, Guidance for School Site Risk Assessment Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 901(f): Guidance for Assessing Exposures and Health Risks at Existing and Proposed School Sites , (2003). Inhalation absorption factor (default = 1). Exposure frequency (days/year). Exposure duration (years). Average time period over which exposure is averaged in days (days). Dose = DBR × A × EF × ED x 10 -6/ AT. Age sensitivity factor, 1 for adults and 10 for children

Evergreen Joint Use Education Center Maximum Individual Cancer Risk and Noncarcinogenic Hazards ISC Model

Table HRA-5 Maximum Non-carcinogenic Hazards / Toxicological Endpoints* Receptor Group MEI

Where: CREL HQ HI MEI

Pollutant

CREL

CAIR,ANN

HQ

RESP

DPM

5.00E+00

2.08E+00

4.16E-01

4.16E-01

Chronic Reference Exposure Level Hazard Quotient Health Index Maximally Exposed Individual

* Key to Toxicological Endpoints RESP Respiratory System. CNS/PNS Central/Peripheral Nervous System. CV/BL Cardiovascular/Blood System. IMMUN Immune System. KIDN Kidney. GI/LV Gastrointestinal System/Liver. REPRO Reproductive System. EYES Eye irritation and/or other effects.

CNS/PNS -

CV/BL -

IMMUN -

KIDN -

GI/LV -

REPRO -

EYES -

Threshold

Over?

1

NO

4. MilMitigated output.txt ** **************************************** ** ** ISCST3 Input Produced by: ** AERMOD View Ver. 8.2.0 ** Lakes Environmental Software Inc. ** Date: 7/22/2014 ** File: C:\AERMOD\Milpitas\MilMitigated\MilMitigated.INP ** **************************************** ** ** **************************************** ** ISCST3 Control Pathway **************************************** ** ** CO STARTING TITLEONE C:\AERMOD\Milpitas\MilMitigated\MilMitigated.isc MODELOPT DFAULT CONC NOCMPL

URBAN

AVERTIME ANNUAL POLLUTID PM_2.5 TERRHGTS ELEV FLAGPOLE 2.00 RUNORNOT RUN ERRORFIL MILMIT~1.ERR CO FINISHED ** **************************************** ** ISCST3 Source Pathway **************************************** ** Page 1

4. MilMitigated output.txt ** SO STARTING ** Source Location ** ** Source ID - Type - X Coord. - Y Coord. ** LOCATION EXHAUST

AREAPOLY

597152.401

4145786.283

16.050

LOCATION FUGITIVE

AREAPOLY

597162.842

4145781.642

16.060

** Source Parameters ** SRCPARAM EXHAUST

1.4041E-07

4.000

AREAVERT EXHAUST

597152.401 4145786.283 597267.250 4145829.206

AREAVERT EXHAUST

597292.772 4145753.800 597179.083 4145708.556

SRCPARAM FUGITIVE

6.483E-08

AREAVERT FUGITIVE

597162.842 4145781.642 597261.450 4145818.765

AREAVERT FUGITIVE

597281.171 4145758.440 597182.563 4145718.997

1.000

4

4

SRCGROUP ALL SO FINISHED ** **************************************** ** ISCST3 Receptor Pathway **************************************** ** ** RE STARTING ** DESCRREC "" "" DISCCART

597194.13

4145691.64

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597208.49

4145698.10

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597223.57

4145702.41

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597236.49

4145709.59

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597250.85

4145715.33

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597265.93

4145719.64

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597278.85

4145725.38

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597293.93

4145731.84

0.00

2.00

Page 2

4. MilMitigated output.txt 4145736.87 0.00 2.00

DISCCART

597308.28

DISCCART

597323.36

4145741.89

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597337.00

4145745.48

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597351.36

4145749.79

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597230.75

4145661.48

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597246.54

4145667.23

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597261.62

4145672.25

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597275.26

4145676.56

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597289.62

4145683.02

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597301.82

4145687.33

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597339.87

4145698.82

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597354.23

4145695.23

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597092.19

4145914.91

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597085.73

4145931.42

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597123.06

4145951.53

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597148.19

4145961.58

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597174.03

4145971.63

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597201.31

4145983.83

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597227.88

4145996.04

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597252.29

4146003.94

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597270.95

4146013.27

0.00

2.00

** DESCRREC "school" "Cartesian plant boundary Primary Receptors" DISCCART

597168.29

4145816.56

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597193.42

4145826.61

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597162.55

4145835.94

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597186.24

4145845.27

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597215.67

4145835.22

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597207.77

4145853.17

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597225.00

4145875.43

0.00

2.00

DISCCART

597245.82

4145852.45

0.00

2.00

** Discrete Cartesian Plant Boundary - Primary Receptors ** Plant Boundary Name PLBN1 Page 3

4. MilMitigated output.txt ** DESCRREC "school" "Cartesian plant boundary Primary Receptors" DISCCART

597140.80

4145795.56

16.05

2.00

DISCCART

597276.53

4145846.61

18.99

2.00

DISCCART

597307.85

4145754.96

17.37

2.00

DISCCART

597177.92

4145700.44

14.78

2.00

RE FINISHED ** **************************************** ** ISCST3 Meteorology Pathway **************************************** ** ** ME STARTING INPUTFIL ..\ALV006RA.ASC ANEMHGHT 10 METERS SURFDATA 7905 2000 UAIRDATA 7905 2000 ME FINISHED ** **************************************** ** ISCST3 Output Pathway **************************************** ** ** OU STARTING ** Auto-Generated Plotfiles PLOTFILE ANNUAL ALL MILMIT~1.IS\AN00GALL.PLT 31 OU FINISHED *********************************** *** SETUP Finishes Successfully *** *********************************** *** *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** C:\AERMOD\Milpitas\MilMitigated\MilMitigated.isc Page 4

***

4. MilMitigated output.txt 07/22/14 *** ***

10:37:59

**MODELOPTs: CONC

URBAN ELEV NOCMPL

PAGE 1 FLGPOL DFAULT

*** MODEL SETUP OPTIONS SUMMARY *** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - **Simple Terrain Model is Selected **Model Is Setup For Calculation of Average CONCentration Values. -- SCAVENGING/DEPOSITION LOGIC -**Model Uses NO DRY DEPLETION. DDPLETE = F **Model Uses NO WET DEPLETION. WDPLETE = F **NO WET SCAVENGING Data Provided. **NO GAS DRY DEPOSITION Data Provided. **Model Does NOT Use GRIDDED TERRAIN Data for Depletion Calculations **Model Uses URBAN Dispersion. **Model Uses Regulatory DEFAULT Options: 1. Final Plume Rise. 2. Stack-tip Downwash. 3. Buoyancy-induced Dispersion. 4. Use Calms Processing Routine. 5. Not Use Missing Data Processing Routine. 6. Default Wind Profile Exponents. 7. Default Vertical Potential Temperature Gradients. 8. "Upper Bound" Values for Supersquat Buildings. 9. No Exponential Decay for URBAN/Non-SO2 **Model Accepts Receptors on ELEV Terrain. **Model Accepts FLAGPOLE Receptor Heights. **Model Calculates ANNUAL Averages Only **This Run Includes: Receptor(s)

2 Source(s);

**The Model Assumes A Pollutant Type of:

1 Source Group(s); and

41

PM_2.5

**Model Set To Continue RUNning After the Setup Testing. **Output Options Selected: Model Outputs Tables of ANNUAL Averages by Receptor Model Outputs External File(s) of High Values for Plotting (PLOTFILE Keyword) **NOTE: Hours

The Following Flags May Appear Following CONC Values:

c for Calm m for Missing

Hours b for Both Calm and Missing Hours **Misc. Inputs:

Anem. Hgt. (m) =

10.00 ; Page 5

Decay Coef. =

0.000

;

4. MilMitigated output.txt 0.0 Emission Units = GRAMS/SEC Emission Rate Unit Factor = 0.10000E+07 Output Units = MICROGRAMS/M**3 Rot. Angle =

**Approximate Storage Requirements of Model =

;

1.2 MB of RAM.

**Input Runstream File:

MilMitigated.INP

**Output Print File:

MilMitigated.OUT

**Detailed Error/Message File:

MILMIT~1.ERR

*** *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** C:\AERMOD\Milpitas\MilMitigated\MilMitigated.isc 07/22/14 *** *** 10:37:59 **MODELOPTs: PAGE 2 CONC URBAN ELEV FLGPOL DFAULT NOCMPL

***

*** AREAPOLY SOURCE DATA *** NUMBER EMISSION RATE LOCATION OF AREA BASE RELEASE NUMBER INIT. EMISSION RATE SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC X Y ELEV. HEIGHT OF VERTS. SZ SCALAR VARY ID CATS. /METER**2) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - EXHAUST 0 0.14041E-06 597152.4 4145786.2 0.00 FUGITIVE 0 0.64830E-07 597162.8 4145781.8 0.00 *** *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** C:\AERMOD\Milpitas\MilMitigated\MilMitigated.isc 07/22/14 *** *** 10:37:59 **MODELOPTs: PAGE 3 CONC URBAN ELEV FLGPOL DFAULT NOCMPL

16.0

4.00

4

16.1

1.00

4 ***

*** SOURCE IDs DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS *** GROUP ID

ALL

SOURCE IDs

EXHAUST , FUGITIVE,

*** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 ***

*** C:\AERMOD\Milpitas\MilMitigated\MilMitigated.isc 07/22/14 Page 6

***

4. MilMitigated output.txt *** *** 10:37:59 **MODELOPTs: CONC

URBAN ELEV NOCMPL

PAGE 4 FLGPOL DFAULT

*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS *** (X-COORD, Y-COORD, ZELEV, ZFLAG) (METERS) ( 597194.1, 4145698.0, ( 597223.6, 4145709.5, ( 597250.9, 4145719.8, ( 597278.9, 4145731.8, ( 597308.3, 4145742.0, ( 597337.0, 4145749.8, ( 597230.8, 4145667.2, ( 597261.6, 4145676.5, ( 597289.6, 4145687.2, ( 597339.9, 4145695.2, ( 597092.2, 4145931.5, ( 597123.1, 4145961.5, ( 597174.0, 4145983.8, ( 597227.9, 4146004.0, ( 597270.9, 4145816.5, ( 597193.4, 4145836.0, ( 597186.2, 4145835.3, ( 597207.8, 4145875.5, ( 597245.8, 4145795.5, ( 597276.5, 4145755.0, ( 597177.9,

4145691.8, 0.0, 4145702.5, 0.0, 4145715.3, 0.0, 4145725.5, 0.0, 4145736.8, 0.0, 4145745.5, 0.0, 4145661.5, 0.0, 4145672.2, 0.0, 4145683.0, 0.0, 4145698.8, 0.0, 4145915.0, 0.0, 4145951.5, 0.0, 4145971.8, 0.0, 4145996.0, 0.0, 4146013.2, 0.0, 4145826.5, 0.0, 4145845.2, 0.0, 4145853.2, 0.0, 4145852.5, 16.0, 4145846.5, 17.4, 4145700.5,

0.0, 2.0); 0.0, 2.0); 0.0, 2.0); 0.0, 2.0); 0.0, 2.0); 0.0, 2.0); 0.0, 2.0); 0.0, 2.0); 0.0, 2.0); 0.0, 2.0); 0.0, 2.0); 0.0, 2.0); 0.0, 2.0); 0.0, 2.0); 0.0, 2.0); 0.0, 2.0); 0.0, 2.0); 0.0, 2.0); 0.0, 2.0); 19.0, 2.0); 14.8,

2.0);

( 597208.5,

2.0);

( 597236.5,

2.0);

( 597265.9,

2.0);

( 597293.9,

2.0);

( 597323.4,

2.0);

( 597351.4,

2.0);

( 597246.6,

2.0);

( 597275.2,

2.0);

( 597301.8,

2.0);

( 597354.2,

2.0);

( 597085.8,

2.0);

( 597148.2,

2.0);

( 597201.3,

2.0);

( 597252.3,

2.0);

( 597168.3,

2.0);

( 597162.6,

2.0);

( 597215.7,

2.0);

( 597225.0,

2.0);

( 597140.8,

2.0);

( 597307.9,

2.0);

*** *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** C:\AERMOD\Milpitas\MilMitigated\MilMitigated.isc 07/22/14 *** *** 10:37:59 **MODELOPTs: PAGE 5 CONC URBAN ELEV FLGPOL DFAULT Page 7

***

4. MilMitigated output.txt NOCMPL *** METEOROLOGICAL DAYS SELECTED FOR PROCESSING *** (1=YES; 0=NO) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1

1 1

NOTE: METEOROLOGICAL DATA ACTUALLY PROCESSED WILL ALSO DEPEND ON WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE DATA FILE.

