INITIAL STUDY – 90-160 ALBRIGHT WAY AND 14600 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD

ATTACHMENT 1

APPLICANT’S TREE PRESERVATION STATEMENT

M E M O R A N D U M

To: Geoff Bradley, Joel Paulson and Fletcher Parson, Town of Los Gatos

From: Mike Keaney

Date: 2/4/11

Subject: Albright Way, Tree Preservation

After visiting the site and reviewing the conceptual site plan we are proposing to use our best efforts (we do not know for certain the impacts of grading and utilities on the existing trees) to preserve trees in the following locations:

On the slope adjacent to the existing residential uses all of the trees behind the masonry wall that is currently on the site can be preserved. This includes the following trees: 25, 26, 27, 28, 106, 107, 116, 115, 114, 113.

On the southern property line adjacent to the existing residential near Charter Oaks Drive we will setback parking 15’ from the property line. This will allow for the preservation of the majority of the trees along this edge of the project. This applies to the following trees: 124 – 132, 134 – 141.

Along the railroad right of way the majority of our improvements will be in areas of the site that are already developed with parking and other improvements. This should allow for the preservation of many trees in this area including: 324, 326-346.

Of course, if any of these trees must be removed, we will follow the tree mitigation requirements. INITIAL STUDY – 90-160 ALBRIGHT WAY AND 14600 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD

ATTACHMENT 2

AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT ALBRIGHT WAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

BY

RBF CONSULTING

MARCH 2011

Albright Way Development Project AIR QUALITY & GREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT

Consultant:

RBF CONSULTING 14725 Alton Parkway Irvine, California 92618 Contact: Mr. Eddie Torres, INCE, REA Director of Technical Studies 949.855.3612

March 31, 2011

JN 40‐100419 Albright Way Development Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 3 1.1 Project Location ...... 3 1.2 Project Characteristics...... 3

2.0 EXISTING AIR QUALITY SETTING...... 8 2.1 Environmental Setting...... 8 2.2 Regulatory Framework...... 11 2.3 Sensitive Receptors...... 19

3.0 MONITORED AIR QUALITY ...... 21

4.0 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY ...... 27 4.1 Significance Criteria ...... 27

5.0 POTENTIAL AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACTS...... 30

6.0 REFERENCES ...... 62 6.1 List of Preparers...... 62 6.2 Documents...... 62 6.3 Web Sites/Programs ...... 63

APPENDIX A – AIR MODELING DATA

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment i March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1 – Regional Vicinity ...... 5

Exhibit 2 – Site Vicinity ...... 6

Exhibit 3 – Site Plan ...... 7

Exhibit 4 – Phased Approach for Estimating Community Risks and Hazards...... 47

Exhibit 5 – Residential Development Limitations...... 50

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 – National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards ...... 12

Table 2 – Sensitive Receptors...... 20

Table 3 – Local Air Quality Levels...... 21

Table 4 – BAAQMD Emissions Thresholds...... 27

Table 5 – BAAQMD GHG Thresholds...... 29

Table 6 – Construction Emissions...... 33

Table 7 – Long‐Term Operational Air Emissions ...... 38

Table 8 – Risk and Health Hazards from State Route 85...... 49

Table 9 – Scenario 1 Business as Usual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Projections ...... 54

Table 10 – Project Consistency With the BAAQMD Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures...... 55

Table 11 – Scenario 1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions With BAAQMD Sector Reductions...... 57

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment ii March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

LIST OF ACRONYMS

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter AB Assembly Bill ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments APS Alternative Planning Strategy AQMP Air Quality Management Plan BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAU Business as Usual CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CARB California Air Resources Board CAT Climate Action Team CCAA California Clean Air Act CCR California Code of Regulations CEC California Energy Commission CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFCs Chlorofluorocarbons CH4 Methane CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide CO2e CO2 equivalent CPUC California Public Utilities Commission EAC Early Action Compact EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency F Fahrenheit FCAA Federal Clean Air Act GHG greenhouse gas GWP Global Warming Potential H2O water vapor HCFCs Hydrochlorofluorocarbons HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons IPCC International Panel for Climate Change km kilometer LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard LOS level of service LSTs Localized Significance Thresholds MMT million metric tons MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission MTCO2eq metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents N2O nitrous oxide N/A Not Applicable NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NOA naturally occurring asbestos

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment iii March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOx nitrogen oxides O3 ozone OPR Office of Planning and Research Pb lead PFCs Perfluorocarbons PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter ppm parts per million ppt parts per trillion PST Pacific Standard Time RCPG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide RH relative humidity ROG Reactive Organic Gasses SB Senate Bill SCS Sustainable Community Strategy SF6 Sulfur hexafluoride SIP State Implementation Plan SO2 sulfur dioxide SOx sulfur oxides SRA source receptor area UV‐B ultraviolet rays VHT vehicle hours traveled VMT vehicle miles traveled VOC Volatile Organic Compound

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment iv March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment is to evaluate potential short‐ and long‐term air quality and greenhouse gas impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed Albright Way Development project (project). The project is located in the Town of Los Gatos (Town), along Albright Way, southeast of the State Route 85 (SR‐85) and Winchester Boulevard interchange.

The project proposes a Planned Development zoning that will allow for flexibility in the ultimate mix of land uses on the project site. The project may consist of office alone or a mix of office and high‐density /senior residential units. As currently proposed, the project could include up to a maximum of 550,000 square feet of office space, or a combination of less office space with residential uses. Residential uses could include up to a maximum of 516 high‐ density dwelling units or 600 senior residential uses. This Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment evaluates Scenario 1 as identified in the Albright Way Development Traffic Impact Analysis (Traffic Impact Analysis), prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. on March 17, 2011. Scenario 1 consists of the replacement of 250,000 square feet of existing office park buildings with new office buildings totaling 550,000 square feet. Under Scenario 1, the new office buildings would provide an additional 300,000 square feet of office space and result in additional 3,126 daily vehicle trips. Three parking structures are also proposed under this Scenario. As noted, the Planned Development zoning will provide flexibility for mixed use scenarios, provided that the air quality and GHG impacts of those scenarios are not substantially more severe than the air quality and GHG impacts of Scenario 1.

Construction activities would consist of demolition of existing buildings, site grading, trenching, paving, building construction, and architectural coating. Staging for construction equipment would occur within the boundaries of the project site.

Temporary Impacts. Based upon the results of the analysis, construction emissions would not exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District thresholds with implementation of recommended mitigation measures. Short‐term construction impacts would be considered less than significant.

Long‐Term Impacts. The analysis has demonstrated that project implementation would result in less than significant long‐term impacts. Carbon monoxide hot‐spots impacts would also be less than significant with implementation of recommended mitigation within the project’s Traffic Impact Analysis. The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts for all long‐term operational emissions.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts. The proposed project would generate minimal amounts of GHG emissions as a result of construction activities, and would result in a less than significant impact. Long‐term operational greenhouse gas emissions would be less than significant with implementation of the recommended mitigation measure.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 1 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

Cumulative Impacts. The proposed project would be consistent with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s 2010 Clean Air Plan, as the proposed project complies with the goals and policies of the General Plan and does not exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s short‐ and long‐term significance criteria. The proposed project would result in a less than significant impact for cumulative long‐ and short‐term operational emissions.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 2 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment is to evaluate potential short‐ and long‐term air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed Albright Way Development project (project) in the Town of Los Gatos (Town).

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION

The project is located in the Town of Los Gatos, California; refer to Exhibit 1, Regional Vicinity. Specifically, the project site is located along Albright Way, southeast of the State Route 85 (SR‐ 85) and Winchester Boulevard interchange; refer to Exhibit 2, Local Vicinity Map.

1.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS

The project proposes a Planned Development zoning that will all for flexibility in the ultimate mix of land uses on the site. The project may consist of office alone or a mix of office and high‐ density /senior residential units. As currently proposed, the project could include up to a maximum of 550,000 square feet of office space, or a combination of less office space with residential uses. Residential uses could include up to a maximum of 516 high‐density dwelling units or 600 senior residential uses. This Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment evaluates Scenario 1 as identified in the Albright Way Development Traffic Impact Analysis (Traffic Impact Analysis), prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. on March 17, 2011. An evaluation of each of the potential land use scenarios indicates that the development of the project site as all office uses would result in the greatest amount of traffic being added to the roadway system.1 Therefore, as vehicle trips are typically largest source of air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for development projects, this analysis evaluates the “worst‐ case” project scenario consisting of the replacement of 250,000 square feet (s.f.) of existing office park buildings with new buildings totaling 550,000 s.f.; refer to Exhibit 3, Site Plan.

As noted, the Planned Development zoning will provide flexibility for mixed use scenarios, provided that the air quality and GHG impacts of those scenarios are not substantially more severe than the air quality and GHG impacts of Scenario 1. The Town has developed the following additional illustrative land uses scenarios:

• Scenario 1: Replacement of the 250,000 s.f. of existing office park buildings on the site with new office buildings totaling 550,000 s.f. • Scenario 2: Minimum of 200,000 s.f. new office plus 141,000 s.f. (remaining) office • Scenario 3: 200,000 s.f. new office plus up to 516 high‐density units • Scenario 4: 200,000 s.f. new office plus up to 600 senior units

1 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., Albright Way Development Traffic Impact Analysis, March 17, 2011.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 3 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

Because the office use would generate more daily and peak hour trips than would residential, this study first presents the analysis of a proposed project scenario consisting of the replacement of the 250,000 s.f. of existing office park buildings on the site with new office buildings totaling 550,000 s.f. Then, in order to determine whether the addition of residential uses would generate any greater impacts than the 550,000 s.f. office scenario, supplemental analyses were completed for the additional scenarios.

The project site is bound by Winchester Boulevard, a rail line and SR‐85 to the north and west, a residential neighborhood and the Los Gatos Creek Trail to the east, and an office building to the south. The design goals for future buildings on the project site are to fit into that transitional environment and to provide adequate density for a transit oriented development to meet the Townʹs goals. In order to work with the project site’s natural grades, the site design would utilize walls, terraces, and landscaped steps in natural materials that would become an extension of the building architecture, and create useful outdoor social gathering spaces.

Construction activities would consist of demolition of existing buildings, site grading, trenching, paving, building construction, and architectural coating. Staging for construction equipment would occur within the boundaries of the project site.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 4 March 2011 Sebastopol NAPA 505 YOLO SACRAMENTO 29 COUNTY COUNTY 116 COUNTY Rohnert 12 84 Park 121 Vacaville Cotati SONOMA 80 113 Bodega COUNTY Napa SOLANO 5 Bay Sonoma Fairfield COUNTY 101 160 104 Petaluma Suisun City Galt 116 220 12 121 12 Rio 29 Vista 99 37 Vallejo 680 Lodi 12 Novato Benicia MARIN 160 COUNTY 780 1 San 4 4 Rafael 80 Hercules Richmond Martinez Antioch 4 580 Concord Stockton 101 Lafayette CONTRA COSTA 24 Walnut Creek SAN COUNTY 4 Berkley Orinda JOAQUIN Sausalito COUNTY Danville 80 13 SAN FRANCISCO Lathrop 680 COUNTY Oakland 120 San San Ramon Alameda 205 Francisco 580 Tracy Dublin 5 Daly 101 San 580 Hayward Livermore 580 City Leandro 880 Pleasanton Pacifica 84 238 132 San 92 ALAMEDA Millbrae Mateo Union COUNTY City 33 1 280 Hillsborough 5 Redwood 84 Newark City Fremont 92 Half Moon Bay 35 82 Palo Milpitas Alto 880 680 SAN MATEO 280 101 COUNTY Los Altos Santa STANISLAUS Clara COUNTY 84 Cupertino San Jose Saratoga 85 87 82 SANTA 9 CLARA COUNTY Los Project 35 Gatos 17 236 Site P A COF I C E A N Morgan Hill 9 Scotts 1 Valley SANTA CRUZ COUNTY 156 152 Santa Capitola Gilroy Cruz 152

25 Watsonville 129

Hollister 156 SAN BENITO COUNTY 156 101 MONTEREY 25 COUNTY 1 183 Salinas Marina

ALBRIGHT WAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT 0 10 20 miles

APPROXIMATE Regional Vicinity 1/26/11 JN 40-100419-17194 MAS Exhibit 1 Source: Google Earth aerial. ALBRIGHT WAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT not to scale Local Vicinity 1/26/11 JN 40-100419-17194 MAS Exhibit 2 Source: Form4 Architecture. ALBRIGHT WAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 0 160' AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT APPROXIMATE Conceptual Site Layout 1/26/11 JN 40-100419-17194 MAS Exhibit 3 Albright Way Development Project

2.0 EXISTING AIR QUALITY SETTING

2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) divides the State into 15 air basins that share similar meteorological and topographical features. The project site is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (Basin). This Basin comprises all of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties, the southern portion of Sonoma, and the southwestern portion of Solano County. Air quality in this area is determined by such natural factors as topography, meteorology, and climate, in addition to the presence of existing air pollution sources and ambient conditions. These factors along with applicable regulations are discussed below.

The Town of Los Gatos is located within the Santa Clara Valley climatological subregion of the Basin. The Santa Clara Valley is bounded by the San Francisco Bay to the north and by mountains to the east, south, and west.

The climate is dominated by the strength and location of a semi‐permanent, subtropical high‐ pressure cell. During the summer, the Pacific high pressure cell is centered over the northeastern Pacific Ocean resulting in stable meteorological conditions and a steady northwesterly wind flow. Upwelling of cold ocean water from below to the surface because of the northwesterly flow produces a band of cold water off the California coast. The cool and moisture‐laden air approaching the coast from the Pacific Ocean is further cooled by the presence of the cold water band resulting in condensation and the presence of fog and stratus clouds along the Northern California coast. In the winter, the Pacific high‐pressure cell weakens and shifts southward resulting in wind flow offshore, the absence of upwelling, and the occurrence of storms. Weak inversions coupled with moderate winds result in a low air pollution potential.

Wind Patterns

During the summer, winds flowing from the northwest are drawn inland through the Golden Gate and over the lower portions of the San Francisco Peninsula. Immediately south of Mount Tamalpais, the northwesterly winds accelerate considerably and come more directly from the west as they stream through the Golden Gate. This channeling of wind through the Golden Gate produces a jet that sweeps eastward and splits off to the northwest toward Richmond and to the southwest toward San Jose when it meets the East Bay hills.

Wind speeds may be strong locally in areas where air is channeled through a narrow opening, such as the Carquinez Strait, the Golden Gate or the San Bruno gap. For example, the average wind speed at San Francisco International Airport in July is about 17 knots (from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.), compared with only seven knots at San Jose and less than six knots at the Farallon Islands. The air flowing in from the coast to the Central Valley, called the sea breeze, begins developing at or near ground level along the coast in late morning or early afternoon. As the

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 8 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

day progresses, the sea breeze layer deepens and increases in velocity while spreading inland. The depth of the sea breeze depends in large part upon the height and strength of the inversion. If the inversion is low and strong, and hence stable, the flow of the sea breeze will be inhibited and stagnant conditions are likely to result.

In the winter, the Basin frequently experiences stormy conditions with moderate to strong winds, as well as periods of stagnation with very light winds. Winter stagnation episodes are characterized by nighttime drainage flows in coastal valleys. Drainage is a reversal of the usual daytime air‐flow patterns; air moves from the Central Valley toward the coast and back down toward the Bay from the smaller valleys within the Basin.

Temperature

Summertime temperatures in the Basin are determined in large part by the effect of differential heating between land and water surfaces. Because land tends to heat up and cool off more quickly than water, a large‐scale gradient (differential) in temperature is often created between the coast and the Central Valley, and small‐scale local gradients are often produced along the shorelines of the ocean and bays. The temperature gradient near the ocean is also exaggerated, especially in summer, because of the upwelling of cold ocean bottom water along the coast. On summer afternoons the temperatures at the coast can be 35 degrees Fahrenheit (ºF) cooler than temperatures 15 to 20 miles inland. At night this contrast usually decreases to less than 10ºF. In the winter, the relationship of minimum and maximum temperatures is reversed. During the daytime the temperature contrast between the coast and inland areas is small, whereas at night the variation in temperature is large.

Precipitation

The Basin is characterized by moderately wet winters and dry summers. Winter rains account for about 75 percent of the average annual rainfall. The amount of annual precipitation can vary greatly from one part of the Basin to another even within short distances. In general, total annual rainfall can reach 40 inches in the mountains, but it is often less than 16 inches in sheltered valleys. During rainy periods, ventilation (rapid horizontal movement of air and injection of cleaner air) and vertical mixing are usually high, and thus pollution levels tend to be low. However, frequent dry periods do occur during the winter where mixing and ventilation are low and pollutant levels build up.

Air Pollution Potential

The potential for high pollutant concentrations developing at a given location depends upon the quantity of pollutants emitted into the atmosphere in the surrounding area or upwind, and the ability of the atmosphere to disperse the contaminated air. The topographic and climatological factors discussed above influence the atmospheric pollution potential of an area. Atmospheric pollution potential, as the term is used here, is independent of the location of emission sources and is instead a function of factors described below.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 9 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

Wind Circulation

Low wind speed contributes to the buildup of air pollution because it allows more pollutants to be emitted into the air mass per unit of time. Light winds occur most frequently during periods of low sun (fall and winter, and early morning) and at night. These are also periods when air pollutant emissions from some sources are at their peak, namely, commute traffic (early morning) and wood burning appliances (nighttime). The problem can be compounded in valleys, when weak flows carry the pollutants upvalley during the day, and cold air drainage flows move the air mass downvalley at night. Such restricted movement of trapped air provides little opportunity for ventilation and leads to buildup of pollutants to potentially unhealthful levels.

Inversions

An inversion is a layer of warmer air over a layer of cooler air. Inversions affect air quality conditions significantly because they influence the mixing depth, which is the vertical depth in the atmosphere available for diluting air contaminants near the ground. The highest air pollutant concentrations in the Basin generally occur during inversions.

There are two types of inversions that occur regularly in the Basin. One is more common in the summer and fall, while the other is most common during the winter. The frequent occurrence of elevated temperature inversions in summer and fall months acts to cap the mixing depth, limiting the depth of air available for dilution. Elevated inversions are caused by subsiding air from the subtropical high pressure zone, and from the cool marine air layer that is drawn into the Basin by the heated low pressure region in the Central Valley.

The inversions typical of winter, called radiation inversions, are formed as heat quickly radiates from the earthʹs surface after sunset, causing the air in contact with it to rapidly cool. Radiation inversions are strongest on clear, low‐wind, cold winter nights, allowing the build‐up of such pollutants as carbon monoxide and particulate matter. When wind speeds are low, there is little mechanical turbulence to mix the air, resulting in a layer of warm air over a layer of cooler air next to the ground. Mixing depths under these conditions can be as shallow as 50 to 100 meters, particularly in rural areas. Urban areas usually have deeper minimum mixing layers because of heat island effects and increased surface roughness. During radiation inversions downwind transport is slow, the mixing depths are shallow, and turbulence is minimal, all factors which contribute to ozone formation.

Although each type of inversion is most common during a specific season, either inversion mechanism can occur at any time of the year. Sometimes both occur simultaneously. Moreover, the characteristics of an inversion often change throughout the course of a eday. Th terrain of the Basin also induces significant variations among subregions.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 10 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

Solar Radiation

The frequency of hot, sunny days during the summer months in the Basin is another important factor that affects air pollution potential. It is at the higher temperatures that ozone is formed. In the presence of ultraviolet sunlight and warm temperatures, reactive organic gases and oxides of nitrogen react to form secondary photochemical pollutants, including ozone. Because temperatures in many of the inland valleys are so much higher than near the coast, the inland areas are especially prone to photochemical air pollution. In late fall and winter, solar angles are low, resulting in insufficient ultraviolet light and warming of the atmosphere to drive the photochemical reactions. Ozone concentrations do not reach significant levels in the Basin during these seasons.

Sheltered Terrain

The hills and mountains in the Basin contribute to the high pollution potential of some areas. During the day, or at night during windy conditions, areas in the lee sides of mountains are sheltered from the prevailing winds, thereby reducing turbulence and downwind transport. At night, when wind speeds are low, the upper atmospheric layers are often decoupled from the surface layers during radiation conditions. If elevated terrain is present, it will tend to block pollutant transport in that direction. Elevated terrain also can create a recirculation pattern by inducing upvalley air flows during the day and reverse downvalley flows during the night, allowing little inflow of fresh air.

The areas having the highest air pollution potential tend to be those that experience the highest temperatures in the summer and the lowest temperatures in the winter. The coastal areas are exposed to the prevailing marine air, creating cooler temperatures in the summer, warmer temperatures in winter, and stratus clouds all year. The inland valleys are sheltered from the marine air and experience hotter summers and colder winters. Thus, the topography of the inland valleys creates conditions conducive to high air pollution potential.

2.2 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

The EPA is responsible for implementing the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), which was first enacted in 1955 and amended numerous times after. The FCAA established Federal air quality standards known as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). These standards identify levels of air quality for “criteria” pollutants that are considered the maximum levels of ambient (background) air pollutants considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. The criteria pollutants are ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2, which is a form of nitrogen oxides [NOx]), sulfur dioxide (SO2, which is a form of sulfur oxides [SOx]), particulate matter less than 10 and 2.5 microns in diameter (PM10 and PM2.5, respectively), and lead (Pb); refer to Table 1, National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 11 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

Table 1 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards

California1 Federal2 Pollutant Averaging Time Standard3 Attainment Status Standards4 Attainment Status 1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 μg/m3) Nonattainment N/A5 N/A5 Ozone (O3) 8 Hours 0.07 ppm (137 μg/m3) N/A 0.075 ppm (147 μg/m3) Nonattainment 24 Hours 50 μg/m3 Nonattainment 150 μg/m3 Unclassified Particulate Annual Arithmetic Matter (PM10) 20 μg/m3 Nonattainment N/A6 Unclassified Mean Fine Particulate 24 Hours No Separate State Standard 35 μg/m3 Nonattainment Matter Annual Arithmetic 12 μg/m3 Nonattainment 15.0 μg/m3 Nonattainment (PM2. 5) Mean Unclassified/ 8 Hours 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) Attainment 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) Carbon Attainment Monoxide (CO) Unclassified/ 1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) Attainment 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) Attainment Annual Arithmetic Unclassified/ 0.030 ppm (57 μg/m3) N/A 53 ppb (100 μg/m3) Nitrogen Dioxide Mean Attainment (NO2)7 1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 μg/m3) Attainment 100 ppb (188 μg/m3) N/A 30 days average 1.5 μg/m3 Attainment N/A N/A Lead (Pb) Calendar Quarter N/A N/A 1.5 μg/m3 N/A 24 Hours 0.04 ppm (105 μg/m3) Attainment N/A Attainment Sulfur Dioxide 3 Hours N/A N/A N/A Attainment (SO2) 1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 μg/m3) Attainment 75 ppb (196 μg/m3) N/A Visibility- 8 Hours (10 a.m. to Extinction coefficient = Reducing Unclassified 6 p.m., PST) 0.23 km@<70% RH Particles No Federal Sulfates 24 Hour 25 μg/m3 Attainment Standards Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3) Unclassified Vinyl Chloride 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 μg/m3) N/A μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; ppm = parts per million; ppb = parts per billion; km = kilometer(s); RH = relative humidity; PST = Pacific Standard Time; N/A = Not Applicable 1. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1- and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter-PM10 and visibility-reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. In 1990, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) identified vinyl chloride as a toxic air contaminant, but determined that there was not sufficient available scientific evidence to support the identification of a threshold exposure level. This action allows the implementation of health-protective control measures at levels below the 0.010 parts per million ambient concentration specified in the 1978 standard. 2. National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. EPA also may designate an area as attainment/unclassifiable, if: (1) it has monitored air quality data that show that the area has not violated the ozone standard over a three-year period; or (2) there is not enough information to determine the air quality in the area. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. 3. Concentration is expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 mm of mercury. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 mm of mercury (1,013.2 millibar); ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. 4. National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health. 5. The Federal 1-hour ozone standard was revoked on June 15, 2005 in all areas except the 14 8-hour ozone nonattainment Early Action Compact (EAC) areas. 6. The Environmental Protection Agency revoked the annual PM10 standard in 2006 (effective December 16, 2006). 7. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.100 ppm (effective January 22, 2010). Note that EPA standards are in units of ppb and California standards are in units of ppm. Source: California Air Resources Board and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 8, 2010.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 12 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

CARB administers the air quality policy in California. The California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) were established in 1969 pursuant to the Mulford‐Carrell Act. These standards, included with the NAAQS in Table 1, are generally more stringent and apply to more pollutants than the NAAQS. In addition to the criteria pollutants, CAAQS have been established for visibility reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide, and sulfates.

The California Clean Air Act (CCAA), which was approved in 1988, requires that each local air district prepare and maintain an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) to achieve compliance with CAAQS. These AQMP’s also serve as the basis for the preparation of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State of California. Like the EPA, CARB also designates areas within California as either attainment or nonattainment for each criteria pollutant based on whether the CAAQS have been achieved. Under the CCAA, areas are designated as nonattainment for a pollutant if air quality data shows that a State standard for the pollutant was violated at least once during the previous three calendar years. Exceedances that are affected by highly irregular or infrequent events are not considered violations of a State standard, and are not used as a basis for designating areas as nonattainment.

BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the regional agency with jurisdiction over the nine‐county region located in the Basin. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), county transportation agencies, cities and counties, and various nongovernmental organizations also join in the efforts to improve air quality through a variety of programs. These programs include the adoption of regulations and policies, as well as implementation of extensive education and public outreach programs.

The BAAQMD is responsible for attaining and/or maintaining air quality in the Basin within Federal and State air quality standards. Specifically, theMD BAAQ has the responsibility to monitor ambient air pollutant levels throughout the Basin and to develop and implement strategies to attain the applicable Federal and State standards.

In June 2010, the BAAQMD adopted its updated California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Guidelines as a guidance document to provide lead government agencies, consultants, and project proponents with uniform procedures for assessing air quality impacts and preparing the air quality sections of environmental documents for projects subject to CEQA. The CEQA Air Quality Guidelines include methodologies and thresholds for addressing project and program level air quality and GHG emissions.

In March 2010, the BAAQMD, in cooperation with the MTC and ABAG, published the draft 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan, which, supersedes the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. The 2010 Bay

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 13 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

Area Clean Air Plan updates the 2005 Ozone Strategy in accordance with the requirements of the CCAA to achieve the following:

• Implement all feasible measures to reduce ozone; provide a control strategy to reduce ozone, particulate matter, toxic air contaminants, and GHGs in a single, integrated plan; • Review progress in improving air quality in recent years; and • Establish emission control measures to be adopted or implemented in the 2010 to 2012 time frame.

The control strategy includes stationary‐source control measures to be implemented through BAAQMD regulations; mobile‐source control measures to be implemented through incentive programs and other activities; and transportation control measures to be implemented through transportation programs in cooperation with the MTC, local governments, transit agencies, and others. The 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan also represents the Bay Area’s most recent triennial assessment of the region’s strategy to attain the State one‐hour ozone standard.

GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE REGULATORY PROGRAMS

Federal

The FCAA requires the EPA to define national ambient air quality standards (national standards) to protect public health and welfare in the United States. The FCAA does not specifically regulate GHG emissions; however, on April 2, 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, determined that GHGs are pollutants that can be regulated under the FCAA. The EPA adopted an endangerment finding and cause or contribute finding for GHGs on December 7, 2009. Under the endangerment finding, the Administrator found that the current and projected atmospheric concentrations of the six, key, well‐mixed GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6) threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. Under the cause of contribute finding, the Administrator found that the combined emissions of these well‐mixed GHGs from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the GHG pollution which threatens public health and welfare.

Based on these findings, on April 1, 2010, the EPA finalized the light‐duty vehicle rule controlling GHG emissions. This rule confirmed that January 2, 2011, is the earliest date that a 2012 model year vehicle meeting these rule requirements may be sold in the United States. On May 13, 2010, the EPA issued the final GHG Tailoring Rule. This rule set thresholds for GHG emissions that define when permits under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities. Implementation of the Federal rules is expected to reduce the level of emissions from new motor vehicles and large stationary sources.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 14 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

State

Various statewide and local initiatives to reduce California’s contribution to GHG emissions have raised awareness that, even though the various contributors to and consequences of global climate change are not yet fully understood, global climate change is occurring, and that there is a real potential for severe adverse environmental, social, and economic effects in the long term. Every nation emits GHGs and as a result makes an incremental cumulative contribution to global climate change; therefore, global cooperation will be required to reduce the rate of GHG emissions enough to slow or stop the human‐caused increase in average global temperatures and associated changes in climatic conditions.

Executive Order S‐1‐07. Executive Order S‐1‐07 proclaims that the transportation sector is the main source of GHG emissions in California, generating more than 40 percent of statewide emissions. It establishes a goal to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels sold in California by at least ten percent by 2020. This order also directs CARB to determine whether this Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) could be adopted as a discrete early‐action measure as part of the effort to meet the mandates in AB 32.

Executive Order S‐3‐05. Executive Order S‐3‐05 set forth a series of target dates by which statewide emissions of GHGs would be progressively reduced, as follows:

• By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; • By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and • By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

The Executive Order directed the secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) to coordinate a multi‐agency effort to reduce GHG emissions to the target levels. The secretary will also submit biannual reports to the governor and California Legislature describing the progress made toward the emissions targets, the impacts of global climate change on California’s resources, and mitigation and adaptation plans to combat these impacts. To comply with the executive order, the secretary of Cal/EPA created the California Climate Action Team (CAT), made up of members from various State agencies and commissions. The team released its first report in March 2006. The report proposed to achieve the targets by building on the voluntary actions of California businesses, local governments, and communities and through State incentive and regulatory programs.

Executive Order S‐13‐08. Executive Order S‐13‐08 seeks to enhance the Stateʹs management of climate impacts including sea level rise, increased temperatures, shifting precipitation, and extreme weather events by facilitating the development of State’s first climate adaptation strategy. This will result in consistent guidance from experts on how to address climate change impacts in the State of California.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 15 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

Executive Order S‐14‐08. Executive Order S‐14‐08 expands the Stateʹs Renewable Energy Standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. Additionally, Executive Order S‐21‐09 (signed on September 15, 2009) directs CARB to adopt regulations requiring 33 percent of electricity sold in the State come from renewable energy by 2020. CARB adopted the “Renewable Electricity Standard” on September 23, 2010, which requires 33 percent renewable energy by 2020 for most publicly owned electricity retailers.

Executive Order S‐20‐04. Executive Order S‐20‐04, the California Green Building Initiative, (signed into law on December 14, 2004), establishes a goal of reducing energy use in State‐ owned buildings by 20 percent from a 2003 baseline by 2015. It also encourages the private commercial sector to set the same goal. The initiative places the California Energy Commission (CEC) in charge of developing a building efficiency benchmarking system, commissioning and retro‐commissioning (commissioning for existing commercial buildings) guidelines, and developing and refining building energy efficiency standards under Title 24 to meet this goal.

Executive Order S‐21‐09. Executive Order S‐21‐09, 33 percent Renewable Energy for California, directs CARB to adopt regulations to increase Californiaʹs Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to 33 percent by 2020. This builds upon SB 1078 (2002) which established the California RPS program, requiring 20 percent renewable energy by 2017, and SB 710 (2006) which advanced the 20 percent deadline to 2010, a goal which was expanded to 33 percent by 2020 in the 2005 Energy Action Plan II.

Assembly Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006). California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32; California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500 ‐ 38599). AB 32 establishes regulatory, reporting, and market mechanisms to achieve quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions and establishes a cap on statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 specifies that regulations adopted in response to AB 1493 should be used to address GHG emissions from vehicles. However, AB 32 also includes language stating that if the AB 1493 regulations cannot be implemented, then CARB should develop new regulations to control vehicle GHG emissions under the authorization of AB 32.

Assembly Bill 1493. AB 1493 (also known as the Pavley Bill) requires that CARB develop and adopt, by January 1, 2005, regulations that achieve “the maximum feasible reduction of GHG emitted by passenger vehicles and light‐duty trucks and other vehicles determined by CARB to be vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation in the State.”

To meet the requirements of AB 1493, CARB approved amendments to the California Code of Regulations (CCR) in 2004 by adding GHG emissions standards to California’s existing standards for motor vehicle emissions. Amendments to CCR Title 13, Sections 1900 and 1961 and adoption of 13 CCR Section 1961.1 require automobile manufacturers to meet fleet‐average GHG emissions limits for all passenger cars, light‐duty trucks within various weight criteria, and medium‐duty weight classes for passenger vehicles (i.e., any medium‐duty vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating less than 10,000 pounds that is designed primarily to transport

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 16 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

people), beginning with the 2009 model year. Emissions limits are reduced further in each model year through 2016. When fully phased in, the near‐term standards will result in a reduction of about 22 percent in GHG emissions compared to the emissions from the 2002 fleet, while the mid‐term standards will result in a reduction of about 30 percent.

Assembly Bill 3018. AB 3018 established the Green Collar Jobs Council (GCJC) under the California Workforce Investment Board (CWIB). The GCJC will develop a comprehensive approach to address California’s emerging workforce needs associated with the emerging green economy. This bill will ignite the development of job training programs in the clean and green technology sectors.

Senate Bill 97. SB 97, signed in August 2007 (Chapter 185, Statutes of 2007; PRC Sections 21083.05 and 21097), acknowledges that climate change is a prominent environmental issue that requires analysis under CEQA. This bill directs the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), which is part of the State Natural Resources Agency, to prepare, develop, and transmit to CARB guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions (or the effects of GHG emissions), as required by CEQA.

OPR published a technical advisory recommending that CEQA lead agencies make a good‐faith effort to estimate the quantity of GHG emissions that would be generated by a proposed project. Specifically, based on available information, CEQA lead agencies should estimate the emissions associated with project‐related vehicular traffic, energy consumption, water usage, and construction activities to determine whether project‐level or cumulative impacts could occur, and should mitigate the impacts where feasible. OPR requested CARB technical staff to recommend a method for setting CEQA thresholds of significance as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7 that will encourage consistency and uniformity in the CEQA analysis of GHG emissions throughout the State.

The Natural Resources Agency adopted the CEQA Guidelines Amendments prepared by OPR, as directed by SB 97. On February 16, 2010, the Office of Administration Law approved the CEQA Guidelines Amendments, and filed them with the Secretary of State for inclusion in the California Code of Regulations. The CEQA Guidelines Amendments became effective on March 18, 2010.

Senate Bill 375. SB 375, signed in September 2008 (Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008), aligns regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG reduction targets, and land use and housing allocation. SB 375 requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to adopt a sustainable communities strategy (SCS) or alternative planning strategy (APS) that will prescribe land use allocation in that MPOs regional transportation plan. CARB, in consultation with MPOs, will provide each affected region with reduction targets for GHGs emitted by passenger cars and light trucks in the region for the years 2020 and 2035. These reduction targets will be updated every eight years but can be updated every four years if advancements in emissions technologies affect the reduction strategies to achieve the targets. CARB is also charged with reviewing each MPO’s SCS or APS for consistency with its assigned targets. If MPOs do not

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 17 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

meet the GHG reduction targets, transportation projects may not be eligible for funding programmed after January 1, 2012.

Senate Bills 1078 and 107. SB 1078 (Chapter 516, Statutes of 2002) requires retail sellers of electricity, including investor‐owned utilities and community choice aggregators, to provide at least 20 percent of their supply from renewable sources by 2017. SB 107 (Chapter 464, Statutes of 2006) changed the target date to 2010.

Senate Bill 1368. SB 1368 (Chapter 598, Statutes of 2006) is the companion bill of AB 32 and was signed into law in September 2006. SB 1368 required the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to establish a performance standard for baseload generation of GHG emissions by investor‐owned utilities by February 1, 2007. SB 1368 also required the CEC to establish a similar standard for local publicly owned utilities by June 30, 2007. These standards could not exceed the GHG emissions rate from a baseload combined‐cycle, natural gas–fired plant. Furthermore, the legislation states that all electricity provided to California, including imported electricity, must be generated by plants that meet the standards set by CPUC and CEC.

CARB Scoping Plan

On December 11, 2008, CARB adopted its Scoping Plan, which functions as a roadmap to achieve GHG reductions in California required by AB 32 through subsequently enacted regulations. CARB’s Scoping Plan contains the main strategies California will implement to reduce CO2eq emissions by 174 million metric tons (MT), or approximately 30 percent, from the State’s projected 2020 emissions level of 596 million MT CO2eq2 under a business as usual (BAU)3 scenario. This is a reduction of 42 million MT CO2eq, or almost ten percent, from 2002 to 2004 average emissions, but requires the reductions in the face of population and economic growth through 2020.

CARB’s Scoping Plan calculates 2020 BAU emissions as the emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of any GHG reduction measures. The 2020 BAU emissions estimate was derived by projecting emissions from a past baseline year using growth factors specific to each of the different economic sectors (e.g., transportation, electrical power, commercial and residential, industrial, etc.). CARB used three‐year average emissions, by sector, for 2002 to 2004 to forecast emissions to 2020. At the time CARB’s Scoping Plan process was initiated, 2004 was the most recent year for which actual data was available. The measures described in CARB’s Scoping Plan are intended to reduce the projected 2020 BAU to 1990 levels, as required by AB 32. However, the San Francisco Superior Court has recently issued a tentative ruling, that if issued as proposed, would suspend the implementation of the Scoping Plan pending additional CEQA review.

2 Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2eq) ‐ A metric measure used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse gases based upon their global warming potential. 3 “Business as Usual” refers to emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of GHG reductions. See http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/forecast.htm. Note that there is significant controversy as to what BAU means. In determining the GHG 2020 limit, CARB used the above as the “definition.” It is broad enough to allow for design features to be counted as reductions.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 18 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

In Association of Irritated Residents, et al. v. California Air Resources Board, et al., the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco (Superior Court) issued a ʺtentative statement of decisionʺ (Tentative Decision) that prevents CARB from implementing a state‐wide GHG regulatory program under AB 32 until the agency complies with the requirements of CEQA. The Tentative Decision partially grants a petition for a writ of mandate brought by a coalition of environmental justice organizations (Petitioners) that alleged that CARBʹs Scoping Plan violated both AB 32 and CEQA. Although the Superior Court denied all claims related to AB 32, the court found that CARB: 1) failed to adequately discuss and analyze the impacts of alternatives in its proposed Scoping Plan as required by its CEQA implementing regulations; and 2) improperly approved the Scoping Plan prior to completing the environmental review required by CEQA. In upholding the Petitionersʹ challenge on these two CEQA issues, the Superior Court issued a Peremptory Writ of Mandate and enjoined CARB from further implementation of the Scoping Plan until it complies with all CEQA requirements. Parties to the case had 15 days from the issuance of the Tentative Decision to file objections before the Superior Court issued a final decision in the case.

On March 18, 2011, the Superior Court issued its Final Statement of Decision, which is substantially similar to the Tentative Decision. The Superior Court ruled in favor of CARB concerning AB 32 mandates and how to best reach the GHG reduction goals set by AB 32. However, the Superior Court determined that CARB failed to conduct adequate CEQA review for the Scoping Plan. Specifically, the Superior Court concluded that CARB failed to consider adequate alternatives to the mix of measures adopted in the Scoping Plan, including especially alternatives to cap‐and‐trade measures, and that CARB improperly began implementing the Scoping Plan measures before its CEQA review process was complete. Therefore, the Superior Court has suspended any further implementation of the measures contained in the Scoping Plan until the State has complied with CEQA.

2.3 SENSITIVE RECEPTORS

Sensitive populations are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than is the general population. Sensitive populations (sensitive receptors) that are in proximity to localized sources of toxics and CO are of particular concern. Land uses considered sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, long‐term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. Table 2, Sensitive Receptors, lists the distances and locations of sensitive receptors within the project vicinity.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 19 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

Table 2 Sensitive Receptors

Distance from Project Type Name Direction from Project Site Site (feet) 475 North 875 Northeast 230 East 1,660 Southeast Residential Residential Uses Adjoining East/South 1,200 South 900 Southwest 130 West 600 Northwest Schools Yavneh Day School 820 Southeast Los Gatos Swim and Racquet Club 1,000 East Parks/Recreation Courtside Club 350 Southwest Addison Penzack Jewish Community Center 820 Southeast Places of Worship First Assembly of God 1,400 South Congregation Tsemach Adonai 1,450 South Hospitals El Camino Hospital Los Gatos 1,900 Northwest Source: Google Earth 2010.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 20 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

3.0 MONITORED AIR QUALITY

CARB monitors ambient air quality at approximately 250 air monitoring stations across the state. Air quality monitoring stations usually measure pollutant concentrations ten feet aboveground level; therefore, air quality is often referred to in terms of ground‐level concentrations. The closest air monitoring station to the project site is the Los Gatos Monitoring Station, which monitors eight‐hour ozone only. Therefore, the remaining data was collected from the San Jose‐Jackson Street Monitoring Station (next closest station to the project site). Local air quality data from 2007 to 2009 is provided in Table 3, Local Air Quality Levels. This table lists the monitored maximum concentrations and number of exceedances of Federal/State air quality standards for each year.

Table 3 Local Air Quality Levels

Days (Samples) California Federal Maximum1 Pollutant Year State/Federal Standard Standard Concentration Std. Exceeded 2007 0.084 ppm 0/NA Ozone (O3) 0.09 ppm NA 2008 0.122 2/NA (1-Hour) 3 for 1 hour 2009 0.102 3/NA 2007 0.065 ppm 0/0 Ozone (O3) 0.07 ppm 0.075 ppm 2008 0.097 2/6 (8-Hour) 3 for 8 hours for 8 hours 2009 0.082 4/8 2007 3.51 ppm 0/0 Carbon Monoxide 20 ppm 35 ppm 2008 3.32 0/0 (CO) (1-Hour) 2 for 1 hour for 1 hour 2009 3.43 0/0 2007 2.71 ppm 0/0 Carbon Monoxide 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm 2008 2.48 0/0 (CO) (8-Hour) 2 for 8 hours for 8 hours 2009 2.50 0/0 2007 0.065 ppm 0/NA Nitrogen Dioxide 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm 2008 0.080 0/NA (NO2) 2,4 for 1 hour for 1 hour 2009 0.069 0/NA 2007 69.1 μg/m3 3/0 Particulate Matter 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 2008 57.3 1/0 (PM10) 2,5,6 for 24 hours for 24 hours 2009 43.3 0/0 2007 57.5 μg/m3 NA/9 Fine Particulate No Separate State 35 µg/m3 2008 41.9 NA/5 Matter (PM2.5) 2,5,6 Standard for 24 hours 2009 35.0 NA/0 ppm = parts per million; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less; NM = not measured; μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less; NA = not applicable. Notes: 1. Maximum concentration is measured over the same period as the California Standards. 2. San Jose-Jackson Street Monitoring Station located at 158 East Jackson Street, San Jose, CA. 3. Los Gatos Monitoring Station located at 306 University Avenue, Los Gatos, CA. 4. The United States Environmental Protection Agency revoked the Federal 1-hour Standard in June of 2005. 5. PM10 exceedances are based on State thresholds established prior to amendments adopted on June 20, 2002. 6. PM10 and PM2.5 exceedances are derived from the number of samples exceeded, not days. Source: Aerometric Data Analysis and Measurement System (ADAM), summaries from 2007 to 2009, http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 21 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

CARBON MONOXIDE (CO)

CO is an odorless, colorless toxic gas that is emitted by mobile and stationary sources as a result of incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon‐based fuels. In cities, automobile exhaust can cause as much as 95 percent of all CO emissions. At high concentrations, CO can reduce the oxygen‐carrying capacity of the blood and cause headaches, dizziness, and unconsciousness.