*** UPPER BOUND OF FIRST THROUGH FIFTH WIND SPEED CATEGORIES *** (METERS/SEC) 1.54,

3.09,

5.14,

8.23,

10.80, *** WIND PROFILE EXPONENTS *** STABILITY CATEGORY 5 .15000E+00 .15000E+00 .20000E+00 .25000E+00 .30000E+00 .30000E+00

A .15000E+00 B .15000E+00 C .20000E+00 D .25000E+00 E .30000E+00 F .30000E+00

1

2

6 .15000E+00 .15000E+00 .15000E+00 .15000E+00 .20000E+00 .20000E+00 .25000E+00 .25000E+00 .30000E+00 .30000E+00 .30000E+00 .30000E+00

WIND SPEED CATEGORY 3

.15000E+00

.15000E+00

.15000E+00

.15000E+00

.20000E+00

.20000E+00

.25000E+00

.25000E+00

.30000E+00

.30000E+00

.30000E+00

.30000E+00

4

*** VERTICAL POTENTIAL TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS *** (DEGREES KELVIN PER METER) STABILITY

WIND SPEED CATEGORY Page 8

4. MilMitigated output.txt 1 2 5 6 A .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 B .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 C .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 D .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 E .20000E-01 .20000E-01 .20000E-01 .20000E-01 .20000E-01 F .35000E-01 .35000E-01 .35000E-01 .35000E-01 .35000E-01 *** *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** C:\AERMOD\Milpitas\MilMitigated\MilMitigated.isc 07/22/14 *** *** 10:37:59 **MODELOPTs: PAGE 6 CONC URBAN ELEV FLGPOL DFAULT NOCMPL CATEGORY

*** THE FIRST FILE:

3

4

.00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .20000E-01 .35000E-01 ***

24 HOURS OF METEOROLOGICAL DATA ***

..\ALV006RA.ASC

FORMAT: (4I2,2F9.4,F6.1,I2,2F7.1,f9.4,f10.1,f8.4,i4,f7.2) SURFACE STATION NO.:

7905

UPPER AIR STATION NO.:

7905 NAME: UNKNOWN

NAME:

YEAR:

YEAR:

UNKNOWN 2000

2000 FLOW Z-0 IPCODE PRATE YR MN DY HR VECTOR (M) (mm/HR) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000

01 0 02 0 03 0 04 0 05 0 06 0 07 0 08 0 09 0

329.1 0.00 332.8 0.00 323.6 0.00 330.0 0.00 21.9 0.00 112.1 0.00 151.2 0.00 173.4 0.00 36.7 0.00

SPEED

TEMP

(M/S)

(K)

STAB CLASS

MIXING HEIGHT (M) RURAL

URBAN

USTAR (M/S)

M-O LENGTH (M)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.79

283.3

4

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

1.92

283.3

4

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

2.10

283.3

4

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

1.97

283.1

4

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

1.61

283.1

5

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

1.88

282.9

5

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

1.48

282.6

5

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

1.00

282.2

6

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

1.00

282.8

5

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

Page 9

00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000 00 01 01 0.0000

10 0 11 0 12 0 13 0 14 0 15 0 16 0 17 0 18 0 19 0 20 0 21 0 22 0 23 0 24 0

86.2 0.00 65.4 0.00 19.1 0.00 51.2 0.00 96.0 0.00 106.8 0.00 123.5 0.00 109.9 0.00 112.9 0.00 115.4 0.00 120.2 0.00 97.1 0.00 93.1 0.00 129.0 0.00 139.4 0.00

2.28

4. MilMitigated output.txt 283.3 4 600.0 600.0

0.0000

0.0

1.43

283.4

3

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

2.01

283.9

2

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

1.70

284.0

2

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

1.92

284.1

2

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

3.44

285.1

3

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

5.59

284.6

4

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

6.35

284.0

4

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

5.32

283.3

4

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

4.38

283.0

4

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

4.16

282.8

4

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

3.49

283.0

4

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

2.95

282.0

4

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

2.32

282.0

4

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

3.44

282.4

4

600.0

600.0

0.0000

0.0

*** NOTES:

STABILITY CLASS 1=A, 2=B, 3=C, 4=D, 5=E AND 6=F. FLOW VECTOR IS DIRECTION TOWARD WHICH WIND IS BLOWING. *** *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** C:\AERMOD\Milpitas\MilMitigated\MilMitigated.isc 07/22/14 *** *** 10:37:59 **MODELOPTs: PAGE 7 CONC URBAN ELEV FLGPOL DFAULT NOCMPL VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: ALL

***

*** THE ANNUAL ( 1 YRS) AVERAGE CONCENTRATION *** INCLUDING SOURCE(S): EXHAUST , FUGITIVE, *** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR

POINTS *** ** CONC OF PM_2.5

IN MICROGRAMS/M**3

** X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 597194.12 4145691.75 0.12690 597208.50 4145698.00 0.18597 597223.56 4145702.50 0.21928 597236.50 Page 10

4145709.50 597250.88 4145719.75 597278.88 4145731.75 597308.25 4145742.00 597337.00 4145749.75 597230.75 4145667.25 597261.63 4145676.50 597289.62 4145687.25 597339.88 4145695.25 597092.19 4145931.50 597123.06 4145961.50 597174.00 4145983.75 597227.88 4146004.00 597270.94 4145816.50 597193.44 4145836.00 597186.25 4145835.25 597207.75 4145875.50 597245.81 4145795.50 597276.50 4145755.00 597177.94

4. MilMitigated output.txt 0.24967 4145715.25 0.26042 0.25311 4145725.50 0.24626 0.21881 4145736.75 0.16709 0.11361 4145745.50 0.08169 0.05957 4145661.50 0.09194 0.10652 4145672.25 0.11449 0.11701 4145683.00 0.11870 0.11382 4145698.75 0.07801 0.06268 4145915.00 0.05529 0.04835 4145951.50 0.04914 0.04479 4145971.75 0.03690 0.02783 4145996.00 0.02065 0.01651 4146013.25 0.01401 0.25975 4145826.50 0.26803 0.19079 4145845.25 0.19263 0.24945 4145853.25 0.17688 0.10629 4145852.50 0.13851 0.18382 4145846.50 0.08119 0.16151 4145700.50 0.10281

*** *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** C:\AERMOD\Milpitas\MilMitigated\MilMitigated.isc 07/22/14 *** *** 10:37:59 **MODELOPTs: PAGE 8 CONC URBAN ELEV FLGPOL DFAULT NOCMPL

597265.94 597293.94 597323.38 597351.38 597246.56 597275.25 597301.81 597354.25 597085.75 597148.19 597201.31 597252.31 597168.31 597162.56 597215.69 597225.00 597140.81 597307.88

***

*** THE SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM ANNUAL ( 1 YRS) RESULTS *** ** CONC OF PM_2.5

IN MICROGRAMS/M**3

** NETWORK GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID-ID - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 11

ALL 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00,

1ST HIGHEST 2.00) DC 2ND HIGHEST 2.00) DC 3RD HIGHEST 2.00) DC 4TH HIGHEST 2.00) DC 5TH HIGHEST 2.00) DC 6TH HIGHEST 2.00) DC 7TH HIGHEST 2.00) DC 8TH HIGHEST 2.00) DC 9TH HIGHEST 2.00) DC 10TH HIGHEST 2.00) DC

4. MilMitigated output.txt VALUE IS 0.26803 AT ( 597193.44, NA VALUE IS 0.26042 AT ( 597250.88, NA VALUE IS 0.25975 AT ( 597168.31, NA VALUE IS 0.25311 AT ( 597265.94, NA VALUE IS 0.24967 AT ( 597236.50, NA VALUE IS 0.24945 AT ( 597215.69, NA VALUE IS 0.24626 AT ( 597278.88, NA VALUE IS 0.21928 AT ( 597223.56, NA VALUE IS 0.21881 AT ( 597293.94, NA VALUE IS 0.19263 AT ( 597186.25, NA

GC = GRIDCART GP = GRIDPOLR DC = DISCCART DP = DISCPOLR BD = BOUNDARY *** *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** C:\AERMOD\Milpitas\MilMitigated\MilMitigated.isc 07/22/14 *** *** 10:37:59 **MODELOPTs: PAGE 9 CONC URBAN ELEV FLGPOL DFAULT NOCMPL

4145826.50, 4145715.25, 4145816.50, 4145719.75, 4145709.50, 4145835.25, 4145725.50, 4145702.50, 4145731.75, 4145845.25,

*** RECEPTOR TYPES:

*** Message Summary : ISCST3 Model Execution *** --------- Summary of Total Messages -------A Total of A Total of A Total of

0 Fatal Error Message(s) 0 Warning Message(s) 4 Informational Message(s)

A Total of

4 Calm Hours Identified

******** FATAL ERROR MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ********

WARNING MESSAGES *** NONE ***

********

************************************ *** ISCST3 Finishes Successfully *** ************************************

Page 12

***

CALINE4 Model Output

BAY AREA AQMD SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 ANALYSIS; UPDATED WITH EMFAC2007 Project Title: Intersection: Analysis Condition: Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Persistence Factor: Analysis Year:

North-South Roadway: East-West Roadway:

Joint Use Secondary Education Center Escuela Parkway and Washington Drive Future Cumulative w/Project Jackson St, San Jose CA 3.0 2.0 0.7 2020

Roadway Type AT GRADE AT GRADE

Escuela Parkway Washington Drive

Approach/Departure Speed A.M. P.M. 5 5 5 5

No. of Lanes 2 2

EMFAC2007 COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CO Air Basin: SF Bay Area County: Santa Clara Assumes lowest mean wintertime temperature of 47 degrees F and 52% humidity.

Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

5 6.419 5.798 5.251 4.757 4.323 3.937 2.646 1.949 1.615 1.403 1.283

8 5.647 5.116 4.645 4.22 3.844 3.51 2.387 1.77 1.471 1.276 1.164

11 5.034 4.572 4.161 3.79 3.46 3.165 2.174 1.621 1.35 1.17 1.065

Average Speed (miles per hour) 14 17 20 23 4.542 4.142 3.818 3.553 4.134 3.777 3.487 3.249 3.77 3.451 3.19 2.976 3.44 3.154 2.92 2.728 3.146 2.889 2.679 2.505 2.883 2.651 2.461 2.305 1.997 1.85 1.728 1.627 1.496 1.392 1.306 1.233 1.248 1.163 1.093 1.034 1.081 1.007 0.946 0.896 0.982 0.913 0.858 0.813

PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AM Peak N 0 0 0 W < v > 0^ ^ 144 > < 326 v v < ^ > 243 0 155 S

26 3.333 3.051 2.797 2.566 2.359 2.172 1.539 1.17 0.983 0.852 0.773

29 3.15 2.886 2.647 2.43 2.235 2.059 1.464 1.115 0.937 0.813 0.738

32 3 2.749 2.522 2.316 2.13 1.963 1.398 1.067 0.898 0.779 0.706

PM Peak N 0 E 0 146 277

W

0

0

v

<

>

0^ 42 > 107 v

^ < v <

^ 116

E 0 33 81

> 0

100

S

Representative Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road E-W Road Primary Road =

1,001 859 N-S Road

N-S Road E-W Road Primary Road =

404 298 N-S Road

ROADWAY CO CONTRIBUTIONS

Roadway

Reference CO Concentrations 0 Feet 25 Feet 50 Feet

Emission Factor

Traffic Volume

A.M. Peak Hour N-S Road E-W Road

14.0 3.7

7.6 2.7

5.7 2.2

* *

1,001 859

* *

2.65 2.65

÷ ÷

100,000 100,000

14.0 3.7

7.6 2.7

5.7 2.2

* *

404 298

* *

2.65 2.65

÷ ÷

100,000 100,000

P.M. Peak Hour N-S Road E-W Road

TOTAL CO CONCENTRATIONS (ppm)

0 Feet from Roadway Edge 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 50 Feet from Roadway Edge

AM Peak Hour 3.5 3.3 3.2

PM Peak Hour 3.2 3.1 3.1

8-Hour 2.3 2.2 2.1

BAY AREA AQMD SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 ANALYSIS; UPDATED WITH EMFAC2007 Project Title: Intersection: Analysis Condition: Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): Persistence Factor: Analysis Year:

North-South Roadway: East-West Roadway:

Joint Use Secondary Education Center N Milpitas Blvd and Jacklin Road Future Cumulative w/Project Jackson St, San Jose CA 3.0 2.0 0.7 2020

Roadway Type AT GRADE AT GRADE

N. Milpitas Blvd Jacklin Rd

Approach/Departure Speed A.M. P.M. 5 5 5 5

No. of Lanes 4 4

EMFAC2007 COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CO Air Basin: SF Bay Area County: Santa Clara Assumes lowest mean wintertime temperature of 47 degrees F and 52% humidity.

Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

5 6.419 5.798 5.251 4.757 4.323 3.937 2.646 1.949 1.615 1.403 1.283

8 5.647 5.116 4.645 4.22 3.844 3.51 2.387 1.77 1.471 1.276 1.164

11 5.034 4.572 4.161 3.79 3.46 3.165 2.174 1.621 1.35 1.17 1.065

Average Speed (miles per hour) 14 17 20 23 4.542 4.142 3.818 3.553 4.134 3.777 3.487 3.249 3.77 3.451 3.19 2.976 3.44 3.154 2.92 2.728 3.146 2.889 2.679 2.505 2.883 2.651 2.461 2.305 1.997 1.85 1.728 1.627 1.496 1.392 1.306 1.233 1.248 1.163 1.093 1.034 1.081 1.007 0.946 0.896 0.982 0.913 0.858 0.813

PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AM Peak N 593 247 109 W < v > 384 ^ ^ 293 > < 99 v v < ^ > 237 329 64 S

26 3.333 3.051 2.797 2.566 2.359 2.172 1.539 1.17 0.983 0.852 0.773

29 3.15 2.886 2.647 2.43 2.235 2.059 1.464 1.115 0.937 0.813 0.738

32 3 2.749 2.522 2.316 2.13 1.963 1.398 1.067 0.898 0.779 0.706

PM Peak N 292 E 265 920 113

W

321

278

v

<

>

583 ^ 540 > 114 v

^ < v <

^ 52

E 206 265 64

> 364

60

S

Representative Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) N-S Road E-W Road Primary Road =

1,927 2,526 E-W Road

N-S Road E-W Road Primary Road =

2,044 1,846 N-S Road

ROADWAY CO CONTRIBUTIONS

Roadway

Reference CO Concentrations 0 Feet 25 Feet 50 Feet

Emission Factor

Traffic Volume

A.M. Peak Hour N-S Road E-W Road

3.3 11.9

2.6 7.0

2.2 5.4

* *

1,927 2,526

* *

2.65 2.65

÷ ÷

100,000 100,000

11.9 3.3

7.0 2.6

5.4 2.2

* *

2,044 1,846

* *

2.65 2.65

÷ ÷

100,000 100,000

P.M. Peak Hour N-S Road E-W Road

TOTAL CO CONCENTRATIONS (ppm)

0 Feet from Roadway Edge 25 Feet from Roadway Edge 50 Feet from Roadway Edge

AM Peak Hour 4.0 3.6 3.5

PM Peak Hour 3.8 3.5 3.4

8-Hour 2.7 2.4 2.3

APPENDIX 4.3 Noise Modeling Data

Joint-Use Education Center Project On-Site Noise Contours Existing Conditions

ROADWAY NAME Segment ROADWAY NAME N. Milpitas, Between Dixon and Washington N. Milpitas, Between Washington and Jacklin Arizona, Between Washington and Jacklin Escuela, Between Washington and Russell Escuela, Between Russell and Jacklin Washington, Between N. Milpitas and Arizona Washington, Between Arizona and Escuela Jacklin, Between N. Milpitas and Arizona Jacklin, Between Arizona and Escuela Jacklin, Between Escuela and N. Hillview

Number of Lanes in Each Direction

Median Width

ADT Volume

2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16,190 18,150 4,470 12,280

Design Speed (mph)

Alpha Factor (1)

35 35 25 25 25 25 25 35 35 35

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11,060 7,480 8,930 15,730 18,280 19,830

Vehicle Mix Medium Heavy Trucks Trucks

1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8%

0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7%

CNEL at 75 Feet

65.1 65.6 56.4 60.8 60.4 58.7 59.5 64.9 65.6 65.9

Distance from Center of Roadway DISTANCE TO CONTOUR 75 CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL

-

-

76 85 86 93

60 CNEL

237 265 91 82 230 267 289

Notes: (1) Alpha Factor: Coefficient of absorption relating to the effects of the ground surface. An alpha factor of 0 indicates that the site is an acoustically "hard" site, such as aspalt. An alpha factor of 0.5 indicates that the site is an acoustically "soft" site such, as heavily vegetated ground cover. "-" = contour is located within the roadway lanes or within 75 feet of the roadway centerline. Noise levels and distances to contours do not assume any natural or constructed barriers that may attenuate noise. Day

Evening

Night

Total

Total ADT Volumes

Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution:

77.70%

12.70%

9.60%

100.00%

Medium-Duty Trucks

87.43%

5.05%

7.52%

100.00%

Heavy-Duty Trucks

89.10%

2.84%

8.06%

100.00%

Notes to Modeler: The 24-hour traffic distribution and vehicle mix percentages are defaults. For project-specific numbers, obtain the 24-hour traffic distribution, vehicle mix percentages, and traffic volumes from the traffic engineer. For state and federal highways, obtain this information from the Caltrans website. Column G under Notes: should total 100%. Some jurisdictions have different distributions by roadway type, so check with that jurisdiction. An example is Riverside County.

Impact Sciences, Inc. Prepared by: Date:

JN:

ISI Rev. 9/08

Joint-Use Education Center Project On-Site Noise Contours Existing + Project Conditions

ROADWAY NAME Segment ROADWAY NAME N. Milpitas, Between Dixon and Washington N. Milpitas, Between Washington and Jacklin Arizona, Between Washington and Jacklin Escuela, Between Washington and Russell Escuela, Between Russell and Jacklin Washington, Between N. Milpitas and Arizona Washington, Between Arizona and Escuela Jacklin, Between N. Milpitas and Arizona Jacklin, Between Arizona and Escuela Jacklin, Between Escuela and N. Hillview

Number of Lanes in Each Direction

Median Width

ADT Volume

2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16,480 18,150 4,480 13,420

Design Speed (mph)

Alpha Factor (1)

35 35 25 25 25 25 25 35 35 35

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11,890 7,710 9,250 15,800 18,350 20,490

Vehicle Mix Medium Heavy Trucks Trucks

1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8%

0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7%

CNEL at 75 Feet

65.1 65.6 56.5 61.2 60.7 58.8 59.6 65.0 65.6 66.1

Distance from Center of Roadway DISTANCE TO CONTOUR 75 CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL

-

-

78 85 86 96

60 CNEL

241 265 99 88 231 268 299

Notes: (1) Alpha Factor: Coefficient of absorption relating to the effects of the ground surface. An alpha factor of 0 indicates that the site is an acoustically "hard" site, such as aspalt. An alpha factor of 0.5 indicates that the site is an acoustically "soft" site such, as heavily vegetated ground cover. "-" = contour is located within the roadway lanes or within 75 feet of the roadway centerline. Noise levels and distances to contours do not assume any natural or constructed barriers that may attenuate noise. Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution:

Day

Evening

Night

Total

Total ADT Volumes

77.70%

12.70%

9.60%

100.00%

Medium-Duty Trucks

87.43%

5.05%

7.52%

100.00%

Heavy-Duty Trucks

89.10%

2.84%

8.06%

100.00%

Notes to Modeler: The 24-hour traffic distribution and vehicle mix percentages are defaults. For project-specific numbers, obtain the 24-hour traffic distribution, vehicle mix percentages, and traffic volumes from the traffic engineer. For state and federal highways, obtain this information from the Caltrans website. Column G under Notes: should total 100%. Some jurisdictions have different distributions by roadway type, so check with that jurisdiction. An example is Riverside County.

Impact Sciences, Inc. Prepared by: Date:

JN:

ISI Rev. 9/08

Joint-Use Education Center Project On-Site Noise Contours Background Conditions

ROADWAY NAME Segment ROADWAY NAME N. Milpitas, Between Dixon and Washington N. Milpitas, Between Washington and Jacklin Arizona, Between Washington and Jacklin Escuela, Between Washington and Russell Escuela, Between Russell and Jacklin Washington, Between N. Milpitas and Arizona Washington, Between Arizona and Escuela Jacklin, Between N. Milpitas and Arizona Jacklin, Between Arizona and Escuela Jacklin, Between Escuela and N. Hillview

Number of Lanes in Each Direction

Median Width

ADT Volume

2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16,410 18,330 4,470 12,280

Design Speed (mph)

Alpha Factor (1)

35 35 25 25 25 25 25 35 35 35

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11,060 7,480 8,930 15,730 18,280 19,830

Vehicle Mix Medium Heavy Trucks Trucks

1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8%

0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7%

CNEL at 75 Feet

65.1 65.6 56.4 60.8 60.4 58.7 59.5 64.9 65.6 65.9

Distance from Center of Roadway DISTANCE TO CONTOUR 75 CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL

-

-

77 86 86 93

60 CNEL

240 268 91 82 230 267 289

Notes: (1) Alpha Factor: Coefficient of absorption relating to the effects of the ground surface. An alpha factor of 0 indicates that the site is an acoustically "hard" site, such as aspalt. An alpha factor of 0.5 indicates that the site is an acoustically "soft" site such, as heavily vegetated ground cover. "-" = contour is located within the roadway lanes or within 75 feet of the roadway centerline. Noise levels and distances to contours do not assume any natural or constructed barriers that may attenuate noise. Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution:

Day

Evening

Night

Total

Total ADT Volumes

77.70%

12.70%

9.60%

100.00%

Medium-Duty Trucks

87.43%

5.05%

7.52%

100.00%

Heavy-Duty Trucks

89.10%

2.84%

8.06%

100.00%

Notes to Modeler: The 24-hour traffic distribution and vehicle mix percentages are defaults. For project-specific numbers, obtain the 24-hour traffic distribution, vehicle mix percentages, and traffic volumes from the traffic engineer. For state and federal highways, obtain this information from the Caltrans website. Column G under Notes: should total 100%. Some jurisdictions have different distributions by roadway type, so check with that jurisdiction. An example is Riverside County.

Impact Sciences, Inc. Prepared by: Date:

JN:

ISI Rev. 9/08

Joint-Use Education Center Project On-Site Noise Contours Background + Project Conditions

ROADWAY NAME Segment ROADWAY NAME N. Milpitas, Between Dixon and Washington N. Milpitas, Between Washington and Jacklin Arizona, Between Washington and Jacklin Escuela, Between Washington and Russell Escuela, Between Russell and Jacklin Washington, Between N. Milpitas and Arizona Washington, Between Arizona and Escuela Jacklin, Between N. Milpitas and Arizona Jacklin, Between Arizona and Escuela Jacklin, Between Escuela and N. Hillview

Number of Lanes in Each Direction

Median Width

ADT Volume

2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16,700 18,330 4,480 13,420

Design Speed (mph)

Alpha Factor (1)

35 35 25 25 25 25 25 35 35 35

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11,890 7,710 9,250 15,800 18,350 20,490

Vehicle Mix Medium Heavy Trucks Trucks

1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8%

0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7%

CNEL at 75 Feet

65.2 65.6 56.5 61.2 60.7 58.8 59.6 65.0 65.6 66.1

Distance from Center of Roadway DISTANCE TO CONTOUR 75 CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL

-

-

79 86 86 96

60 CNEL

244 268 99 88 231 268 299

Notes: (1) Alpha Factor: Coefficient of absorption relating to the effects of the ground surface. An alpha factor of 0 indicates that the site is an acoustically "hard" site, such as aspalt. An alpha factor of 0.5 indicates that the site is an acoustically "soft" site such, as heavily vegetated ground cover. "-" = contour is located within the roadway lanes or within 75 feet of the roadway centerline. Noise levels and distances to contours do not assume any natural or constructed barriers that may attenuate noise. Day

Evening

Night

Total

Total ADT Volumes

Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution:

77.70%

12.70%

9.60%

100.00%

Medium-Duty Trucks

87.43%

5.05%

7.52%

100.00%

Heavy-Duty Trucks

89.10%

2.84%

8.06%

100.00%

Notes to Modeler: The 24-hour traffic distribution and vehicle mix percentages are defaults. For project-specific numbers, obtain the 24-hour traffic distribution, vehicle mix percentages, and traffic volumes from the traffic engineer. For state and federal highways, obtain this information from the Caltrans website. Column G under Notes: should total 100%. Some jurisdictions have different distributions by roadway type, so check with that jurisdiction. An example is Riverside County.

Impact Sciences, Inc. Prepared by: Date:

JN:

ISI Rev. 9/08

Joint-Use Education Center Project On-Site Noise Contours Cumulative No Project

ROADWAY NAME Segment ROADWAY NAME N. Milpitas, Between Dixon and Washington N. Milpitas, Between Washington and Jacklin Arizona, Between Washington and Jacklin Escuela, Between Washington and Russell Escuela, Between Russell and Jacklin Washington, Between N. Milpitas and Arizona Washington, Between Arizona and Escuela Jacklin, Between N. Milpitas and Arizona Jacklin, Between Arizona and Escuela Jacklin, Between Escuela and N. Hillview

Number of Lanes in Each Direction

Median Width

ADT Volume

Design Speed (mph)

Alpha Factor (1)

2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13,840 17,990 4,770 14,200 11,770 8,170 9,830 16,820 19,530 21,750

35 35 25 25 25 25 25 35 35 35

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Vehicle Mix Medium Heavy Trucks Trucks

1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8%

0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7%

CNEL at 75 Feet

64.4 65.5 56.7 61.5 60.7 59.1 59.9 65.2 65.9 66.4

Distance from Center of Roadway DISTANCE TO CONTOUR 75 CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL

-

-

85 79 92 102

60 CNEL

203 263 105 87 246 285 317

Notes: (1) Alpha Factor: Coefficient of absorption relating to the effects of the ground surface. An alpha factor of 0 indicates that the site is an acoustically "hard" site, such as aspalt. An alpha factor of 0.5 indicates that the site is an acoustically "soft" site such, as heavily vegetated ground cover. "-" = contour is located within the roadway lanes or within 75 feet of the roadway centerline. Noise levels and distances to contours do not assume any natural or constructed barriers that may attenuate noise. Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution:

Day

Evening

Night

Total

Total ADT Volumes

77.70%

12.70%

9.60%

100.00%

Medium-Duty Trucks

87.43%

5.05%

7.52%

100.00%

Heavy-Duty Trucks

89.10%

2.84%

8.06%

100.00%

Notes to Modeler: The 24-hour traffic distribution and vehicle mix percentages are defaults. For project-specific numbers, obtain the 24-hour traffic distribution, vehicle mix percentages, and traffic volumes from the traffic engineer. For state and federal highways, obtain this information from the Caltrans website. Column G under Notes: should total 100%. Some jurisdictions have different distributions by roadway type, so check with that jurisdiction. An example is Riverside County.