OZONE (O3)

O3 occurs in two layers of the atmosphere. The layer surrounding the earthʹs surface is the troposphere. The troposphere extends approximately 10 miles above ground level, where it meets the second layer, the stratosphere. The stratospheric (the “good” ozone) layer extends upward from about ten to 30 miles and protects life on earth from the sunʹs harmful ultraviolet rays (UV‐B). “Bad” ozone is a photochemical pollutant, and needs VOCs, NOX and sunlight to form. Therefore, VOCs and NOX are ozone precursors. VOCs and NOX are emitted from various sources throughout the Town. Significant ozone formation generally requires an adequate amount of precursors in the atmosphere and several hours in a stable atmosphere with strong sunlight. High ozone concentrations can form over large regions when emissions from motor vehicles and stationary sources are carried hundreds of miles from their origins.

Many respiratory ailments, as well as cardiovascular disease, are aggravated by exposure to high O3 levels. O3 also damages natural ecosystems (such as forests and foothill plant communities) and damages agricultural crops and some man‐made materials (such as rubber, paint and plastics). Societal costs from ozone damage include increased healthcare costs, the loss of human and animal life, accelerated replacement of industrial equipment and reduced crop yields.

NITROGEN DIOXIDE (NO2)

NOX are a family of highly reactive gases that are a primary precursor to the formation of ground‐level O3, and react in the atmosphere to form acid rain. NO2 (often used interchangeably with NOX) is a reddish‐brown gas that can cause breathing difficulties at high levels. Peak readings of NO2 occur in areas that have a high concentration of combustion sources (e.g., motor vehicle engines, power plants, refineries, and other industrial operations). NO2 can irritate and damage the lungs, and lower resistance to respiratory infections such as influenza. The health effects of short‐term exposure are still unclear. However, continued or frequent exposure to NO2 concentrations that are typically much higher than those normally found in the ambient air may increase acute respiratory illnesses in children and increase the incidence of chronic bronchitis and lung irritation. Chronic exposure to NO2 may aggravate eyes and mucus membranes and cause pulmonary dysfunction.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 22 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

COARSE PARTICULATE MATTER (PM10)

PM10 refers to suspended particulate matter, which is smaller than ten microns or ten one‐ millionths of a meter. PM10 arises from sources such as road dust, diesel soot, combustion products, construction operations, and dust storms. PM10 scatters light and significantly reduces visibility. In addition, these particulates penetrate the lungs and can potentially damage the respiratory tract. On June 19, 2003, CARB adopted amendments to the statewide 24‐hour particulate matter standards based upon requirements set forth in the Children’s Environmental Health Protection Act (SB 25).

FINE PARTICULATE MATTER (PM2.5)

Due to recent increased concerns over health impacts related to fine particulate matter (particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less), both State and Federal PM2.5 standards have been created. Particulate matter impacts primarily affect infants, children, the elderly, and those with pre‐existing cardiopulmonary disease. In 1997, the EPA announced new PM2.5 standards. Industry groups challenged the new standard in court and the implementation of the standard was blocked. However, upon appeal by the EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed this decision and upheld the EPA’s new standards.

On June 20, 2002, CARB adopted amendments for statewide annual ambient particulate matter air quality standards. These standards were revised/established due to increasing concerns by CARB that previous standards were inadequate, as almost everyone in California is exposed to levels at or above the current State standards during some parts of the year, and the statewide potential for significant health impacts associated with particulate matter exposure was determined to be large and wide‐ranging.

VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCs or Reactive Organic Gases [ROG])

Hydrocarbons are organic gases that are formed solely of hydrogen and carbon. There are several subsets of organic gases including ROGs and VOCs. Both ROGs and VOCs are emitted from the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon‐based fuels. The major sources of hydrocarbons are combustion engine exhaust, oil refineries, and oil‐fueled power plants; other common sources are petroleum fuels, solvents, dry cleaning solutions, and paint (via evaporation).

LEAD (Pb)

In the Basin, atmospheric lead is generated almost entirely by the combustion of leaded gasoline and contributes less than one percent of the material collected as total suspended particulate. Atmospheric lead concentrations have been reduced substantially in recent years due to the lowering of average lead content in gasoline. Exceedances of the State air quality standard for lead (monthly average concentration of 1.50 μg/m3) now are confined to densely populated

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 23 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

areas, where vehicle traffic is greatest. Lead was not monitored at the nearby monitoring locations. The Basin has achieved attainment for lead under both State and Federal standards.

GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE GASES

The natural process through which heat is retained in the troposphere is called the “greenhouse effect.”4 The greenhouse effect traps heat in the troposphere through a three‐fold process, summarized as follows: short wave radiation emitted by the Sun is absorbed by the Earth; the Earth emits a portion of this energy in the form of long wave radiation; and GHGs in the upper atmosphere absorb this long wave radiation and emit this long wave radiation into space and toward the Earth. This “trapping” of the long wave (thermal) radiation emitted back toward the Earth is the underlying process of the greenhouse effect.

The most abundant GHGs are water vapor and carbon dioxide. Many other trace gases have greater ability to absorb and re‐radiate long wave radiation; however, these gases are not as plentiful. For this reason, and to gauge the potency of GHGs, scientists have established a Global Warming Potential (GWP) for each GHG based on its ability to absorb and re‐radiate long wave radiation. The GWP of a gas is determined using carbon dioxide as the reference gas with a GWP of one (1).

GHGs normally associated with the proposed project include the following:5

• Water Vapor (H2O). Although water vapor has not received the scrutiny of other GHGs, it is the primary contributor to the greenhouse effect. Natural processes, such as evaporation from oceans and rivers, and transpiration from plants, contribute 90 percent and 10 percent of the water vapor in our atmosphere, respectively. The primary human related source of water vapor comes from fuel combustion in motor vehicles; however, this is not believed to contribute a significant amount (less than one percent) to atmospheric concentrations of water vapor. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has not determined a GWP for water vapor.

• Carbon Dioxide (CO2). CO2 is primarily generated by fossil fuel combustion in stationary and mobile sources. Due to the emergence of industrial facilities and mobile sources in the past 250 years, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased 36 percent.6 CO2 is the most widely emitted GHG and is the reference gas (GWP of 1) for determining GWPs for other GHGs.

4 The troposphere is the bottom layer of the atmosphere, which varies in height from the Earth’s surface to 10 to 12 kilometers. 5 All Global Warming Potentials are given as 100 year GWP. Unless noted otherwise, all Global Warming Potentials were obtained from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change, The Science of Climate Change – Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC, 1996). 6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of United States Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to 2008, April 2010.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 24 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

• Methane (CH4). CH4 is emitted from biogenic sources, incomplete combustion in forest fires, landfills, manure management, and leaks in natural gas pipelines. In the United States, the top three sources of CH4 are landfills, natural gas systems, and enteric fermentation. CH4 is the primary component of natural gas, which is used for space and water heating, steam production, and power generation. The GWP of CH4 is 21.

• Nitrous Oxide (N2O). N2O is produced by both natural and human related sources. Primary human related sources include agricultural soil management, animal manure management, sewage treatment, mobile and stationary combustion of fossil fuel, adipic acid production, and nitric acid production. The GWP of N2O is 310.

• Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). HFCs are typically used as refrigerants for both stationary refrigeration and mobile air conditioning. The use of HFCs for cooling and foam blowing is growing, as the continued phase out of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) gains momentum. The GWP of HFCs range from 140 for HFC‐152a to 11,700 for HFC‐23.7

• Perfluorocarbons (PFCs). PFCs are compounds consisting of carbon and fluorine. They are primarily created as a byproduct of aluminum production and semi conductor manufacturing. PFCs are potent GHGs with a GWP several thousand times that of CO2, depending on the specific PFC. Another area of concern regarding PFCs is their long atmospheric lifetime (up to 50,000 years).8 The GWP of PFCs range from 6,500 to 9,200.

• Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). SF6 is a colorless, odorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It is most commonly used as an electrical insulator in high voltage equipment that transmits and distributes electricity. SF6 is the most potent GHG that has been evaluated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change with a GWP of 23,900. However, its global warming contribution is not as high as the GWP would indicate due to its low mixing ratio compared to carbon dioxide (4 parts per trillion [ppt] in 1990 versus 365 parts per million [ppm], respectively).9

In addition to the six major GHGs discussed above (excluding water vapor), many other compounds have the potential to contribute to the greenhouse effect. Some of these substances were previously identified as stratospheric O3 depletors; therefore, their gradual phase out is currently in effect. The following is a listing of these compounds:

• Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). HCFCs are solvents, similar in use and chemical composition to CFCs. The main uses of HCFCs are for refrigerant products and air conditioning systems. As part of the Montreal Protocol, all developed countries that adhere to the Montreal Protocol are subject to a consumption cap and gradual phase out of HCFCs. The United States is scheduled to achieve a 100 percent reduction to

7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, High GWP Gases and Climate Change, June 22, 2010. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 25 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

the cap by 2030. The GWPs of HCFCs range from 93 for HCFC‐123 to 2,000 for HCFC‐142b.10

• 1,1,1 trichloroethane. 1,1,1 trichloroethane or methyl chloroform is a solvent and degreasing agent commonly used by manufacturers. The GWP of methyl chloroform is 110 times that of CO2.11

• Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). CFCs are used as refrigerants, cleaning solvents, and aerosols spray propellants. CFCs were also part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Final Rule (57 FR 3374) for the phase out of O3 depleting substances. Currently, CFCs have been replaced by HFCs in cooling systems and a variety of alternatives for cleaning solvents. Nevertheless, CFCs remain suspended in the atmosphere contributing to the greenhouse effect. CFCs are potent GHGs with GWPs ranging from 4,600 for CFC 11 to 14,000 for CFC 13.12

10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Global Warming Potential for Ozone Depleting Substances, November 7, 2006. 11 Ibid. 12 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Class I Ozone Depleting Substances, March 7, 2006.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 26 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

4.0 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY

4.1 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

BAAQMD THRESHOLDS

Under CEQA, the BAAQMD is a commenting responsible agency on air quality within its jurisdiction or impacting its jurisdiction. The BAAQMD reviews projects to ensure that they would: (1) support the primary goals of the latest Air Quality Plan; (2) include applicable control measures from the Air Quality Plan; and (3) not disrupt or hinder implementation of any Air Quality Plan control measures.

As described above, the BAAQMD adopted their CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to assist lead agencies in evaluating air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed in the Basin. The CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provide BAAQMD‐ recommended procedures for evaluating potential air quality and GHG impacts during the environmental review process consistent with CEQA requirements. In addition to providing new thresholds for GHG emissions, the 2010 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provide updated significance thresholds for criteria pollutants and supersede the BAAQMD’s previous CEQA guidance titled BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans (1999).

If the project proposes development in excess of the established thresholds, as illustrated in Table 4, BAAQMD Emission Thresholds, a significant air quality impact may occur and additional analysis is warranted to fully assess the significance of impacts.

Table 4 BAAQMD Emissions Thresholds

Average Daily Emissions (lbs/day) Pollutant/Precursor Maximum Annual Emissions (tpy) (Construction and Operational) ROG 10 54 NOX 10 54 PM10 15 82 PM2.5 10 54 tpy = tons per year; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less; lb/day = pounds per day; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 micrometers or less; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; ROG = reactive organic gases. Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, June 2010.

Localized CO Thresholds

The BAAQMD screening criteria provides that the proposed project would result in a less‐than‐ significant impact to localized CO concentrations if the following are met:

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 27 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

• Project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans. • The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. • The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below‐grade roadway).

If none of the above criteria are met, then the project would require a quantitative analysis that would compare emissions to the CAAQS.

Health Risk Screening Thresholds

The BAAQMD has developed methods whereby local community risk and hazard impacts from projects for both new sources and new receptors can be determined based on comparison with applicable thresholds of significance and screening criteria and (2) to recommend mitigation measures for these impacts. The screening methods are provided in the BAAQMD guidance document entitled Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards (May 2010). The BAAQMD guidance provides screening tables to determine whether emissions would create a significant health hazard impact based on project size and receptor distance. Additionally, the BAAQMD recommends that all toxic sources are identified within a 1,000 foot radius of the project site to determine any risk and health hazards. It is noted that the BAAQMD has revised the effective date for the risk and hazards thresholds for new receptors from January 1, 2011 to May 1, 2011 to allow lead agencies to become fully prepared to implement the risk and hazards thresholds.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS

Under CEQA, the BAAQMD is a commenting responsible agency on air quality and GHG emissions within its jurisdiction or impacting its jurisdiction. The BAAQMD’s approach to developing a threshold of significance for GHG emissions is to identify the emissions level for which a project would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce statewide GHG emissions needed to move us towards climate stabilization. If a project would generate GHG emissions above the threshold level, it would be considered to contribute substantially to a cumulative impact, and would be considered significant.

Stationary‐source projects include land uses that would accommodate processes and equipment that emit GHG emissions and would require an Air District permit to operate. If annual emissions of operational‐related GHGs exceed these levels, the proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively significant

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 28 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

impact to global climate change. Table 5, BAAQMD GHG Thresholds presents the June 2010 adopted project‐level thresholds for GHG emissions.

Table 5 BAAQMD GHG Thresholds

Project Type Construction-Related Operational-Related Compliance with Qualified Climate Action Plan OR Projects other than Stationary Sources1 None 1,100 MTCO2eq/yr OR 4.6 MTCO2eq/SP2/yr Stationary Sources1 None 10,000 MTCO2eq/yr MTCO2eq/yr = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year Notes: 1: According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, a stationary source project is one that includes land uses that would accommodate processes and equipment that emit GHG emissions and would require a BAAQMD permit to operate. Projects other than stationary sources are land use development projects including residential, commercial, industrial, and public uses that do not require a BAAQMD permit to operate. 2: SP = service population (residents + employees) Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, June 2010.

The BAAQMD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction‐related GHG emissions. However, the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommend quantification and disclosure of construction GHG emissions. The BAAQMD also recommends that the Lead Agency should make a determination on the significance of these construction generated GHG emission impacts in relation to meeting AB 32 GHG reduction goals, as required by the Public Resources Code, Section 21082.2. The Lead Agency is encouraged to incorporate best management practices to reduce GHG emissions during construction, as feasible and applicable.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 29 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

5.0 POTENTIAL AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACTS

CEQA THRESHOLDS

The environmental analysis in this section is patterned after the Initial Study Checklist recommended by the CEQA Guidelines, as amended. The issues presented in the Initial Study Checklist have been utilized as thresholds of significance in this section. Accordingly, a project may create a significant environmental impact if it causes one or more of the following to occur:

• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan (refer to Impact Statement AQ‐1);

• Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation (refer to Impact Statement AQ‐2);

• Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for O3 precursors) (refer to Impact Statement AQ‐3);

• Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (refer to Impact Statement AQ‐4);

• Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people (refer to Impact Statement AQ‐5);

• Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment (refer to Impact Statement GHG‐1); and/or

• Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases (refer to Impact Statement GHG‐2).

Based on these standards and thresholds, the effects of the proposed project have been categorized as either a “less than significant impact” or a “potentially significant impact.” Mitigation measures are recommended for potentially significant impacts.

AQ‐1 CONFLICT WITH OR OBSTRUCT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE APPLICABLE AIR QUALITY PLAN?

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant.

Scenario 1

The most recently adopted air quality plan in the Basin is the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan (Clean Air Plan). This Clean Air Plan outlines how the San Francisco Bay Area will attain air quality standards, reduce population exposure and protect public health, and reduce GHG emissions.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 30 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

Scenario 1 proposes to remove and replace existing buildings (which currently total 250,000 s.f.) with 550,000 s.f. of office development (net total of 300,000 s.f.).

The Town’s General Plan designates the project site as Office/Professional and Light Industrial. The project would not conflict with the Town’s General Plan designations. The Office/Professional designation allows for professional and business offices, and the Light Industrial designation allows for large‐scale office development and well‐controlled research and development uses. As indicated in the analysis below, the proposed project would not result in significant long‐term operational air quality impacts regarding ROG, NOX, and PM emissions. Additionally, the project would incorporate transportation demand management features (included as project design features required by Mitigation Measure GHG‐1) that would be consistent with those of the Clean Air Plan. Construction‐related air quality impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ‐1 through AQ‐3. Therefore, the project would not hinder the region’s ability achieve compliance with the State ozone standards. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the Clean Air Plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

Scenario 2

Similar to Scenario 1, the development of Scenario 2 would result in commercial office space at the project site. Scenario 2 would not conflict with the Town’s General Plan designations. Scenario 2 would not result in significant long‐term operational air quality impacts regarding ROG, NOX, and PM emissions. Additionally, the project would incorporate transportation demand management features (included as project design features required by Mitigation Measure GHG‐1) that would be consistent with those of the Clean Air Plan. Construction‐ related air quality impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ‐1 through AQ‐3. Therefore, as with Scenario 1, Scenario 2 would not conflict with the Clean Air Plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

Scenario 3

The development of Scenario 3 would result in less commercial office space than considered under Scenario 1. However, Scenario 3 also includes up to 516 high‐density units. Scenario 3 would not conflict with the Town’s General Plan designations. Also, Scenario 3 would not result in significant long‐term operational air quality impacts regarding ROG, NOX, and PM emissions. Construction‐related air quality impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ‐1 through AQ‐3. Therefore, as with Scenario 1, Scenario 3 would not conflict with the Clean Air Plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 31 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

Scenario 4

The development of Scenario 4 would result in a similar development plan as Scenario 3; however, Scenario 4 proposes 600 senior units instead of 516 high‐density units. Scenario 4 would not conflict with the Town’s General Plan designations. Also, Scenario 4 would not result in significant long‐term operational air quality impacts regarding ROG, NOX, and PM emissions. Construction‐related air quality impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ‐1 through AQ‐3. Therefore, as with Scenario 1, Scenario 4 would not conflict with the Clean Air Plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measures AQ‐1 through AQ‐3, GHG‐1.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

AQ‐2 VIOLATE ANY AIR QUALITY STANDARD OR CONTRIBUTE SUBSTANTIALLY TO AN EXISTING OR PROJECTED AIR QUALITY VIOLATION?

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant.

SHORT‐TERM EMISSIONS

Scenario 1

Short‐term air quality impacts are predicted to occur during demolition, grading and construction operations associated with implementation of the proposed project. Temporary air emissions would result from the following activities:

• Particulate (fugitive dust) emissions from demolition, grading, and building construction; and • Exhaust emissions from the construction equipment and the motor vehicles of the construction crew.

Potential odors could arise from the diesel construction equipment used on‐site, as well as from architectural coatings and asphalt off‐gassing. Odors generated during construction activities would be temporary and are not considered to be a significant impact. Emissions produced during demolition, grading, and construction activities are short‐term, as they would exist only during construction.

Construction activities for the proposed project would include demolition, grading, trenching, construction of buildings, paving, and architectural coatings. Project construction would result in approximately 1.61 acres of site grading per day with up to 2,730c cubi yards per day of cut and fill during mass grading. Grading for the site would require the export of 95,500 cubic

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 32 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

and fill during mass grading. Grading for the site would require the export of 95,500 cubic yards. The analysis of daily construction emissions has been prepared utilizing the URBEMIS 2007 computer model; refer to Appendix A, Air Modeling Data. Table 6, Construction Emissions, presents the anticipated daily short‐term construction emissions. Where emissions exceed the BAAQMD thresholds, the Basic mitigation measures required by the BAAQMD have been analyzed and quantified. Should emissions still exceed the BAAQMD thresholds, enhanced mitigation measures have been evaluated and quantified.

Table 6 Construction Emissions

Emissions (lbs/day) Emissions Source ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5 Year 1 Total Unmitigated Emissions 8.20 105.08 179.99 40.54 BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 821 541 Unmitigated Emissions Exceed BAAQMD Threshold? No Yes Yes No Total Basic Mitigated Emissions1 8.20 105.08 32.23 9.68 BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 821 541 Basic Mitigated Emissions Exceed No Yes No No BAAQMD Threshold? Total Enhanced Mitigated Emissions2,3 4.82 53.85 30.07 7.88 Enhanced Mitigated Emissions Exceed BAAQMD No No No No Threshold? Year 24 Total Unmitigated Emissions 85.52 58.07 261.96 57.38 BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 821 541 Unmitigated Emissions Exceed BAAQMD Threshold? Yes Yes Yes Yes Total Basic Mitigated Emissions1 85.52 58.07 44.83 12.03 BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 821 541 Basic Mitigated Emissions Exceed Yes Yes No No BAAQMD Threshold? Total Enhanced Mitigated Emissions 2,3 52.57 53.10 43.01 10.54 Enhanced Mitigated Emissions Exceed BAAQMD No No No No Threshold? Year 3 Total Unmitigated Emissions 85.26 60.21 94.95 21.79 BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 821 541 Unmitigated Emissions Exceed BAAQMD Threshold? Yes Yes Yes No Total Basic Mitigated Emissions1 85.26 60.21 16.80 5.07 BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 821 541 Basic Mitigated Emissions Exceed Yes Yes No No BAAQMD Threshold? Total Enhanced Mitigated Emissions 2,3 52.30 44.73 16.80 5.07 Enhanced Mitigated Emissions Exceed BAAQMD No No No No Threshold?

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 33 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

Table 6 (Continued) Construction Emissions

Emissions (lbs/day) Emissions Source ROG NOX3 PM10 PM2.5 Year 4 Total Unmitigated Emissions 85.00 78.03 205.45 45.07 BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 821 541 Unmitigated Emissions Exceed BAAQMD Threshold? Yes Yes Yes No Total Basic Mitigated Emissions1 85.00 78.03 35.33 9.54 BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 821 541 Basic Mitigated Emissions Exceed Yes Yes No No BAAQMD Threshold? Total Enhanced Mitigated Emissions 2,3 52.05 53.83 34.26 8.68 Enhanced Mitigated Emissions Exceed BAAQMD No No No No Threshold? Year 5 Total Unmitigated Emissions 5.32 30.60 79.47 17.52 BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 821 541 Unmitigated Emissions Exceed BAAQMD Threshold? No No No No Total Basic Mitigated Emissions1 5.32 30.60 13.46 3.58 BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 821 541 Basic Mitigated Emissions Exceed No No No No BAAQMD Threshold? Total Enhanced Mitigated Emissions 2,3 5.32 30.60 13.46 3.58 Enhanced Mitigated Emissions Exceed BAAQMD No No No No Threshold? ROG = reactive organic gases; NOX = nitrogen oxides; PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns; lbs/day = pounds per day Notes: 1. The reduction/credits for construction emission mitigations are based on mitigation included in the URBEMIS2007 version 9.2.4 computer model and as typically required by the BAAQMD (Basic Control Measures and Regulation 6: Particulate Matter and Visible Emissions). The mitigation includes the following: replace ground cover on disturbed areas quickly, water exposed surfaces twice daily, and proper loading/unloading of mobile and other construction equipment. 2. Enhanced Mitigation involves compliance with an additional control measure requiring the use of low volatile organic compound (VOC) coatings (compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3; Architectural Coatings). Specifically, the VOX content in coatings shall not exceed 150 grams per liter. 3. Enhanced Mitigation accounts for the VMT reduction during soil hauling, as required by Mitigation Measure AQ-3. 4. Phase 1 and Phase 2 would have construction activities occurring in Year 2. However, the construction activities in each phase would not overlap. Therefore, the maximum daily emissions occurring in Year 2 are reported. Refer to Appendix A, Air Modeling Data, for assumptions used in this analysis.

Fugitive Dust Emissions

Construction activities are a source of fugitive dust (also known as PM10 and PM2.5) emissions that may have a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. Fugitive dust is often a nuisance to those living and working within the vicinity of the project site. Fugitive dust emissions are associated with demolition, land clearing, ground evacuation, cut and fill operations, and truck travel on unpaved roadways. Fugitive dust emissions also vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and weather conditions.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 34 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

PM10 and PM2.5 are both emitted during construction activities and as a result of wind erosion over exposed soil surfaces. Clearing and grading activities comprise the major sources of construction dust emissions, but traffic and general disturbance of the soil also generates significant dust emissions. PM10 and PM2.5 emissions can vary greatly depending on the level of activity, the specific operations taking place, the equipment being operated, local soils, weather conditions, and other factors making quantification difficult. The highest potential for construction dust impacts would occur during the dry late spring, summer, and early fall months when soils are dry. Despite this variability in emissions, experience has shown that there are a number of feasible control measures that can be reasonably implemented to significantly reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from construction activities. The BAAQMD recommends the implementation of all Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, whether or not construction‐related emissions exceed applicable significance thresholds. As shown in Table 6, above, unmitigated fugitive dust emissions would exceed the BAAQMD thresholds for PM10 and PM2.5. However, implementation of the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures would be required for the proposed project; refer to Mitigation Measure AQ‐1. Implementation of the BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation (included in Mitigation Measure AQ‐1) would reduce fugitive dust impacts to a less than significant level.

ROG Emissions

In addition to gaseous and particulate emissions, the application of asphalt and surface coatings creates ROG emissions, which are O3 precursors. In accordance with the methodology prescribed by the BAAQMD, the ROG emissions associated with paving have been quantified with the URBEMIS 2007 model. In addition, based upon the size of the buildings, architectural coatings were also quantified within the URBEMIS 2007 model.

The highest concentration of ROG emissions would be generated during the application of architectural coatings towards the end of construction. As required by law, all architectural coatings for the proposed project structures would comply with BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coating. Regulation 8, Rule 3 provides specifications on painting practices as well as regulates the ROG content of paint. As indicated in Table 6, the project construction would result in an exceedance of ROG emissions and compliance with BAAQMD Additional Control Measures to reduce ROG emissions is required. Specifically, the VOC content for coatings shall not exceed 150 grams per liter. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ‐2 (compliance with BAAQMD Additional Control Measures [i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3]) would be required to reduce ROG emissions from architectural coatings. With implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ‐2, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Construction Equipment and Worker Vehicle Exhaust

Exhaust emission factors for typical diesel‐powered heavy equipment are based on the URBEMIS 2007 program defaults. Variables factored into estimating the total construction emissions include: level of activity, length of construction period, number of pieces/types of equipment in use, site characteristics, weather conditions, number of construction personnel,

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 35 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

and the amount of materials to be transported on‐site or off‐site. A listing of mobile and stationary construction equipment is included in Appendix A, Air Modeling Data.

Exhaust emissions from construction activities include emissions associated with the transport of machinery and supplies to and from the project site, emissions produced on‐site as the equipment is used, and emissions from trucks transporting materials to and from the site. Emitted pollutants would include ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5. Thresholds for ROG, PM10, and PM2.5 would not be exceeded by exhaust emissions (note that exhaust emissions are included in total ROG, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions in Table 6), as the majority of these emissions are attributed to fugitive dust and architectural coatings. However, due to the amount of soil hauling required for the proposed project, NOX thresholds would be exceeded in all three construction phases. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ‐3 would limit the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from soil hauling trucks during grading to ensure NOX emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds. As indicated in Table 6, NOX emissions would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ‐3.

Naturally Occurring Asbestos

Pursuant to guidance issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, Lead Agencies are encouraged to analyze potential impacts related to naturally occurring asbestos. Naturally occurring asbestos can be released from serpentinite and ultramafic rocks when the rock is broken or crushed. At the point of release, the asbestos fibers may become airborne, causing air quality and human health hazards. These rocks have been commonly used for unpaved gravel roads, landscaping, fill projects, and other improvement projects in some localities. Asbestos may be released to the atmosphere due to vehicular traffic on unpaved roads, during grading for development projects, and at quarry operations.

Serpentinite and/or ultramafic rock are known to be present in 44 of Californiaʹs 58 counties. These rocks are particularly abundant in the counties associated with the Sierra Nevada foothills, the Klamath Mountains, and Coast Ranges. According to the Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California – Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos Report (August 2000), the project site is not located in an area where naturally occurring asbestos is likely to be present. Therefore, impacts are less than significant in this regard.

Structural Asbestos

Asbestos is a strong, incombustible, and corrosion resistant material, which was used in many commercial products since prior to the 1940s and up until the early 1970s. If inhaled, asbestos fibers can result in serious health problems. Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs) are building materials containing more than one percent asbestos (some state and regional regulators impose a one‐tenth of one percent threshold). Multiple on‐site structures requiring demolition exist within the boundaries of the project site; therefore, the potential for ACMs to be found on‐site is considered likely. The BAAQMD regulates the demolition of buildings and

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 36 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

structures containing asbestos. On‐site demolition activities would be conducted in accordance with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 (Asbestos Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing).

Total Daily Construction Emissions

In accordance with the BAAQMD Guidelines, URBEMIS 2007 was utilized to model construction emissions for ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5. Construction would occur over a five year period, with the greatest amount of fugitive dust emissions being generated during the initial stages of each construction phase. Additionally, the greatest amount of ROG emissions would typically occur during the final stages of each construction phase due to the application of architectural coatings.

The URBEMIS 2007 model allows the user to input mitigation measures such as watering the construction area to limit fugitive dust in the project area. Mitigation measures inputted within the URBEMIS 2007 model allow for certain reduction credits and result in a decrease of pollutant emissions. Reduction credits are based upon various land use and transportation studies and were programmed within the URBEMIS 2007 model.13 As indicated in Table 6, the URBEMIS 2007 model calculates the reduction associated with recommended mitigation measures for ROG. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ‐1 through AQ‐3 construction‐related impacts would be less than significant.

LONG‐TERM EMISSIONS

Operational emissions generated by both stationary and mobile sources would result from normal daily activities on the project site after occupation (i.e., increased loads of O3, PM10, and CO). Stationary area source emissions would be generated by the consumption of natural gas for space and water heating devices, the operation of landscape maintenance equipment, and the use of consumer products. Mobile emissions would be generated by the motor vehicles traveling to and from the project site. Emissions associated with each of these sources were calculated and are discussed below.

Scenario 1

Mobile Source Emissions

Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions. Depending upon the pollutant being discussed, the potential air quality impact may be of either regional or local concern. For example, ROG, NOX, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 are all pollutants of regional concern (NOX and ROG react with sunlight to form O3 [photochemical smog], and wind currents readily transport SOX, PM10, and PM2.5). However, CO tends to be a localized pollutant, dispersing rapidly at the source.

13 Jones and Stokes Associates, Software User’s Guide: URBEMIS2007 for Windows User’s Guide Appendices, November 2007.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 37 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

Project‐generated vehicle emissions have been estimated using the URBEMIS 2007 model. This model predicts ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from motor vehicle traffic associated with new or modified land uses; refer to Appendix A, Air Modeling Data. According to the project’s Traffic Impact Analysis, the proposed project would generate a net 3,126 daily trips. Table 7, Long‐Term Operational Air Emissions presents the anticipated mobile source emissions. As shown in Table 7, emissions generated by vehicle traffic associated with the proposed project would not exceed established BAAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOX, and PM10. Therefore, impacts from vehicle emissions would be less than significant.

Table 7 Long‐Term Operational Air Emissions

Pollutant (lbs/day)1 Project Emissions ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5 Area Source Emissions 2.03 2.02 0.01 0.01 Vehicle Emissions 15.90 17.19 44.97 8.54 Total Unmitigated Operational Emissions 17.93 19.21 44.98 8.55 BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 82 54 Unmitigated Emissions Exceed BAAQMD Threshold? No No No No (Significant Impact?)

ROG = reactive organic gases; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = particulate matter; less than 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter; less than 2.5 microns; lbs/day = pounds per day. Notes: 1. Based on URBEMIS 2007 modeling results, worst-case seasonal emissions for area and mobile emissions have been modeled.

Area Source Emissions

Area source emissions would be generated due to an increased demand for electrical energy and natural gas with the development of the proposed project. This assumption is based on the supposition that those power plants supplying electricity to the site are utilizing fossil fuels. Electric power generating plants are distributed throughout the Basin and western United States, and their emissions contribute to the total regional pollutant burden. The primary use of natural gas by the proposed land uses would be for combustion to produce space heating, water heating, other miscellaneous heating, or air conditioning, consumer products, and landscaping. As indicated in Table 7, area source emissions from the proposed project would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds. If stationary sources, such as backup generators, are installed on‐site, they would be required to obtain the applicable permits from BAAQMD for operation of such equipment. The BAAQMD is responsible for issuing permits for the operation of stationary sources in order to reduce air pollution, and to attain and maintain the national and California ambient air quality standards in the Basin. Newly modified or constructed stationary sources subject to BAAQMD permitting may be required to implement Best Available Control Technology (BACT), which may include the installation of emissions control equipment or the implementation of administrative practices that would result in the lowest achievable emission rate. Backup generators would be used only in emergency situations, and would not contribute

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 38 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

a substantial amount of emissions capable of exceeding BAAQMD thresholds. Thus, impacts from area source emissions would be less than significant.

Scenario 2

The development of Scenario 2 would result in less commercial office space than considered under Scenario 1. Construction related air quality impacts would be reduced due to the reduction in required construction activities. However, Mitigation Measures AQ‐1 through AQ‐3 would still be required to ensure construction air emissions are reduced to less than the BAAQMD thresholds. It is noted that Mitigation Measure AQ‐1 is required by the BAAQMD, and Mitigation Measures AQ‐2 and AQ‐3 have been formulated based upon the “worst case” construction scenario (Scenario 1). Therefore, although emissions are expected to be less under Scenario 2, implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ‐2 and AQ‐3 would ensure emissions are reduced below BAAQMD thresholds. As with Scenario 1, impacts would be less than significant with the incorporation of the recommended construction mitigation.

At full development, Scenario 2 would result in 948 daily net new trips (as opposed to 3,126 for Scenario 1). Therefore, as the majority of operational emissions are attributed to mobile sources, Scenario 2 would result in fewer emissions than Scenario 1 (which do not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds). As with Scenario 1, operational impacts under Scenario 2 would be less than significant.

Scenario 3

The development of Scenario 3 would result in less commercial office space than considered under Scenario 1. However, Scenario 3 also includes up to 516 high‐density units. Construction related air quality impacts would be similar to that presented for Scenario 1. Therefore, as with Scenario 1, construction air quality impacts would be less than significant with the incorporation of Mitigation Measures AQ‐1 through AQ‐3.

At full development, Scenario 3 would result in 2,000 daily net new trips (as opposed to 3,126 for Scenario 1). Therefore, as the majority of operational emissions are attributed to mobile sources, Scenario 3 would result in fewer emissions than Scenario 1 (which do not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds). As with Scenario 1, operational impacts under Scenario 3 would be less than significant.

Scenario 4

The development of Scenario 4 would result in a similar development plan as envisioned within Scenario 3. The primary difference would be that Scenario 4 proposes 600 senior units instead of 516 high‐density units. Construction related air quality impacts would be similar to that presented for Scenario 3. Therefore, as with Scenario 1, construction air quality impacts would be less than significant with the incorporation of Mitigation Measures AQ‐1 through AQ‐3.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 39 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

At full development, Scenario 4 would result in 1,442 daily net new trips (as opposed to 3,126 for Scenario 1). Therefore, as the majority of operational emissions are attributed to mobile sources, Scenario 4 would result in fewer emissions than Scenario 1 (which do not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds). As with Scenario 1, operational impacts under Scenario 4 would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

AQ‐1 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the Town Engineer and the Chief Building Official shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and specifications stipulate that, in compliance with the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, the following basic construction mitigation measures shall be implemented:

• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off‐site shall be covered. • All visible mud or dirt track‐out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. • Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Town regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

AQ‐2 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the Town Engineer and the Chief Building Official shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and specifications include the following BAAQMD additional construction mitigation measure:

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 40 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

• Use low volatile organic compounds (VOC) (i.e., reactive organic gases [ROG]) coatings beyond the BAAQMD requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings). • VOC content of architectural coatings shall not exceed 150 grams VOC per liter of coating.

AQ‐3 The following limitations shall be adhered to during soil hauling activities (during mass and fine grading) for each construction phase in order to ensure NOX emissions would be reduced to less than significant levels:

• Phase 1: Trucks hauling soil during Phase 1 shall not travel more than 23 miles roundtrip. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) during mass grading shall not exceed 1,416; VMT during fine grading shall not exceed 425. • Phase 2: Trucks hauling gsoil durin Phase 2 shall not travel more than 26 miles roundtrip. VMT during mass grading shall not exceed 1,629; VMT during fine grading shall not exceed 671. • Phase 3: Trucks hauling soil during Phase 3 shall not travel more than 36 miles roundtrip. VMT during mass grading shall not exceed 2,318; VMT during fine grading shall not exceed 625.

VMT’s shall be logged daily and supplied to the Town Engineer and the Chief Building Official on a monthly basis. These limitations shall be stipulated in construction bids, plans, and specifications.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

AQ‐3 RESULT IN A CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE NET INCREASE OF ANY CRITERIA POLLUTANT FOR WHICH THE AIR BASIN IS NONATTAINMENT UNDER AN APPLICABLE FEDERAL OR STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARD (INCLUDING RELEASING EMISSIONS, WHICH EXCEED QUANTITATIVE THRESHOLDS FOR OZONE PRECURSORS)?

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant.

Scenario 1

CUMULATIVE SHORT‐TERM EMISSIONS

As discussed above, the project’s construction‐related emissions would not exceed any of the BAAQMD thresholds of significance with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ‐1 through AQ‐3. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines do not include significance thresholds for cumulative construction emissions. However, due to eth temporary nature of

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 41 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

construction emissions, if the project’s emissions would be less than significant based on the project‐level thresholds of significance, it can be expected that the project would not be a cumulatively considerable contributor to a significant cumulative impact. In addition, the project would be required to implement the proposed BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures (Mitigation Measure AQ‐1), which are recommended for all projects whether or not construction‐related emissions exceed the thresholds of significance. The project would also implement an Additional Control Mitigation Measure (AQ‐2) to reduce VOC/ROG emissions from architectural coatings. NOX emissions are reduced by Mitigation Measure AQ‐3. Therefore, construction emissions associated with the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative air quality impacts.

CUMULATIVE LONG‐TERM EMISSIONS

The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines do not include separate significance thresholds for cumulative operational emissions. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines note that the nature of air emissions is largely a cumulative impact. As a result, no single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. The BAAQMD developed the operational thresholds of significance based on the level above which a project’s individual emissions would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the Basin’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore, a project that exceeds the BAAQMD operational thresholds would also be a cumulatively considerable contributor to a significant cumulative impact. As depicted in Table 7, above, the proposed project’s operational emissions would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOX, and PM. Therefore, the impact of the proposed project, in conjunction with related cumulative projects would not be cumulatively considerable. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Scenario 1

With regards to cumulative health risks and hazards (further discuss below under Impact Statement AQ‐4), the project would be located within 1,000 feet of SR‐85. However, no other sources of air toxics are located within the 1,000‐foot screening distance of the project site.

Further, Scenario 1 proposes all commercial uses, which the BAAQMD does not consider to be sensitive receptors. Additionally, Scenario 1 does not propose any uses that would be considered a significant source of air toxics. Therefore, the project would not be cumulatively considerable and a less than significant impact would occur.

Scenario 2

As discussed above, Scenario 2 would result in fewer construction‐related emissions than Scenario 1. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ‐1 through AQ‐3 would ensure Scenario 2 would not exceed any of the BAAQMD thresholds of significance for construction. Additionally, operational emissions under Scenario 2 would be less than those of Scenario 1

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 42 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

(which do not exceed BAAQMD thresholds). Therefore, Scenario 2 would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact.

With regards to cumulative health risks and hazards, although the project would be located within 1,000 feet of SR‐85, Scenario 2 proposes all commercial uses, which the BAAQMD does not consider to be sensitive receptors. Scenario 2 does not propose any uses that would be considered a significant source of air toxics. Therefore, the project would not be cumulatively considerable and a less than significant impact would occur.

Scenario 3

As discussed above, Scenario 3 would result in fewer construction‐related emissions than Scenario 1. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ‐1 through AQ‐3 would ensure Scenario 3 would not exceed any of the BAAQMD thresholds of significance for construction. Additionally, operational emissions under Scenario 3 would be less than those of Scenario 1 (which do not exceed BAAQMD thresholds). Therefore, Scenario 3 would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact.

With regards to cumulative health risks and hazards (further discuss below under Impact Statement AQ‐4), the project would be located within 1,000 feet of SR‐85. Scenario 3 proposes commercial uses as well as high‐density residential units, which the BAAQMD considers to be sensitive receptors. Detailed modeling (which included cumulative traffic conditions) indicated that residents on‐site within 261 feet of SR‐85 would be subject to health risk. With incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ‐5, on‐site residents would not be subject to air toxics from SR‐85 (refer to Impact Statement AQ‐4). No other sources of air toxics are located within the 1,000‐foot screening distance of the project site. Additionally, Scenario 3 does not propose any uses that would be considered a significant source of air toxics. Therefore, the project would not be cumulatively considerable and a less than significant impact would occur.

Scenario 4

As discussed above, Scenario 4 would result in fewer construction‐related emissions than Scenario 1. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ‐1 through AQ‐3 would ensure Scenario 4 would not exceed any of the BAAQMD thresholds of significance for construction. Additionally, operational emissions under Scenario 4 would be less than those of Scenario 1 (which do not exceed BAAQMD thresholds). Therefore, Scenario 4 would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact.

With regards to cumulative health risks and hazards (further discuss below under Impact Statement AQ‐4), the project would be located within 1,000 feet of SR‐85. Similar to Scenario 3, Scenario 4 proposes commercial uses as well as senior living units, which the BAAQMD considers to be sensitive receptors. Detailed modeling (which included cumulative traffic conditions) indicated that residents on‐site within 261 feet of SR‐85 would be subject to health risk. With incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ‐5, on‐site residents would not be subject to

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 43 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

air toxics from SR‐85 (refer to Impact Statement AQ‐4). No other sources of air toxics are located within the 1,000‐foot screening distance of the project site. Additionally, Scenario 4 does not propose any uses that would be considered a significant source of air toxics. Therefore, the project would not be cumulatively considerable and a less than significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measures AQ‐1 through AQ‐3 and AQ‐5.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

AQ‐4 EXPOSE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS TO SUBSTANTIAL POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS?

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant.

Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. CARB has identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis. Sensitive receptors within the immediate vicinity of the project site are the existing residences to the east, south, and west; also refer to Table 2. Localized impacts from project construction and operations are analyzed below.

Scenario 1

Localized Carbon Monoxide Hotspots

The Basin is designated as attainment for carbon monoxide (CO). As indicated in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, emissions and ambient concentrations of CO have decreased dramatically in the Basin with the introduction of the catalytic converter in 1975. No exceedances of the CAAQS or NAAQS for CO have been recorded at nearby monitoring stations since 1991.14 As a result, the screening criteria in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines note that that CO impacts may be determined to be less than significant if a project is consistent with the applicable congestion management plan (CMP) and would not increase traffic volumes at local intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour for locations in heavily urban areas, where “urban canyons” formed by buildings tend to reduce air circulation.

The project’s Traffic Impact Analysis has determined that the unsignalized intersections of Winchester Boulevard/Albright Way and University Avenue/Lark Avenue would be impacted with project implementation. These intersections are expected to operate at unacceptable LOS E and F during peak hours under background conditions. The addition of project traffic would

14 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (page 6‐1), June 2010.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 44 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

cause the intersections to degrade to LOS E and F during both peak hours with project implementation. The intersections also would meet signal warrants with the addition of project traffic, which constitutes a significant impact by the Town standards. Therefore, the Traffic Impact Analysis includes mitigation requiring the signalization of the Winchester Boulevard/Albright Way and University Avenue/Lark Avenue intersections to improve both intersections to LOS B. Additionally, the project would not violate the CMP criteria at any of the CMP intersections, as noted in the Traffic Impact Analysis. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the CMP. With implementation of the Traffic Impact Analysis mitigation, the project would not significantly increase the delay or LOS at the study intersections, and would not increase traffic volumes at local intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour. Therefore, effects related to CO concentrations would be less than significant.

Construction Toxic Air Contaminants

Construction‐related activities could result in the generation of toxic air contaminants (TACs), specifically diesel particulate matter (DPM), from on‐road haul trucks and off‐road equipment exhaust emissions. Due to the variable nature of the proposed construction activity, the generation of TAC emissions would be temporary, especially considering the short amount of time such equipment is typically within an influential distance that would result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations.