Impact Sciences, Inc. Prepared by: Date:

JN:

ISI Rev. 9/08

Joint-Use Education Center Project On-Site Noise Contours Cumulative + Project

ROADWAY NAME Segment ROADWAY NAME N. Milpitas, Between Dixon and Washington N. Milpitas, Between Washington and Jacklin Arizona, Between Washington and Jacklin Escuela, Between Washington and Russell Escuela, Between Russell and Jacklin Washington, Between N. Milpitas and Arizona Washington, Between Arizona and Escuela Jacklin, Between N. Milpitas and Arizona Jacklin, Between Arizona and Escuela Jacklin, Between Escuela and N. Hillview

Number of Lanes in Each Direction

Median Width

ADT Volume

Design Speed (mph)

Alpha Factor (1)

2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

17,620 19,360 4,770 14,200 12,600 8,170 9,830 16,820 19,530 21,750

35 35 25 25 25 25 25 35 35 35

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Vehicle Mix Medium Heavy Trucks Trucks

1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8%

0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7%

CNEL at 75 Feet

65.4 65.8 56.7 61.5 60.9 59.1 59.9 65.2 65.9 66.4

Distance from Center of Roadway DISTANCE TO CONTOUR 75 CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL

-

-

83 91 79 92 102

60 CNEL

257 282 105 93 246 285 317

Notes: (1) Alpha Factor: Coefficient of absorption relating to the effects of the ground surface. An alpha factor of 0 indicates that the site is an acoustically "hard" site, such as aspalt. An alpha factor of 0.5 indicates that the site is an acoustically "soft" site such, as heavily vegetated ground cover. "-" = contour is located within the roadway lanes or within 75 feet of the roadway centerline. Noise levels and distances to contours do not assume any natural or constructed barriers that may attenuate noise. Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution:

Day

Evening

Night

Total

Total ADT Volumes

77.70%

12.70%

9.60%

100.00%

Medium-Duty Trucks

87.43%

5.05%

7.52%

100.00%

Heavy-Duty Trucks

89.10%

2.84%

8.06%

100.00%

Notes to Modeler: The 24-hour traffic distribution and vehicle mix percentages are defaults. For project-specific numbers, obtain the 24-hour traffic distribution, vehicle mix percentages, and traffic volumes from the traffic engineer. For state and federal highways, obtain this information from the Caltrans website. Column G under Notes: should total 100%. Some jurisdictions have different distributions by roadway type, so check with that jurisdiction. An example is Riverside County.

Impact Sciences, Inc. Prepared by: Date:

JN:

ISI Rev. 9/08

APPENDIX 4.4 Traffic Technical Report

 

Joint Use Post Secondary Education Center Transportation Impact Analysis Prepared for:

The San Jose – Evergreen Community College District July 2014

Hexagon Office: 4377 1st Street, Suite A Pleasanton, CA 94566 Hexagon Job Number: 14BW10 Phone: 925.225.1439

 Joint Use Post Secondary Education Center – Transportation Impact Report 

Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... ii  1.  Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1  2.  Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 8  3.  Background Conditions ................................................................................................................ 18  4.  Project Impacts and Recommendations ...................................................................................... 22  5.  Cumulative Conditions ................................................................................................................. 31  6.  Other Transportation Issues ........................................................................................................ 36 

Appendices Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C:

Traffic Counts Level of Service Calculations Traffic Signal Warrants

List of Tables Table 1  Table 2  Table 3  Table 4  Table 5  Table 6  Table 7  Table 8  Table 9  Table 10  Table 11  Table 12  Table 13  Table 14  Table 15 

Freeway Segment Evaluation ................................................................................................. 4  Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Delay ..................................... 5  Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Average Delay................... 6  Existing Intersection Levels of Service .................................................................................. 15  Existing Freeway Ramp V/C Ratios ...................................................................................... 16  Background Signalized intersection Levels of Service .......................................................... 20  Background Freeway Ramp V/C Ratios................................................................................ 21  Project Trip Generation ......................................................................................................... 23  Existing Plus Project Signalized Intersection Levels of Service ............................................ 28  Background Plus Project Signalized Intersection Levels of Service ..................................... 29  Existing Plus Project Freeway Ramp V/C Ratios .................................................................. 30  Background Plus Project Freeway Ramp V/C Ratios ........................................................... 30  Signalized Intersection Levels of Service Under Cumulative Conditions .............................. 34  Freeway Ramp V/C Ratios Under Cumulative Conditions .................................................... 35  Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service............................................................................ 37 

List of Figures Figure 1  Figure 2  Figure 3  Figure 4  Figure 5  Figure 6  Figure 7  Figure 8  Figure 9  Figure 10  Figure 11  Figure 12 

Site Location and Study Intersections ..................................................................................... 2  Existing Bikeways Map .......................................................................................................... 10  Existing Transit Services ....................................................................................................... 12  Existing Intersection Lane Configurations ............................................................................. 13  Existing Intersection Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes .................................................................. 14  Background Traffic Volumes.................................................................................................. 19  Project Trip Distribution ......................................................................................................... 24  Project Trip Assignment ......................................................................................................... 25  Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes .................................................................................... 26  Background Plus Project Traffic Volumes ............................................................................. 27  Cumulative Without Project Traffic Volumes ......................................................................... 32  Cumulative with Project Traffic Volumes ............................................................................... 33 

i | Page 

 Joint Use Post Secondary Education Center – Transportation Impact Report 

Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to analyze the transportation impacts of the proposed Joint Use Post Secondary Education Center located on the east side of Escuela Parkway directly south of Thomas Russell Middle School in Milpitas, California. The project would be used by both Milpitas High School students and adult members of the community. It is anticipated that the total non-high school student enrollment would be 390 students. Access to the site is provided by Escuela Parkway. The impacts of the development were evaluated relative to the level of service policies and methodologies applicable in the City of Milpitas. The analysis also was conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), the administering agency for the Congestion Management Program (CMP) of Santa Clara County. The study included an analysis of traffic conditions at eleven intersections - 8 of them signalized and 3 of them unsignalized. The intersections were analyzed during the weekday AM and PM peak hours of traffic, which occur from 7:00 to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 6:00 PM. These periods represent the most congested traffic conditions of an average weekday. The study locations were also evaluated for the period from 2:00 to 4:00 PM, which would be the afternoon peak period of traffic currently generated by the schools adjacent to the project site.

Trip Generation & Assignment The proposed project would generate 638 daily vehicle trips, with 136 trips occurring during the AM peak hour, 194 occurring during the mid-day peak hour, and 170 trips occurring during the PM peak hour. The proposed project’s trip distribution pattern was estimated based on the City of Milpitas Travel Demand Forecast Model.

Signalized Intersection Level of Service The results of the signalized intersection level of service analysis for the (1) existing plus project, (2) background plus project, and (3) cumulative plus project scenarios are summarized in Table ES-1. According to City of Milpitas and Congestion Management Program (CMP) guidelines, all signalized study intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS D or better, except for the intersection of N. Milpitas Boulevard and Jacklin Road, which would operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour. There is no impact at this intersection because the addition of the project does not cause intersection critical delay to increase by 4 or more seconds or cause the V/C ratio to increase by 0.01 or more.

ii | Page 

 Joint Use Post Secondary Education Center – Transportation Impact Report 

Freeway Segments According to CMP guidelines, a freeway segment should be studied when a proposed development would add traffic to a segment greater than one percent of its capacity. An analysis of the two segments of I-680 north and south of Jacklin Road showed that the project would add traffic less than one percent of capacity. Therefore, the project would not create a significant impact on freeway segments and no further analysis was required.

Freeway Ramp V/C Ratios An analysis of freeway ramp V/C ratios was conducted for the Jacklin Road on-ramps at the interchange with I-680. The results showed that the freeway ramps would operate at a V/C lower than 1.0 under all study scenarios. The freeway ramps therefore currently operate and in the future would operate at acceptable conditions with the addition of traffic from the proposed project.

Unsignalized Intersection Analysis & Existing School Congestion The levels of service at the unsignalized study intersections were evaluated under existing, background, existing plus project, background plus project, and cumulative conditions with and without the project (see Table ES-2). Based on this analysis, all unsignalized study intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service except the intersection of Escuela Parkway and Washington Drive, which currently operates at LOS E and would operate at LOS F under cumulative conditions in the AM peak hour. A review of the level of service for the intersection showed an extremely high delay for the northbound left-turn movement from Escuela Parkway turning onto westbound Washington Drive. During the fifteen-minute period just before and during the start of the three existing nearby schools (about 8:00 to 8:15 AM), traffic is extremely congested on Escuela Parkway. The intersection at Washington Drive and Escuela Parkway is acutely affected during this period. Although the peak hour results of this traffic analysis are designed to reflect conditions for an entire 60 minute period, the conditions during the peak 15 minutes are notably worse. This pattern is generally true during the AM and midday peak hours on all of the streets surrounding the three schools. On Escuela Parkway, Arizona Avenue, and Washington Avenue, during the peak 15 minute periods before and after school, the streets and intersections in the vicinity of the project operate at capacity. In addition to the level of service analysis conducted for the unsignalized intersections, an assessment was made of the need for signalization of the unsignalized intersections. This assessment was made on the basis of the Peak-hour Volume Signal Warrant, Warrant #3 described in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This method does not evaluate intersection level of service, but simply provides an indication whether peak-hour traffic volumes would be sufficient to justify installation of a traffic signal. The analysis showed that the peak-hour signal warrant would be met in the AM peak hour at the three unsignalized intersections bordering the schools: the intersections of Washington Drive and Arizona Avenue, Washington Drive and Escuela Parkway, and Escuela Parkway and Russell Lane. The signal warrants would not be met during the midday or PM peak hours. The reason for the signal warrant being met at the three intersections is because of the school traffic congestion. Although there is considerable congestion on the streets immediately surrounding the project site during the AM period, the current project description for the proposed Joint Use School shows classes would begin at 9:00 AM. This would be approximately one-half hour after the existing school congestion clears. Most students and facility would arrive between 8:30 AM to 9:00 AM on a typical weekday. Thus, the proposed project would contribute very few, if any, project trips during the peak AM congestion period. The LOS and delays presented in Table ES-2 follow standard traffic engineering analysis practices, which overlay the peak 60 minutes of ambient traffic during

iii | Page 

 Joint Use Post Secondary Education Center – Transportation Impact Report  7:00 AM to 9:00 AM with the AM peak 60 minutes of a typical community college. This is a very conservative approach because, with the current project description, most AM peak hour project traffic would not coincide with the peak congestion of the existing schools. For this reason, it was determined that the project’s impact to the existing unsignalized intersections would be less than significant. Should the proposed Joint Use School change its operational plan such that its start time would coincide with the three existing schools in the area, then mitigation should be considered.

Site Access & Circulation A project site plan is not available at the time of this analysis. In order to ensure the safe and efficient circulation of traffic on the site and the surrounding street system, the project site needs to provide certain features and conditions. The site access needs to be located such that there is adequate sight distance for vehicles at the project driveways, and that there are an adequate number of lanes at the site driveways to accommodate project traffic. The site design should integrate pedestrian and bicycle access with sidewalks, crosswalks and trails off site and provide convenient pedestrian and bicycle circulation on site. This is particularly important because shared use of the project with Milpitas High School will increase the pedestrian crossing demand on Escuela Parkway. The site design should provide bicycle parking on site. The site design needs to ensure that there is adequate space onsite for trucks, garbage collection, and emergency vehicles. The plan should minimize the number of dead-end streets or aisles and, for any dead-ends that are proposed, should provide adequate space for vehicles to turn around.

Pedestrian, Bicycle, & Transit Facilities The proposed project impacts to existing pedestrian, bike, and transit facilities were evaluated. It was determined that the project would not create demand on these facilities beyond what can currently be accommodated. However, the project should comply with VTA bike parking guidelines and provide the prescribed number of Class I parking (lockers or guarded parking) and Class II bicycle spaces (bike racks). In addition, as noted in the site access and circulation section, the project should integrate its site design with the existing sidewalks, crosswalks, and trails to provide convenient bicycle and pedestrian access.

iv | Page 

Milpitas Unified School District Joint Use Facility – Transportation Impact Report 

 

Table ES-1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Summary

Existing Intersection N. Milpitas Blvd and Dixon Landing Rd

N. Milpitas Blvd and Washington Drive

Escuela Pkwy and Jacklin Road

I-680 SB ramps and Jacklin Road

I-680 NB ramps and Jacklin Road

N. Milpitas Blvd and Jacklin Road

Arizona Ave and Jacklin Road

N. Hillview Drive and Jacklin Road

Background

Existing + Project

Background + Project

No Project

Cumulative With Project

Peak Hour

Count Date

Incr. In

Incr. In

Avg.

Incr. In

Incr. In

Avg.

Incr. In

Incr. In

Delay

LOS

Delay

LOS

Crit. Delay

Crit. V/C

Delay

LOS

Delay

LOS

Crit. Delay

Crit. V/C

Delay

LOS

Delay

LOS

Crit. Delay

Crit. V/C

Avg.

Avg.

Avg.

Avg.

AM

05/13/14

39.7

D

39.7

D

0.2

0.010

39.8

D

39.8

D

0.2

0.010

40.5

D

40.5

D

0.3

0.010

MD

05/13/14

38.7

D

38.8

D

0.1

0.005

38.8

D

38.8

D

0.4

0.009

39.3

D

39.4

D

0.1

0.005

PM

05/13/14

37.1

D

37.1

D

0.0

0.003

37.2

D

37.3

D

0.0

0.003

37.8

D

37.9

D

0.0

0.003

AM

05/13/14

28.9

C

29.9

C

1.3

0.016

29.0

C

30.0

C

1.3

0.016

31.0

C

32.2

C

1.6

0.016

MD

05/13/14

23.5

C

24.4

C

1.0

0.023

23.5

C

24.4

C

1.0

0.023

23.9

C

24.9

C

1.1

0.023

PM

05/13/14

16.0

B

16.2

B

0.4

0.020

16.0

B

16.2

B

0.4

0.020

16.1

B

16.4

B

0.4

0.020

AM

05/13/14

38.8

D

39.4

D

3.2

0.017

38.8

D

39.4

D

3.2

0.017

39.7

D

40.6

D

0.6

0.009

MD

05/13/14

35.2

D

35.9

D

0.7

0.015

35.2

D

35.9

D

0.7

0.015

35.5

D

36.2

D

0.7

0.015

PM

05/13/14

25.7

C

26.9

C

1.3

0.011

25.7

C

26.9

C

1.3

0.011

25.9

C

27.1

C

1.3

0.011

AM

05/13/14

13.3

B

14.0

B

1.0

0.005

13.3

B

14.0

B

1.0

0.005

13.9

B

14.6

B

1.2

0.005

MD

05/13/14

9.8

A

9.9

A

0.2

0.025

9.8

A

9.9

A

0.2

0.025

9.9

A

10.1

B

0.2

0.025

PM

05/13/14

13.1

B

13.2

B

0.2

0.024

13.1

B

13.2

B

0.2

0.024

13.3

B

13.4

B

0.3

0.024

AM

05/13/14

16.5

B

16.8

B

0.3

0.017

16.5

B

16.8

B

0.3

0.017

16.9

B

17.3

B

0.4

0.017

MD

05/13/14

14.9

B

15.2

B

0.7

0.014

14.9

B

15.2

B

0.7

0.014

15.0

B

15.3

B

0.6

0.014

PM

05/13/14

15.3

B

15.5

B

0.2

0.021

15.3

B

15.5

B

0.2

0.021

15.4

B

15.6

B

0.2

0.021

AM

05/13/14

57.8

E

57.9

E

0.0

0.000

57.8

E

57.9

E

0.0

0.000

62.3

E

62.4

E

0.0

0.000

MD

05/13/14

44.0

D

44.0

D

0.1

0.003

44.0

D

44.1

D

0.1

0.003

44.6

D

44.6

D

0.1

0.003

PM

05/13/14

45.0

D

45.0

D

0.0

0.000

45.0

D

45.0

D

0.0

0.000

45.5

D

45.6

D

0.0

0.000

AM

05/13/14

22.5

C

22.5

C

0.0

0.000

22.5

C

22.5

C

0.0

0.000

23.2

C

23.1

C

0.0

0.000

MD

05/13/14

23.1

C

23.1

C

0.0

0.002

23.1

C

23.1

C

0.0

0.002

23.4

C

23.3

C

0.0

0.002

PM

05/13/14

19.8

B

19.8

B

0.0

0.001

19.8

B

19.8

B

0.0

0.001

20.0

C

20.0

C

0.0

0.001

AM

05/13/14

35.8

D

36.2

D

1.0

0.027

35.8

D

36.2

D

1.0

0.027

37.7

D

38.4

D

1.4

0.027

MD

05/13/14

21.6

C

22.5

C

1.0

0.032

21.6

C

22.5

C

1.0

0.032

21.7

C

22.7

C

1.1

0.032

PM

05/13/14

25.9

C

26.6

C

1.1

0.021

25.9

C

26.6

C

1.1

0.021

26.2

C

27.0

C

1.1

0.021

v | Page 

Milpitas Unified School District Joint Use Facility – Transportation Impact Report 

 

Table ES-2 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Summary Cumulative Existing Intersection 1

Arizona Ave and Washington Drive

2

Escuela Pkwy and Washington Drive

2

Escuela Pkwy and Russell Lane

Existing + Project

Background

Background + Project

No Project

With Project

Peak Hour

Count Date

Delay

LOS

Delay

LOS

Delay

LOS

Delay

LOS

Delay

LOS

Delay

LOS

AM

05/13/14

18.2

C

19.5

C

18.2

C

19.5

C

22.1

C

24.3

C

MD

05/13/14

11.0

B

11.5

B

11.0

B

11.5

B

11.5

B

12.0

B

PM

05/13/14

8.4

A

8.6

A

8.4

A

8.6

A

8.6

A

8.7

A

Avg.

Avg.

Avg.

Avg.

Avg.

Avg.

AM

05/13/14

39.8

E

47.1

E

39.8

E

47.1

E

62.3

F

71.9

F

MD

05/13/14

10.0

A

10.8

B

10.0

A

10.8

B

10.5

B

11.5

B

PM

05/13/14

6.3

A

6.3

A

6.3

A

6.3

A

6.4

A

6.4

A

AM

05/13/14

3.2

A

3.5

A

3.2

A

3.5

A

3.5

A

3.9

A

MD

05/13/14

2.5

A

3.0

A

2.5

A

3.0

A

2.6

A

3.0

A

PM

05/13/14

1.8

A

2.3

A

1.8

A

2.3

A

1.8

A

2.4

A

Note: MD = midday. 1 unsignalized four-way stop-controlled intersection; delay corresponds to overall average delay for all approaches. 2 unsignalized two-way stop-controlled intersection; delay corresponds to the average delay for the entire intersection.

vi | Page 

Joint Use Post Secondary Education Center – Transportation Impact Report 

1. Introduction The purpose of this report is to analyze the transportation impacts of the proposed Joint Use Post Secondary Education Center located on the east side of Escuela Parkway directly south of Thomas Russell Middle School in Milpitas, California. The project would be used by both Milpitas High School students and adult members of the community. It is anticipated that the total non-high school student enrollment would be 390 students. Access to the site is provided by Escuela Parkway. The site is currently vacant. The project location is shown graphically on Figure 1.

Scope of Work The impacts of the development were evaluated relative to the level of service policies and methodologies applicable in the City of Milpitas. The analysis also was conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), the administering agency for the Congestion Management Program (CMP) of Santa Clara County. CMP guidelines were followed for freeway segments. The following intersections were analyzed for this project.           

N. Milpitas Boulevard and Dixon Landing Road N. Milpitas Boulevard and Washington Drive Arizona Avenue and Washington Drive (unsignalized) Escuela Parkway and Washington Drive (unsignalized) Escuela Parkway and Russell Lane (unsignalized) Escuela Parkway and Jacklin Road Jacklin Road and I-680 southbound ramps Jacklin Road and I-680 northbound ramps N. Milpitas Boulevard and Jacklin Road Arizona Avenue and Jacklin Road N. Hillview Drive and Jacklin Road

Traffic conditions were analyzed on the following freeway ramps:  

I-680 southbound on-ramp at Jacklin Road I-680 northbound on-ramp at Jacklin Road

1 | Page   

Joint Use Post Secondary Education Center – Transportation Impact Report  The study intersections were selected based on discussions with City of Milpitas staff. The freeway ramps and freeway segments were determined on the basis of the CMP requirements. The study locations were analyzed during the weekday AM and PM peak hours of traffic which occur from 7:00 to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 6:00 PM. These periods represent the most congested traffic conditions on the surrounding streets during an average weekday. The study locations were also evaluated for the period from 2:00 to 4:00 PM, which would be the peak afternoon period of traffic currently generated by the schools adjacent to the project site. The project impacts were evaluated for the following scenarios: Scenario 1:

Existing Conditions. Existing peak-hour traffic volumes at the intersections and freeway ramps were obtained from new traffic counts.

Scenario 2:

Background Conditions. Background traffic volumes were estimated by adding to existing peak-hour volumes the projected volumes from approved but not yet completed developments. The latter component was supplied by the Cities of Fremont and Milpitas.

Scenario 3:

Existing + Project Conditions. Projected peak hour traffic volumes for this scenario were estimated by adding to existing traffic volumes the additional traffic generated by the project. Existing + Project conditions were evaluated relative to existing conditions in order to determine potential project impacts.

Scenario 4:

Background + Project Conditions. Projected peak hour traffic volumes for this scenario were estimated by adding to background traffic volumes the additional traffic generated by the project. Background + Project conditions were evaluated relative to background conditions in order to determine potential project impacts.

Scenario 5:

Cumulative Conditions. Cumulative conditions include traffic volumes for Background + Project conditions plus traffic associated with pending development projects in Fremont and Milpitas and expected growth in existing traffic volumes. Cumulative with project conditions were evaluated relative to cumulative without project conditions in order to determine potential project impacts.

According to CMP guidelines, a freeway segment should be studied when a proposed development would add traffic to a segment greater than one percent of its capacity. Table 1 shows this comparison. (The methods used to assign project traffic to the roadway network are described in the “Project Impacts and Recommendations” chapter of this report.) The capacity of a mixed-flow lane as specified by the VTA CMP and the Highway Capacity Manual is 2,200 vehicles per hour (vph) on four-lane facilities, and 2,300 vph on facilities with six or more lanes. High occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and auxiliary lanes were not included for this calculation. Based on this comparison, the project would not create a significant impact on freeway segments and no additional analysis is required.

Methodology This section describes the methods used to determine the traffic conditions for each scenario. It includes the methods used for data collection, level of service calculations, and describes the various level of service standards, as well as the criteria for project impacts.

Data Collection The data for the study locations were obtained through field observations, previous traffic studies, the City of Milpitas, City of Fremont and current traffic counts. The following data were collected from these sources:  

existing traffic volumes, lane geometries,

3 | Page   

Joint Use Post Secondary Education Center – Transportation Impact Report    

signal timing and phasing, a list of approved projects (ATI), and a list of pending projects

Existing traffic counts are included in Appendix A. Table 1 Freeway Segment Evaluation

# of Freeway Segment

Direction Lanes

Capacity*

1% of

(vphpl)

Capacity

AM

Midday

PM

Project Trips

I-680 I-680

Scott Creek Rd to Jacklin Rd Jacklin Road to SR 237

SB SB

3 3

6900 6900

69 69

16 7

11 35

15 19

I-680 I-680

Scott Creek Rd to Jacklin Rd Jacklin Road to SR 237

NB NB

3 3

6900 6900

69 69

3 34

16 23

9 32

*Capacity was based on the ideal capacity cited in VTA CMP Guidelines

Signalized Intersection Level of Service The previously described data were used to calculate the level of service (LOS) at each study location. Level of service is a qualitative measure of traffic operations, ranging from LOS A (free-flow conditions) to LOS F (forced-flow conditions). The levels of service at signalized intersections were evaluated using TRAFFIX software with CMP default values. This method uses the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology to estimate the average control delay per vehicle, in seconds. This average delay can then be correlated to a level of service as shown in Table 2.

Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Level of service for the unsignalized intersections was determined using TRAFFIX based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. For the purpose of this study, the level of service reported is based on the overall average delay at the intersection. For two-way stop-controlled intersections, the delay for the worst movement on the side street is also calculated and reported for poor intersection movements (LOS E or worse). The correlation between average delay and level of service is shown in Table 3. A discussion of unsignalized intersections is contained in Chapter 6, which covers “Other Transportation Issues.”

Signal Warrants The level of service analysis at unsignalized intersections is supplemented with an assessment of the need for potential signalization of the intersection. This assessment is made on the basis of signal warrant criteria adopted by Caltrans. For this study, the potential for signalization is assessed on the basis of the peak-hour traffic signal warrant, Warrant #3 described in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). This method provides an indication of whether traffic conditions and peak-hour traffic levels are, or would be, sufficient to justify installation of a traffic signal.

4 | Page   

Joint Use Post Secondary Education Center – Transportation Impact Report  Table 2 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Delay Level of Service

Description

Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (sec.)

A

Signal progression is extremely favorable. Most vehicles arrive during the green phase and do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to the very low vehicle delay.

10.0 or less

B

Operations characterized by good signal progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average vehicle delay.

10.1 to 20.0

C

Higher delays may result from fair signal progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, though may still pass through the intersection without stopping.

20.1 to 35.0

D

The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable signal progression, long cycle lenghts, or high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.

35.1 to 55.0

E

This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor signal progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Individual cycle failures occur frequently.

55.1 to 80.0

F

This level of delay is considered unacceptable by most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes of such delay levels.

greater than 80.0

Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, D.C., 2000) p10-16.

The decision to install a traffic signal should not be based purely on the warrants alone. Instead, the installation of a signal should be considered and further analysis performed when one or more of the warrants are met. Additionally, engineering judgment is exercised on a case-by-case basis to evaluate the effect a traffic signal will have on traffic conditions at the subject intersection as well as at adjacent intersections.