The project construction period would occur over three phases and would require various types of heavy equipment throughout each construction phase. Specifically, demolition activities would require tractors, dozers, and concrete/industrial saws. Grading activities would require tractors, graders, rubber tired dozers, and water trucks. Trenching activities would require excavators. Paving activities would include cement and mortar mixers, pavers, rollers, and other pieces of paving equipment. The building phase would require one crane, two forklifts, one tractor, three welders, and one generator set. As indicated in the URBEMIS 2007 model outputs (refer to Appendix A) for the proposed project, construction activities would generate a maximum of 2.41 pounds of diesel PM2.5 exhaust per day. Additionally, the project would implement the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures (Mitigation Measure AQ‐ 1), which would also reduce DPM exhaust emissions.

As noted above, the closest sensitive receptors are the residential uses adjacent to the project site to the south and east. However, construction equipment during project construction would move about the project site and would not be concentrated in one area or near one sensitive receptor for an excessive duration of time capable of causing health effects. Additionally, health risks are associated with longer‐term exposure periods of nine, 40, and 70 years, which do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities.15 Construction staging areas are generally planned to be concentrated toward the center of the project site. However, to ensure that sensitive uses in the vicinity of the project site are not exposed to substantial TACs, Mitigation Measure AQ‐4 would require the implementation of additional construction mitigation measures for off‐road equipment to reduce the exposure of

15 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, June 2010.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 45 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

sensitive uses to TACs from construction emissions. The specific types of emission reduction features identified in Mitigation Measure AQ‐4 would be determined based on the acreage disturbed in a particular construction phase as well as the proximity of the construction activity to sensitive uses. With implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ‐1 and AQ‐4, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Risk and Health Hazards

It is noted that the BAAQMD has revised the effective date for the risk and hazards thresholds for new receptors from January 1, 2011 to May 1, 2011. However, the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommend that all toxic air contaminant (TAC) and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) sources located within a 1,000 foot radius of the proposed project site be identified to determine any risk and health hazards. There are no stationary TAC and PM2.5 sources located within 1,000 feet of the project site.16 However, SR‐85 is located to the north of the project site with annual average daily traffic (AADT) of approximately 106,00017, which requires a risk and hazard screening analysis; refer to Exhibit 4, Phased Approach for Estimating Community Risks and Hazards.

The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines defines a receptor to be “a place where people live, play, or convalesce”. These types of receptors would include residences, schools, school yards, parks, daycare centers, nursing homes, and medical facilities. Scenario 1 consists of all office development, which the BAAQMD does not consider a sensitive receptor. Therefore, risk and health hazards from SR‐85 would be less than significant.

Scenario 2

The Winchester Boulevard/Albright Way and University Avenue/Lark Avenue intersections are expected to operate at an unacceptable LOS during both peak hours under background conditions and with implementation of Scenario 1. Scenario 2 would result in fewer daily trips than Scenario 1; however, it is anticipated that the intersection would stille decreas to LOS F and also meet signal warrants with the addition of project traffic, which constitutes a significant impact by the Town standards. Therefore, the mitigation requiring the signalization of the intersection with protected left‐turn phasing on Winchester Boulevard (which would improve the intersection LOS to LOS B) would also be required under Scenario 2. Therefore, effects related to CO concentrations would be less than significant under Scenario 2.

16 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Stationary Source Risk & Hazard Analysis , Santa Clara County Permitted Sources, January 27, 2011. http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning‐and‐Research/CEQA‐ GUIDELINES/‐and‐Methodology.aspx 17 California Department of Transportation, Traffic and Vehicle Data Systems Unit, All Traffic Volumes on California State Highways, 2009. http://traffic‐counts.dot.ca.gov/2009all/Route82‐86i.htm.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 46 March 2011 Project proposal submitted

NO FURTHER All roadways and YES PARTICULATE MATTER major sources > OR TAC ANALYSIS 1,000 feet away RECOMMENDED

NO

Site and roadway Use screening tables that most characteristics closly matches project characteristics

Project PM2.5 and YES TAC risk and hazard < CEQA Threshold

NO NO FURTHER Site speci c Conduct site speci c air dispersion PARTICULATE MATTER inputs modeling and risk assessment OR TAC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDED

Project PM2.5 and YES TAC risk and hazard < CEQA Threshold

NO

RECOMMEND APPROPRIATE MITIGATION MEASURES

Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, June 2010

ALBRIGHT WAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT Phased Approach for Estimating Community Risks and Hazards 1/26/11 JN 40-100419-17194 MAS Exhibit 4 Albright Way Development Project

Similar to Scenario 1, construction equipment during Scenario 2 construction would move about the project site and would not be concentrated in one area or near one sensitive receptor long enough to cause health effects. Additionally, the project would implement the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures (Mitigation Measure AQ‐1), which would also reduce DPM exhaust emissions. To ensure that sensitive uses in the vicinity of the project site are not exposed to substantial TACs, Mitigation Measure AQ‐4 requires the implementation of additional construction mitigation measures for off‐road equipment to reduce the exposure of sensitive uses to TACs from construction emissions. The specific types of reduction features identified in Mitigation Measure AQ‐4 would be determined based on the acreage disturbed in a particular construction phase as well as the proximity of the construction activity to sensitive uses. Similar to Scenario 1, implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ‐1 and AQ‐4 would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.

As with Scenario 1, Scenario 2 consists of all office development, which the BAAQMD does not consider a sensitive receptor. Therefore, risk and health hazards from SR‐85 would be less than significant.

Scenario 3

The intersections of Winchester Boulevard/Albright Way and University Avenue/Lark Avenue are expected to operate at an unacceptable LOS during both peak hours under background conditions and with implementation of Scenario 1. Scenario 3 would result in fewer daily trips than Scenario 1; however, it is anticipated that the intersection would still decrease to LOS F and also meet signal warrants with the addition of project traffic, which constitutes a significant impact by the Town standards. Therefore, the mitigation within the Traffic Impact Analysis requiring the signalization of the intersection with protected left‐turn phasing on Winchester Boulevard (which would improve the intersection LOS to LOS B) would also be required under Scenario 3. Therefore, effects related to CO concentrations would be less than significant under Scenario 3.

Similar to Scenario 1, construction equipment during Scenario 3 construction would move about the project site and would not be concentrated in one area or near one sensitive receptor long enough to cause health effects. The project would implement the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures (Mitigation Measure AQ‐1), which would also reduce DPM exhaust emissions. To ensure that sensitive uses in the vicinity of the project site are not exposed to substantial TACs, Mitigation Measure AQ‐4 requires the implementation of additional construction mitigation measures for off‐road equipment to reduce the exposure of sensitive uses to TACs from construction emissions. The specific reduction features identified in Mitigation Measure AQ‐4 would be determined based on the acreage disturbed in a particular construction phase as well as the proximity of the construction activity to sensitive uses. Similar to Scenario 1, implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ‐1 and AQ‐4 would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 48 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

Scenario 3 consists of office development as well as residential uses, which could be located within the 1,000‐foot screening distance of SR‐85. Following the BAAQMD risk and hazard screening analysis process, Scenario 3 would exceed the initial and advanced screening criteria for PM2.5 and lifetime excess cancer risk, requiring further analysis and modeling. Utilizing the BAAQMD screening tables and criteria (from the BAAQMD’s Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards), a 300‐foot buffer for PM2.5 and a 265‐foot buffer for lifetime excess cancer risk would be required between the centerline of SR‐85 and proposed residential uses. Because the Scenario 3 would exceed the screening criteria, consistent with the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, a refined dispersion modeling analysis was conducted utilizing local meteorology, emission rates, and highway estimates. Refined dispersion modeling was performed using the Breeze Roads GIS Pro interface for the EPA’s CAL3QHCR model, which is a roadway model that predicts air pollutant concentrations from motor vehicles. The dispersion modeling utilized traffic data from Caltrans, as well as emissions rates and vehicle fleet data from the EMFAC2007 model.18 Based on the results of the screening analysis described above, receptors were modeled at 100‐foot increments from the SR‐85 centerline. Table 8, Risk and Health Hazards from State Route 85, depicts the results of the modeling. As indicated in Table 8, a 300‐foot buffer would ensure that BAAQMD significance thresholds would not be exceeded. However, it should be noted that Table 8 also indicates that at 261 feet from the SR‐85 centerline, the projected cancer risk would be just below the BAAQMD threshold; refer to Exhibit 5, Residential Development Limitations.

Table 8 Risk and Health Hazards from State Route 85

PM2.5 Concentration Cancer Risk Chronic Non-Cancer Acute Non-Cancer Description (μg/m3 annual average) (in a million) Hazard Index Hazard Index Value at 100 Feet 0.09 25.27 0.019 0.022 Threshold 0.3 10 1 1 Threshold Exceeded? No Yes No No Value at 200 Feet 0.04 11.16 0.008 0.010 Threshold 0.3 10 1 1 Threshold Exceeded? No Yes No No Value at 261 Feet 0.04 9.99 0.008 0.009 Threshold 0.3 10 1 1 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No Value at 300 Feet 0.03 8.63 0.007 0.008 Threshold 0.3 10 1 1 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No Source: Breeze Roads GIS Pro dispersion model (v5.1.7) interface for CAL3QHCR. Refer to Appendix A, Air Modeling Data, for assumptions used in this analysis.

18 California Department of Transportation, Traffic and Vehicle Data Systems Unit, All Traffic Volumes on California State Highways, 2009. http://traffic‐counts.dot.ca.gov/2009all/Route82‐86i.htm.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 49 March 2011 Residential Freeway Centerline Not Permitted

Source: Google Earth aerial. ALBRIGHT WAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT not to scale Residential Development Limitations 1/26/11 JN 40-100419-17194 MAS Exhibit 5 Albright Way Development Project

Therefore, Scenario 3 would require a minimum 261‐foot buffer between the proposed residential units and the SR‐85 centerline (Mitigation Measure AQ‐5) to ensure on‐site residents would not be exposed to risk and health hazards from SR‐85. It should be noted that SR‐85 is not a truck route and has a low volume of trucks based on the latest Caltrans data (less than one percent of the total vehicles).19 Additionally, CARB has adopted a Diesel Risk Reduction Plan (DRRP) with control measures that would reduce overall diesel emissions by approximately 85 percent from 2000 to 2020. These reduction measures are not reflected in the emissions factors and modeling used in the analysis described above. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ‐5.

Scenario 4

The unsignalized Winchester Boulevard/Albright Way and University Avenue/Lark Avenue intersections are expected to operate at an unacceptable LOS E during both peak hours under background conditions, and LOS F with implementation of Scenario 1. Scenario 4 would result in fewer daily trips than Scenario 1; however, it is anticipated that eth intersection would still decrease to LOS F and also meet signal warrants with the addition of project traffic, which constitutes a significant impact by the Town standards. Therefore, the mitigation within the Traffic Impact Analysis requiring the signalization of the intersection with protected left‐turn phasing on Winchester Boulevard (which would improve the intersection LOS to LOS B) would also be required under Scenario 4. Therefore, effects related to CO concentrations would be less than significant under Scenario 4.

Similar to Scenario 1, construction equipment during Scenario 4 construction would move about the project site and would not be concentrated in one area or near one sensitive receptor long enough to cause health effects. Additionally, the project would implement the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures (Mitigation Measure AQ‐1), which would also reduce DPM exhaust emissions. To ensure that sensitive uses in the vicinity of the project site are not exposed to substantial TACs, Mitigation Measure AQ‐4 would require construction staging areas to be sited at the minimum distance required by the BAAQMD. Similar to Scenario 1, implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ‐1 and AQ‐4 would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.

Similar to Scenario 3, Scenario 4 proposes office development as well as senior living units, which could be located within the 1,000‐foot screening distance of SR‐85. Scenario 4 would also exceed the initial and advanced screening criteria for PM2.5 and lifetime excess cancer risk and would also require a minimum 261‐foot buffer between the centerline of SR‐85 and proposed residential uses. As stated under Scenario 3, a refined dispersion modeling analysis confirmed the results of the screening analysis; refer to Table 8. As indicated in Table 8, at 261 feet from the SR‐85 centerline, the projected cancer risk would be just below the BAAQMD threshold; refer to Exhibit 5. Therefore, Scenario 4 would require at least a 261‐foot buffer between the proposed senior living units and the SR‐85 centerline (Mitigation Measure AQ‐5) to ensure on‐

19 Ibid.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 51 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

site residents would not be exposed to risk and health hazards from SR‐85. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ‐5.

Mitigation Measures:

AQ‐4 Prior to the approval of project plans and specifications, the Town Engineer, or his designee, shall confirm that the construction bid packages include a plan demonstrating that the off‐road equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be used in the construction project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project wide fleet‐average 20 percent NOX reduction and 45 percent particulate matter reduction compared to the most recent CARB fleet average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low‐emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after‐ treatment products, add‐on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other options as such become available. These limitations shall be stipulated in construction bids, plans, and specifications, and shall be enforced by the Town Engineer.

AQ‐5 Should residential uses be incorporated into the project design (Scenarios 3 and 4), the Applicant shall provide a minimum 261‐foot buffer between proposed residential land uses dan the centerline of SR‐85 in order to avoid health risks to future on‐site residents.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

AQ‐5 CREATE OBJECTIONABLE ODORS AFFECTING A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE?

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Scenario 1

According to the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include wastewater treatment plants, landfills, confined animal facilities, composting stations, food manufacturing plants, refineries, and chemical plants. Scenario 1 does not include any uses identified by the BAAQMD as being associated with odors.

Construction activity associated with the project may generate detectable odors from heavy‐ duty equipment exhaust. Construction‐related odors would be short‐term in nature and cease upon project completion. Any impacts to existing adjacent land uses would be short‐term and are considered less than significant.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 52 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

Scenario 2

Refer to the discussion under Scenario 1.

Scenario 3

Refer to the discussion under Scenario 1.

Scenario 4

Refer to the discussion under Scenario 1.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Not Applicable.

GHG‐1 GENERATE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, THAT MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT?

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant.

Scenario 1

Business as Usual Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Direct Project Related Sources of Greenhouse Gases

Direct project‐related GHG emissions include emissions from construction activities, area sources, and mobile sources. Table 9, Scenario 1 Business as Usual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Projections, presents the estimated CO2, N2O, and CH4 emissions without the incorporation of project design features discussed later in this section. GHG emissions from construction would result in 243 MT CO2eq in Year 1; 385 MT CO2eq in Year 2; 298 MT CO2eq in Year 3; 325 MT CO2eq in Year 4; and 159 MT CO2eq in Year 5. The BAAQMD has not adopted thresholds for GHGs associated with construction activities. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ‐1 and AQ‐3 would reduce equipment idling time, ensure equipment is operating properly, and limit the amount of soil hauling truck VMT, which would reduce construction‐related GHG emissions.

The URBEMIS 2007 computer model outputs contained within the Appendix A Air Modeling Data, were used to calculate mobile source CO2 emissions. The URBEMIS 2007 model relies upon trip data within the Traffic Impact Analysis and project specific land use data to calculate emissions. Estimations are based on energy emissions from natural gas usage, as well as automobile emissions. URBEMIS 2007 model outputs were used in conjunction with the

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 53 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

BAAQMD Greenhouse Gas Model (BGM) (Version 1.1.9) to calculate GHG emissions for area sources and natural gas. GHGs associated with area sources, natural gas, and mobile sources would be 0.23 MT CO2eq/yr, 420.34 MT CO2eq/yr, and 3,749.77 MT CO2eq/yr, respectively. Total project‐related direct operational emissions would result in 4,170.34 MT CO2eq/yr for Scenario 1.

Table 9 Scenario 1 Business as Usual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Projections

CO2 CH4 N2O Total Metric Metric Metric Source Metric Metric Metric Tons of Tons of Tons of Tons/year Tons/year Tons/year 2 CO2eq CO2eq CO2eq Direct Emissions ƒ Area Source1 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 ƒ Natural Gas1 419.26 0.04 0.84 0.00 0.24 420.34 ƒ Mobile Source1 3,749.77 ------3,749.77 Total Unmitigated Direct Emissions3 4,169.26 0.04 0.84 0.00 0.24 4,170.34 Indirect Emissions ƒ Electricity Consumption1 2,574.88 0.02 0.42 0.01 3.10 2,579.01 ƒ Water and Wastewater1 40.09 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.05 40.16 ƒ Solid Waste1 1.53 10.01 210.00 N/A N/A 211.77 Total Unmitigated Indirect Emissions2 2,616.50 10.03 210.44 0.01 3.15 2,830.94 Total Business As Usual 7,001.26 MT CO2eq/year= Project-Related Emissions 8.17 MT CO2eq/SP3/yr BAAQMD GHG Threshold 4.6 MT CO2eq/SP/yr Unmitigated GHG Emissions Exceed Yes Threshold? Notes: 1 – Emissions calculated using URBEMIS 2007 computer model and the BAAQMD Greenhouse Gas Model (BGM) (Version 1.1.9). 2 – Totals may be slightly off due to rounding. 3 – SP = service population (857 employees, based upon 350 square feet per employee). Refer to Appendix A, Air Modeling Data, for detailed model input/output data.

Indirect Project Related Sources of Greenhouse Gases. Indirect project‐related GHG emissions include emissions from consumption of electricity, natural gas, and water, as well as wastewater and solid waste generation. Indirect GHG emissions were calculated using BGM and URBEMIS 2007. Electricity consumption would indirectly result in 2,579.01 MT CO2eq/yr; water and wastewater would result in 40.16 MT CO2eq/yr; and solid waste generation would result in 211.77 MT CO2eq/yr; refer to Table 9.

Total Project‐Related Sources of Greenhouse Gases. The total amount of project‐related GHG emissions without accounting for any project design features that would reduce GHG emissions from direct and indirect sources combined would total 7,001.26 MT CO2eq/yr.

Consistency With the BAAQMD Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures

The proposed project would incorporate several design features (required to be implemented by Mitigation Measure GHG‐1A) that are also consistent with the BAAQMD mitigation

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 54 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

to reduce GHG emissions. A list of the BAAQMD mitigation measures contained in the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (June 2010) and the project’s compliance with each applicable measure are listed in Table 10, Project Consistency with the BAAQMD Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. Table 10 depicts a host of potential project design features and sustainable practices that the proposed project would incorporate, which include water, energy, solid waste, land use, and transportation efficiency measures. Table 10 also identifies the associated scaled percent reduction and applicable sector based on the project’s consistency with the BAAQMD mitigation measures. The reductions have been based on BAAQMD methodology presented in the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. It should be noted that Table 10 presents potential measures that the project would incorporate. Mitigation Measure GHG‐1 requires the implementation of any mix of GHG reduction measures necessary to achieve the required 44.34 percent scaled reduction that is required for impacts to be less than significant.

Table 10 Project Consistency With the BAAQMD Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures

Percent Reduction Project Design Feature Project Applicability (Sector) Transportation Measures (a) Secure Bike Parking (at Compliant. The proposed project would include bicycle parking and other least 1 space per 20 facilities for bicycle riders. vehicle spaces) (b) Information Provided on Compliant. Schedules and maps for transportation alternatives would be Transportation Alternatives available at each proposed building. (Bus Schedules, Maps) (c) Preferential Carpool/ Compliant. Parking spaces would be reserved on-site for carpool/vanpools. Vanpool Parking Compliant. The project site is located within a half-mile of residential and (d) Mix of Uses nonresidential (job-generating) uses. Compliant. The project site is located within a half mile of local serving retail (e) Local Serving Retail uses. Compliant. The project site is located along Albright Way off of Winchester (f) Transit Service Boulevard. VTA Bus Route 48 stops adjacent to the project site near the intersection of Albright Way and Winchester Boulevard. Compliant. Proposed Class II bike lanes are proposed near the project site 39.4 along Winchester Boulevard and Lark Avenue. The stretch of Winchester (transportation) Boulevard just south of the project site contains an existing Class II bike lane. The project would include sidewalks along both sides of Albright Way and (g) Bike and Pedestrian would facilitate pedestrian circulation throughout the site. The project site would also be designed to be bicycle-friendly. Additionally, the project site would have connections to Winchester Boulevard as well as the adjoining Los Gatos Creek Trail (east of the project site). (h) Employee Telecommuting Compliant. The proposed project would allow employees flexibility in working Program location and hours in order to reduce the amount of daily commute time. (i) Showers/Changing Compliant. The proposed project would provide showers/changing areas for Facilities employees on the project site. Compliant. The project would provide a carpool matching program to assist (j) Carpool Matching Program employees in finding colleagues to conveniently carpool with. Compliant. The proposed project would provide on-site amenities for (k) 100% Increase in Diversity employees such as eating and other establishments which would allow of Land Uses employees to reduce off-site trips.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 55 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

Table 10 (continued) Project Consistency With the BAAQMD Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures

Percent Reduction Project Design Feature Project Applicability (Sector) (l) 100% Increase in Design Compliant. The proposed project would incorporate transit oriented (i.e., presence of design development design measures. guidelines for transit oriented development, complete street standards) Natural Gas Measures Compliant. The buildings associated with the proposed project would exceed (a) Increase Energy Efficiency 20 Title 24 by 20 percent. The baseline for this standard would be the 2010 Beyond Title 24 (natural gas) California Green Building Standards which are effective January 1, 2011. (b) Require smart meters and Compliant. The project would install smart meters and energy management 5 programmable thermostats system controls for lighting, heating, and cooling equipment. (natural gas) Electricity Measures (a) Plant shade trees within 40 Compliant. Where existing, mature shade trees do not already exist, the feet of the south side or proposed project would include newly planted shade trees along the buildings 17 within 60 feet of the west and in open space areas. (electricity) sides of properties (b) Require cool roof materials Compliant. The project would use highly reflective roof materials (albedo of 20 (albedo >=30) at least 30) to reduce cooling load. (electricity) (c) Require smart meters and Compliant. The project would install smart meters and energy management 5 programmable thermostats system controls for lighting, heating, and cooling equipment. (electricity) (d) Meet Green Building Code Compliant. The project would be required to meet the 2010 Green Building 7 Standards Code Standards which would result in reduced electricity usage. (electricity) Compliant. The project would seal heating, ventilation, and air conditioning 10 (e) HVAC duct sealing (HVAC) ducts to enhance efficiency and reduce energy loss. (electricity) Total Scaled Reduction 44.34 Notes: 1. BAAQMD reductions are presented in percentage ranges for specific sectors (i.e., transportation, natural gas). Each sector’s reduction percentages are scaled proportionally to their sector of the project-generated emissions. For example, transportation emissions account for 53.56 percent of the total emissions, and a 39.40 percent reduction would apply to transportation related emissions. Therefore, the reduction is calculated by multiplying 0.5356 by 0.3940 for a scaled reduction of 0.2110 (21.10 percent). This was completed for each sector. The total emissions reduction applied to the project is a sum of the scaled sector reduction percentages (44.34 percent).

BAAQMD Sector Reduction Methodology

The BAAQMD provides GHG reduction measures and associated reduction percentages in their CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Reductions are presented in percentage ranges for each measure, and apply specifically to mobile, electricity, and natural gas sectors. Reductions from BAAQMD measures are scaled proportionally to their sector of project‐generated emissions. For example, if measures would result in a 39.40 percent reduction in transportation‐related emissions, and transportation accounts for 53.56 percent of the total emissions, then the scaled reduction would be 21.10 percent (0.5356 x 0.3940 = 0.2110). This process is completed for each sector. The total emission reductions are summed and applied to the overall total project‐ related GHG emissions. As presented in Table 10 and Table 11, Scenario 1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions With BAAQMD Sector Reductions, the overall reduction percentages total 44.34 percent. Applying the BAAQMD reduction percentages, GHG emissions from the proposed project would be reduced by 3,104.36 MTCO2eq/yr, which equates to 4.56 MT CO2eq/SP/yr. A

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 56 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

service population of 857 employees is used (based on one employee per 350 square feet of office space). Thus, the project would not exceed the 4.6 MT CO2eq/SP/yr threshold utilizing the BAAQMD scaled reduction methodology.

Table 11 Scenario 1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions With BAAQMD Sector Reductions

Reductions Breakdown % of Total GHG Sector % of Sector Scaled Reductions Scaled Business as Usual Reductions Calculation4 Reduction % Emissions Transportation 53.56 39.40 0.5356 x 0.3940 = 0.2110 21.10 Natural Gas 6.00 25.00 0.0600 x 0.2500 = 0.0150 1.50 Electricity 36.84 59.00 0.3684 x 0.5900 = 0.2174 21.74 Total Scaled % Reduction 44.34 Total Project-Related Business as 7,001.26 MT CO2eq/yr Usual Emissions1,3 Total Project-Related GHG 3,897.02 MT CO2eq/yr = Emissions WITH 48.26% 4.56 MT CO2eq/SP2/yr Reduction1,3 BAAQMD GHG Threshold 4.6 MT CO2eq/SP/yr Mitigated GHG Emissions No Exceed Threshold? Notes: 1. Total project-related GHG emissions = total direct emissions + total indirect emissions (in MT CO2eq/yr). 2. SP = service population. The SP for the project is assumed to be 857 employees, based on one employee per 350 square feet of office space. The total project-related GHG emissions were divided by the SP of 857 for the annual GHG emissions per SP. 3. Totals may be off due to rounding. 4. BAAQMD reductions are presented in percentage ranges for specific sectors (i.e., transportation, natural gas). Each sector’s reduction percentages are scaled proportionally to their sector of the project-generated emissions. For example, transportation emissions account for 53.56 percent of the total emissions, and a 39.40 percent reduction would apply to transportation related emissions. Therefore, the reduction is calculated by multiplying 0.5356 by 0.3940 for a scaled reduction of 0.2110 (21.10 percent). This was completed for each sector. The total emissions reduction applied to the project is a sum of the scaled sector reduction percentages (44.34 percent).

Conclusion

As shown in Table 9, operational‐related emissions under Scenario 1 would be 7,001.26 MTCO2eq/yr (8.17 MTCO2eq/SP/yr) without reductions from project design features, which exceeds the BAAQMD GHG significance threshold of 4.6 MT CO2eq/SP/yr. URBEMIS 2007 and the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines were used to quantify GHG emissions reductions associated with project design features from project operations. With implementation of project design features (which are required by Mitigation Measure GHG‐1), the project would incorporate sustainable practices which include water, energy, solid waste, and transportation efficiency measures that are summarized in Table 10. Based on the reduction measures in Table 10, Scenario 1 would reduce its GHG emissions 44.34 percent below the business as usual scenario, and would reduce the project’s operational GHG emissions to 3,897.02 MT CO2eq/yr. The project would have a service population of 857 employees and the total GHG emissions after reductions would equate to 4.56 MT CO2eq/SP/yr. Therefore, the project would not exceed the 4.6 MT CO2eq/SP/yr threshold utilizing the BAAQMD scaled reduction methodology. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 57 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

Scenario 2

The development of Scenario 2 would result in less commercial office space than considered under Scenario 1. Construction impacts would be less than those associated with Scenario 1, as less development is proposed. At full development, Scenario 2 would result in 948 daily net new trips (69.67 percent reduction from 3,126r fo Scenario 1). Proportionately reducing GHG emissions by 69.67 percent (proportion that Scenario 2 square footage is reduced by compared to Scenario 1) results in a total BAU emissions total of approximately 2,123.71 MT CO2eq/yr. Utilizing a SP of 260 (350 s.f. per employee), Scenario 2 would result in 8.17 MT CO2eq/SP/yr, which would exceed the BAAQMD GHG threshold.

Therefore, Scenario 2 would be required to incorporate BAAQMD GHG mitigation measures to be below the 4.6 MT CO2eq/SP/yr threshold. Scenario 2 would be required to incorporate Mitigation Measure GHG‐1. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG‐1, Scenario 2 would reduce its GHG emissions by a scaled 44.34 percent, which equates to 1,182.05 MT CO2eq/yr and 4.55 MT CO2eq/SP/yr, which falls below the BAAQMD GHG threshold. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG‐1, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Scenario 3

The development of Scenario 3 would consist of 200,000 s.f. of commercial office space as well as up to 516 high‐density units. Utilizing the URBEMIS 2007 and BGM models, the total GHG emissions associated with Scenario 3 would be 6,870.34 MT CO2eq/yr. Utilizing a SP of 1,223 (based on 350 s.f. per employee [with a net decrease of 50,000 s.f. of office space] and 2.39 persons per household), Scenario 3 would result in 5.61 MT CO2eq/SP/yr, which is above the 4.6 MT CO2eq/SP/yr GHG threshold. Therefore, Scenario 3 would be required to incorporate BAAQMD GHG mitigation measures to be below the 4.6 MT CO2eq/SP/yr threshold. Scenario 3 would be required to incorporate Mitigation Measure GHG‐1. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG‐1, Scenario 3 would reduce its GHG emissions by a scaled 18.5 percent, which equates to 5,599.33 MT CO2eq/yr and 4.58 MT CO2eq/SP/yr, which falls below the BAAQMD GHG threshold. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG‐1, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Scenario 4

The development of Scenario 4 consists of 200,000 s.f. of commercial office space as well as up to 600 senior living units. Utilizing the URBEMIS 2007 and BGM models, the total GHG emissions associated with Scenario 4 would be 8,994.56 MT CO2eq/yr. Utilizing a SP of 1,057 (based on 350 s.f. per employee [with a net decrease of 50,000 s.f. of office space] and 2.0 persons per household), Scenario 4 would result in 8.46 MT CO2eq/SP/yr, which is above the 4.6 MT CO2eq/SP/yr GHG threshold. Therefore, Scenario 4 would be required to incorporate BAAQMD GHG mitigation measures to be below the 4.6 MT CO2eq/SP/yr threshold. Scenario 4 would be required to incorporate Mitigation Measure GHG‐1. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG‐1, Scenario 4 would reduce its GHG emissions by a scaled 46 percent,

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 58 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

which equates to 4,857.06 MT CO2eq/yr and 4.59 MT CO2eq/SP/yr, which falls below the BAAQMD GHG threshold. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG‐1, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Mitigation Measures:

GHG‐1 A combination of the following is a list of sustainability and design features that shall be incorporated into Scenarios 1, 2, 3, or 4 to achieve the overall scaled reduction in GHG emissions to ensure a less than significant GHG impact (Scenarios 1 and 2 require a 44.34 percent scaled reduction, Scenario 3 requires an 18.5 percent scaled reduction, and Scenario 4 requires a 46 percent scaled reduction in GHG emissions). Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate the incorporation of a combination (one or more) of sustainable project design features that would reduce the project’s GHG emissions by the percentage required above. Each measure and the associated GHG reduction shall be identified and included on all project plans and specifications. One or more of the following sustainability and design features, or other measures that may be available in the future, shall be included to achieve the reduction in GHG emissions:

• Provide secure on‐site bike parking (ratio shall be at least one space per 20 vehicle spaces). • Provide information on transportation alternatives (i.e., bus schedules and maps) accessible to employees within each proposed building. • Provide preferential on‐site carpool/vanpool parking. • Increase energy efficiency beyond Title 24 by 20 percent. • Install smart meters and programmable thermostats. • Plant shade trees within 40 feet of the south side or within 60 feet of the west sides of the buildings. • Install roofs with highly reflective materials (albedo of at least 30) to reduce cooling load. • Meet 2010 Green Building Code Standards. • Seal heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) ducts to enhance efficiency and reduce energy loss. • Include solar photovoltaic or other technology to generate electricity on‐site to reduce consumption from the electrical grid. • Implement an employee telecommuting program. • Provide showers/changing facilities on‐site for employee use. • Implement an on‐site carpool matching program for employees. • Provide on‐site amenities (i.e., eating and other establishments).

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 59 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

• Increase the project design by 100 percent (i.e., presence of transit oriented development design guidelines, complete streets standards). • Work with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to implement acceptable off‐site mitigation. This involves an agreement with the BAAQMD and payment of fees or the purchase of carbon credits. The BAAQMD would commit to reducing the type and amount of emissions identified in the agreement.

Also refer to Mitigation Measures AQ‐1 and AQ‐3.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

GHG‐2 CONFLICT WITH AN APPLICABLE PLAN, POLICY OR REGULATION ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF REDUCING THE EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES?

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Scenario 1

According to the BAAQMD, a GHG reduction plan should:

• Quantify GHG emissions, both existing and projected over a specified time period, resulting from activities within a defined geographic area; • Establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to GHG emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable; • Identify and analyze the GHG emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated within the geographic area; • Specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project‐by‐project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level; • Establish a mechanism to monitor the plan’s progress toward achieving the level and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels; and • Be adopted in a public process following environmental review.

The GHG reduction plan should identify goals, policies, and implementation measures that would achieve the goals of AB 32 for the entire community. The Town of Los Gatos does not currently have an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with an adopted plan, policy, or regulation pertaining to GHGs. Also, as described above, the proposed project would comply with the 2010 California Green Building Code and would include design features to reduce energy and water consumption and reduce vehicle trips. The project would not hinder

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 60 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

the Stateʹs GHG reduction goals established by AB 32. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.

Scenario 2

Refer to the discussion under Scenario 1.

Scenario 3

Refer to the discussion under Scenario 1.

Scenario 4

Refer to the discussion under Scenario 1.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 61 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

6.0 REFERENCES

6.1 LIST OF PREPARERS

RBF CONSULTING 14725 Alton Parkway Irvine, California 92618 949/472‐3505

Eddie Torres, Director of Technical Services Kelly Chiene, Environmental Analyst Achilles Malisos, Environmental Analyst Debby Hutchinson, Graphic Artist Gary Gick, Word Processor

6.2 DOCUMENTS

1. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, June 2010.

2. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, May 2010.

3. California Air Resources Board, Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan, October 2008.

4. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, CEQA & Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, 2008.

5. California Climate Change Center, Our Changing Climate, Assessing the Risks to California, July 2006.

6. California Energy Commission, Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to 2004, December 2006.

7. California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team, Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature (Executive Summary), March 2006.

8. California Governorʹs Office of Planning and Research, CEQA AND CLIMATE CHANGE: Addressing Climate Change Through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review, June 19, 2008.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 62 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

9. California Governors Office of Planning and Research, Proposed Amendments to 14 Sections of the CEQA Guidelines, January 2009.

10. California Natural Resources Agency. 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy, December 2009.

11. Energy Information Administration, Other Gases: Hydrofluorocarbons, Perfluorocarbons, and Sulfur Hexafluoride, October 29, 2001.

12. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., Albright Way Development Traffic Impact Analysis, March 17, 2011.

13. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change, The Science of Climate Change – Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC, 1996.

14. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers, February 2007.

15. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to 2008, April 2010.

16. United States Environmental Protection Agency, High GWP Gases and Climate Change, June 22, 2010.

6.3 WEB SITES/PROGRAMS

Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD Greenhouse Gas Model (version 1.1.9)

California Air Resources Board, Aerometric Data Analysis and Measurement System (ADAM), summaries from 2007 to 2009, http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam.

California Air Resources Board, EMFAC 2007 (version 2.3), November 1, 2006.

California Air Resources Board, www.arb.ca.gov.

Rimpo and Associates, URBEMIS 2007 (version 9.2.4), June 2007.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment 63 March 2011

APPENDIX A: AIR MODELING DATA

Parenthetical URBEMIS2007 (Version 9.2.4) Assumptions For: Albright Way Office Development Project Date: March 2011

LAND USES

Scenario A Amount Land Use Type Unit Type Net Trips 300 Office Park 1,000 sf 3,126

Scenario B Amount Land Use Type Unit Type Net Trips 200 Office Park 1,000 sf 948

Scenario C Amount Land Use Type Unit Type Net Trips 200 Office Park 1,000 sf 2,000 516 Multi-Family Residential Dwelling units

Scenario D Amount Land Use Type Unit Type Net Trips 200 Office Park 1,000 sf 1,442 600 Senior Living Residential Dwelling units

CONSTRUCTION SOURCES

Year Duration (months) Development 2012 9 months Demolition, Grading, Trenching, Building Construction Demolition, Grading, Trenching, Paving, Building Construction, 2013 12 months Architectural Coating 2014 12 months Grading, Paving, Building Construction, Architectural Coating Demolition, Grading, Trenching, Building Construction, Architectural 2015 12 months Coating 2016 6 months Grading, Paving, Building Construction

PHASE 1:

Demolition:

Total Daily Duration Total Volume Year Volume (days) (cubic feet) (cubic feet) 2012 30 400,000 14,000

Demolition Equipment (URBEMIS2007 Default):

Quantity Type Hours of Daily Operation 1 Concrete/Industrial Saw 8 1 Rubber Tired Dozer 1 2 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoe 6

Site Grading:

Duration- Duration- Estimated Total Acreage Acreage Mass Fine Soil Hauling Year Cut/Fill (cubic Disturbed Disturbed Daily Grading Grading (cubic yards) yards/day) (days) (days) 2012-2013 8.46 1.61 19 22 31,200 1,800

Mass Grading Equipment (URBEMIS2007 Default):

Quantity Type Hours of Daily Operation 1 Grader 6 1 Rubber Tired Dozer 6 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoe 7 1 Water Trucks 8

Fine Grading Equipment (URBEMIS2007 Default):

Quantity Type Hours of Daily Operation 1 Grader 6 1 Rubber Tired Dozer 6 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoe 7 1 Water Trucks 8

Trenching:

Year Duration 2012 36 days

Trenching Equipment (URBEMIS2007 Default):

Quantity Type Hours of Daily Operation 2 Excavators 8 1 Other General Industrial 8 Equipment

Paving:

Duration Year Acres (days) 2013 11 3.42

Equipment (URBEMIS2007 Default):

Quantity Type Hours of Daily Operation 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers 6 1 Paver 7 2 Paving Equipment 6 1 Roller 7 1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 7

Building Construction

Duration Year (days) 2012-2013 270

Equipment (URBEMIS2007 Default):

Quantity Type Hours of Daily Operation 1 Crane 6 2 Forklifts 6 1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 8 3 Welders 8 1 Generator Set 8

Architectural Coatings:

Duration – 25 days Low VOC coatings (Pursuant to BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3) (150) (URBEMIS2007 default all phases)

Worker Commute

(URBEMIS2007 default all phases)

Construction Mitigation:

Refer to URBEMIS2007 file output.

PHASE 2:

Demolition:

Total Daily Duration Total Volume Year Volume (days) (cubic feet) (cubic feet) 2013 15 175,000 14,000

Demolition Equipment (URBEMIS2007 Default):

Quantity Type Hours of Daily Operation 1 Concrete/Industrial Saw 8 1 Rubber Tired Dozer 1 2 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoe 6

Site Grading:

Duration- Duration- Estimated Total Acreage Acreage Mass Fine Soil Hauling Year Cut/Fill (cubic Disturbed Disturbed Daily Grading Grading (cubic yards) yards/day) (days) (days) 2013-2014 16.21 1.61 21 17 35,100 2,730

Mass Grading Equipment (URBEMIS2007 Default):

Quantity Type Hours of Daily Operation 1 Grader 6 1 Rubber Tired Dozer 6 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoe 7 1 Water Trucks 8

Fine Grading Equipment (URBEMIS2007 Default):

Quantity Type Hours of Daily Operation 1 Grader 6 1 Rubber Tired Dozer 6 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoe 7 1 Water Trucks 8

Trenching:

Year Duration 2013 26 days

Trenching Equipment (URBEMIS2007 Default):

Quantity Type Hours of Daily Operation 2 Excavators 8 1 Other General Industrial 8 Equipment

Paving:

Duration Year Acres (days) 2014 12 3.57

Equipment (URBEMIS2007 Default):

Quantity Type Hours of Daily Operation 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers 6 1 Paver 7 2 Paving Equipment 6 1 Roller 7 1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 7

Building Construction

Duration Year (days) 2013-2014 260

Equipment (URBEMIS2007 Default):

Quantity Type Hours of Daily Operation 1 Crane 6 2 Forklifts 6 1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 8 3 Welders 8 1 Generator Set 8

Architectural Coatings:

Duration – 25 days Low VOC coatings (Pursuant to BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3) (150) (URBEMIS2007 default all phases)

Worker Commute

(URBEMIS2007 default all phases)

Construction Mitigation:

Refer to URBEMIS2007 file output.

PHASE 3:

Demolition:

Total Daily Duration Total Volume Year Volume (days) (cubic feet) (cubic feet) 2015 20 246,000 14,000

Demolition Equipment (URBEMIS2007 Default):

Quantity Type Hours of Daily Operation 1 Concrete/Industrial Saw 8 1 Rubber Tired Dozer 1 2 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoe 6

Site Grading:

Duration- Duration- Estimated Total Acreage Acreage Mass Fine Soil Hauling Year Cut/Fill (cubic Disturbed Disturbed Daily Grading Grading (cubic yards) yards/day) (days) (days) 2015-2016 13.79 1.61 17 21 29,200 2,100

Mass Grading Equipment (URBEMIS2007 Default):

Quantity Type Hours of Daily Operation 1 Grader 6 1 Rubber Tired Dozer 6 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoe 7 1 Water Trucks 8

Fine Grading Equipment (URBEMIS2007 Default):

Quantity Type Hours of Daily Operation 1 Grader 6 1 Rubber Tired Dozer 6 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoe 7 1 Water Trucks 8

Trenching:

Year Duration 2015 29 days

Trenching Equipment (URBEMIS2007 Default):

Quantity Type Hours of Daily Operation 2 Excavators 8 1 Other General Industrial 8 Equipment

Paving:

Duration Year Acres (days) 2016 11 3.25

Equipment (URBEMIS2007 Default):

Quantity Type Hours of Daily Operation 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers 6 1 Paver 7 2 Paving Equipment 6 1 Roller 7 1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 7

Building Construction

Duration Year (days) 2015-2016 270

Equipment (URBEMIS2007 Default):

Quantity Type Hours of Daily Operation 1 Crane 6 2 Forklifts 6 1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 8 3 Welders 8 1 Generator Set 8

Architectural Coatings:

Duration – 25 days Low VOC coatings (Pursuant to BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3) (150) (URBEMIS2007 default all phases)

Worker Commute

(URBEMIS2007 default all phases)

Construction Mitigation:

Refer to URBEMIS2007 file output.

LONG TERM OPERATIONS

YEAR 2016 AREA SOURCES

Natural Gas Fuel Combustion:

(URBEMIS2007 default all phases)

Hearth Fuel Combustion:

Off

Landscape Fuel Combustion:

Year of Completion Summer Days 2016 180

Consumer Products:

(URBEMIS2007 default all phases)

Architectural Coating:

(URBEMIS2007 default all phases)

Area Source Mitigation:

Low VOC coatings (Pursuant to BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3) Refer to URBEMIS2007 file output.

YEAR 2016 OPERATIONAL SOURCES

Vehicle Fleet %:

(URBEMIS2007 default all phases)

Year:

Year of Completion – 2016

Trip Characteristics:

(URBEMIS2007 Default all phases)

Temperature Data:

40 to 90 degrees Fahrenheit

Variable Starts:

(URBEMIS2007 default all phases)

Road Dust:

Paved – 100% Unpaved – 0%

Pass By Trips (On/Off):

Off

Double-Counting(On/Off):

Off

Operational Mitigation Measures:

Refer to URBEMIS2007 file output. Page: 1 2/2/2011 2:18:34 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year) File Name: H:\pdata\40100419\Admin\reports\AQ_GHG\Models\URBEMIS\NOX mit\Albright_Phase1.urb924 Project Name: Albright Way Construction Phase1 No MM Project Location: Bay Area Air District On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007

Summary Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 CO2 Exhaust 2012 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 0.32 2.32 1.61 0.00 1.76 0.12 1.88 0.37 0.11 0.48 355.29

2012 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 0.32 2.32 1.61 0.00 0.36 0.12 0.48 0.08 0.11 0.19 355.29

Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 79.66 0.00 74.52 79.46 0.00 61.01 0.00

2013 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 1.36 1.85 1.70 0.00 0.77 0.11 0.88 0.16 0.10 0.27 291.31

2013 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 0.95 1.85 1.70 0.00 0.12 0.11 0.24 0.03 0.10 0.13 291.31

Percent Reduction 30.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.69 0.00 72.88 83.33 0.00 50.52 0.00

Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 Page: 2 2/2/2011 2:18:34 PM

2012 0.32 2.32 1.61 0.00 1.76 0.12 1.88 0.37 0.11 0.48 355.29

Demolition 04/02/2012- 0.02 0.17 0.10 0.00 0.09 0.01 0.10 0.02 0.01 0.03 23.78 05/11/2012 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.21 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.00

Demo Off Road Diesel 0.01 0.10 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 10.50

Demo On Road Diesel 0.00 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.74

Demo Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.53

Mass Grading 05/14/2012- 0.08 1.00 0.38 0.00 1.67 0.04 1.71 0.35 0.04 0.39 163.63 06/07/2012 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.67 0.00 1.67 0.35 0.00 0.35 0.00

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 0.03 0.21 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 21.35

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.05 0.79 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 141.31

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.97

Trenching 06/08/2012-07/27/2012 0.03 0.28 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 32.70

Trenching Off Road Diesel 0.03 0.27 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 30.86

Trenching Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.84

Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 0.19 0.88 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.06 135.18

Building Off Road Diesel 0.17 0.82 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.05 89.98

Building Vendor Trips 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.96

Building Worker Trips 0.01 0.02 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.24 Page: 3 2/2/2011 2:18:34 PM

2013 1.36 1.85 1.70 0.00 0.77 0.11 0.88 0.16 0.10 0.27 291.31

Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 0.25 1.18 1.32 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.07 0.07 193.67

Building Off Road Diesel 0.23 1.11 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.07 128.89

Building Vendor Trips 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.84

Building Worker Trips 0.01 0.02 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 51.94

Coating 01/20/2013-02/22/2013 1.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.23

Architectural Coating 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.23

Asphalt 07/26/2013-08/31/2013 0.04 0.21 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 23.47

Paving Off-Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paving Off Road Diesel 0.03 0.20 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 18.44

Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.04

Paving Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.99

Fine Grading 08/12/2013- 0.04 0.46 0.21 0.00 0.76 0.02 0.78 0.16 0.02 0.18 72.95 09/10/2013 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.76 0.16 0.00 0.16 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 0.03 0.23 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 24.72

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.02 0.23 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 47.10

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.12

Phase Assumptions

Phase: Demolition 4/2/2012 - 5/11/2012 - Phase 1 Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 400000 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 14000 On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 194.44 Off-Road Equipment: Page: 4 2/2/2011 2:18:34 PM 1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day

Phase: Fine Grading 8/12/2013 - 9/10/2013 - Phase 1 Total Acres Disturbed: 8.46 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low Onsite Cut/Fill: 450 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1063.64 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Mass Grading 5/14/2012 - 6/7/2012 - Phase 1 Total Acres Disturbed: 8.46 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low Onsite Cut/Fill: 1350 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 3694.74 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Trenching 6/8/2012 - 7/27/2012 - Phase 1 Off-Road Equipment: Page: 5 2/2/2011 2:18:34 PM 2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day

Phase: Paving 7/26/2013 - 8/31/2013 - Phase 1 Acres to be Paved: 3.42 Off-Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day

Phase: Building Construction 7/30/2012 - 8/9/2013 - Phase 1 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Architectural Coating 1/20/2013 - 2/22/2013 - Phase 1 Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250

Construction Mitigated Detail Report: Page: 6 2/2/2011 2:18:34 PM

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Mitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2

2012 0.32 2.32 1.61 0.00 0.36 0.12 0.48 0.08 0.11 0.19 355.29

Demolition 04/02/2012- 0.02 0.17 0.10 0.00 0.09 0.01 0.10 0.02 0.01 0.03 23.78 05/11/2012 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.21 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.00

Demo Off Road Diesel 0.01 0.10 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 10.50

Demo On Road Diesel 0.00 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.74

Demo Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.53

Mass Grading 05/14/2012- 0.08 1.00 0.38 0.00 0.27 0.04 0.31 0.06 0.04 0.09 163.63 06/07/2012 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.26 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 0.03 0.21 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 21.35

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.05 0.79 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 141.31

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.97

Trenching 06/08/2012-07/27/2012 0.03 0.28 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 32.70

Trenching Off Road Diesel 0.03 0.27 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 30.86

Trenching Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.84

Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 0.19 0.88 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.06 135.18

Building Off Road Diesel 0.17 0.82 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.05 89.98

Building Vendor Trips 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.96

Building Worker Trips 0.01 0.02 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.24 Page: 7 2/2/2011 2:18:34 PM

2013 0.95 1.85 1.70 0.00 0.12 0.11 0.24 0.03 0.10 0.13 291.31

Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 0.25 1.18 1.32 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.07 0.07 193.67

Building Off Road Diesel 0.23 1.11 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.07 128.89

Building Vendor Trips 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.84

Building Worker Trips 0.01 0.02 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 51.94

Coating 01/20/2013-02/22/2013 0.62 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.23

Architectural Coating 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.23

Asphalt 07/26/2013-08/31/2013 0.04 0.21 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 23.47

Paving Off-Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paving Off Road Diesel 0.03 0.20 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 18.44

Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.04

Paving Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.99

Fine Grading 08/12/2013- 0.04 0.46 0.21 0.00 0.12 0.02 0.14 0.03 0.02 0.04 72.95 09/10/2013 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 0.03 0.23 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 24.72

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.02 0.23 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 47.10

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.12

Construction Related Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 8/12/2013 - 9/10/2013 - Phase 1 For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% Page: 8 2/2/2011 2:18:34 PM For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 5/14/2012 - 6/7/2012 - Phase 1 For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 1/20/2013 - 2/22/2013 - Phase 1 For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% Page: 1 2/2/2011 2:18:09 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: H:\pdata\40100419\Admin\reports\AQ_GHG\Models\URBEMIS\NOX mit\Albright_Phase1.urb924 Project Name: Albright Way Construction Phase1 No MM Project Location: Bay Area Air District On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007

Summary Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 CO2 Exhaust 2012 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 8.20 105.08 39.83 0.14 175.93 4.06 179.99 36.80 3.74 40.54 17,224.40

2012 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) 8.20 105.08 39.83 0.14 28.17 4.06 32.23 5.95 3.74 9.68 17,224.40

2013 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 85.52 58.07 31.41 0.04 69.37 3.08 72.45 14.51 2.83 17.34 8,436.76

2013 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) 52.57 58.07 31.41 0.04 11.08 3.08 14.16 2.33 2.83 5.17 8,436.76

Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 Page: 2 2/2/2011 2:18:09 PM

Time Slice 4/2/2012-5/11/2012 1.30 11.19 6.92 0.01 5.91 0.65 6.57 1.23 0.60 1.84 1,585.17 Active Days: 30 Demolition 04/02/2012- 1.30 11.19 6.92 0.01 5.91 0.65 6.57 1.23 0.60 1.84 1,585.17 05/11/2012 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.88 0.00 5.88 1.22 0.00 1.22 0.00

Demo Off Road Diesel 0.98 6.77 4.49 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.49 0.00 0.45 0.45 700.30

Demo On Road Diesel 0.29 4.37 1.44 0.01 0.03 0.16 0.18 0.01 0.14 0.15 782.84

Demo Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.04

Time Slice 5/14/2012-6/7/2012 8.20 105.08 39.83 0.14 175.93 4.06 179.99 36.80 3.74 40.54 17,224.40 Active Days: 19 Mass Grading 05/14/2012- 8.20 105.08 39.83 0.14 175.93 4.06 179.99 36.80 3.74 40.54 17,224.40 06/07/2012 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 175.40 0.00 175.40 36.63 0.00 36.63 0.00

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 2.69 21.95 11.51 0.00 0.00 1.07 1.07 0.00 0.99 0.99 2,247.32

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 5.48 83.08 27.33 0.14 0.52 2.99 3.51 0.17 2.75 2.92 14,875.04

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.04

Time Slice 6/8/2012-7/27/2012 1.84 15.30 9.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.74 0.00 0.68 0.68 1,816.67 Active Days: 36 Trenching 06/08/2012-07/27/2012 1.84 15.30 9.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.74 0.00 0.68 0.68 1,816.67

Trenching Off Road Diesel 1.80 15.24 8.01 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.73 0.00 0.67 0.67 1,714.64

Trenching Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.04

Time Slice 7/30/2012-12/31/2012 3.39 15.81 17.40 0.01 0.04 1.08 1.12 0.01 0.99 1.00 2,435.68 Active Days: 111 Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 3.39 15.81 17.40 0.01 0.04 1.08 1.12 0.01 0.99 1.00 2,435.68

Building Off Road Diesel 3.14 14.81 10.52 0.00 0.00 1.04 1.04 0.00 0.95 0.95 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.65 0.57 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.46

Building Worker Trips 0.20 0.35 6.32 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.03 Page: 3 2/2/2011 2:18:09 PM

Time Slice 1/1/2013-1/18/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06 Active Days: 14 Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06

Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.57 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.47

Building Worker Trips 0.18 0.31 5.82 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.39

Time Slice 1/21/2013-2/22/2013 85.52 14.84 17.43 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.02 0.89 0.91 2,534.22 Active Days: 25 Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06

Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.57 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.47

Building Worker Trips 0.18 0.31 5.82 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.39

Coating 01/20/2013-02/22/2013 82.42 0.05 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.17

Architectural Coating 82.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.17

Time Slice 2/25/2013-7/25/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06 Active Days: 109 Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06

Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.57 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.47

Building Worker Trips 0.18 0.31 5.82 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.39 Page: 4 2/2/2011 2:18:09 PM

Time Slice 7/26/2013-8/9/2013 6.05 31.05 28.84 0.01 0.05 2.30 2.36 0.02 2.12 2.14 4,241.20 Active Days: 11 Asphalt 07/26/2013-08/31/2013 2.95 16.25 12.29 0.00 0.02 1.33 1.35 0.01 1.23 1.23 1,805.14

Paving Off-Gas 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paving Off Road Diesel 2.48 15.36 9.98 0.00 0.00 1.30 1.30 0.00 1.20 1.20 1,418.44

Paving On Road Diesel 0.05 0.78 0.26 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 156.99

Paving Worker Trips 0.06 0.11 2.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 229.71

Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06

Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.57 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.47

Building Worker Trips 0.18 0.31 5.82 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.39

Time Slice 8/12/2013-8/30/2013 6.98 58.07 31.41 0.04 69.37 3.08 72.45 14.51 2.83 17.34 8,436.76 Active Days: 15 Asphalt 07/26/2013-08/31/2013 2.95 16.25 12.29 0.00 0.02 1.33 1.35 0.01 1.23 1.23 1,805.14

Paving Off-Gas 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paving Off Road Diesel 2.48 15.36 9.98 0.00 0.00 1.30 1.30 0.00 1.20 1.20 1,418.44

Paving On Road Diesel 0.05 0.78 0.26 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 156.99

Paving Worker Trips 0.06 0.11 2.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 229.71

Fine Grading 08/12/2013- 4.03 41.82 19.12 0.04 69.35 1.75 71.10 14.50 1.61 16.11 6,631.62 09/10/2013 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 69.20 0.00 69.20 14.45 0.00 14.45 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.55 20.56 11.10 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.91 0.91 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 1.45 21.20 7.11 0.04 0.15 0.76 0.91 0.05 0.70 0.75 4,282.21

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09 Page: 5 2/2/2011 2:18:09 PM

Time Slice 9/2/2013-9/10/2013 4.03 41.82 19.12 0.04 69.35 1.75 71.10 14.50 1.61 16.11 6,631.62 Active Days: 7 Fine Grading 08/12/2013- 4.03 41.82 19.12 0.04 69.35 1.75 71.10 14.50 1.61 16.11 6,631.62 09/10/2013 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 69.20 0.00 69.20 14.45 0.00 14.45 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.55 20.56 11.10 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.91 0.91 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 1.45 21.20 7.11 0.04 0.15 0.76 0.91 0.05 0.70 0.75 4,282.21

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Phase Assumptions

Phase: Demolition 4/2/2012 - 5/11/2012 - Phase 1 Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 400000 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 14000 On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 194.44 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day

Phase: Fine Grading 8/12/2013 - 9/10/2013 - Phase 1 Total Acres Disturbed: 8.46 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low Onsite Cut/Fill: 450 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1063.64 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Page: 6 2/2/2011 2:18:09 PM

Phase: Mass Grading 5/14/2012 - 6/7/2012 - Phase 1 Total Acres Disturbed: 8.46 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low Onsite Cut/Fill: 1350 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 3694.74 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Trenching 6/8/2012 - 7/27/2012 - Phase 1 Off-Road Equipment: 2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day

Phase: Paving 7/26/2013 - 8/31/2013 - Phase 1 Acres to be Paved: 3.42 Off-Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day

Phase: Building Construction 7/30/2012 - 8/9/2013 - Phase 1 Off-Road Equipment: Page: 7 2/2/2011 2:18:09 PM 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Architectural Coating 1/20/2013 - 2/22/2013 - Phase 1 Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250

Construction Mitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2

Time Slice 4/2/2012-5/11/2012 1.30 11.19 6.92 0.01 5.91 0.65 6.57 1.23 0.60 1.84 1,585.17 Active Days: 30 Demolition 04/02/2012- 1.30 11.19 6.92 0.01 5.91 0.65 6.57 1.23 0.60 1.84 1,585.17 05/11/2012 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.88 0.00 5.88 1.22 0.00 1.22 0.00

Demo Off Road Diesel 0.98 6.77 4.49 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.49 0.00 0.45 0.45 700.30

Demo On Road Diesel 0.29 4.37 1.44 0.01 0.03 0.16 0.18 0.01 0.14 0.15 782.84

Demo Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.04 Page: 8 2/2/2011 2:18:09 PM

Time Slice 5/14/2012-6/7/2012 8.20 105.08 39.83 0.14 28.17 4.06 32.23 5.95 3.74 9.68 17,224.40 Active Days: 19 Mass Grading 05/14/2012- 8.20 105.08 39.83 0.14 28.17 4.06 32.23 5.95 3.74 9.68 17,224.40 06/07/2012 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.65 0.00 27.65 5.77 0.00 5.77 0.00

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 2.69 21.95 11.51 0.00 0.00 1.07 1.07 0.00 0.99 0.99 2,247.32

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 5.48 83.08 27.33 0.14 0.52 2.99 3.51 0.17 2.75 2.92 14,875.04

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.04

Time Slice 6/8/2012-7/27/2012 1.84 15.30 9.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.74 0.00 0.68 0.68 1,816.67 Active Days: 36 Trenching 06/08/2012-07/27/2012 1.84 15.30 9.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.74 0.00 0.68 0.68 1,816.67

Trenching Off Road Diesel 1.80 15.24 8.01 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.73 0.00 0.67 0.67 1,714.64

Trenching Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.04

Time Slice 7/30/2012-12/31/2012 3.39 15.81 17.40 0.01 0.04 1.08 1.12 0.01 0.99 1.00 2,435.68 Active Days: 111 Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 3.39 15.81 17.40 0.01 0.04 1.08 1.12 0.01 0.99 1.00 2,435.68

Building Off Road Diesel 3.14 14.81 10.52 0.00 0.00 1.04 1.04 0.00 0.95 0.95 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.65 0.57 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.46

Building Worker Trips 0.20 0.35 6.32 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.03

Time Slice 1/1/2013-1/18/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06 Active Days: 14 Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06

Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.57 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.47

Building Worker Trips 0.18 0.31 5.82 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.39 Page: 9 2/2/2011 2:18:09 PM

Time Slice 1/21/2013-2/22/2013 52.57 14.84 17.43 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.02 0.89 0.91 2,534.22 Active Days: 25 Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06

Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.57 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.47

Building Worker Trips 0.18 0.31 5.82 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.39

Coating 01/20/2013-02/22/2013 49.46 0.05 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.17

Architectural Coating 49.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.17

Time Slice 2/25/2013-7/25/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06 Active Days: 109 Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06

Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.57 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.47

Building Worker Trips 0.18 0.31 5.82 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.39

Time Slice 7/26/2013-8/9/2013 6.05 31.05 28.84 0.01 0.05 2.30 2.36 0.02 2.12 2.14 4,241.20 Active Days: 11 Asphalt 07/26/2013-08/31/2013 2.95 16.25 12.29 0.00 0.02 1.33 1.35 0.01 1.23 1.23 1,805.14

Paving Off-Gas 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paving Off Road Diesel 2.48 15.36 9.98 0.00 0.00 1.30 1.30 0.00 1.20 1.20 1,418.44

Paving On Road Diesel 0.05 0.78 0.26 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 156.99

Paving Worker Trips 0.06 0.11 2.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 229.71

Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06

Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.57 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.47

Building Worker Trips 0.18 0.31 5.82 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.39 Page: 10 2/2/2011 2:18:09 PM

Time Slice 8/12/2013-8/30/2013 6.98 58.07 31.41 0.04 11.08 3.08 14.16 2.33 2.83 5.17 8,436.76 Active Days: 15 Asphalt 07/26/2013-08/31/2013 2.95 16.25 12.29 0.00 0.02 1.33 1.35 0.01 1.23 1.23 1,805.14

Paving Off-Gas 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paving Off Road Diesel 2.48 15.36 9.98 0.00 0.00 1.30 1.30 0.00 1.20 1.20 1,418.44

Paving On Road Diesel 0.05 0.78 0.26 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 156.99

Paving Worker Trips 0.06 0.11 2.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 229.71

Fine Grading 08/12/2013- 4.03 41.82 19.12 0.04 11.06 1.75 12.81 2.33 1.61 3.93 6,631.62 09/10/2013 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.91 0.00 10.91 2.28 0.00 2.28 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.55 20.56 11.10 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.91 0.91 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 1.45 21.20 7.11 0.04 0.15 0.76 0.91 0.05 0.70 0.75 4,282.21

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Time Slice 9/2/2013-9/10/2013 4.03 41.82 19.12 0.04 11.06 1.75 12.81 2.33 1.61 3.93 6,631.62 Active Days: 7 Fine Grading 08/12/2013- 4.03 41.82 19.12 0.04 11.06 1.75 12.81 2.33 1.61 3.93 6,631.62 09/10/2013 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.91 0.00 10.91 2.28 0.00 2.28 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.55 20.56 11.10 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.91 0.91 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 1.45 21.20 7.11 0.04 0.15 0.76 0.91 0.05 0.70 0.75 4,282.21

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Construction Related Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 8/12/2013 - 9/10/2013 - Phase 1 For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% Page: 11 2/2/2011 2:18:09 PM For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 5/14/2012 - 6/7/2012 - Phase 1 For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 1/20/2013 - 2/22/2013 - Phase 1 For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% Page: 1 2/2/2011 2:18:24 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: H:\pdata\40100419\Admin\reports\AQ_GHG\Models\URBEMIS\NOX mit\Albright_Phase1.urb924 Project Name: Albright Way Construction Phase1 No MM Project Location: Bay Area Air District On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007

Summary Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 CO2 Exhaust 2012 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 8.20 105.08 39.83 0.14 175.93 4.06 179.99 36.80 3.74 40.54 17,224.40

2012 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) 8.20 105.08 39.83 0.14 28.17 4.06 32.23 5.95 3.74 9.68 17,224.40

2013 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 85.52 58.07 31.41 0.04 69.37 3.08 72.45 14.51 2.83 17.34 8,436.76

2013 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) 52.57 58.07 31.41 0.04 11.08 3.08 14.16 2.33 2.83 5.17 8,436.76

Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 Page: 2 2/2/2011 2:18:24 PM

Time Slice 4/2/2012-5/11/2012 1.30 11.19 6.92 0.01 5.91 0.65 6.57 1.23 0.60 1.84 1,585.17 Active Days: 30 Demolition 04/02/2012- 1.30 11.19 6.92 0.01 5.91 0.65 6.57 1.23 0.60 1.84 1,585.17 05/11/2012 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.88 0.00 5.88 1.22 0.00 1.22 0.00

Demo Off Road Diesel 0.98 6.77 4.49 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.49 0.00 0.45 0.45 700.30

Demo On Road Diesel 0.29 4.37 1.44 0.01 0.03 0.16 0.18 0.01 0.14 0.15 782.84

Demo Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.04

Time Slice 5/14/2012-6/7/2012 8.20 105.08 39.83 0.14 175.93 4.06 179.99 36.80 3.74 40.54 17,224.40 Active Days: 19 Mass Grading 05/14/2012- 8.20 105.08 39.83 0.14 175.93 4.06 179.99 36.80 3.74 40.54 17,224.40 06/07/2012 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 175.40 0.00 175.40 36.63 0.00 36.63 0.00

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 2.69 21.95 11.51 0.00 0.00 1.07 1.07 0.00 0.99 0.99 2,247.32

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 5.48 83.08 27.33 0.14 0.52 2.99 3.51 0.17 2.75 2.92 14,875.04

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.04

Time Slice 6/8/2012-7/27/2012 1.84 15.30 9.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.74 0.00 0.68 0.68 1,816.67 Active Days: 36 Trenching 06/08/2012-07/27/2012 1.84 15.30 9.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.74 0.00 0.68 0.68 1,816.67

Trenching Off Road Diesel 1.80 15.24 8.01 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.73 0.00 0.67 0.67 1,714.64

Trenching Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.04

Time Slice 7/30/2012-12/31/2012 3.39 15.81 17.40 0.01 0.04 1.08 1.12 0.01 0.99 1.00 2,435.68 Active Days: 111 Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 3.39 15.81 17.40 0.01 0.04 1.08 1.12 0.01 0.99 1.00 2,435.68

Building Off Road Diesel 3.14 14.81 10.52 0.00 0.00 1.04 1.04 0.00 0.95 0.95 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.65 0.57 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.46

Building Worker Trips 0.20 0.35 6.32 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.03 Page: 3 2/2/2011 2:18:24 PM

Time Slice 1/1/2013-1/18/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06 Active Days: 14 Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06

Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.57 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.47

Building Worker Trips 0.18 0.31 5.82 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.39

Time Slice 1/21/2013-2/22/2013 85.52 14.84 17.43 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.02 0.89 0.91 2,534.22 Active Days: 25 Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06

Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.57 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.47

Building Worker Trips 0.18 0.31 5.82 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.39

Coating 01/20/2013-02/22/2013 82.42 0.05 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.17

Architectural Coating 82.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.17

Time Slice 2/25/2013-7/25/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06 Active Days: 109 Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06

Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.57 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.47

Building Worker Trips 0.18 0.31 5.82 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.39 Page: 4 2/2/2011 2:18:24 PM

Time Slice 7/26/2013-8/9/2013 6.05 31.05 28.84 0.01 0.05 2.30 2.36 0.02 2.12 2.14 4,241.20 Active Days: 11 Asphalt 07/26/2013-08/31/2013 2.95 16.25 12.29 0.00 0.02 1.33 1.35 0.01 1.23 1.23 1,805.14

Paving Off-Gas 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paving Off Road Diesel 2.48 15.36 9.98 0.00 0.00 1.30 1.30 0.00 1.20 1.20 1,418.44

Paving On Road Diesel 0.05 0.78 0.26 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 156.99

Paving Worker Trips 0.06 0.11 2.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 229.71

Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06

Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.57 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.47

Building Worker Trips 0.18 0.31 5.82 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.39

Time Slice 8/12/2013-8/30/2013 6.98 58.07 31.41 0.04 69.37 3.08 72.45 14.51 2.83 17.34 8,436.76 Active Days: 15 Asphalt 07/26/2013-08/31/2013 2.95 16.25 12.29 0.00 0.02 1.33 1.35 0.01 1.23 1.23 1,805.14

Paving Off-Gas 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paving Off Road Diesel 2.48 15.36 9.98 0.00 0.00 1.30 1.30 0.00 1.20 1.20 1,418.44

Paving On Road Diesel 0.05 0.78 0.26 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 156.99

Paving Worker Trips 0.06 0.11 2.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 229.71

Fine Grading 08/12/2013- 4.03 41.82 19.12 0.04 69.35 1.75 71.10 14.50 1.61 16.11 6,631.62 09/10/2013 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 69.20 0.00 69.20 14.45 0.00 14.45 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.55 20.56 11.10 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.91 0.91 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 1.45 21.20 7.11 0.04 0.15 0.76 0.91 0.05 0.70 0.75 4,282.21

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09 Page: 5 2/2/2011 2:18:24 PM

Time Slice 9/2/2013-9/10/2013 4.03 41.82 19.12 0.04 69.35 1.75 71.10 14.50 1.61 16.11 6,631.62 Active Days: 7 Fine Grading 08/12/2013- 4.03 41.82 19.12 0.04 69.35 1.75 71.10 14.50 1.61 16.11 6,631.62 09/10/2013 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 69.20 0.00 69.20 14.45 0.00 14.45 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.55 20.56 11.10 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.91 0.91 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 1.45 21.20 7.11 0.04 0.15 0.76 0.91 0.05 0.70 0.75 4,282.21

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Phase Assumptions

Phase: Demolition 4/2/2012 - 5/11/2012 - Phase 1 Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 400000 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 14000 On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 194.44 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day

Phase: Fine Grading 8/12/2013 - 9/10/2013 - Phase 1 Total Acres Disturbed: 8.46 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low Onsite Cut/Fill: 450 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1063.64 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Page: 6 2/2/2011 2:18:24 PM

Phase: Mass Grading 5/14/2012 - 6/7/2012 - Phase 1 Total Acres Disturbed: 8.46 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low Onsite Cut/Fill: 1350 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 3694.74 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Trenching 6/8/2012 - 7/27/2012 - Phase 1 Off-Road Equipment: 2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day

Phase: Paving 7/26/2013 - 8/31/2013 - Phase 1 Acres to be Paved: 3.42 Off-Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day

Phase: Building Construction 7/30/2012 - 8/9/2013 - Phase 1 Off-Road Equipment: Page: 7 2/2/2011 2:18:24 PM 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Architectural Coating 1/20/2013 - 2/22/2013 - Phase 1 Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250

Construction Mitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Mitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2

Time Slice 4/2/2012-5/11/2012 1.30 11.19 6.92 0.01 5.91 0.65 6.57 1.23 0.60 1.84 1,585.17 Active Days: 30 Demolition 04/02/2012- 1.30 11.19 6.92 0.01 5.91 0.65 6.57 1.23 0.60 1.84 1,585.17 05/11/2012 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.88 0.00 5.88 1.22 0.00 1.22 0.00

Demo Off Road Diesel 0.98 6.77 4.49 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.49 0.00 0.45 0.45 700.30

Demo On Road Diesel 0.29 4.37 1.44 0.01 0.03 0.16 0.18 0.01 0.14 0.15 782.84

Demo Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.04 Page: 8 2/2/2011 2:18:24 PM

Time Slice 5/14/2012-6/7/2012 8.20 105.08 39.83 0.14 28.17 4.06 32.23 5.95 3.74 9.68 17,224.40 Active Days: 19 Mass Grading 05/14/2012- 8.20 105.08 39.83 0.14 28.17 4.06 32.23 5.95 3.74 9.68 17,224.40 06/07/2012 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.65 0.00 27.65 5.77 0.00 5.77 0.00

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 2.69 21.95 11.51 0.00 0.00 1.07 1.07 0.00 0.99 0.99 2,247.32

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 5.48 83.08 27.33 0.14 0.52 2.99 3.51 0.17 2.75 2.92 14,875.04

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.04

Time Slice 6/8/2012-7/27/2012 1.84 15.30 9.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.74 0.00 0.68 0.68 1,816.67 Active Days: 36 Trenching 06/08/2012-07/27/2012 1.84 15.30 9.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.74 0.00 0.68 0.68 1,816.67

Trenching Off Road Diesel 1.80 15.24 8.01 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.73 0.00 0.67 0.67 1,714.64

Trenching Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.04

Time Slice 7/30/2012-12/31/2012 3.39 15.81 17.40 0.01 0.04 1.08 1.12 0.01 0.99 1.00 2,435.68 Active Days: 111 Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 3.39 15.81 17.40 0.01 0.04 1.08 1.12 0.01 0.99 1.00 2,435.68

Building Off Road Diesel 3.14 14.81 10.52 0.00 0.00 1.04 1.04 0.00 0.95 0.95 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.65 0.57 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.46

Building Worker Trips 0.20 0.35 6.32 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.03

Time Slice 1/1/2013-1/18/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06 Active Days: 14 Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06

Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.57 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.47

Building Worker Trips 0.18 0.31 5.82 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.39 Page: 9 2/2/2011 2:18:24 PM

Time Slice 1/21/2013-2/22/2013 52.57 14.84 17.43 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.02 0.89 0.91 2,534.22 Active Days: 25 Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06

Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.57 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.47

Building Worker Trips 0.18 0.31 5.82 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.39

Coating 01/20/2013-02/22/2013 49.46 0.05 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.17

Architectural Coating 49.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.17

Time Slice 2/25/2013-7/25/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06 Active Days: 109 Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06

Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.57 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.47

Building Worker Trips 0.18 0.31 5.82 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.39

Time Slice 7/26/2013-8/9/2013 6.05 31.05 28.84 0.01 0.05 2.30 2.36 0.02 2.12 2.14 4,241.20 Active Days: 11 Asphalt 07/26/2013-08/31/2013 2.95 16.25 12.29 0.00 0.02 1.33 1.35 0.01 1.23 1.23 1,805.14

Paving Off-Gas 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paving Off Road Diesel 2.48 15.36 9.98 0.00 0.00 1.30 1.30 0.00 1.20 1.20 1,418.44

Paving On Road Diesel 0.05 0.78 0.26 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 156.99

Paving Worker Trips 0.06 0.11 2.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 229.71

Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06

Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.57 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.47

Building Worker Trips 0.18 0.31 5.82 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.39 Page: 10 2/2/2011 2:18:24 PM

Time Slice 8/12/2013-8/30/2013 6.98 58.07 31.41 0.04 11.08 3.08 14.16 2.33 2.83 5.17 8,436.76 Active Days: 15 Asphalt 07/26/2013-08/31/2013 2.95 16.25 12.29 0.00 0.02 1.33 1.35 0.01 1.23 1.23 1,805.14

Paving Off-Gas 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paving Off Road Diesel 2.48 15.36 9.98 0.00 0.00 1.30 1.30 0.00 1.20 1.20 1,418.44

Paving On Road Diesel 0.05 0.78 0.26 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 156.99

Paving Worker Trips 0.06 0.11 2.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 229.71

Fine Grading 08/12/2013- 4.03 41.82 19.12 0.04 11.06 1.75 12.81 2.33 1.61 3.93 6,631.62 09/10/2013 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.91 0.00 10.91 2.28 0.00 2.28 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.55 20.56 11.10 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.91 0.91 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 1.45 21.20 7.11 0.04 0.15 0.76 0.91 0.05 0.70 0.75 4,282.21

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Time Slice 9/2/2013-9/10/2013 4.03 41.82 19.12 0.04 11.06 1.75 12.81 2.33 1.61 3.93 6,631.62 Active Days: 7 Fine Grading 08/12/2013- 4.03 41.82 19.12 0.04 11.06 1.75 12.81 2.33 1.61 3.93 6,631.62 09/10/2013 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.91 0.00 10.91 2.28 0.00 2.28 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.55 20.56 11.10 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.91 0.91 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 1.45 21.20 7.11 0.04 0.15 0.76 0.91 0.05 0.70 0.75 4,282.21

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Construction Related Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 8/12/2013 - 9/10/2013 - Phase 1 For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% Page: 11 2/2/2011 2:18:24 PM For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 5/14/2012 - 6/7/2012 - Phase 1 For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 1/20/2013 - 2/22/2013 - Phase 1 For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% Page: 1 2/2/2011 2:21:16 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year) File Name: H:\pdata\40100419\Admin\reports\AQ_GHG\Models\URBEMIS\NOX mit\Albright_Phase2.urb924 Project Name: Albright Way Construction Phase 2 No MM Project Location: Bay Area Air District On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007

Summary Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 CO2 Exhaust 2013 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 0.15 1.56 0.72 0.00 3.17 0.06 3.24 0.66 0.06 0.72 267.52

2013 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 0.15 1.56 0.72 0.00 0.54 0.06 0.61 0.11 0.06 0.17 267.52

Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 82.88 0.00 81.22 82.78 0.00 75.94 0.00

2014 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 1.45 1.92 2.08 0.00 0.37 0.12 0.49 0.08 0.11 0.19 342.60

2014 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 1.02 1.92 2.08 0.00 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.01 0.11 0.12 342.60

Percent Reduction 29.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 82.95 0.00 63.31 82.07 0.00 34.95 0.00

Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 Page: 2 2/2/2011 2:21:16 PM

2013 0.15 1.56 0.72 0.00 3.17 0.06 3.24 0.66 0.06 0.72 267.52

Demolition 09/25/2013- 0.01 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.01 11.89 10/15/2013 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Demo Off Road Diesel 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.25

Demo On Road Diesel 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.87

Demo Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.77

Mass Grading 10/16/2013- 0.08 1.00 0.39 0.00 2.71 0.04 2.75 0.57 0.04 0.60 183.65 11/13/2013 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.71 0.00 2.71 0.57 0.00 0.57 0.00

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 0.03 0.22 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 23.60

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.05 0.79 0.26 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 158.98

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.07

Trenching 11/14/2013-12/19/2013 0.02 0.18 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 23.62

Trenching Off Road Diesel 0.02 0.18 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 22.29

Trenching Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.33

Fine Grading 12/19/2013- 0.02 0.23 0.10 0.00 0.41 0.01 0.42 0.09 0.01 0.10 38.63 01/12/2014 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.41 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 0.01 0.09 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.11

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.01 0.14 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.05

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.46

Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 0.01 0.06 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.74

Building Off Road Diesel 0.01 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.48

Building Vendor Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.65

Building Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.61 Page: 3 2/2/2011 2:21:16 PM

2014 1.45 1.92 2.08 0.00 0.37 0.12 0.49 0.08 0.11 0.19 342.60

Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 0.36 1.74 1.98 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.10 0.10 306.99

Building Off Road Diesel 0.33 1.63 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.10 204.27

Building Vendor Trips 0.01 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.35

Building Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 82.37

Fine Grading 12/19/2013- 0.02 0.19 0.08 0.00 0.37 0.01 0.38 0.08 0.01 0.08 34.34 01/12/2014 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.37 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 0.01 0.08 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.99

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.01 0.11 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.94

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41

Coating 11/14/2014-12/19/2014 1.07 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.28

Architectural Coating 1.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.28

Phase Assumptions Phase: Demolition 9/25/2013 - 10/15/2013 - Phase 2 Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 175000 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 14000 On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 194.44 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day

Phase: Fine Grading 12/19/2013 - 1/12/2014 - Phase 2 Total Acres Disturbed: 4.59 Page: 4 2/2/2011 2:21:16 PM Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.15 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low Onsite Cut/Fill: 682 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1548.53 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Mass Grading 10/16/2013 - 11/13/2013 - Phase 2 Total Acres Disturbed: 16.21 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low Onsite Cut/Fill: 2048 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 3760.71 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Trenching 11/14/2013 - 12/19/2013 - Phase 2 Off-Road Equipment: 2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day

Phase: Building Construction 12/20/2013 - 12/18/2014 - Phase 2 Off-Road Equipment: Page: 5 2/2/2011 2:21:16 PM 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Architectural Coating 11/14/2014 - 12/19/2014 - Phase 2 Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250

Construction Mitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Mitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2

2013 0.15 1.56 0.72 0.00 0.54 0.06 0.61 0.11 0.06 0.17 267.52

Demolition 09/25/2013- 0.01 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.01 11.89 10/15/2013 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Demo Off Road Diesel 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.25

Demo On Road Diesel 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.87

Demo Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.77 Page: 6 2/2/2011 2:21:16 PM

Mass Grading 10/16/2013- 0.08 1.00 0.39 0.00 0.43 0.04 0.47 0.09 0.04 0.13 183.65 11/13/2013 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.43 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.00

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 0.03 0.22 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 23.60

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.05 0.79 0.26 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 158.98

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.07

Trenching 11/14/2013-12/19/2013 0.02 0.18 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 23.62

Trenching Off Road Diesel 0.02 0.18 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 22.29

Trenching Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.33

Fine Grading 12/19/2013- 0.02 0.23 0.10 0.00 0.07 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.02 38.63 01/12/2014 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 0.01 0.09 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.11

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.01 0.14 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.05

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.46

Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 0.01 0.06 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.74

Building Off Road Diesel 0.01 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.48

Building Vendor Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.65

Building Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.61 Page: 7 2/2/2011 2:21:16 PM

2014 1.02 1.92 2.08 0.00 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.01 0.11 0.12 342.60

Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 0.36 1.74 1.98 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.10 0.10 306.99

Building Off Road Diesel 0.33 1.63 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.10 204.27

Building Vendor Trips 0.01 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.35

Building Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 82.37

Fine Grading 12/19/2013- 0.02 0.19 0.08 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.02 34.34 01/12/2014 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 0.01 0.08 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.99

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.01 0.11 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.94

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41

Coating 11/14/2014-12/19/2014 0.64 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.28

Architectural Coating 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.28

Construction Related Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 12/19/2013 - 1/12/2014 - Phase 2 For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% Page: 8 2/2/2011 2:21:16 PM The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 10/16/2013 - 11/13/2013 - Phase 2 For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 11/14/2014 - 12/19/2014 - Phase 2 For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% Page: 1 2/2/2011 2:20:58 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: H:\pdata\40100419\Admin\reports\AQ_GHG\Models\URBEMIS\NOX mit\Albright_Phase2.urb924 Project Name: Albright Way Construction Phase 2 No MM Project Location: Bay Area Air District On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007

Summary Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 CO2 Exhaust 2013 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 7.79 95.59 38.92 0.14 258.30 3.66 261.96 54.01 3.37 57.38 17,490.08

2013 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) 7.79 95.59 38.92 0.14 41.16 3.66 44.83 8.66 3.37 12.03 17,490.08

2014 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 85.26 60.21 36.68 0.07 92.24 2.72 94.95 19.30 2.50 21.79 11,020.26

2014 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) 52.30 60.21 36.68 0.07 14.76 2.72 17.48 3.11 2.50 5.61 11,020.26

Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 Page: 2 2/2/2011 2:20:58 PM

Time Slice 9/25/2013-10/15/2013 1.21 10.27 6.61 0.01 5.91 0.58 6.49 1.23 0.54 1.77 1,585.23 Active Days: 15 Demolition 09/25/2013- 1.21 10.27 6.61 0.01 5.91 0.58 6.49 1.23 0.54 1.77 1,585.23 10/15/2013 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.88 0.00 5.88 1.22 0.00 1.22 0.00

Demo Off Road Diesel 0.91 6.35 4.40 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.00 0.41 0.41 700.30

Demo On Road Diesel 0.27 3.88 1.30 0.01 0.03 0.14 0.17 0.01 0.13 0.14 782.84

Demo Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Time Slice 10/16/2013-11/13/2013 7.71 95.59 37.16 0.14 258.30 3.66 261.96 54.01 3.37 57.38 17,490.08 Active Days: 21 Mass Grading 10/16/2013- 7.71 95.59 37.16 0.14 258.30 3.66 261.96 54.01 3.37 57.38 17,490.08 11/13/2013 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 257.76 0.00 257.76 53.83 0.00 53.83 0.00

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 2.55 20.56 11.10 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.91 0.91 2,247.32

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 5.13 74.97 25.15 0.14 0.53 2.68 3.21 0.17 2.46 2.64 15,140.67

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Time Slice 11/14/2013-12/18/2013 1.74 14.17 8.88 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.63 0.63 1,816.73 Active Days: 25 Trenching 11/14/2013-12/19/2013 1.74 14.17 8.88 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.63 0.63 1,816.73

Trenching Off Road Diesel 1.72 14.12 7.97 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.62 0.62 1,714.64

Trenching Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09 Page: 3 2/2/2011 2:20:58 PM

Time Slice 12/19/2013-12/19/2013 6.43 65.65 31.24 0.06 92.20 2.77 94.97 19.28 2.55 21.83 10,400.53 Active Days: 1 Fine Grading 12/19/2013- 4.69 51.48 22.36 0.06 92.20 2.09 94.29 19.28 1.92 21.20 8,583.80 01/12/2014 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 91.98 0.00 91.98 19.21 0.00 19.21 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.55 20.56 11.10 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.91 0.91 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 2.11 30.87 10.36 0.06 0.22 1.10 1.32 0.07 1.01 1.09 6,234.39

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Trenching 11/14/2013-12/19/2013 1.74 14.17 8.88 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.63 0.63 1,816.73

Trenching Off Road Diesel 1.72 14.12 7.97 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.62 0.62 1,714.64

Trenching Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Time Slice 12/20/2013-12/31/2013 7.79 66.28 38.92 0.07 92.24 3.06 95.30 19.30 2.81 22.11 11,019.86 Active Days: 8 Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06

Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.57 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.47

Building Worker Trips 0.18 0.31 5.82 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.39

Fine Grading 12/19/2013- 4.69 51.48 22.36 0.06 92.20 2.09 94.29 19.28 1.92 21.20 8,583.80 01/12/2014 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 91.98 0.00 91.98 19.21 0.00 19.21 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.55 20.56 11.10 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.91 0.91 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 2.11 30.87 10.36 0.06 0.22 1.10 1.32 0.07 1.01 1.09 6,234.39

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09 Page: 4 2/2/2011 2:20:58 PM

Time Slice 1/1/2014-1/10/2014 7.22 60.21 36.68 0.07 92.24 2.72 94.95 19.30 2.50 21.79 11,020.26 Active Days: 8 Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 2.84 13.77 15.75 0.01 0.04 0.86 0.90 0.01 0.79 0.80 2,436.40

Building Off Road Diesel 2.63 12.97 9.89 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.76 0.76 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.51 0.50 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.48

Building Worker Trips 0.16 0.29 5.36 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.72

Fine Grading 12/19/2013- 4.38 46.44 20.93 0.06 92.20 1.86 94.06 19.28 1.71 20.99 8,583.86 01/12/2014 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 91.98 0.00 91.98 19.21 0.00 19.21 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.41 19.08 10.74 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.89 0.00 0.82 0.82 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 1.94 27.32 9.36 0.06 0.22 0.97 1.19 0.07 0.89 0.96 6,234.40

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.04 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.14

Time Slice 1/13/2014-11/13/2014 2.84 13.77 15.75 0.01 0.04 0.86 0.90 0.01 0.79 0.80 2,436.40 Active Days: 219 Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 2.84 13.77 15.75 0.01 0.04 0.86 0.90 0.01 0.79 0.80 2,436.40

Building Off Road Diesel 2.63 12.97 9.89 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.76 0.76 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.51 0.50 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.48

Building Worker Trips 0.16 0.29 5.36 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.72

Time Slice 11/14/2014-12/18/2014 85.26 13.81 16.55 0.01 0.04 0.86 0.91 0.02 0.79 0.81 2,534.61 Active Days: 25 Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 2.84 13.77 15.75 0.01 0.04 0.86 0.90 0.01 0.79 0.80 2,436.40

Building Off Road Diesel 2.63 12.97 9.89 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.76 0.76 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.51 0.50 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.48

Building Worker Trips 0.16 0.29 5.36 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.72

Coating 11/14/2014-12/19/2014 82.41 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.22

Architectural Coating 82.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.22 Page: 5 2/2/2011 2:20:58 PM

Time Slice 12/19/2014-12/19/2014 82.41 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.22 Active Days: 1 Coating 11/14/2014-12/19/2014 82.41 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.22

Architectural Coating 82.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.22

Phase Assumptions

Phase: Demolition 9/25/2013 - 10/15/2013 - Phase 2 Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 175000 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 14000 On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 194.44 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day

Phase: Fine Grading 12/19/2013 - 1/12/2014 - Phase 2 Total Acres Disturbed: 4.59 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.15 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low Onsite Cut/Fill: 682 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1548.53 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Mass Grading 10/16/2013 - 11/13/2013 - Phase 2 Page: 6 2/2/2011 2:20:58 PM Total Acres Disturbed: 16.21 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low Onsite Cut/Fill: 2048 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 3760.71 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Trenching 11/14/2013 - 12/19/2013 - Phase 2 Off-Road Equipment: 2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day

Phase: Building Construction 12/20/2013 - 12/18/2014 - Phase 2 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Architectural Coating 11/14/2014 - 12/19/2014 - Phase 2 Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Page: 7 2/2/2011 2:20:58 PM

Construction Mitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2

Time Slice 9/25/2013-10/15/2013 1.21 10.27 6.61 0.01 5.91 0.58 6.49 1.23 0.54 1.77 1,585.23 Active Days: 15 Demolition 09/25/2013- 1.21 10.27 6.61 0.01 5.91 0.58 6.49 1.23 0.54 1.77 1,585.23 10/15/2013 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.88 0.00 5.88 1.22 0.00 1.22 0.00