5 | Page   

Joint Use Post Secondary Education Center – Transportation Impact Report  Table 3 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Average Delay Level of Service

Description

Average Delay Per Vehicle (Sec.)

A

Little or no traffic delay

10.0 or less

B

Short traffic delays

10.1 to 15.0

C

Average traffic delays

15.1 to 25.0

D

Long traffic delays

25.1 to 35.0

E

Very long traffic delays

35.1 to 50.0

F

Extreme traffic delays

greater than 50.0

Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, D.C., 2000) p17-2.

Freeway Ramp Capacity Analysis A freeway ramp capacity analysis was performed in order to verify that the freeway ramps would have sufficient capacity to serve the expected traffic volumes with the project. This analysis consisted of a volume-to-capacity ratio evaluation of the freeway ramps at the selected interchanges. The ramp capacities were obtained from the Highway Capacity Manual. For the purposes of this study, the project is said to create a significant adverse impact on a freeway ramp if its implementation:

 

Causes the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio of the freeway ramp to exceed 1.0; or If a segment is already operating at or above a V/C of 1.0 in the No Project case and the project causes an increase in trips greater than 1% of capacity.

Intersection Level of Service Standards and Impact Criteria At study intersections in Milpitas the minimum acceptable level of service is LOS D. According to the City of Milpitas, project impacts at signalized intersections occur when: 1.

The level of service at an intersection drops below its LOS standard (LOS D) when project traffic is added; or

2.

An intersection that is operating worse than its level of service standard under no project conditions has an increase in critical delay of four or more seconds AND the demand-to-capacity ratio (V/C) is increased by more than 0.01 when project traffic is added.

The exception to this threshold is when the addition of project traffic reduces the amount of average stopped delay for critical movements (i.e. the change in average stopped delay for critical movements is negative). In this case, the threshold is when the project increases the critical V/C value by 0.01 or more. The City of Milpitas does not have formal impact criteria to apply to unsignalized intersections. This is common for many jurisdictions because it is generally not the unsignalized intersections that limit the overall capacity of a roadway. The analysis of unsignalized intersections is typically evaluated by

6 | Page   

Joint Use Post Secondary Education Center – Transportation Impact Report  considering overall level of service, movement delay, availability of alternate routes, intersection spacing, and an analysis of traffic signal warrants.

Report Organization The remainder of this report is divided into five chapters. Chapter 2 describes the existing roadway network, transit service, existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and the existing traffic conditions. Chapter 3 presents the approved projects and background conditions. Chapter 4 describes the method used to estimate project traffic and the project’s impact on the transportation facilities. Chapter 5 describes the analysis and results for cumulative conditions. Chapter 6 presents the evaluation of other transportation issues.

7 | Page   

Joint Use Post Secondary Education Center – Transportation Impact Report 

2. Existing Conditions This chapter describes the existing conditions for all of the major transportation facilities in the vicinity of the site, including the roadway network facilities and operations, transit service, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Roadway Network Regional access to the project site is provided via Interstate 680 (I-680) and Interstate 880 (I-880). Direct access to the site is provided via Escuela Parkway. Other roadways in the vicinity of the project site include Jacklin Road, Dixon Landing Road, N. Milpitas Boulevard, Washington Drive, Arizona Avenue, Russell Lane and N. Hillview Drive. These roadways are described below. I-680 is a north/south freeway traversing the eastern portion of Milpitas. This freeway connects the inland East Bay communities to the north with San Jose to the south. I-680 has six lanes plus a southbound high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane north of SR 237, and eight lanes south of SR 237. I-880 is a north/south freeway providing regional access from East Bay cities to San Jose, where it becomes SR 17 and extends into Santa Cruz. I-880 is primarily a six-lane freeway, though through Milpitas and north San Jose, the number of through lanes varies. Escuela Parkway is a two-lane, north-south, minor arterial with a wide, landscaped median and bike lanes on both sides. It extends from Washington Drive at the north end, crosses Jacklin Road and ends at Folsom Circle just west of N. Milpitas Boulevard at the south end. The landscaped median is approximately 80 feet wide from Washington Drive to Russell Lane. Escuela Parkway forms the western border of the project site and provides direct access to the site. Jacklin Road is a four-lane, east-west, major arterial with landscaped median and bike lanes on both sides. At the west end, it is an extension of N. Abel Street beginning at N. Milpitas Boulevard and extending to I-680, where it continues eastward as Evans Road

8 | Page   

Joint Use Post Secondary Education Center – Transportation Impact Report  Dixon Landing Road is a four-lane, east-west, arterial in the vicinity of the site. It extends from N. McCarthy Boulevard, crosses I-880, and continues eastward to Milpitas Boulevard where it changes to Dixon Road and ultimately ends just west of I-680. N. Milpitas Boulevard is a four-lane, north-south, arterial that extends from Montague Expressway in the south to Dixon Landing Road, where it continues north into Fremont as Warm Springs Boulevard. It generally provides a center two-way left-turn lane except at intersections where median islands and turn bays are provided. Washington Drive is a two-lane, east-west, collector street with parking on both sides of the street. It extends from N. Milpitas Boulevard at the west end to Escuela Parkway at the east end, where it becomes Rogers Street. Arizona Avenue is a two-lane, north-south, collector street with parking on both sides of the street. It extends from Buskirk Street at the north end, crosses Dixon Road and ends at Jacklin Road at the south end. Russell Lane is a two-lane, east-west, collector street with parking on both sides of the street. It extends from Escuela Parkway at the west end to N. Hillview Drive at the east end. N. Hillview Drive is a two-lane, north-south, collector street with parking on both sides of the street. It extends from north of Russell Drive at the north end to south of Calaveras Boulevard at the south end.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities The bicycle facilities in the City of Milpitas are identified and described in the City of Milpitas Bikeway Master Plan Update, 2009. The bicycle facilities in the project study area are described below. Escuela Avenue is an existing class II bicycle facility from Washington Drive at the north to N. Milpitas Boulevard at the south. Jacklin Road is an existing class II bicycle facility from N. Milpitas Boulevard at the west to I-680 at the east. N. Milpitas Boulevard is an existing class II bicycle facility from Warm Springs Boulevard at the north to Yosemite Drive at the south. Dixon Landing Road is an existing class III bicycle facility from California Circle at the west to the Augustine Park trail at the east. Washington Drive is an existing class III bicycle facility from N. Milpitas Boulevard at the west end to Escuela Parkway at the east. Augustine Park Trail is an existing class I bicycle facility from Manferd Street, north of Dixon Road, to Coelho Street. Oliver Jones Park Trail is an existing class I bicycle facility from Escuela Park, at Russell Lane, to Tramway Drive, south of Jacklin Road. Figure 2 shows the existing bikeways in the project vicinity.

9 | Page   

Joint Use Post Secondary Education Center – Transportation Impact Report  Existing pedestrian access to the proposed site is provided by sidewalks on both sides of Escuela Parkway and all other streets in the vicinity of the project site. All intersections on Escuela Parkway between Washington Drive and Jacklin Road have crosswalks, with a few exceptions. The intersections on Escuela Parkway at Sandalwood Lane and at Altamont Drive do not have crosswalks across Escuela Parkway. Neither of these intersections directly border the schools or the site. All study intersections have pedestrian crosswalks, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant curb ramps. All signalized intersections have pedestrian-actuated pedestrian-crossing phases.

Transit Service Existing transit service to the study area is provided by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District. The bus lines operating in the vicinity of the site are described below. The VTA 46 bus line provides service between the Great Mall/Main Transit Center and Washington & Escuela. The route follows Arizona Avenue, Washington Drive, Escuela Parkway and Jacklin Road, with a stop at Milpitas High School. The bus operates with 30- to 60-minute headways weekdays from 6:00 AM to 7:00 PM. The 46 line also provides weekend service. The VTA 66 bus line provides service between Kaiser San Jose and Northern Milpitas. It operates on weekdays between 5:00 AM and midnight, with 15- to 20-minutes headways. The route stops at three LRT stations, including the Great Mall/Main Transit Center. The bus route follows Jacklin Road, Escuela Parkway, Washington Drive, Arizona Avenue, Dixon Road and N. Milpitas Boulevard within the study area. The 66 line also provides weekend service. The AC Transit 217 bus line provides service between the Fremont BART station and the Great Mall/Main Transit Center, via Mission Boulevard, Warm Springs Boulevard, and N. Milpitas Boulevard. It operates between 5:30 AM and 11:00 PM, with 30-minute headways during weekday commute hours. It also provides weekend service. Figure 3 shows the locations of the existing transit service routes.

Existing Signalized Intersection Levels of Service Existing AM, PM and mid-day peak hour traffic volumes were obtained from traffic counts conducted in May 2014. In addition, the City of Milpitas requested 24-hour traffic counts on Jacklin Road and N. Milpitas Boulevard. The traffic count data are included in Appendix A. The operations of the study intersections were evaluated using TRAFFIX software to determine their levels of service (LOS). The lane configurations used for the calculations are shown in Figure 4. The intersection turn movement volumes are shown in Figure 5. Table 4 presents the results of the signalized intersection level of service calculations. All study intersections currently operate at LOS D or better, except the intersection of N. Milpitas Boulevard and Jacklin Road, which operates at LOS E during the AM peak hour. The TRAFFIX level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B.

Existing Freeway Ramp Volume-to-Capacity Ratios Table 5 presents the results of the freeway ramp operations analysis. The table shows that the freeway ramps currently operate at a V/C lower than 1.0.

11 | Page   

Joint Use Post Secondary Education Center – Transportation Impact Report  Table 4 Existing Intersection Levels of Service

Existing Intersection N. Milpitas Blvd and Dixon Landing Road

N. Milpitas Blvd and Washington Drive

Escuela Pkwy and Jacklin Road

I-680 SB ramps and Jacklin Road

I-680 NB ramps and Jacklin Road

N. Milpitas Blvd and Jacklin Road

Arizona Ave and Jacklin Road

N. Hillview Drive and Jacklin Road

Peak Hour

Count Date

Delay

LOS

AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM

05/13/14 05/13/14 05/13/14 05/13/14 05/13/14 05/13/14 05/13/14 05/13/14 05/13/14 05/13/14 05/13/14 05/13/14 05/13/14 05/13/14 05/13/14 05/13/14 05/13/14 05/13/14 05/13/14 05/13/14 05/13/14 05/13/14 05/13/14 05/13/14

39.7 38.7 37.1 28.9 23.5 16.0 38.8 35.2 25.7 13.3 9.8 13.1 16.5 14.9 15.3 57.8 44.0 45.0 22.5 23.1 19.8 35.8 21.6 25.9

D D D C C B D D C B A B B B B E D D C C B D C C

Avg.

Observed Existing Traffic Conditions Traffic conditions in the field were observed in order to identify any existing operational deficiencies and to confirm the accuracy of calculated levels of service. The purpose of this effort was (1) to identify any existing traffic problems that may not be directly related to intersection level of service, and (2) to identify any locations where the level of service calculations do not accurately reflect level of service in the field. Based on the field observations, the level of service analysis appears to generally reflect actual existing traffic conditions. The observations in the field showed some noteworthy traffic conditions during the peak periods, as described below. N. Milpitas Boulevard and Jacklin Road. In the AM peak hour, vehicle queues in the northbound left-turn pocket on N. Milpitas Boulevard frequently spill back out of the pocket and into the adjacent northbound through lane. The length of the northbound left-turn queue and the signal phase length are such that in many cycles about five to ten cars were not able to advance through the intersection in a single cycle. The spillback did not noticeably affect northbound through traffic, as northbound through traffic was relatively uncongested.

15 | Page   

Joint Use Post Secondary Education Center – Transportation Impact Report  Table 5 Existing Freeway Ramp V/C Ratios

Existing Capacity Freeway

Ramp

I-680

SB on-ramp at Jacklin Road

I-680

NB on-ramp at Jacklin Road

Peak Hour

(vphpl)

AM Midday PM AM Midday PM

1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800

1

Capacity obtained from the Highway Capacity Manual.

2

V/C ratio = Volume-to-capacity ratio

1

2

Volume

V/C Ratio

644 611 480 309 156 205

0.36 0.34 0.27 0.17 0.09 0.11

N. Hillview Drive and Jacklin Road. In the AM peak hour, vehicle queues for the westbound through movement on Jacklin Road occasionally extended back to the intersection at the southbound I-680 ramps. Dixon Landing Road west of N. Milpitas Boulevard. Construction was under way on Dixon Landing Road west of N. Milpitas Boulevard, which disrupted the typical vehicle progression and queuing at the intersection of Dixon Landing Road and N. Milpitas Boulevard. There are three schools located in the immediate vicinity of the project site. The schools are: Milpitas High School, located northwest of the intersection at Escuela Parkway and Russell Lane; Marshall Pomeroy Elementary, located north of and adjacent to the high school; and Thomas Russell Middle School, located at the southeast quadrant of the intersection at Escuela Parkway and Washington Drive/Rogers Street. The middle school is directly adjacent to the site, bordering it on the north side. All three schools start classes within a 30-minute span. The regular school hours (excluding the shortened day on Wednesday) are as follows: the high school schedule is 8:00 AM to 2:56 PM. The middle school hours are 8:26 AM to 3:00 PM. The elementary school hours are 8:15 AM to 2:12 PM. Traffic in the vicinity of the site was very congested during the period when the schools started classes in the AM peak hour and during the mid-day peak hour. During the AM peak hour, traffic was backed up on several streets. Conditions were worst at 8:00 AM, when the following conditions were observed to occur: vehicles on Escuela Parkway were backed up in the southbound direction from Jacklin Road, past Russell Lane and to the main driveway at the high school; there were approximately 10 cars backed up in the westbound direction on Russell Lane at Escuela Parkway; vehicles on Escuela Parkway were backed up in the northbound direction from Russell Lane back to Jacklin Road and a queue of approximately 12 cars was observed in front of the middle school on the northbound approach to the intersection at Washington Drive; vehicle queues were 10 to 18 vehicles on all four approaches to the intersection of Washington Drive and Arizona Avenue; there was a vehicle queue of about 10 cars on the westbound approach to the intersection of Washington Drive and N. Milpitas Boulevard. At 8:15 AM, vehicle queues remained on Escuela Parkway, though they were slightly shorter than at 8:00 AM. At 8:15 AM, there were no vehicle queues on Washington Drive, Arizona Avenue, or Russell Lane. Conditions at 8:25 AM were similar to those described for 8:15 AM, though queues were slightly shorter. By 8:35 AM, there were no vehicle queues anywhere near the school.