Demo Off Road Diesel 0.91 6.35 4.40 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.00 0.41 0.41 700.30

Demo On Road Diesel 0.27 3.88 1.30 0.01 0.03 0.14 0.17 0.01 0.13 0.14 782.84

Demo Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Time Slice 10/16/2013-11/13/2013 7.71 95.59 37.16 0.14 41.16 3.66 44.83 8.66 3.37 12.03 17,490.08 Active Days: 21 Mass Grading 10/16/2013- 7.71 95.59 37.16 0.14 41.16 3.66 44.83 8.66 3.37 12.03 17,490.08 11/13/2013 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.63 0.00 40.63 8.48 0.00 8.48 0.00

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 2.55 20.56 11.10 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.91 0.91 2,247.32

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 5.13 74.97 25.15 0.14 0.53 2.68 3.21 0.17 2.46 2.64 15,140.67

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Time Slice 11/14/2013-12/18/2013 1.74 14.17 8.88 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.63 0.63 1,816.73 Active Days: 25 Trenching 11/14/2013-12/19/2013 1.74 14.17 8.88 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.63 0.63 1,816.73

Trenching Off Road Diesel 1.72 14.12 7.97 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.62 0.62 1,714.64

Trenching Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09 Page: 8 2/2/2011 2:20:58 PM

Time Slice 12/19/2013-12/19/2013 6.43 65.65 31.24 0.06 14.73 2.77 17.50 3.10 2.55 5.65 10,400.53 Active Days: 1 Fine Grading 12/19/2013- 4.69 51.48 22.36 0.06 14.72 2.09 16.81 3.10 1.92 5.02 8,583.80 01/12/2014 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.50 0.00 14.50 3.03 0.00 3.03 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.55 20.56 11.10 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.91 0.91 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 2.11 30.87 10.36 0.06 0.22 1.10 1.32 0.07 1.01 1.09 6,234.39

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Trenching 11/14/2013-12/19/2013 1.74 14.17 8.88 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.63 0.63 1,816.73

Trenching Off Road Diesel 1.72 14.12 7.97 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.62 0.62 1,714.64

Trenching Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Time Slice 12/20/2013-12/31/2013 7.79 66.28 38.92 0.07 14.76 3.06 17.82 3.11 2.81 5.93 11,019.86 Active Days: 8 Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06

Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.57 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.47

Building Worker Trips 0.18 0.31 5.82 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.39

Fine Grading 12/19/2013- 4.69 51.48 22.36 0.06 14.72 2.09 16.81 3.10 1.92 5.02 8,583.80 01/12/2014 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.50 0.00 14.50 3.03 0.00 3.03 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.55 20.56 11.10 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.91 0.91 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 2.11 30.87 10.36 0.06 0.22 1.10 1.32 0.07 1.01 1.09 6,234.39

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09 Page: 9 2/2/2011 2:20:58 PM

Time Slice 1/1/2014-1/10/2014 7.22 60.21 36.68 0.07 14.76 2.72 17.48 3.11 2.50 5.61 11,020.26 Active Days: 8 Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 2.84 13.77 15.75 0.01 0.04 0.86 0.90 0.01 0.79 0.80 2,436.40

Building Off Road Diesel 2.63 12.97 9.89 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.76 0.76 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.51 0.50 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.48

Building Worker Trips 0.16 0.29 5.36 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.72

Fine Grading 12/19/2013- 4.38 46.44 20.93 0.06 14.72 1.86 16.58 3.10 1.71 4.81 8,583.86 01/12/2014 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.50 0.00 14.50 3.03 0.00 3.03 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.41 19.08 10.74 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.89 0.00 0.82 0.82 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 1.94 27.32 9.36 0.06 0.22 0.97 1.19 0.07 0.89 0.96 6,234.40

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.04 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.14

Time Slice 1/13/2014-11/13/2014 2.84 13.77 15.75 0.01 0.04 0.86 0.90 0.01 0.79 0.80 2,436.40 Active Days: 219 Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 2.84 13.77 15.75 0.01 0.04 0.86 0.90 0.01 0.79 0.80 2,436.40

Building Off Road Diesel 2.63 12.97 9.89 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.76 0.76 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.51 0.50 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.48

Building Worker Trips 0.16 0.29 5.36 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.72

Time Slice 11/14/2014-12/18/2014 52.30 13.81 16.55 0.01 0.04 0.86 0.91 0.02 0.79 0.81 2,534.61 Active Days: 25 Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 2.84 13.77 15.75 0.01 0.04 0.86 0.90 0.01 0.79 0.80 2,436.40

Building Off Road Diesel 2.63 12.97 9.89 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.76 0.76 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.51 0.50 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.48

Building Worker Trips 0.16 0.29 5.36 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.72

Coating 11/14/2014-12/19/2014 49.46 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.22

Architectural Coating 49.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.22 Page: 10 2/2/2011 2:20:58 PM

Time Slice 12/19/2014-12/19/2014 49.46 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.22 Active Days: 1 Coating 11/14/2014-12/19/2014 49.46 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.22

Architectural Coating 49.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.22

Construction Related Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 12/19/2013 - 1/12/2014 - Phase 2 For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 10/16/2013 - 11/13/2013 - Phase 2 For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% Page: 11 2/2/2011 2:20:58 PM The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 11/14/2014 - 12/19/2014 - Phase 2 For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% Page: 1 2/2/2011 2:21:07 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: H:\pdata\40100419\Admin\reports\AQ_GHG\Models\URBEMIS\NOX mit\Albright_Phase2.urb924 Project Name: Albright Way Construction Phase 2 No MM Project Location: Bay Area Air District On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007

Summary Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 CO2 Exhaust 2013 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 7.79 95.59 38.92 0.14 258.30 3.66 261.96 54.01 3.37 57.38 17,490.08

2013 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) 7.79 95.59 38.92 0.14 41.16 3.66 44.83 8.66 3.37 12.03 17,490.08

2014 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 85.26 60.21 36.68 0.07 92.24 2.72 94.95 19.30 2.50 21.79 11,020.26

2014 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) 52.30 60.21 36.68 0.07 14.76 2.72 17.48 3.11 2.50 5.61 11,020.26

Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 Page: 2 2/2/2011 2:21:07 PM

Time Slice 9/25/2013-10/15/2013 1.21 10.27 6.61 0.01 5.91 0.58 6.49 1.23 0.54 1.77 1,585.23 Active Days: 15 Demolition 09/25/2013- 1.21 10.27 6.61 0.01 5.91 0.58 6.49 1.23 0.54 1.77 1,585.23 10/15/2013 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.88 0.00 5.88 1.22 0.00 1.22 0.00

Demo Off Road Diesel 0.91 6.35 4.40 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.00 0.41 0.41 700.30

Demo On Road Diesel 0.27 3.88 1.30 0.01 0.03 0.14 0.17 0.01 0.13 0.14 782.84

Demo Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Time Slice 10/16/2013-11/13/2013 7.71 95.59 37.16 0.14 258.30 3.66 261.96 54.01 3.37 57.38 17,490.08 Active Days: 21 Mass Grading 10/16/2013- 7.71 95.59 37.16 0.14 258.30 3.66 261.96 54.01 3.37 57.38 17,490.08 11/13/2013 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 257.76 0.00 257.76 53.83 0.00 53.83 0.00

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 2.55 20.56 11.10 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.91 0.91 2,247.32

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 5.13 74.97 25.15 0.14 0.53 2.68 3.21 0.17 2.46 2.64 15,140.67

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Time Slice 11/14/2013-12/18/2013 1.74 14.17 8.88 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.63 0.63 1,816.73 Active Days: 25 Trenching 11/14/2013-12/19/2013 1.74 14.17 8.88 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.63 0.63 1,816.73

Trenching Off Road Diesel 1.72 14.12 7.97 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.62 0.62 1,714.64

Trenching Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09 Page: 3 2/2/2011 2:21:07 PM

Time Slice 12/19/2013-12/19/2013 6.43 65.65 31.24 0.06 92.20 2.77 94.97 19.28 2.55 21.83 10,400.53 Active Days: 1 Fine Grading 12/19/2013- 4.69 51.48 22.36 0.06 92.20 2.09 94.29 19.28 1.92 21.20 8,583.80 01/12/2014 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 91.98 0.00 91.98 19.21 0.00 19.21 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.55 20.56 11.10 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.91 0.91 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 2.11 30.87 10.36 0.06 0.22 1.10 1.32 0.07 1.01 1.09 6,234.39

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Trenching 11/14/2013-12/19/2013 1.74 14.17 8.88 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.63 0.63 1,816.73

Trenching Off Road Diesel 1.72 14.12 7.97 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.62 0.62 1,714.64

Trenching Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Time Slice 12/20/2013-12/31/2013 7.79 66.28 38.92 0.07 92.24 3.06 95.30 19.30 2.81 22.11 11,019.86 Active Days: 8 Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06

Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.57 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.47

Building Worker Trips 0.18 0.31 5.82 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.39

Fine Grading 12/19/2013- 4.69 51.48 22.36 0.06 92.20 2.09 94.29 19.28 1.92 21.20 8,583.80 01/12/2014 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 91.98 0.00 91.98 19.21 0.00 19.21 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.55 20.56 11.10 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.91 0.91 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 2.11 30.87 10.36 0.06 0.22 1.10 1.32 0.07 1.01 1.09 6,234.39

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09 Page: 4 2/2/2011 2:21:07 PM

Time Slice 1/1/2014-1/10/2014 7.22 60.21 36.68 0.07 92.24 2.72 94.95 19.30 2.50 21.79 11,020.26 Active Days: 8 Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 2.84 13.77 15.75 0.01 0.04 0.86 0.90 0.01 0.79 0.80 2,436.40

Building Off Road Diesel 2.63 12.97 9.89 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.76 0.76 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.51 0.50 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.48

Building Worker Trips 0.16 0.29 5.36 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.72

Fine Grading 12/19/2013- 4.38 46.44 20.93 0.06 92.20 1.86 94.06 19.28 1.71 20.99 8,583.86 01/12/2014 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 91.98 0.00 91.98 19.21 0.00 19.21 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.41 19.08 10.74 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.89 0.00 0.82 0.82 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 1.94 27.32 9.36 0.06 0.22 0.97 1.19 0.07 0.89 0.96 6,234.40

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.04 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.14

Time Slice 1/13/2014-11/13/2014 2.84 13.77 15.75 0.01 0.04 0.86 0.90 0.01 0.79 0.80 2,436.40 Active Days: 219 Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 2.84 13.77 15.75 0.01 0.04 0.86 0.90 0.01 0.79 0.80 2,436.40

Building Off Road Diesel 2.63 12.97 9.89 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.76 0.76 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.51 0.50 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.48

Building Worker Trips 0.16 0.29 5.36 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.72

Time Slice 11/14/2014-12/18/2014 85.26 13.81 16.55 0.01 0.04 0.86 0.91 0.02 0.79 0.81 2,534.61 Active Days: 25 Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 2.84 13.77 15.75 0.01 0.04 0.86 0.90 0.01 0.79 0.80 2,436.40

Building Off Road Diesel 2.63 12.97 9.89 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.76 0.76 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.51 0.50 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.48

Building Worker Trips 0.16 0.29 5.36 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.72

Coating 11/14/2014-12/19/2014 82.41 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.22

Architectural Coating 82.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.22 Page: 5 2/2/2011 2:21:07 PM

Time Slice 12/19/2014-12/19/2014 82.41 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.22 Active Days: 1 Coating 11/14/2014-12/19/2014 82.41 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.22

Architectural Coating 82.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.22

Phase Assumptions

Phase: Demolition 9/25/2013 - 10/15/2013 - Phase 2 Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 175000 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 14000 On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 194.44 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day

Phase: Fine Grading 12/19/2013 - 1/12/2014 - Phase 2 Total Acres Disturbed: 4.59 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.15 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low Onsite Cut/Fill: 682 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1548.53 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Mass Grading 10/16/2013 - 11/13/2013 - Phase 2 Page: 6 2/2/2011 2:21:07 PM Total Acres Disturbed: 16.21 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low Onsite Cut/Fill: 2048 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 3760.71 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Trenching 11/14/2013 - 12/19/2013 - Phase 2 Off-Road Equipment: 2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day

Phase: Building Construction 12/20/2013 - 12/18/2014 - Phase 2 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Architectural Coating 11/14/2014 - 12/19/2014 - Phase 2 Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Page: 7 2/2/2011 2:21:07 PM

Construction Mitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Mitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2

Time Slice 9/25/2013-10/15/2013 1.21 10.27 6.61 0.01 5.91 0.58 6.49 1.23 0.54 1.77 1,585.23 Active Days: 15 Demolition 09/25/2013- 1.21 10.27 6.61 0.01 5.91 0.58 6.49 1.23 0.54 1.77 1,585.23 10/15/2013 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.88 0.00 5.88 1.22 0.00 1.22 0.00

Demo Off Road Diesel 0.91 6.35 4.40 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.00 0.41 0.41 700.30

Demo On Road Diesel 0.27 3.88 1.30 0.01 0.03 0.14 0.17 0.01 0.13 0.14 782.84

Demo Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Time Slice 10/16/2013-11/13/2013 7.71 95.59 37.16 0.14 41.16 3.66 44.83 8.66 3.37 12.03 17,490.08 Active Days: 21 Mass Grading 10/16/2013- 7.71 95.59 37.16 0.14 41.16 3.66 44.83 8.66 3.37 12.03 17,490.08 11/13/2013 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.63 0.00 40.63 8.48 0.00 8.48 0.00

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 2.55 20.56 11.10 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.91 0.91 2,247.32

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 5.13 74.97 25.15 0.14 0.53 2.68 3.21 0.17 2.46 2.64 15,140.67

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Time Slice 11/14/2013-12/18/2013 1.74 14.17 8.88 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.63 0.63 1,816.73 Active Days: 25 Trenching 11/14/2013-12/19/2013 1.74 14.17 8.88 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.63 0.63 1,816.73

Trenching Off Road Diesel 1.72 14.12 7.97 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.62 0.62 1,714.64

Trenching Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09 Page: 8 2/2/2011 2:21:07 PM

Time Slice 12/19/2013-12/19/2013 6.43 65.65 31.24 0.06 14.73 2.77 17.50 3.10 2.55 5.65 10,400.53 Active Days: 1 Fine Grading 12/19/2013- 4.69 51.48 22.36 0.06 14.72 2.09 16.81 3.10 1.92 5.02 8,583.80 01/12/2014 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.50 0.00 14.50 3.03 0.00 3.03 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.55 20.56 11.10 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.91 0.91 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 2.11 30.87 10.36 0.06 0.22 1.10 1.32 0.07 1.01 1.09 6,234.39

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Trenching 11/14/2013-12/19/2013 1.74 14.17 8.88 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.63 0.63 1,816.73

Trenching Off Road Diesel 1.72 14.12 7.97 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.62 0.62 1,714.64

Trenching Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Time Slice 12/20/2013-12/31/2013 7.79 66.28 38.92 0.07 14.76 3.06 17.82 3.11 2.81 5.93 11,019.86 Active Days: 8 Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06

Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.57 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.47

Building Worker Trips 0.18 0.31 5.82 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.39

Fine Grading 12/19/2013- 4.69 51.48 22.36 0.06 14.72 2.09 16.81 3.10 1.92 5.02 8,583.80 01/12/2014 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.50 0.00 14.50 3.03 0.00 3.03 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.55 20.56 11.10 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.91 0.91 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 2.11 30.87 10.36 0.06 0.22 1.10 1.32 0.07 1.01 1.09 6,234.39

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09 Page: 9 2/2/2011 2:21:07 PM

Time Slice 1/1/2014-1/10/2014 7.22 60.21 36.68 0.07 14.76 2.72 17.48 3.11 2.50 5.61 11,020.26 Active Days: 8 Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 2.84 13.77 15.75 0.01 0.04 0.86 0.90 0.01 0.79 0.80 2,436.40

Building Off Road Diesel 2.63 12.97 9.89 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.76 0.76 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.51 0.50 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.48

Building Worker Trips 0.16 0.29 5.36 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.72

Fine Grading 12/19/2013- 4.38 46.44 20.93 0.06 14.72 1.86 16.58 3.10 1.71 4.81 8,583.86 01/12/2014 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.50 0.00 14.50 3.03 0.00 3.03 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.41 19.08 10.74 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.89 0.00 0.82 0.82 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 1.94 27.32 9.36 0.06 0.22 0.97 1.19 0.07 0.89 0.96 6,234.40

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.04 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.14

Time Slice 1/13/2014-11/13/2014 2.84 13.77 15.75 0.01 0.04 0.86 0.90 0.01 0.79 0.80 2,436.40 Active Days: 219 Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 2.84 13.77 15.75 0.01 0.04 0.86 0.90 0.01 0.79 0.80 2,436.40

Building Off Road Diesel 2.63 12.97 9.89 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.76 0.76 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.51 0.50 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.48

Building Worker Trips 0.16 0.29 5.36 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.72

Time Slice 11/14/2014-12/18/2014 52.30 13.81 16.55 0.01 0.04 0.86 0.91 0.02 0.79 0.81 2,534.61 Active Days: 25 Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 2.84 13.77 15.75 0.01 0.04 0.86 0.90 0.01 0.79 0.80 2,436.40

Building Off Road Diesel 2.63 12.97 9.89 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.76 0.76 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.51 0.50 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.48

Building Worker Trips 0.16 0.29 5.36 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.72

Coating 11/14/2014-12/19/2014 49.46 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.22

Architectural Coating 49.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.22 Page: 10 2/2/2011 2:21:07 PM

Time Slice 12/19/2014-12/19/2014 49.46 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.22 Active Days: 1 Coating 11/14/2014-12/19/2014 49.46 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.22

Architectural Coating 49.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.22

Construction Related Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 12/19/2013 - 1/12/2014 - Phase 2 For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 10/16/2013 - 11/13/2013 - Phase 2 For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% Page: 11 2/2/2011 2:21:07 PM The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 11/14/2014 - 12/19/2014 - Phase 2 For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% Page: 1 2/2/2011 2:25:17 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year) File Name: H:\pdata\40100419\Admin\reports\AQ_GHG\Models\URBEMIS\NOX mit\Albright_Phase3.urb924 Project Name: Albright Way Construction Phase 3 No MM Project Location: Bay Area Air District On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007

Summary Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 CO2 Exhaust 2015 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 1.39 2.05 1.80 0.00 1.78 0.11 1.89 0.37 0.10 0.47 411.35

2015 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 0.96 2.05 1.80 0.00 0.34 0.11 0.45 0.07 0.10 0.17 411.35

Percent Reduction 30.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 81.06 0.00 76.42 80.83 0.00 63.83 0.00

2016 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 0.16 0.95 0.90 0.00 0.82 0.05 0.87 0.17 0.05 0.22 193.07

2016 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 0.16 0.95 0.90 0.00 0.13 0.05 0.18 0.03 0.05 0.08 193.07

Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.88 0.00 78.90 83.65 0.00 65.51 0.00

Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 Page: 2 2/2/2011 2:25:17 PM

2015 1.39 2.05 1.80 0.00 1.78 0.11 1.89 0.37 0.10 0.47 411.35

Demolition 01/27/2015- 0.01 0.09 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.02 15.85 02/23/2015 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Demo Off Road Diesel 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.00

Demo On Road Diesel 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.83

Demo Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.02

Mass Grading 02/24/2015- 0.06 0.66 0.28 0.00 1.72 0.03 1.75 0.36 0.02 0.38 152.23 03/18/2015 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.72 0.00 1.72 0.36 0.00 0.36 0.00

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 0.02 0.15 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 19.10

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.04 0.51 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 132.25

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.87

Trenching 03/19/2015-04/28/2015 0.02 0.17 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 26.34

Trenching Off Road Diesel 0.02 0.17 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 24.86

Trenching Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.48

Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 0.23 1.13 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.06 0.07 215.65

Building Off Road Diesel 0.21 1.07 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.06 0.06 143.48

Building Vendor Trips 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.29

Building Worker Trips 0.01 0.02 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 57.88

Coating 11/04/2015-12/09/2015 1.07 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.28

Architectural Coating 1.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.28 Page: 3 2/2/2011 2:25:17 PM

2016 0.16 0.95 0.90 0.00 0.82 0.05 0.87 0.17 0.05 0.22 193.07

Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 0.11 0.55 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 113.31

Building Off Road Diesel 0.10 0.52 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 75.39

Building Vendor Trips 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.51

Building Worker Trips 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.42

Asphalt 04/26/2016-05/10/2016 0.02 0.08 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 11.01

Paving Off-Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paving Off Road Diesel 0.01 0.07 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 7.80

Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.94

Paving Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.26

Fine Grading 05/11/2016- 0.03 0.32 0.17 0.00 0.82 0.01 0.83 0.17 0.01 0.18 68.75 06/08/2016 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.00 0.82 0.17 0.00 0.17 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 0.02 0.17 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 23.60

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.01 0.15 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 44.08

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.07

Phase Assumptions Phase: Demolition 1/27/2015 - 2/23/2015 - Phase 3 Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 246000 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 14000 On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 194.44 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day Page: 4 2/2/2011 2:25:17 PM Phase: Fine Grading 5/11/2016 - 6/8/2016 - Phase 3 Total Acres Disturbed: 13.79 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low Onsite Cut/Fill: 525 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1042.86 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Mass Grading 2/24/2015 - 3/18/2015 - Phase 3 Total Acres Disturbed: 13.79 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low Onsite Cut/Fill: 1575 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 3864.71 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Trenching 3/19/2015 - 4/28/2015 - Phase 3 Off-Road Equipment: 2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day Page: 5 2/2/2011 2:25:17 PM Phase: Paving 4/26/2016 - 5/10/2016 - Phase 3 Acres to be Paved: 3.25 Off-Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day

Phase: Building Construction 4/29/2015 - 5/10/2016 - Phase 3 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Architectural Coating 11/4/2015 - 12/9/2015 - Phase 3 Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250

Construction Mitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Mitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 Page: 6 2/2/2011 2:25:17 PM

2015 0.96 2.05 1.80 0.00 0.34 0.11 0.45 0.07 0.10 0.17 411.35

Demolition 01/27/2015- 0.01 0.09 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.02 15.85 02/23/2015 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Demo Off Road Diesel 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.00

Demo On Road Diesel 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.83

Demo Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.02

Mass Grading 02/24/2015- 0.06 0.66 0.28 0.00 0.28 0.03 0.30 0.06 0.02 0.08 152.23 03/18/2015 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.27 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.00

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 0.02 0.15 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 19.10

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.04 0.51 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 132.25

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.87

Trenching 03/19/2015-04/28/2015 0.02 0.17 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 26.34

Trenching Off Road Diesel 0.02 0.17 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 24.86

Trenching Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.48

Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 0.23 1.13 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.06 0.07 215.65

Building Off Road Diesel 0.21 1.07 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.06 0.06 143.48

Building Vendor Trips 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.29

Building Worker Trips 0.01 0.02 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 57.88

Coating 11/04/2015-12/09/2015 0.64 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.28

Architectural Coating 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.28 Page: 7 2/2/2011 2:25:17 PM

2016 0.16 0.95 0.90 0.00 0.13 0.05 0.18 0.03 0.05 0.08 193.07

Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 0.11 0.55 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 113.31

Building Off Road Diesel 0.10 0.52 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 75.39

Building Vendor Trips 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.51

Building Worker Trips 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.42

Asphalt 04/26/2016-05/10/2016 0.02 0.08 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 11.01

Paving Off-Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paving Off Road Diesel 0.01 0.07 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 7.80

Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.94

Paving Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.26

Fine Grading 05/11/2016- 0.03 0.32 0.17 0.00 0.13 0.01 0.14 0.03 0.01 0.04 68.75 06/08/2016 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 0.02 0.17 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 23.60

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.01 0.15 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 44.08

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.07

Construction Related Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 5/11/2016 - 6/8/2016 - Phase 3 For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% Page: 8 2/2/2011 2:25:17 PM For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 2/24/2015 - 3/18/2015 - Phase 3 For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 11/4/2015 - 12/9/2015 - Phase 3 For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% Page: 1 2/2/2011 2:24:59 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: H:\pdata\40100419\Admin\reports\AQ_GHG\Models\URBEMIS\NOX mit\Albright_Phase3.urb924 Project Name: Albright Way Construction Phase 3 No MM Project Location: Bay Area Air District On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007

Summary Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 CO2 Exhaust 2015 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 85.00 78.03 32.37 0.15 202.50 2.95 205.45 42.36 2.71 45.07 17,908.84

2015 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) 52.05 78.03 32.37 0.15 32.38 2.95 35.33 6.83 2.71 9.54 17,908.84

2016 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 5.32 30.60 26.20 0.04 78.20 1.77 79.47 16.35 1.62 17.52 6,548.08

2016 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) 5.32 30.60 26.20 0.04 12.45 1.77 13.72 2.62 1.62 3.79 6,548.08

Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 Page: 2 2/2/2011 2:24:59 PM

Time Slice 1/27/2015-2/23/2015 1.03 8.57 6.09 0.01 5.91 0.46 6.38 1.23 0.43 1.66 1,585.32 Active Days: 20 Demolition 01/27/2015- 1.03 8.57 6.09 0.01 5.91 0.46 6.38 1.23 0.43 1.66 1,585.32 02/23/2015 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.88 0.00 5.88 1.22 0.00 1.22 0.00

Demo Off Road Diesel 0.79 5.49 4.25 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.33 0.33 700.30

Demo On Road Diesel 0.22 3.04 1.07 0.01 0.03 0.11 0.13 0.01 0.10 0.11 782.84

Demo Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.18

Time Slice 2/24/2015-3/18/2015 6.74 78.03 32.37 0.15 202.50 2.95 205.45 42.36 2.71 45.07 17,908.84 Active Days: 17 Mass Grading 02/24/2015- 6.74 78.03 32.37 0.15 202.50 2.95 205.45 42.36 2.71 45.07 17,908.84 03/18/2015 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 201.95 0.00 201.95 42.18 0.00 42.18 0.00

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 2.26 17.50 10.40 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.81 0.00 0.74 0.74 2,247.32

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 4.46 60.48 21.20 0.14 0.54 2.14 2.68 0.18 1.97 2.14 15,559.34

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.18

Time Slice 3/19/2015-4/28/2015 1.51 11.69 8.62 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.56 0.00 0.51 0.51 1,816.82 Active Days: 29 Trenching 03/19/2015-04/28/2015 1.51 11.69 8.62 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.56 0.00 0.51 0.51 1,816.82

Trenching Off Road Diesel 1.48 11.65 7.85 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.55 0.00 0.51 0.51 1,714.64

Trenching Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.18

Time Slice 4/29/2015-11/3/2015 2.59 12.75 15.02 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.83 0.01 0.73 0.74 2,436.67 Active Days: 135 Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 2.59 12.75 15.02 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.83 0.01 0.73 0.74 2,436.67

Building Off Road Diesel 2.40 12.04 9.62 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.00 0.70 0.70 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.45 0.46 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.50

Building Worker Trips 0.15 0.26 4.94 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.98 Page: 3 2/2/2011 2:24:59 PM

Time Slice 11/4/2015-12/9/2015 85.00 12.79 15.77 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.84 0.02 0.73 0.75 2,534.93 Active Days: 26 Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 2.59 12.75 15.02 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.83 0.01 0.73 0.74 2,436.67

Building Off Road Diesel 2.40 12.04 9.62 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.00 0.70 0.70 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.45 0.46 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.50

Building Worker Trips 0.15 0.26 4.94 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.98

Coating 11/04/2015-12/09/2015 82.41 0.04 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.25

Architectural Coating 82.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.25

Time Slice 12/10/2015-12/31/2015 2.59 12.75 15.02 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.83 0.01 0.73 0.74 2,436.67 Active Days: 16 Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 2.59 12.75 15.02 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.83 0.01 0.73 0.74 2,436.67

Building Off Road Diesel 2.40 12.04 9.62 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.00 0.70 0.70 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.45 0.46 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.50

Building Worker Trips 0.15 0.26 4.94 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.98

Time Slice 1/1/2016-4/25/2016 2.36 11.83 14.40 0.01 0.04 0.71 0.74 0.01 0.65 0.66 2,436.86 Active Days: 82 Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 2.36 11.83 14.40 0.01 0.04 0.71 0.74 0.01 0.65 0.66 2,436.86

Building Off Road Diesel 2.19 11.19 9.40 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.62 0.62 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.40 0.44 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.02 161.51

Building Worker Trips 0.14 0.24 4.56 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 654.16 Page: 4 2/2/2011 2:24:59 PM

Time Slice 4/26/2016-5/10/2016 5.32 25.91 26.20 0.01 0.06 1.77 1.83 0.02 1.62 1.64 4,437.91 Active Days: 11 Asphalt 04/26/2016-05/10/2016 2.96 14.07 11.80 0.01 0.02 1.06 1.08 0.01 0.97 0.98 2,001.05

Paving Off-Gas 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paving Off Road Diesel 2.05 12.77 9.76 0.00 0.00 1.01 1.01 0.00 0.93 0.93 1,418.44

Paving On Road Diesel 0.09 1.22 0.44 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.04 0.04 352.63

Paving Worker Trips 0.05 0.08 1.60 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 229.98

Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 2.36 11.83 14.40 0.01 0.04 0.71 0.74 0.01 0.65 0.66 2,436.86

Building Off Road Diesel 2.19 11.19 9.40 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.62 0.62 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.40 0.44 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.02 161.51

Building Worker Trips 0.14 0.24 4.56 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 654.16

Time Slice 5/11/2016-6/8/2016 3.26 30.60 16.02 0.04 78.20 1.27 79.47 16.35 1.17 17.52 6,548.08 Active Days: 21 Fine Grading 05/11/2016- 3.26 30.60 16.02 0.04 78.20 1.27 79.47 16.35 1.17 17.52 6,548.08 06/08/2016 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 78.05 0.00 78.05 16.30 0.00 16.30 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.13 16.07 10.09 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.69 0.69 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 1.11 14.50 5.21 0.04 0.15 0.51 0.66 0.05 0.47 0.52 4,198.55

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.21

Phase Assumptions

Phase: Demolition 1/27/2015 - 2/23/2015 - Phase 3 Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 246000 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 14000 On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 194.44 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day Page: 5 2/2/2011 2:25:00 PM 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day

Phase: Fine Grading 5/11/2016 - 6/8/2016 - Phase 3 Total Acres Disturbed: 13.79 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low Onsite Cut/Fill: 525 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1042.86 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Mass Grading 2/24/2015 - 3/18/2015 - Phase 3 Total Acres Disturbed: 13.79 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low Onsite Cut/Fill: 1575 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 3864.71 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Trenching 3/19/2015 - 4/28/2015 - Phase 3 Off-Road Equipment: 2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day Page: 6 2/2/2011 2:25:00 PM 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day

Phase: Paving 4/26/2016 - 5/10/2016 - Phase 3 Acres to be Paved: 3.25 Off-Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day

Phase: Building Construction 4/29/2015 - 5/10/2016 - Phase 3 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Architectural Coating 11/4/2015 - 12/9/2015 - Phase 3 Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250

Construction Mitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 Page: 7 2/2/2011 2:25:00 PM

Time Slice 1/27/2015-2/23/2015 1.03 8.57 6.09 0.01 5.91 0.46 6.38 1.23 0.43 1.66 1,585.32 Active Days: 20 Demolition 01/27/2015- 1.03 8.57 6.09 0.01 5.91 0.46 6.38 1.23 0.43 1.66 1,585.32 02/23/2015 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.88 0.00 5.88 1.22 0.00 1.22 0.00

Demo Off Road Diesel 0.79 5.49 4.25 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.33 0.33 700.30

Demo On Road Diesel 0.22 3.04 1.07 0.01 0.03 0.11 0.13 0.01 0.10 0.11 782.84

Demo Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.18

Time Slice 2/24/2015-3/18/2015 6.74 78.03 32.37 0.15 32.38 2.95 35.33 6.83 2.71 9.54 17,908.84 Active Days: 17 Mass Grading 02/24/2015- 6.74 78.03 32.37 0.15 32.38 2.95 35.33 6.83 2.71 9.54 17,908.84 03/18/2015 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.83 0.00 31.83 6.65 0.00 6.65 0.00

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 2.26 17.50 10.40 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.81 0.00 0.74 0.74 2,247.32

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 4.46 60.48 21.20 0.14 0.54 2.14 2.68 0.18 1.97 2.14 15,559.34

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.18

Time Slice 3/19/2015-4/28/2015 1.51 11.69 8.62 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.56 0.00 0.51 0.51 1,816.82 Active Days: 29 Trenching 03/19/2015-04/28/2015 1.51 11.69 8.62 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.56 0.00 0.51 0.51 1,816.82

Trenching Off Road Diesel 1.48 11.65 7.85 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.55 0.00 0.51 0.51 1,714.64

Trenching Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.18

Time Slice 4/29/2015-11/3/2015 2.59 12.75 15.02 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.83 0.01 0.73 0.74 2,436.67 Active Days: 135 Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 2.59 12.75 15.02 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.83 0.01 0.73 0.74 2,436.67

Building Off Road Diesel 2.40 12.04 9.62 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.00 0.70 0.70 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.45 0.46 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.50

Building Worker Trips 0.15 0.26 4.94 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.98 Page: 8 2/2/2011 2:25:00 PM

Time Slice 11/4/2015-12/9/2015 52.05 12.79 15.77 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.84 0.02 0.73 0.75 2,534.93 Active Days: 26 Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 2.59 12.75 15.02 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.83 0.01 0.73 0.74 2,436.67

Building Off Road Diesel 2.40 12.04 9.62 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.00 0.70 0.70 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.45 0.46 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.50

Building Worker Trips 0.15 0.26 4.94 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.98

Coating 11/04/2015-12/09/2015 49.46 0.04 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.25

Architectural Coating 49.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.25

Time Slice 12/10/2015-12/31/2015 2.59 12.75 15.02 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.83 0.01 0.73 0.74 2,436.67 Active Days: 16 Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 2.59 12.75 15.02 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.83 0.01 0.73 0.74 2,436.67

Building Off Road Diesel 2.40 12.04 9.62 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.00 0.70 0.70 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.45 0.46 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.50

Building Worker Trips 0.15 0.26 4.94 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.98

Time Slice 1/1/2016-4/25/2016 2.36 11.83 14.40 0.01 0.04 0.71 0.74 0.01 0.65 0.66 2,436.86 Active Days: 82 Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 2.36 11.83 14.40 0.01 0.04 0.71 0.74 0.01 0.65 0.66 2,436.86

Building Off Road Diesel 2.19 11.19 9.40 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.62 0.62 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.40 0.44 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.02 161.51

Building Worker Trips 0.14 0.24 4.56 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 654.16 Page: 9 2/2/2011 2:25:00 PM

Time Slice 4/26/2016-5/10/2016 5.32 25.91 26.20 0.01 0.06 1.77 1.83 0.02 1.62 1.64 4,437.91 Active Days: 11 Asphalt 04/26/2016-05/10/2016 2.96 14.07 11.80 0.01 0.02 1.06 1.08 0.01 0.97 0.98 2,001.05

Paving Off-Gas 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paving Off Road Diesel 2.05 12.77 9.76 0.00 0.00 1.01 1.01 0.00 0.93 0.93 1,418.44

Paving On Road Diesel 0.09 1.22 0.44 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.04 0.04 352.63

Paving Worker Trips 0.05 0.08 1.60 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 229.98

Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 2.36 11.83 14.40 0.01 0.04 0.71 0.74 0.01 0.65 0.66 2,436.86

Building Off Road Diesel 2.19 11.19 9.40 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.62 0.62 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.40 0.44 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.02 161.51

Building Worker Trips 0.14 0.24 4.56 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 654.16

Time Slice 5/11/2016-6/8/2016 3.26 30.60 16.02 0.04 12.45 1.27 13.72 2.62 1.17 3.79 6,548.08 Active Days: 21 Fine Grading 05/11/2016- 3.26 30.60 16.02 0.04 12.45 1.27 13.72 2.62 1.17 3.79 6,548.08 06/08/2016 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.30 0.00 12.30 2.57 0.00 2.57 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.13 16.07 10.09 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.69 0.69 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 1.11 14.50 5.21 0.04 0.15 0.51 0.66 0.05 0.47 0.52 4,198.55

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.21

Construction Related Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 5/11/2016 - 6/8/2016 - Phase 3 For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% Page: 10 2/2/2011 2:25:00 PM For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 2/24/2015 - 3/18/2015 - Phase 3 For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 11/4/2015 - 12/9/2015 - Phase 3 For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% Page: 1 2/2/2011 2:25:08 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: H:\pdata\40100419\Admin\reports\AQ_GHG\Models\URBEMIS\NOX mit\Albright_Phase3.urb924 Project Name: Albright Way Construction Phase 3 No MM Project Location: Bay Area Air District On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007

Summary Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 CO2 Exhaust 2015 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 85.00 78.03 32.37 0.15 202.50 2.95 205.45 42.36 2.71 45.07 17,908.84

2015 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) 52.05 78.03 32.37 0.15 32.38 2.95 35.33 6.83 2.71 9.54 17,908.84

2016 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 5.32 30.60 26.20 0.04 78.20 1.77 79.47 16.35 1.62 17.52 6,548.08

2016 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) 5.32 30.60 26.20 0.04 12.45 1.77 13.72 2.62 1.62 3.79 6,548.08

Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 Page: 2 2/2/2011 2:25:08 PM

Time Slice 1/27/2015-2/23/2015 1.03 8.57 6.09 0.01 5.91 0.46 6.38 1.23 0.43 1.66 1,585.32 Active Days: 20 Demolition 01/27/2015- 1.03 8.57 6.09 0.01 5.91 0.46 6.38 1.23 0.43 1.66 1,585.32 02/23/2015 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.88 0.00 5.88 1.22 0.00 1.22 0.00

Demo Off Road Diesel 0.79 5.49 4.25 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.33 0.33 700.30

Demo On Road Diesel 0.22 3.04 1.07 0.01 0.03 0.11 0.13 0.01 0.10 0.11 782.84

Demo Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.18

Time Slice 2/24/2015-3/18/2015 6.74 78.03 32.37 0.15 202.50 2.95 205.45 42.36 2.71 45.07 17,908.84 Active Days: 17 Mass Grading 02/24/2015- 6.74 78.03 32.37 0.15 202.50 2.95 205.45 42.36 2.71 45.07 17,908.84 03/18/2015 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 201.95 0.00 201.95 42.18 0.00 42.18 0.00

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 2.26 17.50 10.40 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.81 0.00 0.74 0.74 2,247.32

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 4.46 60.48 21.20 0.14 0.54 2.14 2.68 0.18 1.97 2.14 15,559.34

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.18

Time Slice 3/19/2015-4/28/2015 1.51 11.69 8.62 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.56 0.00 0.51 0.51 1,816.82 Active Days: 29 Trenching 03/19/2015-04/28/2015 1.51 11.69 8.62 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.56 0.00 0.51 0.51 1,816.82

Trenching Off Road Diesel 1.48 11.65 7.85 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.55 0.00 0.51 0.51 1,714.64

Trenching Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.18

Time Slice 4/29/2015-11/3/2015 2.59 12.75 15.02 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.83 0.01 0.73 0.74 2,436.67 Active Days: 135 Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 2.59 12.75 15.02 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.83 0.01 0.73 0.74 2,436.67

Building Off Road Diesel 2.40 12.04 9.62 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.00 0.70 0.70 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.45 0.46 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.50

Building Worker Trips 0.15 0.26 4.94 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.98 Page: 3 2/2/2011 2:25:08 PM

Time Slice 11/4/2015-12/9/2015 85.00 12.79 15.77 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.84 0.02 0.73 0.75 2,534.93 Active Days: 26 Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 2.59 12.75 15.02 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.83 0.01 0.73 0.74 2,436.67

Building Off Road Diesel 2.40 12.04 9.62 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.00 0.70 0.70 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.45 0.46 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.50

Building Worker Trips 0.15 0.26 4.94 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.98

Coating 11/04/2015-12/09/2015 82.41 0.04 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.25

Architectural Coating 82.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.25

Time Slice 12/10/2015-12/31/2015 2.59 12.75 15.02 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.83 0.01 0.73 0.74 2,436.67 Active Days: 16 Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 2.59 12.75 15.02 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.83 0.01 0.73 0.74 2,436.67

Building Off Road Diesel 2.40 12.04 9.62 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.00 0.70 0.70 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.45 0.46 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.50

Building Worker Trips 0.15 0.26 4.94 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.98

Time Slice 1/1/2016-4/25/2016 2.36 11.83 14.40 0.01 0.04 0.71 0.74 0.01 0.65 0.66 2,436.86 Active Days: 82 Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 2.36 11.83 14.40 0.01 0.04 0.71 0.74 0.01 0.65 0.66 2,436.86

Building Off Road Diesel 2.19 11.19 9.40 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.62 0.62 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.40 0.44 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.02 161.51

Building Worker Trips 0.14 0.24 4.56 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 654.16 Page: 4 2/2/2011 2:25:08 PM

Time Slice 4/26/2016-5/10/2016 5.32 25.91 26.20 0.01 0.06 1.77 1.83 0.02 1.62 1.64 4,437.91 Active Days: 11 Asphalt 04/26/2016-05/10/2016 2.96 14.07 11.80 0.01 0.02 1.06 1.08 0.01 0.97 0.98 2,001.05

Paving Off-Gas 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paving Off Road Diesel 2.05 12.77 9.76 0.00 0.00 1.01 1.01 0.00 0.93 0.93 1,418.44

Paving On Road Diesel 0.09 1.22 0.44 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.04 0.04 352.63

Paving Worker Trips 0.05 0.08 1.60 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 229.98

Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 2.36 11.83 14.40 0.01 0.04 0.71 0.74 0.01 0.65 0.66 2,436.86

Building Off Road Diesel 2.19 11.19 9.40 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.62 0.62 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.40 0.44 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.02 161.51

Building Worker Trips 0.14 0.24 4.56 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 654.16

Time Slice 5/11/2016-6/8/2016 3.26 30.60 16.02 0.04 78.20 1.27 79.47 16.35 1.17 17.52 6,548.08 Active Days: 21 Fine Grading 05/11/2016- 3.26 30.60 16.02 0.04 78.20 1.27 79.47 16.35 1.17 17.52 6,548.08 06/08/2016 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 78.05 0.00 78.05 16.30 0.00 16.30 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.13 16.07 10.09 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.69 0.69 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 1.11 14.50 5.21 0.04 0.15 0.51 0.66 0.05 0.47 0.52 4,198.55

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.21

Phase Assumptions

Phase: Demolition 1/27/2015 - 2/23/2015 - Phase 3 Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 246000 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 14000 On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 194.44 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day Page: 5 2/2/2011 2:25:08 PM 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day

Phase: Fine Grading 5/11/2016 - 6/8/2016 - Phase 3 Total Acres Disturbed: 13.79 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low Onsite Cut/Fill: 525 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1042.86 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Mass Grading 2/24/2015 - 3/18/2015 - Phase 3 Total Acres Disturbed: 13.79 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low Onsite Cut/Fill: 1575 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 3864.71 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Trenching 3/19/2015 - 4/28/2015 - Phase 3 Off-Road Equipment: 2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day Page: 6 2/2/2011 2:25:08 PM 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day

Phase: Paving 4/26/2016 - 5/10/2016 - Phase 3 Acres to be Paved: 3.25 Off-Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day

Phase: Building Construction 4/29/2015 - 5/10/2016 - Phase 3 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Architectural Coating 11/4/2015 - 12/9/2015 - Phase 3 Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250

Construction Mitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Mitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 Page: 7 2/2/2011 2:25:08 PM

Time Slice 1/27/2015-2/23/2015 1.03 8.57 6.09 0.01 5.91 0.46 6.38 1.23 0.43 1.66 1,585.32 Active Days: 20 Demolition 01/27/2015- 1.03 8.57 6.09 0.01 5.91 0.46 6.38 1.23 0.43 1.66 1,585.32 02/23/2015 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.88 0.00 5.88 1.22 0.00 1.22 0.00

Demo Off Road Diesel 0.79 5.49 4.25 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.33 0.33 700.30

Demo On Road Diesel 0.22 3.04 1.07 0.01 0.03 0.11 0.13 0.01 0.10 0.11 782.84

Demo Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.18

Time Slice 2/24/2015-3/18/2015 6.74 78.03 32.37 0.15 32.38 2.95 35.33 6.83 2.71 9.54 17,908.84 Active Days: 17 Mass Grading 02/24/2015- 6.74 78.03 32.37 0.15 32.38 2.95 35.33 6.83 2.71 9.54 17,908.84 03/18/2015 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.83 0.00 31.83 6.65 0.00 6.65 0.00

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 2.26 17.50 10.40 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.81 0.00 0.74 0.74 2,247.32

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 4.46 60.48 21.20 0.14 0.54 2.14 2.68 0.18 1.97 2.14 15,559.34

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.18

Time Slice 3/19/2015-4/28/2015 1.51 11.69 8.62 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.56 0.00 0.51 0.51 1,816.82 Active Days: 29 Trenching 03/19/2015-04/28/2015 1.51 11.69 8.62 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.56 0.00 0.51 0.51 1,816.82

Trenching Off Road Diesel 1.48 11.65 7.85 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.55 0.00 0.51 0.51 1,714.64

Trenching Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.18

Time Slice 4/29/2015-11/3/2015 2.59 12.75 15.02 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.83 0.01 0.73 0.74 2,436.67 Active Days: 135 Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 2.59 12.75 15.02 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.83 0.01 0.73 0.74 2,436.67

Building Off Road Diesel 2.40 12.04 9.62 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.00 0.70 0.70 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.45 0.46 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.50

Building Worker Trips 0.15 0.26 4.94 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.98 Page: 8 2/2/2011 2:25:08 PM

Time Slice 11/4/2015-12/9/2015 52.05 12.79 15.77 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.84 0.02 0.73 0.75 2,534.93 Active Days: 26 Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 2.59 12.75 15.02 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.83 0.01 0.73 0.74 2,436.67

Building Off Road Diesel 2.40 12.04 9.62 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.00 0.70 0.70 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.45 0.46 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.50

Building Worker Trips 0.15 0.26 4.94 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.98

Coating 11/04/2015-12/09/2015 49.46 0.04 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.25

Architectural Coating 49.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.25

Time Slice 12/10/2015-12/31/2015 2.59 12.75 15.02 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.83 0.01 0.73 0.74 2,436.67 Active Days: 16 Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 2.59 12.75 15.02 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.83 0.01 0.73 0.74 2,436.67

Building Off Road Diesel 2.40 12.04 9.62 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.00 0.70 0.70 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.45 0.46 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.50

Building Worker Trips 0.15 0.26 4.94 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.98

Time Slice 1/1/2016-4/25/2016 2.36 11.83 14.40 0.01 0.04 0.71 0.74 0.01 0.65 0.66 2,436.86 Active Days: 82 Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 2.36 11.83 14.40 0.01 0.04 0.71 0.74 0.01 0.65 0.66 2,436.86

Building Off Road Diesel 2.19 11.19 9.40 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.62 0.62 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.40 0.44 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.02 161.51

Building Worker Trips 0.14 0.24 4.56 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 654.16 Page: 9 2/2/2011 2:25:08 PM

Time Slice 4/26/2016-5/10/2016 5.32 25.91 26.20 0.01 0.06 1.77 1.83 0.02 1.62 1.64 4,437.91 Active Days: 11 Asphalt 04/26/2016-05/10/2016 2.96 14.07 11.80 0.01 0.02 1.06 1.08 0.01 0.97 0.98 2,001.05

Paving Off-Gas 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paving Off Road Diesel 2.05 12.77 9.76 0.00 0.00 1.01 1.01 0.00 0.93 0.93 1,418.44

Paving On Road Diesel 0.09 1.22 0.44 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.04 0.04 352.63

Paving Worker Trips 0.05 0.08 1.60 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 229.98

Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 2.36 11.83 14.40 0.01 0.04 0.71 0.74 0.01 0.65 0.66 2,436.86

Building Off Road Diesel 2.19 11.19 9.40 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.62 0.62 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.40 0.44 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.02 161.51

Building Worker Trips 0.14 0.24 4.56 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 654.16

Time Slice 5/11/2016-6/8/2016 3.26 30.60 16.02 0.04 12.45 1.27 13.72 2.62 1.17 3.79 6,548.08 Active Days: 21 Fine Grading 05/11/2016- 3.26 30.60 16.02 0.04 12.45 1.27 13.72 2.62 1.17 3.79 6,548.08 06/08/2016 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.30 0.00 12.30 2.57 0.00 2.57 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.13 16.07 10.09 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.69 0.69 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 1.11 14.50 5.21 0.04 0.15 0.51 0.66 0.05 0.47 0.52 4,198.55

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.21

Construction Related Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 5/11/2016 - 6/8/2016 - Phase 3 For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% Page: 10 2/2/2011 2:25:08 PM For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 2/24/2015 - 3/18/2015 - Phase 3 For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 11/4/2015 - 12/9/2015 - Phase 3 For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% Page: 1 1/27/2011 1:55:00 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year) File Name: H:\pdata\40100419\Admin\reports\AQ_GHG\Models\URBEMIS\Albright_Phase1.urb924 Project Name: Albright Way Construction Phase1 Project Location: Bay Area Air District On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007

Summary Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 CO2 Exhaust 2012 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 0.29 1.83 1.45 0.00 1.76 0.10 1.86 0.37 0.10 0.46 268.15

2012 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 0.29 1.83 1.45 0.00 0.36 0.10 0.46 0.07 0.10 0.17 268.15

Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 79.79 0.00 75.34 79.67 0.00 63.26 0.00

2013 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 1.35 1.71 1.65 0.00 0.77 0.11 0.87 0.16 0.10 0.26 263.05

2013 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 0.94 1.71 1.65 0.00 0.12 0.11 0.23 0.03 0.10 0.13 263.05

Percent Reduction 30.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.80 0.00 73.38 83.50 0.00 51.48 0.00

Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 Page: 2 1/27/2011 1:55:00 PM

2012 0.29 1.83 1.45 0.00 1.76 0.10 1.86 0.37 0.10 0.46 268.15

Demolition 04/02/2012- 0.02 0.17 0.10 0.00 0.09 0.01 0.10 0.02 0.01 0.03 23.78 05/11/2012 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.21 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.00

Demo Off Road Diesel 0.01 0.10 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 10.50

Demo On Road Diesel 0.00 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.74

Demo Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.53

Mass Grading 05/14/2012- 0.05 0.51 0.22 0.00 1.67 0.02 1.69 0.35 0.02 0.37 76.49 06/07/2012 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.67 0.00 1.67 0.35 0.00 0.35 0.00

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 0.03 0.21 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 21.35

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.02 0.30 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 54.17

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.97

Trenching 06/08/2012-07/27/2012 0.03 0.28 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 32.70

Trenching Off Road Diesel 0.03 0.27 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 30.86

Trenching Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.84

Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 0.19 0.88 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.06 135.18

Building Off Road Diesel 0.17 0.82 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.05 89.98

Building Vendor Trips 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.96

Building Worker Trips 0.01 0.02 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.24 Page: 3 1/27/2011 1:55:00 PM

2013 1.35 1.71 1.65 0.00 0.77 0.11 0.87 0.16 0.10 0.26 263.05

Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 0.25 1.18 1.32 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.07 0.07 193.67

Building Off Road Diesel 0.23 1.11 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.07 128.89

Building Vendor Trips 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.84

Building Worker Trips 0.01 0.02 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 51.94

Coating 01/20/2013-02/22/2013 1.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.23

Architectural Coating 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.23

Asphalt 07/26/2013-08/31/2013 0.04 0.21 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 23.47

Paving Off-Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paving Off Road Diesel 0.03 0.20 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 18.44

Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.04

Paving Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.99

Fine Grading 08/12/2013- 0.03 0.32 0.16 0.00 0.76 0.01 0.78 0.16 0.01 0.17 44.69 09/10/2013 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.76 0.16 0.00 0.16 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 0.03 0.23 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 24.72

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.01 0.09 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.84

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.12

Phase Assumptions

Phase: Demolition 4/2/2012 - 5/11/2012 - Phase 1 Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 400000 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 14000 On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 194.44 Off-Road Equipment: Page: 4 1/27/2011 1:55:00 PM 1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day

Phase: Fine Grading 8/12/2013 - 9/10/2013 - Phase 1 Total Acres Disturbed: 8.46 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low Onsite Cut/Fill: 450 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 425.45 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Mass Grading 5/14/2012 - 6/7/2012 - Phase 1 Total Acres Disturbed: 8.46 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low Onsite Cut/Fill: 1350 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1416.32 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Trenching 6/8/2012 - 7/27/2012 - Phase 1 Off-Road Equipment: Page: 5 1/27/2011 1:55:00 PM 2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day

Phase: Paving 7/26/2013 - 8/31/2013 - Phase 1 Acres to be Paved: 3.42 Off-Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day

Phase: Building Construction 7/30/2012 - 8/9/2013 - Phase 1 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Architectural Coating 1/20/2013 - 2/22/2013 - Phase 1 Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250

Construction Mitigated Detail Report: Page: 6 1/27/2011 1:55:00 PM

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Mitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2

2012 0.29 1.83 1.45 0.00 0.36 0.10 0.46 0.07 0.10 0.17 268.15

Demolition 04/02/2012- 0.02 0.17 0.10 0.00 0.09 0.01 0.10 0.02 0.01 0.03 23.78 05/11/2012 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.21 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.00

Demo Off Road Diesel 0.01 0.10 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 10.50

Demo On Road Diesel 0.00 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.74

Demo Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.53

Mass Grading 05/14/2012- 0.05 0.51 0.22 0.00 0.26 0.02 0.29 0.06 0.02 0.07 76.49 06/07/2012 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.26 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 0.03 0.21 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 21.35

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.02 0.30 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 54.17

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.97

Trenching 06/08/2012-07/27/2012 0.03 0.28 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 32.70

Trenching Off Road Diesel 0.03 0.27 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 30.86

Trenching Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.84

Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 0.19 0.88 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.06 135.18

Building Off Road Diesel 0.17 0.82 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.05 89.98

Building Vendor Trips 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.96

Building Worker Trips 0.01 0.02 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.24 Page: 7 1/27/2011 1:55:00 PM

2013 0.94 1.71 1.65 0.00 0.12 0.11 0.23 0.03 0.10 0.13 263.05

Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 0.25 1.18 1.32 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.07 0.07 193.67

Building Off Road Diesel 0.23 1.11 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.07 128.89

Building Vendor Trips 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.84

Building Worker Trips 0.01 0.02 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 51.94

Coating 01/20/2013-02/22/2013 0.62 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.23

Architectural Coating 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.23

Asphalt 07/26/2013-08/31/2013 0.04 0.21 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 23.47

Paving Off-Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paving Off Road Diesel 0.03 0.20 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 18.44

Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.04

Paving Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.99

Fine Grading 08/12/2013- 0.03 0.32 0.16 0.00 0.12 0.01 0.13 0.03 0.01 0.04 44.69 09/10/2013 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 0.03 0.23 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 24.72

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.01 0.09 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.84

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.12

Construction Related Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 8/12/2013 - 9/10/2013 - Phase 1 For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% Page: 8 1/27/2011 1:55:00 PM For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 5/14/2012 - 6/7/2012 - Phase 1 For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 1/20/2013 - 2/22/2013 - Phase 1 For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% Page: 1 1/27/2011 1:54:26 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: H:\pdata\40100419\Admin\reports\AQ_GHG\Models\URBEMIS\Albright_Phase1.urb924 Project Name: Albright Way Construction Phase1 Project Location: Bay Area Air District On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007

Summary Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 CO2 Exhaust 2012 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 4.82 53.85 22.98 0.05 175.60 2.22 177.82 36.70 2.04 38.74 8,051.45

2012 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) 4.82 53.85 22.98 0.05 27.85 2.22 30.07 5.84 2.04 7.88 8,051.45

2013 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 85.52 45.34 28.84 0.02 69.28 2.63 71.91 14.48 2.41 16.89 5,867.44

2013 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) 52.57 45.34 28.84 0.02 10.99 2.63 13.61 2.31 2.41 4.72 5,867.44

Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 Page: 2 1/27/2011 1:54:26 PM

Time Slice 4/2/2012-5/11/2012 1.30 11.19 6.92 0.01 5.91 0.65 6.57 1.23 0.60 1.84 1,585.17 Active Days: 30 Demolition 04/02/2012- 1.30 11.19 6.92 0.01 5.91 0.65 6.57 1.23 0.60 1.84 1,585.17 05/11/2012 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.88 0.00 5.88 1.22 0.00 1.22 0.00

Demo Off Road Diesel 0.98 6.77 4.49 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.49 0.00 0.45 0.45 700.30

Demo On Road Diesel 0.29 4.37 1.44 0.01 0.03 0.16 0.18 0.01 0.14 0.15 782.84

Demo Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.04

Time Slice 5/14/2012-6/7/2012 4.82 53.85 22.98 0.05 175.60 2.22 177.82 36.70 2.04 38.74 8,051.45 Active Days: 19 Mass Grading 05/14/2012- 4.82 53.85 22.98 0.05 175.60 2.22 177.82 36.70 2.04 38.74 8,051.45 06/07/2012 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 175.40 0.00 175.40 36.63 0.00 36.63 0.00

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 2.69 21.95 11.51 0.00 0.00 1.07 1.07 0.00 0.99 0.99 2,247.32

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 2.10 31.85 10.48 0.05 0.20 1.14 1.34 0.07 1.05 1.12 5,702.10

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.04

Time Slice 6/8/2012-7/27/2012 1.84 15.30 9.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.74 0.00 0.68 0.68 1,816.67 Active Days: 36 Trenching 06/08/2012-07/27/2012 1.84 15.30 9.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.74 0.00 0.68 0.68 1,816.67

Trenching Off Road Diesel 1.80 15.24 8.01 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.73 0.00 0.67 0.67 1,714.64

Trenching Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.04

Time Slice 7/30/2012-12/31/2012 3.39 15.81 17.40 0.01 0.04 1.08 1.12 0.01 0.99 1.00 2,435.68 Active Days: 111 Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 3.39 15.81 17.40 0.01 0.04 1.08 1.12 0.01 0.99 1.00 2,435.68

Building Off Road Diesel 3.14 14.81 10.52 0.00 0.00 1.04 1.04 0.00 0.95 0.95 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.65 0.57 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.46

Building Worker Trips 0.20 0.35 6.32 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.03 Page: 3 1/27/2011 1:54:26 PM

Time Slice 1/1/2013-1/18/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06 Active Days: 14 Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06

Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.57 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.47

Building Worker Trips 0.18 0.31 5.82 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.39

Time Slice 1/21/2013-2/22/2013 85.52 14.84 17.43 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.02 0.89 0.91 2,534.22 Active Days: 25 Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06

Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.57 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.47

Building Worker Trips 0.18 0.31 5.82 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.39

Coating 01/20/2013-02/22/2013 82.42 0.05 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.17

Architectural Coating 82.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.17

Time Slice 2/25/2013-7/25/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06 Active Days: 109 Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06

Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.57 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.47

Building Worker Trips 0.18 0.31 5.82 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.39 Page: 4 1/27/2011 1:54:27 PM

Time Slice 7/26/2013-8/9/2013 6.05 31.05 28.84 0.01 0.05 2.30 2.36 0.02 2.12 2.14 4,241.20 Active Days: 11 Asphalt 07/26/2013-08/31/2013 2.95 16.25 12.29 0.00 0.02 1.33 1.35 0.01 1.23 1.23 1,805.14

Paving Off-Gas 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paving Off Road Diesel 2.48 15.36 9.98 0.00 0.00 1.30 1.30 0.00 1.20 1.20 1,418.44

Paving On Road Diesel 0.05 0.78 0.26 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 156.99

Paving Worker Trips 0.06 0.11 2.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 229.71

Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06

Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.57 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.47

Building Worker Trips 0.18 0.31 5.82 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.39

Time Slice 8/12/2013-8/30/2013 6.11 45.34 27.14 0.02 69.28 2.63 71.91 14.48 2.41 16.89 5,867.44 Active Days: 15 Asphalt 07/26/2013-08/31/2013 2.95 16.25 12.29 0.00 0.02 1.33 1.35 0.01 1.23 1.23 1,805.14

Paving Off-Gas 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paving Off Road Diesel 2.48 15.36 9.98 0.00 0.00 1.30 1.30 0.00 1.20 1.20 1,418.44

Paving On Road Diesel 0.05 0.78 0.26 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 156.99

Paving Worker Trips 0.06 0.11 2.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 229.71

Fine Grading 08/12/2013- 3.16 29.09 14.85 0.02 69.26 1.29 70.56 14.47 1.19 15.66 4,062.29 09/10/2013 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 69.20 0.00 69.20 14.45 0.00 14.45 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.55 20.56 11.10 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.91 0.91 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.58 8.48 2.85 0.02 0.06 0.30 0.36 0.02 0.28 0.30 1,712.88

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09 Page: 5 1/27/2011 1:54:27 PM

Time Slice 9/2/2013-9/10/2013 3.16 29.09 14.85 0.02 69.26 1.29 70.56 14.47 1.19 15.66 4,062.29 Active Days: 7 Fine Grading 08/12/2013- 3.16 29.09 14.85 0.02 69.26 1.29 70.56 14.47 1.19 15.66 4,062.29 09/10/2013 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 69.20 0.00 69.20 14.45 0.00 14.45 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.55 20.56 11.10 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.91 0.91 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.58 8.48 2.85 0.02 0.06 0.30 0.36 0.02 0.28 0.30 1,712.88

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Phase Assumptions

Phase: Demolition 4/2/2012 - 5/11/2012 - Phase 1 Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 400000 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 14000 On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 194.44 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day

Phase: Fine Grading 8/12/2013 - 9/10/2013 - Phase 1 Total Acres Disturbed: 8.46 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low Onsite Cut/Fill: 450 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 425.45 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Page: 6 1/27/2011 1:54:27 PM

Phase: Mass Grading 5/14/2012 - 6/7/2012 - Phase 1 Total Acres Disturbed: 8.46 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low Onsite Cut/Fill: 1350 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1416.32 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Trenching 6/8/2012 - 7/27/2012 - Phase 1 Off-Road Equipment: 2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day

Phase: Paving 7/26/2013 - 8/31/2013 - Phase 1 Acres to be Paved: 3.42 Off-Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day

Phase: Building Construction 7/30/2012 - 8/9/2013 - Phase 1 Off-Road Equipment: Page: 7 1/27/2011 1:54:27 PM 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Architectural Coating 1/20/2013 - 2/22/2013 - Phase 1 Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250

Construction Mitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2

Time Slice 4/2/2012-5/11/2012 1.30 11.19 6.92 0.01 5.91 0.65 6.57 1.23 0.60 1.84 1,585.17 Active Days: 30 Demolition 04/02/2012- 1.30 11.19 6.92 0.01 5.91 0.65 6.57 1.23 0.60 1.84 1,585.17 05/11/2012 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.88 0.00 5.88 1.22 0.00 1.22 0.00

Demo Off Road Diesel 0.98 6.77 4.49 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.49 0.00 0.45 0.45 700.30

Demo On Road Diesel 0.29 4.37 1.44 0.01 0.03 0.16 0.18 0.01 0.14 0.15 782.84

Demo Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.04 Page: 8 1/27/2011 1:54:27 PM

Time Slice 5/14/2012-6/7/2012 4.82 53.85 22.98 0.05 27.85 2.22 30.07 5.84 2.04 7.88 8,051.45 Active Days: 19 Mass Grading 05/14/2012- 4.82 53.85 22.98 0.05 27.85 2.22 30.07 5.84 2.04 7.88 8,051.45 06/07/2012 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.65 0.00 27.65 5.77 0.00 5.77 0.00

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 2.69 21.95 11.51 0.00 0.00 1.07 1.07 0.00 0.99 0.99 2,247.32

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 2.10 31.85 10.48 0.05 0.20 1.14 1.34 0.07 1.05 1.12 5,702.10

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.04

Time Slice 6/8/2012-7/27/2012 1.84 15.30 9.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.74 0.00 0.68 0.68 1,816.67 Active Days: 36 Trenching 06/08/2012-07/27/2012 1.84 15.30 9.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.74 0.00 0.68 0.68 1,816.67

Trenching Off Road Diesel 1.80 15.24 8.01 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.73 0.00 0.67 0.67 1,714.64

Trenching Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.04

Time Slice 7/30/2012-12/31/2012 3.39 15.81 17.40 0.01 0.04 1.08 1.12 0.01 0.99 1.00 2,435.68 Active Days: 111 Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 3.39 15.81 17.40 0.01 0.04 1.08 1.12 0.01 0.99 1.00 2,435.68

Building Off Road Diesel 3.14 14.81 10.52 0.00 0.00 1.04 1.04 0.00 0.95 0.95 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.65 0.57 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.46

Building Worker Trips 0.20 0.35 6.32 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.03

Time Slice 1/1/2013-1/18/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06 Active Days: 14 Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06

Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.57 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.47

Building Worker Trips 0.18 0.31 5.82 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.39 Page: 9 1/27/2011 1:54:27 PM

Time Slice 1/21/2013-2/22/2013 52.57 14.84 17.43 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.02 0.89 0.91 2,534.22 Active Days: 25 Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06

Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.57 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.47

Building Worker Trips 0.18 0.31 5.82 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.39

Coating 01/20/2013-02/22/2013 49.46 0.05 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.17

Architectural Coating 49.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.17

Time Slice 2/25/2013-7/25/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06 Active Days: 109 Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06

Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.57 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.47

Building Worker Trips 0.18 0.31 5.82 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.39

Time Slice 7/26/2013-8/9/2013 6.05 31.05 28.84 0.01 0.05 2.30 2.36 0.02 2.12 2.14 4,241.20 Active Days: 11 Asphalt 07/26/2013-08/31/2013 2.95 16.25 12.29 0.00 0.02 1.33 1.35 0.01 1.23 1.23 1,805.14

Paving Off-Gas 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paving Off Road Diesel 2.48 15.36 9.98 0.00 0.00 1.30 1.30 0.00 1.20 1.20 1,418.44

Paving On Road Diesel 0.05 0.78 0.26 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 156.99

Paving Worker Trips 0.06 0.11 2.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 229.71

Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06

Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.57 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.47

Building Worker Trips 0.18 0.31 5.82 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.39 Page: 10 1/27/2011 1:54:27 PM

Time Slice 8/12/2013-8/30/2013 6.11 45.34 27.14 0.02 10.99 2.63 13.61 2.31 2.41 4.72 5,867.44 Active Days: 15 Asphalt 07/26/2013-08/31/2013 2.95 16.25 12.29 0.00 0.02 1.33 1.35 0.01 1.23 1.23 1,805.14

Paving Off-Gas 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paving Off Road Diesel 2.48 15.36 9.98 0.00 0.00 1.30 1.30 0.00 1.20 1.20 1,418.44

Paving On Road Diesel 0.05 0.78 0.26 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 156.99

Paving Worker Trips 0.06 0.11 2.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 229.71

Fine Grading 08/12/2013- 3.16 29.09 14.85 0.02 10.97 1.29 12.26 2.30 1.19 3.49 4,062.29 09/10/2013 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.91 0.00 10.91 2.28 0.00 2.28 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.55 20.56 11.10 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.91 0.91 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.58 8.48 2.85 0.02 0.06 0.30 0.36 0.02 0.28 0.30 1,712.88

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Time Slice 9/2/2013-9/10/2013 3.16 29.09 14.85 0.02 10.97 1.29 12.26 2.30 1.19 3.49 4,062.29 Active Days: 7 Fine Grading 08/12/2013- 3.16 29.09 14.85 0.02 10.97 1.29 12.26 2.30 1.19 3.49 4,062.29 09/10/2013 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.91 0.00 10.91 2.28 0.00 2.28 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.55 20.56 11.10 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.91 0.91 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.58 8.48 2.85 0.02 0.06 0.30 0.36 0.02 0.28 0.30 1,712.88

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Construction Related Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 8/12/2013 - 9/10/2013 - Phase 1 For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% Page: 11 1/27/2011 1:54:27 PM For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 5/14/2012 - 6/7/2012 - Phase 1 For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 1/20/2013 - 2/22/2013 - Phase 1 For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% Page: 1 1/27/2011 1:54:50 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: H:\pdata\40100419\Admin\reports\AQ_GHG\Models\URBEMIS\Albright_Phase1.urb924 Project Name: Albright Way Construction Phase1 Project Location: Bay Area Air District On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007

Summary Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 CO2 Exhaust 2012 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 4.82 53.85 22.98 0.05 175.60 2.22 177.82 36.70 2.04 38.74 8,051.45

2012 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) 4.82 53.85 22.98 0.05 27.85 2.22 30.07 5.84 2.04 7.88 8,051.45

2013 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 85.52 45.34 28.84 0.02 69.28 2.63 71.91 14.48 2.41 16.89 5,867.44

2013 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) 52.57 45.34 28.84 0.02 10.99 2.63 13.61 2.31 2.41 4.72 5,867.44

Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 Page: 2 1/27/2011 1:54:50 PM

Time Slice 4/2/2012-5/11/2012 1.30 11.19 6.92 0.01 5.91 0.65 6.57 1.23 0.60 1.84 1,585.17 Active Days: 30 Demolition 04/02/2012- 1.30 11.19 6.92 0.01 5.91 0.65 6.57 1.23 0.60 1.84 1,585.17 05/11/2012 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.88 0.00 5.88 1.22 0.00 1.22 0.00

Demo Off Road Diesel 0.98 6.77 4.49 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.49 0.00 0.45 0.45 700.30

Demo On Road Diesel 0.29 4.37 1.44 0.01 0.03 0.16 0.18 0.01 0.14 0.15 782.84

Demo Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.04

Time Slice 5/14/2012-6/7/2012 4.82 53.85 22.98 0.05 175.60 2.22 177.82 36.70 2.04 38.74 8,051.45 Active Days: 19 Mass Grading 05/14/2012- 4.82 53.85 22.98 0.05 175.60 2.22 177.82 36.70 2.04 38.74 8,051.45 06/07/2012 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 175.40 0.00 175.40 36.63 0.00 36.63 0.00

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 2.69 21.95 11.51 0.00 0.00 1.07 1.07 0.00 0.99 0.99 2,247.32

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 2.10 31.85 10.48 0.05 0.20 1.14 1.34 0.07 1.05 1.12 5,702.10

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.04

Time Slice 6/8/2012-7/27/2012 1.84 15.30 9.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.74 0.00 0.68 0.68 1,816.67 Active Days: 36 Trenching 06/08/2012-07/27/2012 1.84 15.30 9.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.74 0.00 0.68 0.68 1,816.67

Trenching Off Road Diesel 1.80 15.24 8.01 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.73 0.00 0.67 0.67 1,714.64

Trenching Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.04

Time Slice 7/30/2012-12/31/2012 3.39 15.81 17.40 0.01 0.04 1.08 1.12 0.01 0.99 1.00 2,435.68 Active Days: 111 Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 3.39 15.81 17.40 0.01 0.04 1.08 1.12 0.01 0.99 1.00 2,435.68

Building Off Road Diesel 3.14 14.81 10.52 0.00 0.00 1.04 1.04 0.00 0.95 0.95 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.65 0.57 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.46

Building Worker Trips 0.20 0.35 6.32 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.03 Page: 3 1/27/2011 1:54:50 PM

Time Slice 1/1/2013-1/18/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06 Active Days: 14 Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06

Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.57 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.47

Building Worker Trips 0.18 0.31 5.82 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.39

Time Slice 1/21/2013-2/22/2013 85.52 14.84 17.43 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.02 0.89 0.91 2,534.22 Active Days: 25 Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06

Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.57 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.47

Building Worker Trips 0.18 0.31 5.82 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.39

Coating 01/20/2013-02/22/2013 82.42 0.05 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.17

Architectural Coating 82.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.17

Time Slice 2/25/2013-7/25/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06 Active Days: 109 Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06

Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.57 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.47

Building Worker Trips 0.18 0.31 5.82 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.39 Page: 4 1/27/2011 1:54:50 PM

Time Slice 7/26/2013-8/9/2013 6.05 31.05 28.84 0.01 0.05 2.30 2.36 0.02 2.12 2.14 4,241.20 Active Days: 11 Asphalt 07/26/2013-08/31/2013 2.95 16.25 12.29 0.00 0.02 1.33 1.35 0.01 1.23 1.23 1,805.14

Paving Off-Gas 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paving Off Road Diesel 2.48 15.36 9.98 0.00 0.00 1.30 1.30 0.00 1.20 1.20 1,418.44

Paving On Road Diesel 0.05 0.78 0.26 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 156.99

Paving Worker Trips 0.06 0.11 2.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 229.71

Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06

Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.57 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.47

Building Worker Trips 0.18 0.31 5.82 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.39

Time Slice 8/12/2013-8/30/2013 6.11 45.34 27.14 0.02 69.28 2.63 71.91 14.48 2.41 16.89 5,867.44 Active Days: 15 Asphalt 07/26/2013-08/31/2013 2.95 16.25 12.29 0.00 0.02 1.33 1.35 0.01 1.23 1.23 1,805.14

Paving Off-Gas 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paving Off Road Diesel 2.48 15.36 9.98 0.00 0.00 1.30 1.30 0.00 1.20 1.20 1,418.44

Paving On Road Diesel 0.05 0.78 0.26 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 156.99

Paving Worker Trips 0.06 0.11 2.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 229.71

Fine Grading 08/12/2013- 3.16 29.09 14.85 0.02 69.26 1.29 70.56 14.47 1.19 15.66 4,062.29 09/10/2013 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 69.20 0.00 69.20 14.45 0.00 14.45 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.55 20.56 11.10 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.91 0.91 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.58 8.48 2.85 0.02 0.06 0.30 0.36 0.02 0.28 0.30 1,712.88

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09 Page: 5 1/27/2011 1:54:50 PM

Time Slice 9/2/2013-9/10/2013 3.16 29.09 14.85 0.02 69.26 1.29 70.56 14.47 1.19 15.66 4,062.29 Active Days: 7 Fine Grading 08/12/2013- 3.16 29.09 14.85 0.02 69.26 1.29 70.56 14.47 1.19 15.66 4,062.29 09/10/2013 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 69.20 0.00 69.20 14.45 0.00 14.45 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.55 20.56 11.10 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.91 0.91 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.58 8.48 2.85 0.02 0.06 0.30 0.36 0.02 0.28 0.30 1,712.88

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Phase Assumptions

Phase: Demolition 4/2/2012 - 5/11/2012 - Phase 1 Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 400000 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 14000 On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 194.44 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day

Phase: Fine Grading 8/12/2013 - 9/10/2013 - Phase 1 Total Acres Disturbed: 8.46 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low Onsite Cut/Fill: 450 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 425.45 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Page: 6 1/27/2011 1:54:50 PM

Phase: Mass Grading 5/14/2012 - 6/7/2012 - Phase 1 Total Acres Disturbed: 8.46 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low Onsite Cut/Fill: 1350 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1416.32 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Trenching 6/8/2012 - 7/27/2012 - Phase 1 Off-Road Equipment: 2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day

Phase: Paving 7/26/2013 - 8/31/2013 - Phase 1 Acres to be Paved: 3.42 Off-Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day

Phase: Building Construction 7/30/2012 - 8/9/2013 - Phase 1 Off-Road Equipment: Page: 7 1/27/2011 1:54:50 PM 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Architectural Coating 1/20/2013 - 2/22/2013 - Phase 1 Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250

Construction Mitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Mitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2

Time Slice 4/2/2012-5/11/2012 1.30 11.19 6.92 0.01 5.91 0.65 6.57 1.23 0.60 1.84 1,585.17 Active Days: 30 Demolition 04/02/2012- 1.30 11.19 6.92 0.01 5.91 0.65 6.57 1.23 0.60 1.84 1,585.17 05/11/2012 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.88 0.00 5.88 1.22 0.00 1.22 0.00

Demo Off Road Diesel 0.98 6.77 4.49 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.49 0.00 0.45 0.45 700.30

Demo On Road Diesel 0.29 4.37 1.44 0.01 0.03 0.16 0.18 0.01 0.14 0.15 782.84

Demo Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.04 Page: 8 1/27/2011 1:54:50 PM

Time Slice 5/14/2012-6/7/2012 4.82 53.85 22.98 0.05 27.85 2.22 30.07 5.84 2.04 7.88 8,051.45 Active Days: 19 Mass Grading 05/14/2012- 4.82 53.85 22.98 0.05 27.85 2.22 30.07 5.84 2.04 7.88 8,051.45 06/07/2012 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.65 0.00 27.65 5.77 0.00 5.77 0.00

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 2.69 21.95 11.51 0.00 0.00 1.07 1.07 0.00 0.99 0.99 2,247.32

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 2.10 31.85 10.48 0.05 0.20 1.14 1.34 0.07 1.05 1.12 5,702.10

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.04

Time Slice 6/8/2012-7/27/2012 1.84 15.30 9.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.74 0.00 0.68 0.68 1,816.67 Active Days: 36 Trenching 06/08/2012-07/27/2012 1.84 15.30 9.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.74 0.00 0.68 0.68 1,816.67

Trenching Off Road Diesel 1.80 15.24 8.01 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.73 0.00 0.67 0.67 1,714.64

Trenching Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.04

Time Slice 7/30/2012-12/31/2012 3.39 15.81 17.40 0.01 0.04 1.08 1.12 0.01 0.99 1.00 2,435.68 Active Days: 111 Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 3.39 15.81 17.40 0.01 0.04 1.08 1.12 0.01 0.99 1.00 2,435.68

Building Off Road Diesel 3.14 14.81 10.52 0.00 0.00 1.04 1.04 0.00 0.95 0.95 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.65 0.57 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.46

Building Worker Trips 0.20 0.35 6.32 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.03

Time Slice 1/1/2013-1/18/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06 Active Days: 14 Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06

Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.57 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.47

Building Worker Trips 0.18 0.31 5.82 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.39 Page: 9 1/27/2011 1:54:50 PM

Time Slice 1/21/2013-2/22/2013 52.57 14.84 17.43 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.02 0.89 0.91 2,534.22 Active Days: 25 Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06

Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.57 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.47

Building Worker Trips 0.18 0.31 5.82 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.39

Coating 01/20/2013-02/22/2013 49.46 0.05 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.17

Architectural Coating 49.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.17

Time Slice 2/25/2013-7/25/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06 Active Days: 109 Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06

Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.57 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.47

Building Worker Trips 0.18 0.31 5.82 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.39

Time Slice 7/26/2013-8/9/2013 6.05 31.05 28.84 0.01 0.05 2.30 2.36 0.02 2.12 2.14 4,241.20 Active Days: 11 Asphalt 07/26/2013-08/31/2013 2.95 16.25 12.29 0.00 0.02 1.33 1.35 0.01 1.23 1.23 1,805.14

Paving Off-Gas 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paving Off Road Diesel 2.48 15.36 9.98 0.00 0.00 1.30 1.30 0.00 1.20 1.20 1,418.44

Paving On Road Diesel 0.05 0.78 0.26 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 156.99

Paving Worker Trips 0.06 0.11 2.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 229.71

Building 07/30/2012-08/09/2013 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06

Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.57 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.47

Building Worker Trips 0.18 0.31 5.82 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.39 Page: 10 1/27/2011 1:54:50 PM

Time Slice 8/12/2013-8/30/2013 6.11 45.34 27.14 0.02 10.99 2.63 13.61 2.31 2.41 4.72 5,867.44 Active Days: 15 Asphalt 07/26/2013-08/31/2013 2.95 16.25 12.29 0.00 0.02 1.33 1.35 0.01 1.23 1.23 1,805.14

Paving Off-Gas 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paving Off Road Diesel 2.48 15.36 9.98 0.00 0.00 1.30 1.30 0.00 1.20 1.20 1,418.44

Paving On Road Diesel 0.05 0.78 0.26 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 156.99

Paving Worker Trips 0.06 0.11 2.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 229.71

Fine Grading 08/12/2013- 3.16 29.09 14.85 0.02 10.97 1.29 12.26 2.30 1.19 3.49 4,062.29 09/10/2013 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.91 0.00 10.91 2.28 0.00 2.28 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.55 20.56 11.10 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.91 0.91 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.58 8.48 2.85 0.02 0.06 0.30 0.36 0.02 0.28 0.30 1,712.88

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Time Slice 9/2/2013-9/10/2013 3.16 29.09 14.85 0.02 10.97 1.29 12.26 2.30 1.19 3.49 4,062.29 Active Days: 7 Fine Grading 08/12/2013- 3.16 29.09 14.85 0.02 10.97 1.29 12.26 2.30 1.19 3.49 4,062.29 09/10/2013 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.91 0.00 10.91 2.28 0.00 2.28 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.55 20.56 11.10 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.91 0.91 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.58 8.48 2.85 0.02 0.06 0.30 0.36 0.02 0.28 0.30 1,712.88

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Construction Related Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 8/12/2013 - 9/10/2013 - Phase 1 For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% Page: 11 1/27/2011 1:54:50 PM For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 5/14/2012 - 6/7/2012 - Phase 1 For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 1/20/2013 - 2/22/2013 - Phase 1 For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% Page: 1 1/27/2011 1:40:43 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year) File Name: H:\pdata\40100419\Admin\reports\AQ_GHG\Models\Albright_Phase2.urb924 Project Name: Albright Way Construction Phase 2 Project Location: Bay Area Air District On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007

Summary Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 CO2 Exhaust 2013 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 0.11 1.03 0.55 0.00 3.17 0.05 3.21 0.66 0.04 0.70 161.54

2013 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 0.11 1.03 0.55 0.00 0.54 0.05 0.59 0.11 0.04 0.16 161.54

Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 82.98 0.00 81.78 82.93 0.00 77.92 0.00

2014 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 1.44 1.86 2.06 0.00 0.37 0.11 0.49 0.08 0.10 0.18 328.47

2014 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 1.01 1.86 2.06 0.00 0.06 0.11 0.18 0.01 0.10 0.12 328.47

Percent Reduction 29.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.06 0.00 63.66 82.24 0.00 35.36 0.00

Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 Page: 2 1/27/2011 1:40:43 PM

2013 0.11 1.03 0.55 0.00 3.17 0.05 3.21 0.66 0.04 0.70 161.54

Demolition 09/25/2013- 0.01 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.01 11.89 10/15/2013 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Demo Off Road Diesel 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.25

Demo On Road Diesel 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.87

Demo Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.77

Mass Grading 10/16/2013- 0.05 0.56 0.24 0.00 2.71 0.02 2.73 0.57 0.02 0.59 93.56 11/13/2013 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.71 0.00 2.71 0.57 0.00 0.57 0.00

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 0.03 0.22 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 23.60

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.02 0.34 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 68.89

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.07

Trenching 11/14/2013-12/19/2013 0.02 0.18 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 23.62

Trenching Off Road Diesel 0.02 0.18 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 22.29

Trenching Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.33

Fine Grading 12/19/2013- 0.02 0.15 0.07 0.00 0.41 0.01 0.42 0.09 0.01 0.09 22.73 01/12/2014 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.41 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 0.01 0.09 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.11

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.16

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.46

Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 0.01 0.06 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.74

Building Off Road Diesel 0.01 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.48

Building Vendor Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.65

Building Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.61 Page: 3 1/27/2011 1:40:43 PM

2014 1.44 1.86 2.06 0.00 0.37 0.11 0.49 0.08 0.10 0.18 328.47

Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 0.36 1.74 1.98 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.10 0.10 306.99

Building Off Road Diesel 0.33 1.63 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.10 204.27

Building Vendor Trips 0.01 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.35

Building Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 82.37

Fine Grading 12/19/2013- 0.01 0.12 0.06 0.00 0.37 0.01 0.37 0.08 0.00 0.08 20.20 01/12/2014 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.37 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 0.01 0.08 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.99

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.81

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41

Coating 11/14/2014-12/19/2014 1.07 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.28

Architectural Coating 1.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.28

Phase Assumptions Phase: Demolition 9/25/2013 - 10/15/2013 - Phase 2 Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 175000 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 14000 On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 194.44 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day

Phase: Fine Grading 12/19/2013 - 1/12/2014 - Phase 2 Total Acres Disturbed: 4.59 Page: 4 1/27/2011 1:40:43 PM Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.15 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low Onsite Cut/Fill: 682 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 671.03 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Mass Grading 10/16/2013 - 11/13/2013 - Phase 2 Total Acres Disturbed: 16.21 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low Onsite Cut/Fill: 2048 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1629.64 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Trenching 11/14/2013 - 12/19/2013 - Phase 2 Off-Road Equipment: 2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day

Phase: Building Construction 12/20/2013 - 12/18/2014 - Phase 2 Off-Road Equipment: Page: 5 1/27/2011 1:40:43 PM 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Architectural Coating 11/14/2014 - 12/19/2014 - Phase 2 Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250

Construction Mitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Mitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2

2013 0.11 1.03 0.55 0.00 0.54 0.05 0.59 0.11 0.04 0.16 161.54

Demolition 09/25/2013- 0.01 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.01 11.89 10/15/2013 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Demo Off Road Diesel 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.25

Demo On Road Diesel 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.87

Demo Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.77 Page: 6 1/27/2011 1:40:43 PM

Mass Grading 10/16/2013- 0.05 0.56 0.24 0.00 0.43 0.02 0.45 0.09 0.02 0.11 93.56 11/13/2013 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.43 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.00

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 0.03 0.22 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 23.60

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.02 0.34 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 68.89

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.07

Trenching 11/14/2013-12/19/2013 0.02 0.18 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 23.62

Trenching Off Road Diesel 0.02 0.18 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 22.29

Trenching Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.33

Fine Grading 12/19/2013- 0.02 0.15 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.02 22.73 01/12/2014 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 0.01 0.09 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.11

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.16

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.46

Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 0.01 0.06 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.74

Building Off Road Diesel 0.01 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.48

Building Vendor Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.65

Building Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.61 Page: 7 1/27/2011 1:40:43 PM

2014 1.01 1.86 2.06 0.00 0.06 0.11 0.18 0.01 0.10 0.12 328.47

Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 0.36 1.74 1.98 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.10 0.10 306.99

Building Off Road Diesel 0.33 1.63 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.10 204.27

Building Vendor Trips 0.01 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.35

Building Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 82.37

Fine Grading 12/19/2013- 0.01 0.12 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.02 20.20 01/12/2014 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 0.01 0.08 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.99

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.81

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41

Coating 11/14/2014-12/19/2014 0.64 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.28

Architectural Coating 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.28

Construction Related Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 12/19/2013 - 1/12/2014 - Phase 2 For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% Page: 8 1/27/2011 1:40:43 PM The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 10/16/2013 - 11/13/2013 - Phase 2 For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 11/14/2014 - 12/19/2014 - Phase 2 For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% Page: 1 1/27/2011 1:40:20 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: H:\pdata\40100419\Admin\reports\AQ_GHG\Models\Albright_Phase2.urb924 Project Name: Albright Way Construction Phase 2 Project Location: Bay Area Air District On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007

Summary Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 CO2 Exhaust 2013 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 6.60 53.10 33.05 0.06 258.00 2.43 260.15 53.91 2.24 55.88 8,910.37

2013 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) 6.60 53.10 33.05 0.06 40.86 2.43 43.01 8.56 2.24 10.54 8,910.37

2014 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 85.26 44.73 31.38 0.03 92.11 2.17 94.28 19.25 1.99 21.25 7,487.43

2014 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) 52.30 44.73 31.38 0.03 14.63 2.17 16.80 3.07 1.99 5.07 7,487.43

Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 Page: 2 1/27/2011 1:40:20 PM

Time Slice 9/25/2013-10/15/2013 1.21 10.27 6.61 0.01 5.91 0.58 6.49 1.23 0.54 1.77 1,585.23 Active Days: 15 Demolition 09/25/2013- 1.21 10.27 6.61 0.01 5.91 0.58 6.49 1.23 0.54 1.77 1,585.23 10/15/2013 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.88 0.00 5.88 1.22 0.00 1.22 0.00

Demo Off Road Diesel 0.91 6.35 4.40 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.00 0.41 0.41 700.30