16 | Page   

Joint Use Post Secondary Education Center – Transportation Impact Report  During the midday period, at 3:00 PM when both the high school and middle school let out, there were vehicle queues on southbound Escuela Parkway from Jacklin Road back to the elementary school. There also were vehicle queues on westbound Washington Drive from Arizona Avenue more than halfway to Escuela Parkway. These queues dissipated fairly quickly, unlike in the morning. Between the hours of 5:15 and 5:30 PM on a Thursday, on southbound Arizona Avenue there were vehicle queues of about 75 cars from Jacklin Road extending nearly back to Washington Drive. It appeared that it was attributable to a school sporting event that was in progress at that time. The northbound and southbound on-ramps at Jacklin Road have ramp meters, though neither was in operation during the AM, PM or mid-day peak hour.

17 | Page   

Joint Use Post Secondary Education Center – Transportation Impact Report 

3. Background Conditions This chapter describes background traffic conditions. Traffic volumes for background conditions comprise volumes from existing traffic counts plus traffic generated by other approved developments in the vicinity of the site. Traffic volume and roadway network assumptions are described below.

Roadway Network Assumptions & Traffic Volumes There are no near term traffic improvements planned in the study area that are likely to be completed before the proposed project is occupied. Therefore, it was assumed for this analysis that all intersection geometries would remain the same as under existing conditions. Background peak-hour traffic volumes were calculated by adding to existing volumes the estimated traffic from approved but not yet constructed developments. These projects include a residential development at 1494-1600 California Circle in Milpitas that consists of 42 single-family homes and 62 townhomes. Another approved project is the Creekside Landing development west of I-880 and north of Dixon Landing Road in Fremont. It consists of 524,000 square feet of warehouse space. Background traffic volumes are shown on Figure 6.

Background Signalized Intersection Levels of Service Signalized intersection level of service calculations were conducted to evaluate the operating levels of the key signalized intersections under background conditions. Table 6 presents the results of the signalized intersection level of service calculations under background conditions. All signalized study intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better, except the intersection of N. Milpitas Boulevard and Jacklin Road, which would operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour. The TRAFFIX level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B.

Background Freeway Ramp Volume-to-Capacity Ratios Table 7 presents the results of the freeway ramp operations analysis. The table shows that the freeway ramps would operate at a V/C lower than 1.0 under background conditions.

18 | Page   

Joint Use Post Secondary Education Center – Transportation Impact Report 

Table 6 Background Signalized intersection Levels of Service

Existing Intersection N. Milpitas Blvd and Dixon Landing Road

N. Milpitas Blvd and Washington Drive

Escuela Pkwy and Jacklin Road

I-680 SB ramps and Jacklin Road

I-680 NB ramps and Jacklin Road

N. Milpitas Blvd and Jacklin Road

Arizona Ave and Jacklin Road

N. Hillview Drive and Jacklin Road

Background

Peak Hour

Delay

LOS

Delay

LOS

AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM

39.7 38.7 37.1 28.9 23.5 16.0 38.8 35.2 25.7 13.3 9.8 13.1 16.5 14.9 15.3 57.8 44.0 45.0 22.5 23.1 19.8 35.8 21.6 25.9

D D D C C B D D C B A B B B B E D D C C B D C C

39.8 38.8 37.2 29.0 23.5 16.0 38.8 35.2 25.7 13.3 9.8 13.1 16.5 14.9 15.3 57.8 44.0 45.0 22.5 23.1 19.8 35.8 21.6 25.9

D D D C C B D D C B A B B B B E D D C C B D C C

Avg.

Avg.

Planned Bicycle Facilities There is a planned bicycle path (class I bicycle facility) along the Calero Creek from N. Hillview Drive at the east to N. Milpitas Boulevard at the west. Dixon Landing Road is a planned class II bicycle facility from west of I-880 to the Augustine Park trail. Arizona Avenue is a planned class III bicycle facility from Dixon Landing Road at the north to Jacklin Road at the south. Midwick Drive (between Washington Drive and Jacklin Road) is a planned class III bicycle facility from N. Milpitas Boulevard at the west to Arizona Avenue at the east. The pedestrian facilities were assumed unchanged from those of existing conditions.

20 | Page   

Joint Use Post Secondary Education Center – Transportation Impact Report  Table 7 Background Freeway Ramp V/C Ratios

Background Capacity Freeway

Ramp

I-680

SB on-ramp at Jacklin Road

I-680

NB on-ramp at Jacklin Road

Peak Hour

(vphpl)

AM Midday PM AM Midday PM

1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800

1

Capacity obtained from the Highway Capacity Manual.

2

V/C ratio = Volume-to-capacity ratio

1

2

Volume

V/C Ratio

644 611 480 309 156 205

0.36 0.34 0.27 0.17 0.09 0.11

21 | Page   

Joint Use Post Secondary Education Center – Transportation Impact Report 

4. Project Impacts and Recommendations The near term impacts of the proposed project are discussed in this chapter. First, the method used to estimate the amount of traffic added to the roadway system by the project is described. Then, individual intersections are analyzed with the addition of project traffic. Under project conditions, the roadway network would be the same as under background conditions.

Project Traffic Estimates The amount of traffic associated with a development is estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In the first step, the amount of traffic entering and exiting the site is estimated for the AM, PM and mid-day peak hours. In the second step, the directions of approach and departure of project traffic are estimated. In the third step, the trips are assigned to specific streets and intersections. This process is described in the following sections.

Trip Generation The amount of traffic generated by the proposed project was estimated by applying the appropriate trip generation rates to the size of the development. For the AM and PM peak hours, the trip generation rates used to estimate project traffic were those specified in the publication entitled Trip Generation, 9th Edition, by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). For the mid-day peak hour (between 2:00 and 4:00 PM), the trip generation rates used to estimate project traffic were derived from a survey conducted at Ohlone College in Fremont in March 2014. Based on the rates described above, the proposed project would generate 638 daily vehicle trips, with 136 trips occurring during the AM peak hour, 194 occurring during the mid-day peak hour, and 170 trips occurring during the PM peak hour. The project trip generation estimates are presented in Table 8.

Trip Distribution & Assignment The proposed project’s trip distribution pattern was estimated based on the City of Milpitas Travel Demand Forecast Model. This is shown graphically on Figure 7. The trips generated by the proposed project were assigned to the roadway network based on the directional distribution for the AM, mid-day and PM peak hours. Figure 8 shows the project trip assignment. The traffic volumes under (1) existing plus project and (2) background plus project conditions are shown in Figures 9 and 10, respectively.

22 | Page   

Joint Use Post Secondary Education Center – Transportation Impact Report  Table 8 Project Trip Generation

Land Use

Size

Joint Use School 390 Students

Daily AM Peak Hour Rate 1 Total Rate 1 Total In Out

1.64

638

0.35

136

114 22

Midday Peak Hour Rate 2 Total In Out

0.50

194

77 117

PM Peak Hour Rate 1 Total In Out

0.44

170 107 63

1

Trip generation rates per ITE Trip Generation , 9th Edition regression equations for Junior/Community College

2

Trip generation rate based on survey of Ohlone College in Fremont and ITE Rates

Signalized Intersection Level of Service Under Project Conditions The results of the signalized intersection level of service analysis for (1) the existing plus project and (2) the background plus project scenarios are summarized in Tables 9 and 10, respectively. The detailed TRAFFIX level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. According to the definitions provided in Chapter 1, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts to the signalized study intersections under existing plus project conditions or background plus project conditions. All signalized study intersections would operate at LOS D or better, except for the intersection of N. Milpitas Boulevard and Jacklin Road, which would operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour. There is no impact at this intersection because the addition of the project does not cause intersection critical delay to increase by 4 or more seconds or cause the V/C ratio to increase by 0.01 or more.

Freeway Ramp V/C Ratios Under Project Conditions Tables 11 and 12 present the results of the freeway ramp operations analysis under project conditions. The tables show that the freeway ramps would operate at a V/C lower than 1.0 under existing plus project and background plus project conditions.

23 | Page   

Joint Use Post Secondary Education Center – Transportation Impact Report  Table 9 Existing Plus Project Signalized Intersection Levels of Service

Existing Intersection N. Milpitas Blvd and Dixon Landing

N. Milpitas Blvd and Washington Drive

Escuela Pkwy and Jacklin Road

I-680 SB ramps and Jacklin Road

I-680 NB ramps and Jacklin Road

N. Milpitas Blvd and Jacklin Road

Arizona Ave and Jacklin Road

N. Hillview Drive and Jacklin Road

Existing + Project

Peak Hour

Incr. In

Incr. In

Delay

LOS

Delay

LOS

Crit. Delay

Crit. V/C

AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM

39.7 38.7 37.1 28.9 23.5 16.0 38.8 35.2 25.7 13.3 9.8 13.1 16.5 14.9 15.3 57.8 44.0 45.0 22.5 23.1 19.8 35.8 21.6 25.9

D D D C C B D D C B A B B B B E D D C C B D C C

39.7 38.8 37.1 29.9 24.4 16.2 39.4 35.9 26.9 14.0 9.9 13.2 16.8 15.2 15.5 57.9 44.0 45.0 22.5 23.1 19.8 36.2 22.5 26.6

D D D C C B D D C B A B B B B E D D C C B D C C

0.2 0.1 0.0 1.3 1.0 0.4 3.2 0.7 1.3 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.1

0.010 0.005 0.003 0.016 0.023 0.020 0.017 0.015 0.011 0.005 0.025 0.024 0.017 0.014 0.021 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.001 0.027 0.032 0.021

Avg.

Avg.

28 | Page   

Joint Use Post Secondary Education Center – Transportation Impact Report  Table 10 Background Plus Project Signalized Intersection Levels of Service

Background + Project

Background Intersection N. Milpitas Blvd and Dixon Landing

N. Milpitas Blvd and Washington Drive

Escuela Pkwy and Jacklin Road

I-680 SB ramps and Jacklin Road

I-680 NB ramps and Jacklin Road

N. Milpitas Blvd and Jacklin Road

Arizona Ave and Jacklin Road

N. Hillview Drive and Jacklin Road

Peak Hour

Delay

LOS

Delay

LOS

AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM

39.8 38.8 37.2 29.0 23.5 16.0 38.8 35.2 25.7 13.3 9.8 13.1 16.5 14.9 15.3 57.8 44.0 45.0 22.5 23.1 19.8 35.8 21.6 25.9

D D D C C B D D C B A B B B B E D D C C B D C C

39.8 38.8 37.3 30.0 24.4 16.2 39.4 35.9 26.9 14.0 9.9 13.2 16.8 15.2 15.5 57.9 44.1 45.0 22.5 23.1 19.8 36.2 22.5 26.6

D D D C C B D D C B A B B B B E D D C C B D C C

Avg.

Avg.

Incr. In

Incr. In

Crit. Delay Crit. V/C

0.2 0.4 0.0 1.3 1.0 0.4 3.2 0.7 1.3 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.1

0.010 0.009 0.003 0.016 0.023 0.020 0.017 0.015 0.011 0.005 0.025 0.024 0.017 0.014 0.021 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.001 0.027 0.032 0.021

29 | Page   

Joint Use Post Secondary Education Center – Transportation Impact Report 

Table 11 Existing Plus Project Freeway Ramp V/C Ratios

Existing + Project Capacity Freeway

Ramp

I-680

SB on-ramp at Jacklin Road

I-680

NB on-ramp at Jacklin Road

Peak Hour

(vphpl)

AM Midday PM AM Midday PM

1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800

1

Capacity obtained from the Highway Capacity Manual.

2

V/C ratio = Volume-to-capacity ratio

1

2

Volume

V/C Ratio

651 646 499 312 172 214

0.36 0.36 0.28 0.17 0.10 0.12

Table 12 Background Plus Project Freeway Ramp V/C Ratios

Background + Project Capacity Freeway

Ramp

I-680

SB on-ramp at Jacklin Road

I-680

NB on-ramp at Jacklin Road

Peak Hour

(vphpl)

AM Midday PM AM Midday PM

1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800

1

Capacity obtained from the Highway Capacity Manual.