Demo On Road Diesel 0.27 3.88 1.30 0.01 0.03 0.14 0.17 0.01 0.13 0.14 782.84

Demo Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Time Slice 10/16/2013-11/13/2013 4.80 53.10 22.91 0.06 258.00 2.15 260.15 53.91 1.98 55.88 8,910.37 Active Days: 21 Mass Grading 10/16/2013- 4.80 53.10 22.91 0.06 258.00 2.15 260.15 53.91 1.98 55.88 8,910.37 11/13/2013 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 257.76 0.00 257.76 53.83 0.00 53.83 0.00

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 2.55 20.56 11.10 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.91 0.91 2,247.32

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 2.22 32.49 10.90 0.06 0.23 1.16 1.39 0.08 1.07 1.14 6,560.96

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Time Slice 11/14/2013-12/18/2013 1.74 14.17 8.88 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.63 0.63 1,816.73 Active Days: 25 Trenching 11/14/2013-12/19/2013 1.74 14.17 8.88 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.63 0.63 1,816.73

Trenching Off Road Diesel 1.72 14.12 7.97 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.62 0.62 1,714.64

Trenching Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09 Page: 3 1/27/2011 1:40:20 PM

Time Slice 12/19/2013-12/19/2013 5.24 48.16 25.37 0.03 92.08 2.15 94.23 19.24 1.97 21.22 6,867.71 Active Days: 1 Fine Grading 12/19/2013- 3.49 33.99 16.50 0.03 92.08 1.47 93.54 19.24 1.35 20.59 5,050.98 01/12/2014 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 91.98 0.00 91.98 19.21 0.00 19.21 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.55 20.56 11.10 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.91 0.91 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.91 13.38 4.49 0.03 0.09 0.48 0.57 0.03 0.44 0.47 2,701.57

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Trenching 11/14/2013-12/19/2013 1.74 14.17 8.88 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.63 0.63 1,816.73

Trenching Off Road Diesel 1.72 14.12 7.97 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.62 0.62 1,714.64

Trenching Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Time Slice 12/20/2013-12/31/2013 6.60 48.78 33.05 0.03 92.11 2.43 94.55 19.25 2.24 21.49 7,487.04 Active Days: 8 Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06

Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.57 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.47

Building Worker Trips 0.18 0.31 5.82 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.39

Fine Grading 12/19/2013- 3.49 33.99 16.50 0.03 92.08 1.47 93.54 19.24 1.35 20.59 5,050.98 01/12/2014 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 91.98 0.00 91.98 19.21 0.00 19.21 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.55 20.56 11.10 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.91 0.91 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.91 13.38 4.49 0.03 0.09 0.48 0.57 0.03 0.44 0.47 2,701.57

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09 Page: 4 1/27/2011 1:40:20 PM

Time Slice 1/1/2014-1/10/2014 6.12 44.73 31.38 0.03 92.11 2.17 94.28 19.25 1.99 21.25 7,487.43 Active Days: 8 Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 2.84 13.77 15.75 0.01 0.04 0.86 0.90 0.01 0.79 0.80 2,436.40

Building Off Road Diesel 2.63 12.97 9.89 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.76 0.76 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.51 0.50 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.48

Building Worker Trips 0.16 0.29 5.36 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.72

Fine Grading 12/19/2013- 3.28 30.96 15.63 0.03 92.08 1.31 93.38 19.24 1.20 20.44 5,051.03 01/12/2014 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 91.98 0.00 91.98 19.21 0.00 19.21 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.41 19.08 10.74 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.89 0.00 0.82 0.82 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.84 11.84 4.06 0.03 0.09 0.42 0.51 0.03 0.39 0.42 2,701.57

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.04 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.14

Time Slice 1/13/2014-11/13/2014 2.84 13.77 15.75 0.01 0.04 0.86 0.90 0.01 0.79 0.80 2,436.40 Active Days: 219 Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 2.84 13.77 15.75 0.01 0.04 0.86 0.90 0.01 0.79 0.80 2,436.40

Building Off Road Diesel 2.63 12.97 9.89 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.76 0.76 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.51 0.50 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.48

Building Worker Trips 0.16 0.29 5.36 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.72

Time Slice 11/14/2014-12/18/2014 85.26 13.81 16.55 0.01 0.04 0.86 0.91 0.02 0.79 0.81 2,534.61 Active Days: 25 Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 2.84 13.77 15.75 0.01 0.04 0.86 0.90 0.01 0.79 0.80 2,436.40

Building Off Road Diesel 2.63 12.97 9.89 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.76 0.76 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.51 0.50 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.48

Building Worker Trips 0.16 0.29 5.36 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.72

Coating 11/14/2014-12/19/2014 82.41 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.22

Architectural Coating 82.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.22 Page: 5 1/27/2011 1:40:20 PM

Time Slice 12/19/2014-12/19/2014 82.41 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.22 Active Days: 1 Coating 11/14/2014-12/19/2014 82.41 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.22

Architectural Coating 82.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.22

Phase Assumptions

Phase: Demolition 9/25/2013 - 10/15/2013 - Phase 2 Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 175000 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 14000 On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 194.44 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day

Phase: Fine Grading 12/19/2013 - 1/12/2014 - Phase 2 Total Acres Disturbed: 4.59 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.15 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low Onsite Cut/Fill: 682 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 671.03 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Mass Grading 10/16/2013 - 11/13/2013 - Phase 2 Page: 6 1/27/2011 1:40:20 PM Total Acres Disturbed: 16.21 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low Onsite Cut/Fill: 2048 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1629.64 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Trenching 11/14/2013 - 12/19/2013 - Phase 2 Off-Road Equipment: 2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day

Phase: Building Construction 12/20/2013 - 12/18/2014 - Phase 2 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Architectural Coating 11/14/2014 - 12/19/2014 - Phase 2 Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Page: 7 1/27/2011 1:40:20 PM

Construction Mitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2

Time Slice 9/25/2013-10/15/2013 1.21 10.27 6.61 0.01 5.91 0.58 6.49 1.23 0.54 1.77 1,585.23 Active Days: 15 Demolition 09/25/2013- 1.21 10.27 6.61 0.01 5.91 0.58 6.49 1.23 0.54 1.77 1,585.23 10/15/2013 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.88 0.00 5.88 1.22 0.00 1.22 0.00

Demo Off Road Diesel 0.91 6.35 4.40 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.00 0.41 0.41 700.30

Demo On Road Diesel 0.27 3.88 1.30 0.01 0.03 0.14 0.17 0.01 0.13 0.14 782.84

Demo Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Time Slice 10/16/2013-11/13/2013 4.80 53.10 22.91 0.06 40.86 2.15 43.01 8.56 1.98 10.54 8,910.37 Active Days: 21 Mass Grading 10/16/2013- 4.80 53.10 22.91 0.06 40.86 2.15 43.01 8.56 1.98 10.54 8,910.37 11/13/2013 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.63 0.00 40.63 8.48 0.00 8.48 0.00

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 2.55 20.56 11.10 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.91 0.91 2,247.32

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 2.22 32.49 10.90 0.06 0.23 1.16 1.39 0.08 1.07 1.14 6,560.96

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Time Slice 11/14/2013-12/18/2013 1.74 14.17 8.88 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.63 0.63 1,816.73 Active Days: 25 Trenching 11/14/2013-12/19/2013 1.74 14.17 8.88 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.63 0.63 1,816.73

Trenching Off Road Diesel 1.72 14.12 7.97 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.62 0.62 1,714.64

Trenching Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09 Page: 8 1/27/2011 1:40:20 PM

Time Slice 12/19/2013-12/19/2013 5.24 48.16 25.37 0.03 14.60 2.15 16.75 3.06 1.97 5.04 6,867.71 Active Days: 1 Fine Grading 12/19/2013- 3.49 33.99 16.50 0.03 14.60 1.47 16.06 3.06 1.35 4.41 5,050.98 01/12/2014 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.50 0.00 14.50 3.03 0.00 3.03 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.55 20.56 11.10 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.91 0.91 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.91 13.38 4.49 0.03 0.09 0.48 0.57 0.03 0.44 0.47 2,701.57

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Trenching 11/14/2013-12/19/2013 1.74 14.17 8.88 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.63 0.63 1,816.73

Trenching Off Road Diesel 1.72 14.12 7.97 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.62 0.62 1,714.64

Trenching Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Time Slice 12/20/2013-12/31/2013 6.60 48.78 33.05 0.03 14.63 2.43 17.07 3.07 2.24 5.31 7,487.04 Active Days: 8 Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06

Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.57 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.47

Building Worker Trips 0.18 0.31 5.82 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.39

Fine Grading 12/19/2013- 3.49 33.99 16.50 0.03 14.60 1.47 16.06 3.06 1.35 4.41 5,050.98 01/12/2014 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.50 0.00 14.50 3.03 0.00 3.03 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.55 20.56 11.10 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.91 0.91 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.91 13.38 4.49 0.03 0.09 0.48 0.57 0.03 0.44 0.47 2,701.57

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09 Page: 9 1/27/2011 1:40:20 PM

Time Slice 1/1/2014-1/10/2014 6.12 44.73 31.38 0.03 14.63 2.17 16.80 3.07 1.99 5.07 7,487.43 Active Days: 8 Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 2.84 13.77 15.75 0.01 0.04 0.86 0.90 0.01 0.79 0.80 2,436.40

Building Off Road Diesel 2.63 12.97 9.89 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.76 0.76 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.51 0.50 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.48

Building Worker Trips 0.16 0.29 5.36 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.72

Fine Grading 12/19/2013- 3.28 30.96 15.63 0.03 14.60 1.31 15.90 3.06 1.20 4.26 5,051.03 01/12/2014 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.50 0.00 14.50 3.03 0.00 3.03 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.41 19.08 10.74 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.89 0.00 0.82 0.82 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.84 11.84 4.06 0.03 0.09 0.42 0.51 0.03 0.39 0.42 2,701.57

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.04 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.14

Time Slice 1/13/2014-11/13/2014 2.84 13.77 15.75 0.01 0.04 0.86 0.90 0.01 0.79 0.80 2,436.40 Active Days: 219 Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 2.84 13.77 15.75 0.01 0.04 0.86 0.90 0.01 0.79 0.80 2,436.40

Building Off Road Diesel 2.63 12.97 9.89 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.76 0.76 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.51 0.50 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.48

Building Worker Trips 0.16 0.29 5.36 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.72

Time Slice 11/14/2014-12/18/2014 52.30 13.81 16.55 0.01 0.04 0.86 0.91 0.02 0.79 0.81 2,534.61 Active Days: 25 Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 2.84 13.77 15.75 0.01 0.04 0.86 0.90 0.01 0.79 0.80 2,436.40

Building Off Road Diesel 2.63 12.97 9.89 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.76 0.76 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.51 0.50 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.48

Building Worker Trips 0.16 0.29 5.36 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.72

Coating 11/14/2014-12/19/2014 49.46 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.22

Architectural Coating 49.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.22 Page: 10 1/27/2011 1:40:20 PM

Time Slice 12/19/2014-12/19/2014 49.46 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.22 Active Days: 1 Coating 11/14/2014-12/19/2014 49.46 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.22

Architectural Coating 49.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.22

Construction Related Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 12/19/2013 - 1/12/2014 - Phase 2 For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 10/16/2013 - 11/13/2013 - Phase 2 For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% Page: 11 1/27/2011 1:40:20 PM The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 11/14/2014 - 12/19/2014 - Phase 2 For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% Page: 1 1/27/2011 1:40:33 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: H:\pdata\40100419\Admin\reports\AQ_GHG\Models\Albright_Phase2.urb924 Project Name: Albright Way Construction Phase 2 Project Location: Bay Area Air District On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007

Summary Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 CO2 Exhaust 2013 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 6.60 53.10 33.05 0.06 258.00 2.43 260.15 53.91 2.24 55.88 8,910.37

2013 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) 6.60 53.10 33.05 0.06 40.86 2.43 43.01 8.56 2.24 10.54 8,910.37

2014 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 85.26 44.73 31.38 0.03 92.11 2.17 94.28 19.25 1.99 21.25 7,487.43

2014 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) 52.30 44.73 31.38 0.03 14.63 2.17 16.80 3.07 1.99 5.07 7,487.43

Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 Page: 2 1/27/2011 1:40:33 PM

Time Slice 9/25/2013-10/15/2013 1.21 10.27 6.61 0.01 5.91 0.58 6.49 1.23 0.54 1.77 1,585.23 Active Days: 15 Demolition 09/25/2013- 1.21 10.27 6.61 0.01 5.91 0.58 6.49 1.23 0.54 1.77 1,585.23 10/15/2013 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.88 0.00 5.88 1.22 0.00 1.22 0.00

Demo Off Road Diesel 0.91 6.35 4.40 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.00 0.41 0.41 700.30

Demo On Road Diesel 0.27 3.88 1.30 0.01 0.03 0.14 0.17 0.01 0.13 0.14 782.84

Demo Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Time Slice 10/16/2013-11/13/2013 4.80 53.10 22.91 0.06 258.00 2.15 260.15 53.91 1.98 55.88 8,910.37 Active Days: 21 Mass Grading 10/16/2013- 4.80 53.10 22.91 0.06 258.00 2.15 260.15 53.91 1.98 55.88 8,910.37 11/13/2013 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 257.76 0.00 257.76 53.83 0.00 53.83 0.00

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 2.55 20.56 11.10 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.91 0.91 2,247.32

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 2.22 32.49 10.90 0.06 0.23 1.16 1.39 0.08 1.07 1.14 6,560.96

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Time Slice 11/14/2013-12/18/2013 1.74 14.17 8.88 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.63 0.63 1,816.73 Active Days: 25 Trenching 11/14/2013-12/19/2013 1.74 14.17 8.88 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.63 0.63 1,816.73

Trenching Off Road Diesel 1.72 14.12 7.97 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.62 0.62 1,714.64

Trenching Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09 Page: 3 1/27/2011 1:40:33 PM

Time Slice 12/19/2013-12/19/2013 5.24 48.16 25.37 0.03 92.08 2.15 94.23 19.24 1.97 21.22 6,867.71 Active Days: 1 Fine Grading 12/19/2013- 3.49 33.99 16.50 0.03 92.08 1.47 93.54 19.24 1.35 20.59 5,050.98 01/12/2014 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 91.98 0.00 91.98 19.21 0.00 19.21 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.55 20.56 11.10 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.91 0.91 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.91 13.38 4.49 0.03 0.09 0.48 0.57 0.03 0.44 0.47 2,701.57

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Trenching 11/14/2013-12/19/2013 1.74 14.17 8.88 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.63 0.63 1,816.73

Trenching Off Road Diesel 1.72 14.12 7.97 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.62 0.62 1,714.64

Trenching Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Time Slice 12/20/2013-12/31/2013 6.60 48.78 33.05 0.03 92.11 2.43 94.55 19.25 2.24 21.49 7,487.04 Active Days: 8 Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06

Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.57 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.47

Building Worker Trips 0.18 0.31 5.82 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.39

Fine Grading 12/19/2013- 3.49 33.99 16.50 0.03 92.08 1.47 93.54 19.24 1.35 20.59 5,050.98 01/12/2014 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 91.98 0.00 91.98 19.21 0.00 19.21 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.55 20.56 11.10 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.91 0.91 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.91 13.38 4.49 0.03 0.09 0.48 0.57 0.03 0.44 0.47 2,701.57

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09 Page: 4 1/27/2011 1:40:33 PM

Time Slice 1/1/2014-1/10/2014 6.12 44.73 31.38 0.03 92.11 2.17 94.28 19.25 1.99 21.25 7,487.43 Active Days: 8 Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 2.84 13.77 15.75 0.01 0.04 0.86 0.90 0.01 0.79 0.80 2,436.40

Building Off Road Diesel 2.63 12.97 9.89 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.76 0.76 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.51 0.50 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.48

Building Worker Trips 0.16 0.29 5.36 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.72

Fine Grading 12/19/2013- 3.28 30.96 15.63 0.03 92.08 1.31 93.38 19.24 1.20 20.44 5,051.03 01/12/2014 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 91.98 0.00 91.98 19.21 0.00 19.21 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.41 19.08 10.74 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.89 0.00 0.82 0.82 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.84 11.84 4.06 0.03 0.09 0.42 0.51 0.03 0.39 0.42 2,701.57

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.04 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.14

Time Slice 1/13/2014-11/13/2014 2.84 13.77 15.75 0.01 0.04 0.86 0.90 0.01 0.79 0.80 2,436.40 Active Days: 219 Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 2.84 13.77 15.75 0.01 0.04 0.86 0.90 0.01 0.79 0.80 2,436.40

Building Off Road Diesel 2.63 12.97 9.89 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.76 0.76 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.51 0.50 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.48

Building Worker Trips 0.16 0.29 5.36 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.72

Time Slice 11/14/2014-12/18/2014 85.26 13.81 16.55 0.01 0.04 0.86 0.91 0.02 0.79 0.81 2,534.61 Active Days: 25 Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 2.84 13.77 15.75 0.01 0.04 0.86 0.90 0.01 0.79 0.80 2,436.40

Building Off Road Diesel 2.63 12.97 9.89 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.76 0.76 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.51 0.50 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.48

Building Worker Trips 0.16 0.29 5.36 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.72

Coating 11/14/2014-12/19/2014 82.41 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.22

Architectural Coating 82.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.22 Page: 5 1/27/2011 1:40:33 PM

Time Slice 12/19/2014-12/19/2014 82.41 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.22 Active Days: 1 Coating 11/14/2014-12/19/2014 82.41 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.22

Architectural Coating 82.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.22

Phase Assumptions

Phase: Demolition 9/25/2013 - 10/15/2013 - Phase 2 Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 175000 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 14000 On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 194.44 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day

Phase: Fine Grading 12/19/2013 - 1/12/2014 - Phase 2 Total Acres Disturbed: 4.59 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.15 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low Onsite Cut/Fill: 682 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 671.03 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Mass Grading 10/16/2013 - 11/13/2013 - Phase 2 Page: 6 1/27/2011 1:40:33 PM Total Acres Disturbed: 16.21 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low Onsite Cut/Fill: 2048 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1629.64 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Trenching 11/14/2013 - 12/19/2013 - Phase 2 Off-Road Equipment: 2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day

Phase: Building Construction 12/20/2013 - 12/18/2014 - Phase 2 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Architectural Coating 11/14/2014 - 12/19/2014 - Phase 2 Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Page: 7 1/27/2011 1:40:33 PM

Construction Mitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Mitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2

Time Slice 9/25/2013-10/15/2013 1.21 10.27 6.61 0.01 5.91 0.58 6.49 1.23 0.54 1.77 1,585.23 Active Days: 15 Demolition 09/25/2013- 1.21 10.27 6.61 0.01 5.91 0.58 6.49 1.23 0.54 1.77 1,585.23 10/15/2013 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.88 0.00 5.88 1.22 0.00 1.22 0.00

Demo Off Road Diesel 0.91 6.35 4.40 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.00 0.41 0.41 700.30

Demo On Road Diesel 0.27 3.88 1.30 0.01 0.03 0.14 0.17 0.01 0.13 0.14 782.84

Demo Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Time Slice 10/16/2013-11/13/2013 4.80 53.10 22.91 0.06 40.86 2.15 43.01 8.56 1.98 10.54 8,910.37 Active Days: 21 Mass Grading 10/16/2013- 4.80 53.10 22.91 0.06 40.86 2.15 43.01 8.56 1.98 10.54 8,910.37 11/13/2013 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.63 0.00 40.63 8.48 0.00 8.48 0.00

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 2.55 20.56 11.10 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.91 0.91 2,247.32

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 2.22 32.49 10.90 0.06 0.23 1.16 1.39 0.08 1.07 1.14 6,560.96

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Time Slice 11/14/2013-12/18/2013 1.74 14.17 8.88 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.63 0.63 1,816.73 Active Days: 25 Trenching 11/14/2013-12/19/2013 1.74 14.17 8.88 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.63 0.63 1,816.73

Trenching Off Road Diesel 1.72 14.12 7.97 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.62 0.62 1,714.64

Trenching Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09 Page: 8 1/27/2011 1:40:33 PM

Time Slice 12/19/2013-12/19/2013 5.24 48.16 25.37 0.03 14.60 2.15 16.75 3.06 1.97 5.04 6,867.71 Active Days: 1 Fine Grading 12/19/2013- 3.49 33.99 16.50 0.03 14.60 1.47 16.06 3.06 1.35 4.41 5,050.98 01/12/2014 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.50 0.00 14.50 3.03 0.00 3.03 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.55 20.56 11.10 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.91 0.91 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.91 13.38 4.49 0.03 0.09 0.48 0.57 0.03 0.44 0.47 2,701.57

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Trenching 11/14/2013-12/19/2013 1.74 14.17 8.88 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.63 0.63 1,816.73

Trenching Off Road Diesel 1.72 14.12 7.97 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.62 0.62 1,714.64

Trenching Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09

Time Slice 12/20/2013-12/31/2013 6.60 48.78 33.05 0.03 14.63 2.43 17.07 3.07 2.24 5.31 7,487.04 Active Days: 8 Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 3.10 14.79 16.56 0.01 0.04 0.97 1.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 2,436.06

Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.57 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.47

Building Worker Trips 0.18 0.31 5.82 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.39

Fine Grading 12/19/2013- 3.49 33.99 16.50 0.03 14.60 1.47 16.06 3.06 1.35 4.41 5,050.98 01/12/2014 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.50 0.00 14.50 3.03 0.00 3.03 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.55 20.56 11.10 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.91 0.91 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.91 13.38 4.49 0.03 0.09 0.48 0.57 0.03 0.44 0.47 2,701.57

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.09 Page: 9 1/27/2011 1:40:33 PM

Time Slice 1/1/2014-1/10/2014 6.12 44.73 31.38 0.03 14.63 2.17 16.80 3.07 1.99 5.07 7,487.43 Active Days: 8 Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 2.84 13.77 15.75 0.01 0.04 0.86 0.90 0.01 0.79 0.80 2,436.40

Building Off Road Diesel 2.63 12.97 9.89 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.76 0.76 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.51 0.50 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.48

Building Worker Trips 0.16 0.29 5.36 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.72

Fine Grading 12/19/2013- 3.28 30.96 15.63 0.03 14.60 1.31 15.90 3.06 1.20 4.26 5,051.03 01/12/2014 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.50 0.00 14.50 3.03 0.00 3.03 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.41 19.08 10.74 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.89 0.00 0.82 0.82 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.84 11.84 4.06 0.03 0.09 0.42 0.51 0.03 0.39 0.42 2,701.57

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.04 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.14

Time Slice 1/13/2014-11/13/2014 2.84 13.77 15.75 0.01 0.04 0.86 0.90 0.01 0.79 0.80 2,436.40 Active Days: 219 Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 2.84 13.77 15.75 0.01 0.04 0.86 0.90 0.01 0.79 0.80 2,436.40

Building Off Road Diesel 2.63 12.97 9.89 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.76 0.76 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.51 0.50 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.48

Building Worker Trips 0.16 0.29 5.36 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.72

Time Slice 11/14/2014-12/18/2014 52.30 13.81 16.55 0.01 0.04 0.86 0.91 0.02 0.79 0.81 2,534.61 Active Days: 25 Building 12/20/2013-12/18/2014 2.84 13.77 15.75 0.01 0.04 0.86 0.90 0.01 0.79 0.80 2,436.40

Building Off Road Diesel 2.63 12.97 9.89 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.76 0.76 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.51 0.50 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.48

Building Worker Trips 0.16 0.29 5.36 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.72

Coating 11/14/2014-12/19/2014 49.46 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.22

Architectural Coating 49.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.22 Page: 10 1/27/2011 1:40:33 PM

Time Slice 12/19/2014-12/19/2014 49.46 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.22 Active Days: 1 Coating 11/14/2014-12/19/2014 49.46 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.22

Architectural Coating 49.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.22

Construction Related Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 12/19/2013 - 1/12/2014 - Phase 2 For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 10/16/2013 - 11/13/2013 - Phase 2 For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% Page: 11 1/27/2011 1:40:33 PM The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 11/14/2014 - 12/19/2014 - Phase 2 For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% Page: 1 1/27/2011 1:44:38 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year) File Name: H:\pdata\40100419\Admin\reports\AQ_GHG\Models\Albright_Phase3.urb924 Project Name: Albright Way Construction Phase 3 Project Location: Bay Area Air District On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007

Summary Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 CO2 Exhaust 2015 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 1.37 1.84 1.73 0.00 1.78 0.10 1.88 0.37 0.09 0.47 358.44

2015 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 0.95 1.84 1.73 0.00 0.34 0.10 0.44 0.07 0.09 0.16 358.44

Percent Reduction 31.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 81.15 0.00 76.79 80.96 0.00 64.83 0.00

2016 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 0.16 0.89 0.88 0.00 0.82 0.05 0.87 0.17 0.05 0.22 175.44

2016 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 0.16 0.89 0.88 0.00 0.13 0.05 0.18 0.03 0.05 0.07 175.44

Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.94 0.00 79.15 83.75 0.00 66.17 0.00

Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 Page: 2 1/27/2011 1:44:38 PM

2015 1.37 1.84 1.73 0.00 1.78 0.10 1.88 0.37 0.09 0.47 358.44

Demolition 01/27/2015- 0.01 0.09 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.02 15.85 02/23/2015 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Demo Off Road Diesel 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.00

Demo On Road Diesel 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.83

Demo Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.02

Mass Grading 02/24/2015- 0.04 0.46 0.20 0.00 1.72 0.02 1.74 0.36 0.02 0.38 99.32 03/18/2015 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.72 0.00 1.72 0.36 0.00 0.36 0.00

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 0.02 0.15 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 19.10

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.02 0.31 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 79.35

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.87

Trenching 03/19/2015-04/28/2015 0.02 0.17 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 26.34

Trenching Off Road Diesel 0.02 0.17 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 24.86

Trenching Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.48

Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 0.23 1.13 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.06 0.07 215.65

Building Off Road Diesel 0.21 1.07 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.06 0.06 143.48

Building Vendor Trips 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.29

Building Worker Trips 0.01 0.02 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 57.88

Coating 11/04/2015-12/09/2015 1.07 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.28

Architectural Coating 1.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.28 Page: 3 1/27/2011 1:44:38 PM

2016 0.16 0.89 0.88 0.00 0.82 0.05 0.87 0.17 0.05 0.22 175.44

Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 0.11 0.55 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 113.31

Building Off Road Diesel 0.10 0.52 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 75.39

Building Vendor Trips 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.51

Building Worker Trips 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.42

Asphalt 04/26/2016-05/10/2016 0.02 0.08 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 11.01

Paving Off-Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paving Off Road Diesel 0.01 0.07 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 7.80

Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.94

Paving Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.26

Fine Grading 05/11/2016- 0.03 0.26 0.15 0.00 0.82 0.01 0.83 0.17 0.01 0.18 51.12 06/08/2016 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.00 0.82 0.17 0.00 0.17 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 0.02 0.17 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 23.60

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.01 0.09 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.45

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.07

Phase Assumptions Phase: Demolition 1/27/2015 - 2/23/2015 - Phase 3 Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 246000 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 14000 On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 194.44 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day Page: 4 1/27/2011 1:44:38 PM Phase: Fine Grading 5/11/2016 - 6/8/2016 - Phase 3 Total Acres Disturbed: 13.79 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low Onsite Cut/Fill: 525 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 625.71 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Mass Grading 2/24/2015 - 3/18/2015 - Phase 3 Total Acres Disturbed: 13.79 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low Onsite Cut/Fill: 1575 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 2318.82 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Trenching 3/19/2015 - 4/28/2015 - Phase 3 Off-Road Equipment: 2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day Page: 5 1/27/2011 1:44:38 PM Phase: Paving 4/26/2016 - 5/10/2016 - Phase 3 Acres to be Paved: 3.25 Off-Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day

Phase: Building Construction 4/29/2015 - 5/10/2016 - Phase 3 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Architectural Coating 11/4/2015 - 12/9/2015 - Phase 3 Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250

Construction Mitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Mitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 Page: 6 1/27/2011 1:44:38 PM

2015 0.95 1.84 1.73 0.00 0.34 0.10 0.44 0.07 0.09 0.16 358.44

Demolition 01/27/2015- 0.01 0.09 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.02 15.85 02/23/2015 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Demo Off Road Diesel 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.00

Demo On Road Diesel 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.83

Demo Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.02

Mass Grading 02/24/2015- 0.04 0.46 0.20 0.00 0.27 0.02 0.29 0.06 0.02 0.07 99.32 03/18/2015 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.27 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.00

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 0.02 0.15 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 19.10

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.02 0.31 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 79.35

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.87

Trenching 03/19/2015-04/28/2015 0.02 0.17 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 26.34

Trenching Off Road Diesel 0.02 0.17 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 24.86

Trenching Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.48

Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 0.23 1.13 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.06 0.07 215.65

Building Off Road Diesel 0.21 1.07 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.06 0.06 143.48

Building Vendor Trips 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.29

Building Worker Trips 0.01 0.02 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 57.88

Coating 11/04/2015-12/09/2015 0.64 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.28

Architectural Coating 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.28 Page: 7 1/27/2011 1:44:38 PM

2016 0.16 0.89 0.88 0.00 0.13 0.05 0.18 0.03 0.05 0.07 175.44

Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 0.11 0.55 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 113.31

Building Off Road Diesel 0.10 0.52 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 75.39

Building Vendor Trips 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.51

Building Worker Trips 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.42

Asphalt 04/26/2016-05/10/2016 0.02 0.08 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 11.01

Paving Off-Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paving Off Road Diesel 0.01 0.07 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 7.80

Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.94

Paving Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.26

Fine Grading 05/11/2016- 0.03 0.26 0.15 0.00 0.13 0.01 0.14 0.03 0.01 0.04 51.12 06/08/2016 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 0.02 0.17 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 23.60

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.01 0.09 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.45

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.07

Construction Related Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 5/11/2016 - 6/8/2016 - Phase 3 For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% Page: 8 1/27/2011 1:44:38 PM For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 2/24/2015 - 3/18/2015 - Phase 3 For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 11/4/2015 - 12/9/2015 - Phase 3 For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% Page: 1 1/27/2011 1:44:14 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: H:\pdata\40100419\Admin\reports\AQ_GHG\Models\Albright_Phase3.urb924 Project Name: Albright Way Construction Phase 3 Project Location: Bay Area Air District On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007

Summary Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 CO2 Exhaust 2015 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 85.00 53.83 23.89 0.09 202.28 2.09 204.38 42.28 1.93 44.21 11,685.11

2015 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) 52.05 53.83 23.89 0.09 32.16 2.09 34.26 6.76 1.93 8.68 11,685.11

2016 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 5.32 25.91 26.20 0.02 78.14 1.77 79.21 16.33 1.62 17.31 4,868.66

2016 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) 5.32 25.91 26.20 0.02 12.40 1.77 13.46 2.60 1.62 3.58 4,868.66

Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 Page: 2 1/27/2011 1:44:14 PM

Time Slice 1/27/2015-2/23/2015 1.03 8.57 6.09 0.01 5.91 0.46 6.38 1.23 0.43 1.66 1,585.32 Active Days: 20 Demolition 01/27/2015- 1.03 8.57 6.09 0.01 5.91 0.46 6.38 1.23 0.43 1.66 1,585.32 02/23/2015 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.88 0.00 5.88 1.22 0.00 1.22 0.00

Demo Off Road Diesel 0.79 5.49 4.25 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.33 0.33 700.30

Demo On Road Diesel 0.22 3.04 1.07 0.01 0.03 0.11 0.13 0.01 0.10 0.11 782.84

Demo Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.18

Time Slice 2/24/2015-3/18/2015 4.95 53.83 23.89 0.09 202.28 2.09 204.38 42.28 1.93 44.21 11,685.11 Active Days: 17 Mass Grading 02/24/2015- 4.95 53.83 23.89 0.09 202.28 2.09 204.38 42.28 1.93 44.21 11,685.11 03/18/2015 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 201.95 0.00 201.95 42.18 0.00 42.18 0.00

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 2.26 17.50 10.40 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.81 0.00 0.74 0.74 2,247.32

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 2.68 36.29 12.72 0.09 0.33 1.28 1.61 0.11 1.18 1.29 9,335.60

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.18

Time Slice 3/19/2015-4/28/2015 1.51 11.69 8.62 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.56 0.00 0.51 0.51 1,816.82 Active Days: 29 Trenching 03/19/2015-04/28/2015 1.51 11.69 8.62 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.56 0.00 0.51 0.51 1,816.82

Trenching Off Road Diesel 1.48 11.65 7.85 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.55 0.00 0.51 0.51 1,714.64

Trenching Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.18

Time Slice 4/29/2015-11/3/2015 2.59 12.75 15.02 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.83 0.01 0.73 0.74 2,436.67 Active Days: 135 Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 2.59 12.75 15.02 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.83 0.01 0.73 0.74 2,436.67

Building Off Road Diesel 2.40 12.04 9.62 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.00 0.70 0.70 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.45 0.46 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.50

Building Worker Trips 0.15 0.26 4.94 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.98 Page: 3 1/27/2011 1:44:14 PM

Time Slice 11/4/2015-12/9/2015 85.00 12.79 15.77 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.84 0.02 0.73 0.75 2,534.93 Active Days: 26 Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 2.59 12.75 15.02 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.83 0.01 0.73 0.74 2,436.67

Building Off Road Diesel 2.40 12.04 9.62 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.00 0.70 0.70 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.45 0.46 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.50

Building Worker Trips 0.15 0.26 4.94 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.98

Coating 11/04/2015-12/09/2015 82.41 0.04 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.25

Architectural Coating 82.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.25

Time Slice 12/10/2015-12/31/2015 2.59 12.75 15.02 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.83 0.01 0.73 0.74 2,436.67 Active Days: 16 Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 2.59 12.75 15.02 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.83 0.01 0.73 0.74 2,436.67

Building Off Road Diesel 2.40 12.04 9.62 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.00 0.70 0.70 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.45 0.46 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.50

Building Worker Trips 0.15 0.26 4.94 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.98

Time Slice 1/1/2016-4/25/2016 2.36 11.83 14.40 0.01 0.04 0.71 0.74 0.01 0.65 0.66 2,436.86 Active Days: 82 Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 2.36 11.83 14.40 0.01 0.04 0.71 0.74 0.01 0.65 0.66 2,436.86

Building Off Road Diesel 2.19 11.19 9.40 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.62 0.62 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.40 0.44 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.02 161.51

Building Worker Trips 0.14 0.24 4.56 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 654.16 Page: 4 1/27/2011 1:44:14 PM

Time Slice 4/26/2016-5/10/2016 5.32 25.91 26.20 0.01 0.06 1.77 1.83 0.02 1.62 1.64 4,437.91 Active Days: 11 Asphalt 04/26/2016-05/10/2016 2.96 14.07 11.80 0.01 0.02 1.06 1.08 0.01 0.97 0.98 2,001.05

Paving Off-Gas 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paving Off Road Diesel 2.05 12.77 9.76 0.00 0.00 1.01 1.01 0.00 0.93 0.93 1,418.44

Paving On Road Diesel 0.09 1.22 0.44 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.04 0.04 352.63

Paving Worker Trips 0.05 0.08 1.60 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 229.98

Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 2.36 11.83 14.40 0.01 0.04 0.71 0.74 0.01 0.65 0.66 2,436.86

Building Off Road Diesel 2.19 11.19 9.40 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.62 0.62 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.40 0.44 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.02 161.51

Building Worker Trips 0.14 0.24 4.56 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 654.16

Time Slice 5/11/2016-6/8/2016 2.82 24.80 13.93 0.02 78.14 1.06 79.21 16.33 0.98 17.31 4,868.66 Active Days: 21 Fine Grading 05/11/2016- 2.82 24.80 13.93 0.02 78.14 1.06 79.21 16.33 0.98 17.31 4,868.66 06/08/2016 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 78.05 0.00 78.05 16.30 0.00 16.30 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.13 16.07 10.09 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.69 0.69 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.67 8.70 3.13 0.02 0.09 0.31 0.40 0.03 0.28 0.31 2,519.13

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.21

Phase Assumptions

Phase: Demolition 1/27/2015 - 2/23/2015 - Phase 3 Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 246000 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 14000 On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 194.44 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day Page: 5 1/27/2011 1:44:14 PM 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day

Phase: Fine Grading 5/11/2016 - 6/8/2016 - Phase 3 Total Acres Disturbed: 13.79 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low Onsite Cut/Fill: 525 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 625.71 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Mass Grading 2/24/2015 - 3/18/2015 - Phase 3 Total Acres Disturbed: 13.79 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low Onsite Cut/Fill: 1575 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 2318.82 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Trenching 3/19/2015 - 4/28/2015 - Phase 3 Off-Road Equipment: 2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day Page: 6 1/27/2011 1:44:14 PM 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day

Phase: Paving 4/26/2016 - 5/10/2016 - Phase 3 Acres to be Paved: 3.25 Off-Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day

Phase: Building Construction 4/29/2015 - 5/10/2016 - Phase 3 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Architectural Coating 11/4/2015 - 12/9/2015 - Phase 3 Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250

Construction Mitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 Page: 7 1/27/2011 1:44:14 PM

Time Slice 1/27/2015-2/23/2015 1.03 8.57 6.09 0.01 5.91 0.46 6.38 1.23 0.43 1.66 1,585.32 Active Days: 20 Demolition 01/27/2015- 1.03 8.57 6.09 0.01 5.91 0.46 6.38 1.23 0.43 1.66 1,585.32 02/23/2015 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.88 0.00 5.88 1.22 0.00 1.22 0.00

Demo Off Road Diesel 0.79 5.49 4.25 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.33 0.33 700.30

Demo On Road Diesel 0.22 3.04 1.07 0.01 0.03 0.11 0.13 0.01 0.10 0.11 782.84

Demo Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.18

Time Slice 2/24/2015-3/18/2015 4.95 53.83 23.89 0.09 32.16 2.09 34.26 6.76 1.93 8.68 11,685.11 Active Days: 17 Mass Grading 02/24/2015- 4.95 53.83 23.89 0.09 32.16 2.09 34.26 6.76 1.93 8.68 11,685.11 03/18/2015 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.83 0.00 31.83 6.65 0.00 6.65 0.00

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 2.26 17.50 10.40 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.81 0.00 0.74 0.74 2,247.32

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 2.68 36.29 12.72 0.09 0.33 1.28 1.61 0.11 1.18 1.29 9,335.60

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.18

Time Slice 3/19/2015-4/28/2015 1.51 11.69 8.62 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.56 0.00 0.51 0.51 1,816.82 Active Days: 29 Trenching 03/19/2015-04/28/2015 1.51 11.69 8.62 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.56 0.00 0.51 0.51 1,816.82

Trenching Off Road Diesel 1.48 11.65 7.85 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.55 0.00 0.51 0.51 1,714.64

Trenching Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.18

Time Slice 4/29/2015-11/3/2015 2.59 12.75 15.02 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.83 0.01 0.73 0.74 2,436.67 Active Days: 135 Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 2.59 12.75 15.02 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.83 0.01 0.73 0.74 2,436.67

Building Off Road Diesel 2.40 12.04 9.62 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.00 0.70 0.70 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.45 0.46 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.50

Building Worker Trips 0.15 0.26 4.94 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.98 Page: 8 1/27/2011 1:44:14 PM

Time Slice 11/4/2015-12/9/2015 52.05 12.79 15.77 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.84 0.02 0.73 0.75 2,534.93 Active Days: 26 Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 2.59 12.75 15.02 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.83 0.01 0.73 0.74 2,436.67

Building Off Road Diesel 2.40 12.04 9.62 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.00 0.70 0.70 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.45 0.46 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.50

Building Worker Trips 0.15 0.26 4.94 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.98

Coating 11/04/2015-12/09/2015 49.46 0.04 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.25

Architectural Coating 49.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.25

Time Slice 12/10/2015-12/31/2015 2.59 12.75 15.02 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.83 0.01 0.73 0.74 2,436.67 Active Days: 16 Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 2.59 12.75 15.02 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.83 0.01 0.73 0.74 2,436.67

Building Off Road Diesel 2.40 12.04 9.62 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.00 0.70 0.70 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.45 0.46 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.50

Building Worker Trips 0.15 0.26 4.94 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.98

Time Slice 1/1/2016-4/25/2016 2.36 11.83 14.40 0.01 0.04 0.71 0.74 0.01 0.65 0.66 2,436.86 Active Days: 82 Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 2.36 11.83 14.40 0.01 0.04 0.71 0.74 0.01 0.65 0.66 2,436.86

Building Off Road Diesel 2.19 11.19 9.40 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.62 0.62 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.40 0.44 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.02 161.51

Building Worker Trips 0.14 0.24 4.56 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 654.16 Page: 9 1/27/2011 1:44:14 PM

Time Slice 4/26/2016-5/10/2016 5.32 25.91 26.20 0.01 0.06 1.77 1.83 0.02 1.62 1.64 4,437.91 Active Days: 11 Asphalt 04/26/2016-05/10/2016 2.96 14.07 11.80 0.01 0.02 1.06 1.08 0.01 0.97 0.98 2,001.05

Paving Off-Gas 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paving Off Road Diesel 2.05 12.77 9.76 0.00 0.00 1.01 1.01 0.00 0.93 0.93 1,418.44

Paving On Road Diesel 0.09 1.22 0.44 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.04 0.04 352.63

Paving Worker Trips 0.05 0.08 1.60 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 229.98

Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 2.36 11.83 14.40 0.01 0.04 0.71 0.74 0.01 0.65 0.66 2,436.86

Building Off Road Diesel 2.19 11.19 9.40 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.62 0.62 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.40 0.44 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.02 161.51

Building Worker Trips 0.14 0.24 4.56 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 654.16

Time Slice 5/11/2016-6/8/2016 2.82 24.80 13.93 0.02 12.40 1.06 13.46 2.60 0.98 3.58 4,868.66 Active Days: 21 Fine Grading 05/11/2016- 2.82 24.80 13.93 0.02 12.40 1.06 13.46 2.60 0.98 3.58 4,868.66 06/08/2016 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.30 0.00 12.30 2.57 0.00 2.57 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.13 16.07 10.09 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.69 0.69 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.67 8.70 3.13 0.02 0.09 0.31 0.40 0.03 0.28 0.31 2,519.13

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.21

Construction Related Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 5/11/2016 - 6/8/2016 - Phase 3 For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% Page: 10 1/27/2011 1:44:14 PM For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 2/24/2015 - 3/18/2015 - Phase 3 For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 11/4/2015 - 12/9/2015 - Phase 3 For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% Page: 1 1/27/2011 1:44:27 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: H:\pdata\40100419\Admin\reports\AQ_GHG\Models\Albright_Phase3.urb924 Project Name: Albright Way Construction Phase 3 Project Location: Bay Area Air District On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007

Summary Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 CO2 Exhaust 2015 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 85.00 53.83 23.89 0.09 202.28 2.09 204.38 42.28 1.93 44.21 11,685.11

2015 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) 52.05 53.83 23.89 0.09 32.16 2.09 34.26 6.76 1.93 8.68 11,685.11

2016 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 5.32 25.91 26.20 0.02 78.14 1.77 79.21 16.33 1.62 17.31 4,868.66

2016 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) 5.32 25.91 26.20 0.02 12.40 1.77 13.46 2.60 1.62 3.58 4,868.66

Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 Page: 2 1/27/2011 1:44:27 PM

Time Slice 1/27/2015-2/23/2015 1.03 8.57 6.09 0.01 5.91 0.46 6.38 1.23 0.43 1.66 1,585.32 Active Days: 20 Demolition 01/27/2015- 1.03 8.57 6.09 0.01 5.91 0.46 6.38 1.23 0.43 1.66 1,585.32 02/23/2015 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.88 0.00 5.88 1.22 0.00 1.22 0.00

Demo Off Road Diesel 0.79 5.49 4.25 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.33 0.33 700.30

Demo On Road Diesel 0.22 3.04 1.07 0.01 0.03 0.11 0.13 0.01 0.10 0.11 782.84

Demo Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.18

Time Slice 2/24/2015-3/18/2015 4.95 53.83 23.89 0.09 202.28 2.09 204.38 42.28 1.93 44.21 11,685.11 Active Days: 17 Mass Grading 02/24/2015- 4.95 53.83 23.89 0.09 202.28 2.09 204.38 42.28 1.93 44.21 11,685.11 03/18/2015 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 201.95 0.00 201.95 42.18 0.00 42.18 0.00