2

V/C ratio = Volume-to-capacity ratio

1

2

Volume

V/C Ratio

651 646 499 312 172 214

0.36 0.36 0.28 0.17 0.10 0.12

30 | Page   

Joint Use Post Secondary Education Center – Transportation Impact Report 

5. Cumulative Conditions This chapter presents a summary of the traffic conditions that would occur under cumulative conditions. The analysis of cumulative conditions was conducted based on background plus project traffic volumes plus the expected growth in existing traffic plus the traffic associated with pending development projects in Fremont and Milpitas.

Cumulative Roadway Network & Traffic Volumes It was assumed for this analysis that all intersection geometries would remain the same as under existing conditions. Cumulative conditions were evaluated for two scenarios: cumulative without the project and cumulative with the project. Traffic volumes under baseline (no project) cumulative conditions were estimated by adding to background traffic volumes the expected growth in existing traffic and the traffic associated with pending development projects in Fremont and Milpitas. Based on City of Milpitas Travel Demand Model forecasts, annual growth rates of 2.6 percent and 2.1 percent were derived for the AM and PM peakhours, respectively. The PM peak-hour rate was used for the midday peak hour. These annual growth rates were applied through Fall 2016, which is the expected date of project occupancy. Cumulative traffic volumes include the traffic generated by the pending development located at 1210 California Circle in Milpitas. That project consists of 170 townhome units. The total cumulative traffic volumes without the project are shown on Figure 11. The cumulative with project traffic volumes are shown on Figure 12.

Signalized Intersection Level of Service Under Cumulative Conditions The results of the signalized intersection level of service analysis for cumulative conditions without the project and cumulative conditions with the project are summarized in Table 13. The detailed TRAFFIX level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. According to the definitions provided in Chapter 1, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts to the signalized study intersections. All signalized study intersections would operate at LOS D or better, except for the intersection of N. Milpitas Boulevard and Jacklin Road, which would operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour. There is no impact at this intersection because the addition of the project does not cause intersection critical delay to increase by 4 or more seconds or cause the V/C ratio to increase by 0.01 or more.

31 | Page   

Joint Use Post Secondary Education Center – Transportation Impact Report 

Table 13 Signalized Intersection Levels of Service Under Cumulative Conditions

No Project Intersection N. Milpitas Blvd and Dixon Landing

N. Milpitas Blvd and Washington Drive

Escuela Pkwy and Jacklin Road

I-680 SB ramps and Jacklin Road

I-680 NB ramps and Jacklin Road

N. Milpitas Blvd and Jacklin Road

Arizona Ave and Jacklin Road

N. Hillview Drive and Jacklin Road

Cumulative With Project

Peak Hour

Incr. In

Incr. In

Delay

LOS

Delay

LOS

Crit. Delay

Crit. V/C

AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM

40.5 39.3 37.8 31.0 23.9 16.1 39.7 35.5 25.9 13.9 9.9 13.3 16.9 15.0 15.4 62.3 44.6 45.5 23.2 23.4 20.0 37.7 21.7 26.2

D D D C C B D D C B A B B B B E D D C C C D C C

40.5 39.4 37.9 32.2 24.9 16.4 40.6 36.2 27.1 14.6 10.1 13.4 17.3 15.3 15.6 62.4 44.6 45.6 23.1 23.3 20.0 38.4 22.7 27.0

D D D C C B D D C B B B B B B E D D C C C D C C

0.3 0.1 0.0 1.6 1.1 0.4 0.6 0.7 1.3 1.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.1 1.1

0.010 0.005 0.003 0.016 0.023 0.020 0.009 0.015 0.011 0.005 0.025 0.024 0.017 0.014 0.021 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.001 0.027 0.032 0.021

Avg.

Avg.

Freeway Ramp V/C Ratios Under Cumulative Conditions Table 14 presents the results of the freeway ramp operations analysis under cumulative conditions. The table shows that the freeway ramps would operate at a V/C lower than 1.0 under cumulative conditions.

34 | Page   

Joint Use Post Secondary Education Center – Transportation Impact Report 

Table 14 Freeway Ramp V/C Ratios Under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions

Cumulative Capacity Freeway

Ramp

I-680

SB on-ramp at Jacklin Road

I-680

NB on-ramp at Jacklin Road

Peak Hour

(vphpl)

AM Midday PM AM Midday PM

1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800

1

Capacity obtained from the Highway Capacity Manual.

2

V/C ratio = Volume-to-capacity ratio

1

2

Volume

V/C Ratio

693 678 525 332 180 225

0.39 0.38 0.29 0.18 0.10 0.13

35 | Page   

Joint Use Post Secondary Education Center – Transportation Impact Report 

6. Other Transportation Issues This chapter presents an analysis of other transportation issues associated with the project, including: 

Unsignalized intersection analysis and existing school traffic congestion



Vehicular site access and on-site circulation



Potential impacts to bike, pedestrian and transit facilities

Unlike the level of service impact methodology, which is adopted by the Milpitas City Council, the analyses in this chapter are based on professional judgment in accordance with the standards and methods employed by the traffic engineering community.

Unsignalized Intersection Analysis & Existing School Congestion The levels of service at the unsignalized study intersections were evaluated under existing, background, existing plus project, background plus project, and cumulative conditions with and without the project. The results are summarized in Table 15. The delay and LOS are reported based on overall average delay for the intersections. The intersection LOS calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. Based on this analysis, all unsignalized study intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service except the intersection of Escuela Parkway and Washington Drive, which currently operates at LOS E and would operate at LOS F under cumulative conditions in the AM peak hour. A review of the level of service for the intersection showed an extremely high delay for the northbound left-turn movement from Escuela Parkway turning onto westbound Washington Drive. This is because northbound traffic on Escuela Parkway is stop-controlled at the intersection with Washington Drive. Vehicles on Washington Drive do not have to stop. Consequently, vehicles turning from Escuela Parkway onto Washington Drive cannot turn until there is a gap in traffic on Washington Drive. During the fifteen-minute period just before and during the start of the three schools (about 8:00 to 8:15 AM), traffic is extremely congested on Escuela Parkway. The intersection at Washington Drive and Escuela Parkway is acutely affected during this period. Adding to the congestion is the very high volume of pedestrian traffic, with children crossing the street to get to school. Therefore, although the peak hour results of this traffic analysis are designed to reflect conditions for an entire 60 minute period, the conditions during the peak 15 minutes are notably worse. This pattern is generally true during the AM and midday peak hours on all of the streets surrounding the three schools (as noted in Chapter 2). On

36 | Page   

Joint Use Post Secondary Education Center – Transportation Impact Report  Escuela Parkway, Arizona Avenue, and Washington Avenue, during the peak 15 minute periods before and after school, the streets and intersections in the vicinity of the project operate at capacity. In addition to the level of service analysis conducted for the unsignalized intersections, an assessment was made of the need for signalization of the unsignalized intersections. This assessment was made on the basis of the Peak-hour Volume Signal Warrant, Warrant #3 described in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This method does not evaluate intersection level of service, but simply provides an indication whether peak-hour traffic volumes would be sufficient to justify installation of a traffic signal. The signal warrant analysis sheets are included in Appendix C. The analysis showed that the peak-hour signal warrant would be met in the AM peak hour at the three unsignalized intersections bordering the schools: the intersections of Washington Drive and Arizona Avenue, Washington Drive and Escuela Parkway, and Escuela Parkway and Russell Lane. The signal warrants would not be met during the midday or PM peak hours. The reason for the signal warrant being met at the three intersections is because of the school traffic congestion. Although there is considerable congestion on the streets immediately surrounding the project site during the AM period, the current project description for the proposed Joint Use School shows classes would begin at 9:00 AM. This would be approximately one-half hour after the existing school congestion clears. Most students and facility would arrive between 8:30 AM to 9:00 AM on a typical weekday. Thus, the proposed project would contribute very few, if any, project trips during the peak AM congestion period. The LOS and delays presented in Table 15 follow standard traffic engineering analysis practices, which overlay the peak 60 minutes of ambient traffic during 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM with the AM peak 60 minutes of a typical community college. This is a very conservative approach because, with the current project description, most AM peak hour project traffic would not coincide with the peak congestion of the existing schools. For this reason, it was determined that the project’s impact to the existing unsignalized intersections would be less than significant. Should the proposed Joint Use School change its operational plan such that its start time would coincide with the three existing schools in the area, then mitigation should be considered. Table 15 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Cumulative Existing Intersection 1

Arizona Ave and Washington Drive

2

Escuela Pkwy and Washington Drive

2

Escuela Pkwy and Russell Lane

Existing + Project

Background

Background + Project

Peak Hour

Count Date

Delay

LOS

Delay

LOS

Delay

LOS

Delay

LOS

Avg.

Avg.

Avg.

Avg.

No Project

With Project

Avg.

Avg.

Delay

LOS

Delay

LOS

AM

05/13/14

18.2

C

19.5

C

18.2

C

19.5

C

22.1

C

24.3

C

MD

05/13/14

11.0

B

11.5

B

11.0

B

11.5

B

11.5

B

12.0

B

PM

05/13/14

8.4

A

8.6

A

8.4

A

8.6

A

8.6

A

8.7

A

AM

05/13/14

39.8

E

47.1

E

39.8

E

47.1

E

62.3

F

71.9

F

MD

05/13/14

10.0

A

10.8

B

10.0

A

10.8

B

10.5

B

11.5

B

PM

05/13/14

6.3

A

6.3

A

6.3

A

6.3

A

6.4

A

6.4

A

AM

05/13/14

3.2

A

3.5

A

3.2

A

3.5

A

3.5

A

3.9

A

MD

05/13/14

2.5

A

3.0

A

2.5

A

3.0

A

2.6

A

3.0

A

PM

05/13/14

1.8

A

2.3

A

1.8

A

2.3

A

1.8

A

2.4

A

Note: MD = midday. 1 unsignalized four-way stop-controlled intersection; delay corresponds to overall average delay for all approaches. 2 unsignalized two-way stop-controlled intersection; delay corresponds to the average delay for the entire intersection.

37 | Page   

Joint Use Post Secondary Education Center – Transportation Impact Report 

Site Access & Circulation A project site plan is not available at the time of this analysis. In order to ensure the safe and efficient circulation of traffic on the site and the surrounding street system, the project site needs to provide certain features and conditions. The site access needs to be located such that there is adequate sight distance for vehicles at the project driveways, and that there are an adequate number of lanes at the site driveways to accommodate project traffic. The site design should integrate pedestrian and bicycle access with sidewalks, crosswalks and trails off site and provide convenient pedestrian and bicycle circulation on site. This is particularly important because shared use of the project with Milpitas High School will increase the pedestrian crossing demand on Escuela Parkway. The site design should provide bicycle parking on site. The site design needs to ensure that there is adequate space onsite for trucks, garbage collection, and emergency vehicles. The plan should minimize the number of dead-end streets or aisles and, for any dead-ends that are proposed, should provide adequate space for vehicles to turn around.

Pedestrian, Bicycle, & Transit Facilities According to the U.S. Census, pedestrian trips comprise approximately 1.3 percent of the total commute mode share in the City of Milpitas. For the proposed project, this would equate to approximately 2 new pedestrian commute trips1 during the AM and PM peak hours. In addition, the project would generate some pedestrian trips from (1) existing transit stops, (2) adult students who live in the surrounding neighborhoods, and (3) students at the adjacent high school who will attend classes at the joint use facility. As described previously, there are existing sidewalks on all streets in the vicinity of the project. In addition, there are crosswalks (with ADA compliant ramps) at all of the nearby intersections. The proposed project would not create pedestrian demand beyond the current capacity of the existing sidewalks. The U.S. Census has determined that bicycle trips comprise less than one percent of the total commute mode share in the City of Milpitas. For the proposed project, this would equate to approximately one new commute bike trip during the AM and PM peak hours. In addition, the project would generate bike trips from future students who reside in the surrounding neighborhoods. Generally, the volume of bicycle trips generated by the project would not exceed the bicycle-carrying capacity of streets surrounding the site, and the increase in bicycle trips would not, by itself, require new off-site bicycle facilities. However, the project should comply with VTA bike parking guidelines and provide the prescribed number of Class I parking (lockers or guarded parking) and Class II bicycle spaces (bike racks). The current transit service in the project vicinity consists of VTA and AC Transit operated bus routes as described previously. The closest bus stops are located on Esceula Parkway north of Cirolero Street, on Washington Drive west of Escuela Parkway, and on Arizona Avenue south of Washington Drive. The stop on Escuela Parkway is directly adjacent to the project site. The others are located within one-quarter to one-half mile of the project site. According to the U.S. Census, transit trips comprise approximately 3 percent of the total commute mode share in the City of Milpitas. For the proposed project, this would equate to between 4 and 6 new commute transit trips during the AM and PM peak hours. In addition, the project would generate some transit trips from future students. Based on field observations, the existing bus service in the project vicinity has available capacity to accommodate the increase in bus riders from the proposed project.

1

The term “commute trips” in this section refers to employee trips 38 | Page   

Joint Use Post Secondary Education Center – Transportation Impact Report 

Joint Use Post Secondary Education Center Transportation Impact Analysis

Technical Appendices

July 2014    

 

Appendix A Traffic Counts