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 2.26 17.50 10.40 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.81 0.00 0.74 0.74 2,247.32

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 2.68 36.29 12.72 0.09 0.33 1.28 1.61 0.11 1.18 1.29 9,335.60

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.18

Time Slice 3/19/2015-4/28/2015 1.51 11.69 8.62 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.56 0.00 0.51 0.51 1,816.82 Active Days: 29 Trenching 03/19/2015-04/28/2015 1.51 11.69 8.62 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.56 0.00 0.51 0.51 1,816.82

Trenching Off Road Diesel 1.48 11.65 7.85 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.55 0.00 0.51 0.51 1,714.64

Trenching Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.18

Time Slice 4/29/2015-11/3/2015 2.59 12.75 15.02 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.83 0.01 0.73 0.74 2,436.67 Active Days: 135 Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 2.59 12.75 15.02 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.83 0.01 0.73 0.74 2,436.67

Building Off Road Diesel 2.40 12.04 9.62 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.00 0.70 0.70 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.45 0.46 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.50

Building Worker Trips 0.15 0.26 4.94 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.98 Page: 3 1/27/2011 1:44:27 PM

Time Slice 11/4/2015-12/9/2015 85.00 12.79 15.77 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.84 0.02 0.73 0.75 2,534.93 Active Days: 26 Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 2.59 12.75 15.02 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.83 0.01 0.73 0.74 2,436.67

Building Off Road Diesel 2.40 12.04 9.62 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.00 0.70 0.70 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.45 0.46 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.50

Building Worker Trips 0.15 0.26 4.94 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.98

Coating 11/04/2015-12/09/2015 82.41 0.04 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.25

Architectural Coating 82.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.25

Time Slice 12/10/2015-12/31/2015 2.59 12.75 15.02 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.83 0.01 0.73 0.74 2,436.67 Active Days: 16 Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 2.59 12.75 15.02 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.83 0.01 0.73 0.74 2,436.67

Building Off Road Diesel 2.40 12.04 9.62 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.00 0.70 0.70 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.45 0.46 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.50

Building Worker Trips 0.15 0.26 4.94 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.98

Time Slice 1/1/2016-4/25/2016 2.36 11.83 14.40 0.01 0.04 0.71 0.74 0.01 0.65 0.66 2,436.86 Active Days: 82 Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 2.36 11.83 14.40 0.01 0.04 0.71 0.74 0.01 0.65 0.66 2,436.86

Building Off Road Diesel 2.19 11.19 9.40 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.62 0.62 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.40 0.44 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.02 161.51

Building Worker Trips 0.14 0.24 4.56 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 654.16 Page: 4 1/27/2011 1:44:27 PM

Time Slice 4/26/2016-5/10/2016 5.32 25.91 26.20 0.01 0.06 1.77 1.83 0.02 1.62 1.64 4,437.91 Active Days: 11 Asphalt 04/26/2016-05/10/2016 2.96 14.07 11.80 0.01 0.02 1.06 1.08 0.01 0.97 0.98 2,001.05

Paving Off-Gas 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paving Off Road Diesel 2.05 12.77 9.76 0.00 0.00 1.01 1.01 0.00 0.93 0.93 1,418.44

Paving On Road Diesel 0.09 1.22 0.44 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.04 0.04 352.63

Paving Worker Trips 0.05 0.08 1.60 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 229.98

Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 2.36 11.83 14.40 0.01 0.04 0.71 0.74 0.01 0.65 0.66 2,436.86

Building Off Road Diesel 2.19 11.19 9.40 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.62 0.62 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.40 0.44 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.02 161.51

Building Worker Trips 0.14 0.24 4.56 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 654.16

Time Slice 5/11/2016-6/8/2016 2.82 24.80 13.93 0.02 78.14 1.06 79.21 16.33 0.98 17.31 4,868.66 Active Days: 21 Fine Grading 05/11/2016- 2.82 24.80 13.93 0.02 78.14 1.06 79.21 16.33 0.98 17.31 4,868.66 06/08/2016 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 78.05 0.00 78.05 16.30 0.00 16.30 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.13 16.07 10.09 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.69 0.69 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.67 8.70 3.13 0.02 0.09 0.31 0.40 0.03 0.28 0.31 2,519.13

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.21

Phase Assumptions

Phase: Demolition 1/27/2015 - 2/23/2015 - Phase 3 Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 246000 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 14000 On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 194.44 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day Page: 5 1/27/2011 1:44:27 PM 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day

Phase: Fine Grading 5/11/2016 - 6/8/2016 - Phase 3 Total Acres Disturbed: 13.79 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low Onsite Cut/Fill: 525 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 625.71 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Mass Grading 2/24/2015 - 3/18/2015 - Phase 3 Total Acres Disturbed: 13.79 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.61 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low Onsite Cut/Fill: 1575 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 2318.82 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Trenching 3/19/2015 - 4/28/2015 - Phase 3 Off-Road Equipment: 2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day Page: 6 1/27/2011 1:44:27 PM 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day

Phase: Paving 4/26/2016 - 5/10/2016 - Phase 3 Acres to be Paved: 3.25 Off-Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day

Phase: Building Construction 4/29/2015 - 5/10/2016 - Phase 3 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Architectural Coating 11/4/2015 - 12/9/2015 - Phase 3 Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250

Construction Mitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Mitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 Page: 7 1/27/2011 1:44:27 PM

Time Slice 1/27/2015-2/23/2015 1.03 8.57 6.09 0.01 5.91 0.46 6.38 1.23 0.43 1.66 1,585.32 Active Days: 20 Demolition 01/27/2015- 1.03 8.57 6.09 0.01 5.91 0.46 6.38 1.23 0.43 1.66 1,585.32 02/23/2015 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.88 0.00 5.88 1.22 0.00 1.22 0.00

Demo Off Road Diesel 0.79 5.49 4.25 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.33 0.33 700.30

Demo On Road Diesel 0.22 3.04 1.07 0.01 0.03 0.11 0.13 0.01 0.10 0.11 782.84

Demo Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.18

Time Slice 2/24/2015-3/18/2015 4.95 53.83 23.89 0.09 32.16 2.09 34.26 6.76 1.93 8.68 11,685.11 Active Days: 17 Mass Grading 02/24/2015- 4.95 53.83 23.89 0.09 32.16 2.09 34.26 6.76 1.93 8.68 11,685.11 03/18/2015 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.83 0.00 31.83 6.65 0.00 6.65 0.00

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 2.26 17.50 10.40 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.81 0.00 0.74 0.74 2,247.32

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 2.68 36.29 12.72 0.09 0.33 1.28 1.61 0.11 1.18 1.29 9,335.60

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.18

Time Slice 3/19/2015-4/28/2015 1.51 11.69 8.62 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.56 0.00 0.51 0.51 1,816.82 Active Days: 29 Trenching 03/19/2015-04/28/2015 1.51 11.69 8.62 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.56 0.00 0.51 0.51 1,816.82

Trenching Off Road Diesel 1.48 11.65 7.85 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.55 0.00 0.51 0.51 1,714.64

Trenching Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.18

Time Slice 4/29/2015-11/3/2015 2.59 12.75 15.02 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.83 0.01 0.73 0.74 2,436.67 Active Days: 135 Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 2.59 12.75 15.02 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.83 0.01 0.73 0.74 2,436.67

Building Off Road Diesel 2.40 12.04 9.62 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.00 0.70 0.70 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.45 0.46 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.50

Building Worker Trips 0.15 0.26 4.94 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.98 Page: 8 1/27/2011 1:44:27 PM

Time Slice 11/4/2015-12/9/2015 52.05 12.79 15.77 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.84 0.02 0.73 0.75 2,534.93 Active Days: 26 Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 2.59 12.75 15.02 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.83 0.01 0.73 0.74 2,436.67

Building Off Road Diesel 2.40 12.04 9.62 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.00 0.70 0.70 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.45 0.46 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.50

Building Worker Trips 0.15 0.26 4.94 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.98

Coating 11/04/2015-12/09/2015 49.46 0.04 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.25

Architectural Coating 49.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.25

Time Slice 12/10/2015-12/31/2015 2.59 12.75 15.02 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.83 0.01 0.73 0.74 2,436.67 Active Days: 16 Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 2.59 12.75 15.02 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.83 0.01 0.73 0.74 2,436.67

Building Off Road Diesel 2.40 12.04 9.62 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.00 0.70 0.70 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.45 0.46 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 161.50

Building Worker Trips 0.15 0.26 4.94 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 653.98

Time Slice 1/1/2016-4/25/2016 2.36 11.83 14.40 0.01 0.04 0.71 0.74 0.01 0.65 0.66 2,436.86 Active Days: 82 Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 2.36 11.83 14.40 0.01 0.04 0.71 0.74 0.01 0.65 0.66 2,436.86

Building Off Road Diesel 2.19 11.19 9.40 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.62 0.62 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.40 0.44 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.02 161.51

Building Worker Trips 0.14 0.24 4.56 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 654.16 Page: 9 1/27/2011 1:44:27 PM

Time Slice 4/26/2016-5/10/2016 5.32 25.91 26.20 0.01 0.06 1.77 1.83 0.02 1.62 1.64 4,437.91 Active Days: 11 Asphalt 04/26/2016-05/10/2016 2.96 14.07 11.80 0.01 0.02 1.06 1.08 0.01 0.97 0.98 2,001.05

Paving Off-Gas 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paving Off Road Diesel 2.05 12.77 9.76 0.00 0.00 1.01 1.01 0.00 0.93 0.93 1,418.44

Paving On Road Diesel 0.09 1.22 0.44 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.04 0.04 352.63

Paving Worker Trips 0.05 0.08 1.60 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 229.98

Building 04/29/2015-05/10/2016 2.36 11.83 14.40 0.01 0.04 0.71 0.74 0.01 0.65 0.66 2,436.86

Building Off Road Diesel 2.19 11.19 9.40 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.62 0.62 1,621.20

Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.40 0.44 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.02 161.51

Building Worker Trips 0.14 0.24 4.56 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 654.16

Time Slice 5/11/2016-6/8/2016 2.82 24.80 13.93 0.02 12.40 1.06 13.46 2.60 0.98 3.58 4,868.66 Active Days: 21 Fine Grading 05/11/2016- 2.82 24.80 13.93 0.02 12.40 1.06 13.46 2.60 0.98 3.58 4,868.66 06/08/2016 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.30 0.00 12.30 2.57 0.00 2.57 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.13 16.07 10.09 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.69 0.69 2,247.32

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.67 8.70 3.13 0.02 0.09 0.31 0.40 0.03 0.28 0.31 2,519.13

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.21

Construction Related Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 5/11/2016 - 6/8/2016 - Phase 3 For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% Page: 10 1/27/2011 1:44:27 PM For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 2/24/2015 - 3/18/2015 - Phase 3 For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 11/4/2015 - 12/9/2015 - Phase 3 For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 40% Page: 1 2/2/2011 2:06:21 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year) File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\KCHIENE\Desktop\Albright_Operations.urb924 Project Name: Albright Way Operations Revised Project Location: Bay Area Air District On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007

Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report:

AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated

Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2

Natural Gas 0.03 0.36 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 438.00

Hearth

Landscape 0.01 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25

Consumer Products 0.00

Architectural Coatings 0.32

TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.36 0.36 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 438.25

Area Source Changes to Defaults Page: 2 2/2/2011 2:06:21 PM

Operational Unmitigated Detail Report:

OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated

Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM25 CO2

Office park 2.93 3.65 34.37 0.04 8.21 1.56 4,433.64

TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 2.93 3.65 34.37 0.04 8.21 1.56 4,433.64

Operational Settings:

Does not include correction for passby trips

Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips

Analysis Year: 2016 Season: Annual

Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006

Summary of Land Uses

Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT

Office park 10.42 1000 sq ft 300.00 3,126.00 26,202.13

3,126.00 26,202.13

Vehicle Fleet Mix

Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel

Light Auto 53.8 0.2 99.6 0.2

Light Truck < 3750 lbs 12.7 0.8 96.8 2.4

Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs 19.9 0.0 100.0 0.0

Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs 6.6 0.0 100.0 0.0

Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs 0.9 0.0 77.8 22.2

Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs 0.6 0.0 50.0 50.0 Page: 3 2/2/2011 2:06:21 PM

Vehicle Fleet Mix

Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel

Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs 1.0 0.0 20.0 80.0

Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs 0.4 0.0 0.0 100.0

Other Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0

Urban Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0

Motorcycle 3.2 46.9 53.1 0.0

School Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0

Motor Home 0.6 0.0 83.3 16.7

Travel Conditions

Residential Commercial

Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer

Urban Trip Length (miles) 10.8 7.3 7.5 9.5 7.4 7.4

Rural Trip Length (miles) 16.8 7.1 7.9 14.7 6.6 6.6

Trip speeds (mph) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0

% of Trips - Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1

% of Trips - Commercial (by land use)

Office park 48.0 24.0 28.0 Page: 1 2/2/2011 2:06:13 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\KCHIENE\Desktop\Albright_Operations.urb924 Project Name: Albright Way Operations Revised Project Location: Bay Area Air District On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007

Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report:

AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated

Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2

Natural Gas 0.15 2.00 1.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,400.00

Hearth

Landscape 0.12 0.02 1.55 0.00 0.01 0.01 2.81

Consumer Products 0.00

Architectural Coatings 1.76

TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 2.03 2.02 3.23 0.00 0.01 0.01 2,402.81

Area Source Changes to Defaults Page: 2 2/2/2011 2:06:13 PM

Operational Unmitigated Detail Report:

OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated

Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM25 CO2

Office park 15.90 17.19 186.33 0.25 44.97 8.54 25,459.91

TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 15.90 17.19 186.33 0.25 44.97 8.54 25,459.91

Operational Settings:

Does not include correction for passby trips

Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips

Analysis Year: 2016 Temperature (F): 85 Season: Summer

Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006

Summary of Land Uses

Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT

Office park 10.42 1000 sq ft 300.00 3,126.00 26,202.13

3,126.00 26,202.13

Vehicle Fleet Mix

Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel

Light Auto 53.8 0.2 99.6 0.2

Light Truck < 3750 lbs 12.7 0.8 96.8 2.4

Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs 19.9 0.0 100.0 0.0

Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs 6.6 0.0 100.0 0.0

Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs 0.9 0.0 77.8 22.2

Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs 0.6 0.0 50.0 50.0 Page: 3 2/2/2011 2:06:13 PM

Vehicle Fleet Mix

Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel

Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs 1.0 0.0 20.0 80.0

Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs 0.4 0.0 0.0 100.0

Other Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0

Urban Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0

Motorcycle 3.2 46.9 53.1 0.0

School Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0

Motor Home 0.6 0.0 83.3 16.7

Travel Conditions

Residential Commercial

Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer

Urban Trip Length (miles) 10.8 7.3 7.5 9.5 7.4 7.4

Rural Trip Length (miles) 16.8 7.1 7.9 14.7 6.6 6.6

Trip speeds (mph) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0

% of Trips - Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1

% of Trips - Commercial (by land use)

Office park 48.0 24.0 28.0 Page: 1 2/2/2011 2:05:59 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\KCHIENE\Desktop\Albright_Operations.urb924 Project Name: Albright Way Operations Revised Project Location: Bay Area Air District On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007

Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report:

AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated

Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2

Natural Gas 0.15 2.00 1.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,400.00

Hearth

Landscaping - No Winter Emissions

Consumer Products 0.00

Architectural Coatings 1.76

TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 1.91 2.00 1.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,400.00

Area Source Changes to Defaults Page: 2 2/2/2011 2:05:59 PM

Operational Unmitigated Detail Report:

OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated

Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM25 CO2

Office park 16.30 25.58 192.36 0.22 44.97 8.54 21,961.97

TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 16.30 25.58 192.36 0.22 44.97 8.54 21,961.97

Operational Settings:

Does not include correction for passby trips

Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips

Analysis Year: 2016 Temperature (F): 40 Season: Winter

Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006

Summary of Land Uses

Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT

Office park 10.42 1000 sq ft 300.00 3,126.00 26,202.13

3,126.00 26,202.13

Vehicle Fleet Mix

Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel

Light Auto 53.8 0.2 99.6 0.2

Light Truck < 3750 lbs 12.7 0.8 96.8 2.4

Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs 19.9 0.0 100.0 0.0

Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs 6.6 0.0 100.0 0.0

Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs 0.9 0.0 77.8 22.2

Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs 0.6 0.0 50.0 50.0 Page: 3 2/2/2011 2:05:59 PM

Vehicle Fleet Mix

Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel

Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs 1.0 0.0 20.0 80.0

Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs 0.4 0.0 0.0 100.0

Other Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0

Urban Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0

Motorcycle 3.2 46.9 53.1 0.0

School Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0

Motor Home 0.6 0.0 83.3 16.7

Travel Conditions

Residential Commercial

Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer

Urban Trip Length (miles) 10.8 7.3 7.5 9.5 7.4 7.4

Rural Trip Length (miles) 16.8 7.1 7.9 14.7 6.6 6.6

Trip speeds (mph) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0

% of Trips - Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1

% of Trips - Commercial (by land use)

Office park 48.0 24.0 28.0 Risk Calculations: 100 Feet from SR-85 Centerline

Hourly Concentration: 1.2 μg/m3 (output from CAL3QHCR run) Annual Average Conc: 0.096

Cancer Risk Cancer Risk: 25.27323 BAAQMD Threshold 10 in one million

Cancer Risk = Slope * Inhalation Dose

Inhalation Dose = (Cair*DBR*A*EF*ED*10-6)/AT

Slope 1.1 (mg/kg/day)-1 Inhalation Dose Dose through inhalation (mg/kg-d) 10-6 Micrograms to milligrams conversions, liters to cubic meters conversion Cair Concentration in air (ug/m3), modeled annual average concentration DBR 302 L/kg-day Daily breathing Rate (l/kg body weight-day) (80%ile) A 1 Inhalation absorption factor EF 350 days/yeayy r Exposurepqy(yy) frequency (days/year) ED 70 years Exposure duration (years) AT 25550 days Averaging time period over which exposure is averaged, in days (70 years*365 = 25,550 days)

Chronic Noncancer Hazard BAAQMD Threshold 1 in one million

Hazard Quotient = Ci/RELi

HQ = 0.0192

Ci 0.096 Concentration (annual average)

RELi 5 Reference Exposure Level

Acute NonCancer Hazard BAAQMD Threshold 1 in one million

Acute HQ = Maximum Hourly Concentration/Acute REL

Acute HQ = 0.022105

Max Hourly 1.2 Acute REL (Acrolein) 0.19 Risk Calculations: 200 Feet from SR-85 Centerline

Hourly Concentration: 0.53 μg/m3 (output from CAL3QHCR run) Annual Average Conc: 0.0424

Cancer Risk Cancer Risk: 11.16234 BAAQMD Threshold 10 in one million

Cancer Risk = Slope * Inhalation Dose

Inhalation Dose = (Cair*DBR*A*EF*ED*10-6)/AT

Slope 1.1 (mg/kg/day)-1 Inhalation Dose Dose through inhalation (mg/kg-d) 10-6 Micrograms to milligrams conversions, liters to cubic meters conversion Cair Concentration in air (ug/m3), modeled annual average concentration DBR 302 L/kg-day Daily breathing Rate (l/kg body weight-day) (80%ile) A 1 Inhalation absorption factor EF 350 days/year Exposure frequency (days/year) ED 70 years Exposure duration (years) AT 25550 days Averaging time period over which exposure is averaged, in days (70 years*365 = 25,550 days)

Chronic Noncancer Hazard BAAQMD Threshold 1 in one million

Hazard Quotient = Ci/RELi

HQ = 0.00848

Ci 0.0424 Concentration (annual average)

RELi 5 Reference Exposure Level

Acute NonCancer Hazard BAAQMD Threshold 1 in one million

Acute HQ = Maximum Hourly Concentration/Acute REL

Acute HQ = 0.009763

Max Hourly 0.53 Acute REL (Acrolein) 0.19 Risk Calculations: 261 Feet from SR-85 Centerline

Hourly Concentration: 0.474565 μg/m3 (output from CAL3QHCR run) Annual Average Conc: 0.037965

Cancer Risk Cancer Risk: 9.994824 BAAQMD Threshold 10 in one million

Cancer Risk = Slope * Inhalation Dose

Inhalation Dose = (Cair*DBR*A*EF*ED*10-6)/AT

Slope 1.1 (mg/kg/day)-1 Inhalation Dose Dose through inhalation (mg/kg-d) 10-6 Micrograms to milligrams conversions, liters to cubic mete Cair Concentration in air (ug/m3), modeled annual average con DBR 302 L/kg-day Daily breathing Rate (l/kg body weight-day) (80%ile) A 1 Inhalation absorption factor EF 350 days/year Exposure frequency (days/year) ED 70 years Exposure duration (years) AT 25550 days Averaging time period over which exposure is averaged, in

Chronic Noncancer Hazard BAAQMD Threshold 1 in one million

Hazard Quotient = Ci/RELi

HQ = 0.007593

Ci 0.037965 Concentration (annual average)

RELi 5 Reference Exposure Level

Acute NonCancer Hazard BAAQMD Threshold 1 in one million

Acute HQ = Maximum Hourly Concentration/Acute REL

Acute HQ = 0.008742

Max Hourly 0.474565 Acute REL (Acrolein) 0.19 ers conversion ncentration

n days (70 years*365 = 25,550 days) Risk Calculations: 300 Feet from SR-85 Centerline

Hourly Concentration: 0.41 μg/m3 (output from CAL3QHCR run) Annual Average Conc: 0.0328

Cancer Risk Cancer Risk: 8.635019 BAAQMD Threshold 10 in one million

Cancer Risk = Slope * Inhalation Dose

Inhalation Dose = (Cair*DBR*A*EF*ED*10-6)/AT

Slope 1.1 (mg/kg/day)-1 Inhalation Dose Dose through inhalation (mg/kg-d) 10-6 Micrograms to milligrams conversions, liters to cubic meters conversion Cair Concentration in air (ug/m3), modeled annual average concentration DBR 302 L/kg-day Daily breathing Rate (l/kg body weight-day) (80%ile) A 1 Inhalation absorption factor EF 350 days/year Exposure frequency (days/year) ED 70 years Exposure duration (years) AT 25550 days Averaging time period over which exposure is averaged, in days (70 years*365 = 25,550 days)

Chronic Noncancer Hazard BAAQMD Threshold 1 in one million

Hazard Quotient = Ci/RELi

HQ = 0.00656

Ci 0.0328 Concentration (annual average)

RELi 5 Reference Exposure Level

Acute NonCancer Hazard BAAQMD Threshold 1 in one million

Acute HQ = Maximum Hourly Concentration/Acute REL

Acute HQ = 0.007553

MaxMax H Hourlyourly 0410.41 Acute REL (Acrolein) 0.19 albright.lst 1 CAL3QHCR - (DATED 95221) CAL3QHCR PC (32 BIT) VERSION 3.1.1 (C) COPYRIGHT 1993-2001, TRINITY CONSULTANTS Run Began on 2/02/2011 at 17:03:16

DATE : 02/02/2011 PAGE: 1 TIME : 17:03:16 JOB: ALBRIGHT RUN:

======General Information ======Run start date: 1/ 1/93 Julian: 1 end date: 12/31/93 Julian: 365

A Tier 2 approach was used for input data preparation.

The MODE flag has been set to P for calculating PM averages.

Ambient background concentrations are included in the averages below.

Site & Meteorological Constants ------VS = 0.0 CM/S VD = 0.0 CM/S Z0 = 0. CM ATIM = 60.

Met. Sfc. Sta. Id & Yr = 7801 93 Upper Air Sta. Id & Yr = 7801 93

Urban mixing heights were processed.

In 1993, Julian day 1 is a Friday.

The patterns from the input file have been assigned as follows:

Pattern # 1 is assigned to Monday. Pattern # 1 is assigned to Tuesday. Pattern # 1 is assigned to Wednesday. Pattern # 1 is assigned to Thursday. Pattern # 1 is assigned to Friday. Pattern # 1 is assigned to Saturday. Pattern # 1 is assigned to Sunday. Link Data Constants - (Variable data in *.LNK file) ------LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH BRG TYPE H W NLANES * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (M) (M)

------*------*------1. 85 * 591353.9 ******** 591530.8 ******** * 191. 112. DP -6.1 42.7 2. 85 * 591530.8 ******** 591796.2 ******** * 277. 107. DP -6.1 42.7 3. 85 * 591796.2 ******** 592550.0 ******** * 822. Page 1 albright.lst 113. DP -6.1 42.7 Trinity Consultants CAL3QHCR+ (Dated: 95221) DATE : 02/02/2011 PAGE: 2 TIME : 17:03:16 JOB: ALBRIGHT RUN:

Receptor Data ------* COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR * X Y Z ------*------1. * 591876.6 ******** 1.8 2. * 591921.6 ******** 1.8 3. * 591970.4 ******** 1.8 4. * 592014.9 ******** 1.8 5. * 592054.4 ******** 1.8 6. * 591865.6 ******** 1.8 7. * 591914.1 ******** 1.8 8. * 591967.9 ******** 1.8 9. * 592008.0 ******** 1.8 10. * 592046.7 ******** 1.8 11. * 591854.0 ******** 1.8 12. * 591903.9 ******** 1.8 13. * 591951.4 ******** 1.8 14. * 591998.7 ******** 1.8 15. * 592042.4 ******** 1.8 16. 250 ft * 591861.1 ******** 1.8 17. 250 ft * 591908.6 ******** 1.8 18. 250 ft * 591965.8 ******** 1.8 19. 250 ft * 592005.2 ******** 1.8 20. 250 ft * 592045.3 ******** 1.8

Model Results ------

Remarks : In search of the wind direction corresponding to the maximum concentration, only the first direction, of the directions with the same maximum concentrations, is indicated as the maximum.

* MAXIMUM HOURLY CONCENTRATIONS WITH ANY AMBIENT BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS (BKG) ADDED * (MICROGRAMS/M**3) * REC1 REC2 REC3 REC4 REC5 REC6 REC7 REC8 REC9 REC10

------*------MAX+BKG * 0.121634E+01 0.961975E+00 0.866490E+00 0.804939E+00 0.747998E+00 0.526711E+00 0.510984E+00 0.507514E+00 0.480624E+00 0.458595E+00 - BKG * 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00

------*------MAX * 0.121634E+01 0.961975E+00 0.866490E+00 0.804939E+00 0.747998E+00 0.526711E+00 0.510984E+00 0.507514E+00 0.480624E+00 0.458595E+00 WIND DIR* 105 105 296 296 296 101 101 101 101 97 JULIAN * 33 33 83 83 83 Page 2 albright.lst 10 10 10 10 98 HOUR * 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

Trinity Consultants CAL3QHCR+ (Dated: 95221) DATE : 02/02/2011 PAGE: 3 TIME : 17:03:16 JOB: ALBRIGHT RUN:

* MAXIMUM HOURLY CONCENTRATIONS WITH ANY AMBIENT BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS (BKG) ADDED * (MICROGRAMS/M**3) * REC11 REC12 REC13 REC14 REC15 REC16 REC17 REC18 REC19 REC20

------*------MAX+BKG * 0.410046E+00 0.401437E+00 0.376083E+00 0.358158E+00 0.348568E+00 0.474565E+00 0.457291E+00 0.454279E+00 0.439627E+00 0.420855E+00 - BKG * 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00

------*------MAX * 0.410046E+00 0.401437E+00 0.376083E+00 0.358158E+00 0.348568E+00 0.474565E+00 0.457291E+00 0.454279E+00 0.439627E+00 0.420855E+00 WIND DIR* 101 97 97 97 96 101 101 101 97 97 JULIAN * 10 98 98 98 28 10 10 10 98 98 HOUR * 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION OF 0.121634E+01 UG/M**3 OCCURRED AT RECEPTOR REC1 .

Trinity Consultants CAL3QHCR+ (Dated: 95221)

DATE : 02/02/2011 PAGE: 4 TIME : 17:04:25 JOB: ALBRIGHT RUN:

======Output Section ======NOTES PERTAINING TO THE REPORT 1. THE HIGHEST AVERAGE IN EACH OF THE FIRST TWO COLUMNS OF EACH TABLE BELOW ARE SUFFIXED BY AN ASTERISK (*). FOR PM OUTPUT, THERE IS ONLY ONE COLUMN AND ASTERISK FOR THE ANNUAL AVERAGE/PERIOD OF CONCERN TABLE.

2. THE NUMBERS IN PARENTHESES ARE THE JULIAN DAY AND ENDING HOUR FOR THE PRECEDING AVERAGE.

3. THE NUMBER OF CALM HOURS USED IN PRODUCING EACH AVERAGE ARE PREFIXED BY A C. Page 3 albright.lst

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY AVERAGES. FIVE HIGHEST 24-HOUR END-TO-END AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 INCLUDING AMBIENT BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS. Highest Second Highest Third Highest Fourth Highest Fifth Highest Rcptr Ending Ending Ending Ending Ending No. Conc Day Hr Calm Conc Day Hr Calm Conc Day Hr Calm Conc Day Hr Calm Conc Day Hr Calm 1 0.116918E+00*(182,24) C 0 0.115184E+00*(181,24) C 0 0.114274E+00 (351,24) C 0 0.105015E+00 ( 38,24) C 0 0.103414E+00 (235,24) C 0 2 0.914093E-01 (182,24) C 0 0.900589E-01 (181,24) C 0 0.892522E-01 (351,24) C 0 0.886829E-01 (113,24) C 0 0.850380E-01 (232,24) C 0 3 0.787120E-01 (232,24) C 0 0.765394E-01 (113,24) C 0 0.729686E-01 (182,24) C 0 0.718936E-01 ( 58,24) C 0 0.714771E-01 (181,24) C 0 4 0.761358E-01 (232,24) C 0 0.721034E-01 (113,24) C 0 0.699714E-01 ( 58,24) C 0 0.672360E-01 (182,24) C 0 0.671006E-01 (244,24) C 0 5 0.742733E-01 (232,24) C 0 0.687688E-01 ( 58,24) C 0 0.687130E-01 (113,24) C 0 0.666497E-01 (244,24) C 0 0.661544E-01 (163,24) C 0 6 0.499703E-01 ( 58,24) C 0 0.446787E-01 (163,24) C 0 0.443992E-01 (219,24) C 0 0.439073E-01 (182,24) C 0 0.436081E-01 (232,24) C 0 7 0.485008E-01 ( 58,24) C 0 0.453628E-01 (163,24) C 0 0.437631E-01 (219,24) C 0 0.418608E-01 ( 28,24) C 0 0.413054E-01 (274,24) C 0 8 0.484049E-01 ( 58,24) C 0 0.465265E-01 (163,24) C 0 0.444953E-01 (274,24) C 0 0.437759E-01 (219,24) C 0 0.424731E-01 (167,24) C 0 9 0.468407E-01 ( 58,24) C 0 0.465817E-01 (163,24) C 0 0.460246E-01 (274,24) C 0 0.425584E-01 (167,24) C 0 0.425369E-01 (254,24) C 0 10 0.459873E-01 (274,24) C 0 0.457937E-01 (163,24) C 0 0.446755E-01 ( 58,24) C 0 0.424354E-01 (120,24) C 0 0.420405E-01 (167,24) C 0 11 0.398177E-01 ( 58,24) C 0 0.365467E-01 (163,24) C 0 0.360943E-01 (274,24) C 0 0.355515E-01 (122,24) C 0 0.351339E-01 ( 28,24) C 0 12 0.386665E-01 ( 58,24) C 0 0.365366E-01 (163,24) C 0 0.346617E-01 ( 28,24) C 0 0.346278E-01 (122,24) C 0 0.344960E-01 (219,24) C 0 13 0.352923E-01 ( 58,24) C 0 0.349710E-01 (163,24) C 0 0.333541E-01 (274,24) C 0 0.329015E-01 (167,24) C 0 0.327017E-01 ( 28,24) C 0 14 0.354274E-01 (163,24) C 0 0.339205E-01 (274,24) C 0 0.334169E-01 (167,24) C 0 0.331934E-01 ( 58,24) C 0 0.324198E-01 (254,24) C 0 15 0.364096E-01 (163,24) C 0 0.356839E-01 (274,24) C 0 0.343925E-01 (167,24) C 0 0.333270E-01 (254,24) C 0 0.327002E-01 (154,24) C 0 16 0.454264E-01 ( 58,24) C 0 0.412993E-01 (163,24) C 0 0.403289E-01 (219,24) C 0 0.393310E-01 ( 28,24) C 0 0.390339E-01 (274,24) C 0 17 0.441341E-01 ( 58,24) C 0 0.415025E-01 (163,24) C 0 0.397329E-01 (219,24) C 0 0.386295E-01 ( 28,24) C 0 0.377778E-01 (167,24) C 0 18 0.442022E-01 ( 58,24) C 0 0.430501E-01 (163,24) C 0 0.404633E-01 (274,24) C 0 0.400499E-01 (219,24) C 0 0.393611E-01 (167,24) C 0 19 0.433057E-01 (163,24) C 0 0.424909E-01 ( 58,24) C 0 0.421568E-01 (274,24) C 0 0.396870E-01 (167,24) C 0 0.395085E-01 (254,24) C 0 20 0.425702E-01 (163,24) C 0 0.424113E-01 (274,24) C 0 0.401069E-01 ( 58,24) C 0 0.393590E-01 (167,24) C 0 0.388956E-01 (254,24) C 0 THE HIGHEST ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 INCLUDING AMBIENT BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS. Receptor Maximum Ending Number Conc Day Hr Calm 1 0.407598E-01* (365,24) C 20

Trinity Consultants CAL3QHCR+ (Dated: 95221) DATE : 02/02/2011 Page 4 albright.lst PAGE: 5 TIME : 17:04:25 JOB: ALBRIGHT RUN:

THE HIGHEST ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 INCLUDING AMBIENT BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS. Receptor Maximum Ending Number Conc Day Hr Calm 2 0.328297E-01 (365,24) C 20 3 0.266585E-01 (365,24) C 20 4 0.246945E-01 (365,24) C 20 5 0.232855E-01 (365,24) C 20 6 0.152052E-01 (365,24) C 20 7 0.145511E-01 (365,24) C 20 8 0.144070E-01 (365,24) C 20 9 0.135703E-01 (365,24) C 20 10 0.125370E-01 (365,24) C 20 11 0.108218E-01 (365,24) C 20 12 0.102872E-01 (365,24) C 20 13 0.913063E-02 (365,24) C 20 14 0.858169E-02 (365,24) C 20 15 0.839209E-02 (365,24) C 20 16 0.130856E-01 (365,24) C 20 17 0.124967E-01 (365,24) C 20 18 0.124921E-01 (365,24) C 20 19 0.117775E-01 (365,24) C 20 20 0.108707E-01 (365,24) C 20

MAXIMUM 24-HOUR AVERAGED LINK CONTRIBUTIONS IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 INCLUDING AMBIENT BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS.

Rcptr Total Ending Ambient Total Link Link Link No. Conc Day Hr Backgnd Link +1 +2 +3

1 0.116918E+00 (182,24) 0.0000E+00 0.116918E+00 0.154035E-04 0.107814E-03 0.116794E+00 2 0.914093E-01 (182,24) 0.0000E+00 0.914093E-01 0.126972E-04 0.563707E-04 0.913402E-01 3 0.787120E-01 (232,24) 0.0000E+00 0.787120E-01 0.190739E-01 0.363023E-01 0.233358E-01 4 0.761358E-01 (232,24) 0.0000E+00 0.761358E-01 0.171582E-01 0.296130E-01 0.293646E-01 5 0.742733E-01 (232,24) 0.0000E+00 0.742733E-01 0.147636E-01 0.248647E-01 0.346451E-01 6 0.499703E-01 ( 58,24) 0.0000E+00 0.499703E-01 0.370560E-02 0.974384E-02 0.365209E-01 7 0.485008E-01 ( 58,24) 0.0000E+00 0.485008E-01 0.292759E-02 0.972768E-02 0.358456E-01 8 0.484049E-01 ( 58,24) 0.0000E+00 0.484049E-01 0.215299E-02 0.957873E-02 0.366732E-01 9 0.468407E-01 ( 58,24) 0.0000E+00 0.468407E-01 0.187877E-02 0.875163E-02 0.362103E-01 10 0.459873E-01 (274,24) 0.0000E+00 0.459873E-01 0.114503E-03 0.531349E-02 0.405593E-01 11 0.398177E-01 ( 58,24) 0.0000E+00 0.398177E-01 0.531332E-02 0.506023E-02 0.294442E-01 12 0.386665E-01 ( 58,24) 0.0000E+00 0.386665E-01 0.435956E-02 0.579752E-02 0.285094E-01 13 0.352923E-01 ( 58,24) 0.0000E+00 0.352923E-01 0.376359E-02 0.561315E-02 Page 5 albright.lst 0.259155E-01 14 0.354274E-01 (163,24) 0.0000E+00 0.354274E-01 0.272082E-02 0.107439E-01 0.219626E-01 Trinity Consultants CAL3QHCR+ (Dated: 95221) DATE : 02/02/2011 PAGE: 6 TIME : 17:04:25 JOB: ALBRIGHT RUN:

LINK CONTRIBUTION TABLES

MAXIMUM 24-HOUR AVERAGED LINK CONTRIBUTIONS IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 INCLUDING AMBIENT BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS. Rcptr Total Ending Ambient Total Link Link Link No. Conc Day Hr Backgnd Link +1 +2 +3

15 0.364096E-01 (163,24) 0.0000E+00 0.364096E-01 0.225878E-02 0.873789E-02 0.254129E-01 16 0.454264E-01 ( 58,24) 0.0000E+00 0.454263E-01 0.452196E-02 0.770177E-02 0.332026E-01 17 0.441341E-01 ( 58,24) 0.0000E+00 0.441341E-01 0.362275E-02 0.805694E-02 0.324544E-01 18 0.442022E-01 ( 58,24) 0.0000E+00 0.442022E-01 0.261336E-02 0.865700E-02 0.329318E-01 19 0.433057E-01 (163,24) 0.0000E+00 0.433057E-01 0.197957E-02 0.102328E-01 0.310933E-01 20 0.425702E-01 (163,24) 0.0000E+00 0.425702E-01 0.175225E-02 0.839524E-02 0.324227E-01

SECOND HIGHEST 24-HOUR AVERAGED LINK CONTRIBUTIONS IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 INCLUDING AMBIENT BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS.

Rcptr Total Ending Ambient Total Link Link Link No. Conc Day Hr Backgnd Link +1 +2 +3

1 0.115184E+00 (181,24) 0.0000E+00 0.115184E+00 0.179228E-02 0.651251E-03 0.112740E+00 2 0.900589E-01 (181,24) 0.0000E+00 0.900589E-01 0.138378E-02 0.446299E-03 0.882288E-01 3 0.765394E-01 (113,24) 0.0000E+00 0.765394E-01 0.213370E-01 0.178314E-01 0.373710E-01 4 0.721034E-01 (113,24) 0.0000E+00 0.721034E-01 0.190617E-01 0.151050E-01 0.379367E-01 5 0.687688E-01 ( 58,24) 0.0000E+00 0.687688E-01 0.222830E-02 0.613803E-02 0.604024E-01 6 0.446787E-01 (163,24) 0.0000E+00 0.446787E-01 0.328132E-02 0.259348E-01 0.154626E-01 7 0.453628E-01 (163,24) 0.0000E+00 0.453628E-01 0.257725E-02 0.180222E-01 0.247633E-01 8 0.465265E-01 (163,24) 0.0000E+00 0.465264E-01 0.190715E-02 0.122386E-01 0.323807E-01 9 0.465817E-01 (163,24) 0.0000E+00 0.465817E-01 0.166150E-02 0.980171E-02 0.351185E-01 10 0.457937E-01 (163,24) 0.0000E+00 0.457937E-01 0.148915E-02 0.805996E-02 Page 6 albright.lst 0.362446E-01 11 0.365467E-01 (163,24) 0.0000E+00 0.365467E-01 0.479173E-02 0.258742E-01 0.588081E-02 12 0.365366E-01 (163,24) 0.0000E+00 0.365366E-01 0.379771E-02 0.177153E-01 0.150235E-01 13 0.349710E-01 (163,24) 0.0000E+00 0.349710E-01 0.323353E-02 0.133801E-01 0.183574E-01 14 0.339205E-01 (274,24) 0.0000E+00 0.339205E-01 0.550585E-03 0.152383E-01 0.181317E-01 15 0.356839E-01 (274,24) 0.0000E+00 0.356839E-01 0.368457E-03 0.102400E-01 0.250754E-01 16 0.412993E-01 (163,24) 0.0000E+00 0.412993E-01 0.398412E-02 0.261315E-01 0.111837E-01 17 0.415025E-01 (163,24) 0.0000E+00 0.415025E-01 0.314880E-02 0.182503E-01 0.201034E-01 18 0.430501E-01 (163,24) 0.0000E+00 0.430501E-01 0.227485E-02 0.125479E-01 0.282274E-01 19 0.424909E-01 ( 58,24) 0.0000E+00 0.424909E-01 0.227971E-02 0.821923E-02 0.319920E-01 20 0.424113E-01 (274,24) 0.0000E+00 0.424113E-01 0.172204E-03 0.690963E-02 0.353295E-01

Trinity Consultants CAL3QHCR+ (Dated: 95221)

DATE : 02/02/2011 PAGE: 7 TIME : 17:04:25

JOB: ALBRIGHT RUN:

LINK CONTRIBUTION TABLES

MAXIMUM ANNUAL AVERAGED LINK CONTRIBUTIONS IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 INCLUDING AMBIENT BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS.

Rcptr Total Ending Ambient Total Link Link Link No. Conc Day Hr Backgnd Link +1 +2 +3

1 0.407598E-01 (365,24) 0.0000E+00 0.407598E-01 0.124061E-02 0.310988E-02 0.364093E-01 2 0.328297E-01 (365,24) 0.0000E+00 0.328297E-01 0.106283E-02 0.204060E-02 0.297263E-01 3 0.266585E-01 (365,24) 0.0000E+00 0.266585E-01 0.913689E-03 0.139783E-02 0.243470E-01 4 0.246945E-01 (365,24) 0.0000E+00 0.246945E-01 0.805774E-03 0.106528E-02 0.228235E-01 5 0.232855E-01 (365,24) 0.0000E+00 0.232855E-01 0.689905E-03 0.862326E-03 0.217333E-01 6 0.152052E-01 (365,24) 0.0000E+00 0.152051E-01 0.489416E-03 0.320400E-02 0.115117E-01 7 0.145511E-01 (365,24) 0.0000E+00 0.145510E-01 0.401968E-03 0.222713E-02 0.119220E-01 8 0.144070E-01 (365,24) 0.0000E+00 0.144070E-01 0.327728E-03 0.153421E-02 0.125451E-01 9 0.135703E-01 (365,24) 0.0000E+00 0.135703E-01 0.289370E-03 0.123283E-02 0.120481E-01 10 0.125370E-01 (365,24) 0.0000E+00 0.125370E-01 0.259547E-03 0.100753E-02 0.112699E-01 11 0.108218E-01 (365,24) 0.0000E+00 0.108218E-01 0.572380E-03 0.307985E-02 0.716960E-02 12 0.102872E-01 (365,24) 0.0000E+00 0.102871E-01 0.460295E-03 0.221101E-02 Page 7 albright.lst 0.761583E-02 13 0.913063E-02 (365,24) 0.0000E+00 0.913064E-02 0.389567E-03 0.166323E-02 0.707784E-02 14 0.858169E-02 (365,24) 0.0000E+00 0.858167E-02 0.331925E-03 0.131122E-02 0.693853E-02 15 0.839209E-02 (365,24) 0.0000E+00 0.839207E-02 0.286902E-03 0.105975E-02 0.704541E-02 16 0.130856E-01 (365,24) 0.0000E+00 0.130856E-01 0.522733E-03 0.316291E-02 0.939991E-02 17 0.124967E-01 (365,24) 0.0000E+00 0.124967E-01 0.428064E-03 0.225202E-02 0.981659E-02 18 0.124921E-01 (365,24) 0.0000E+00 0.124920E-01 0.341405E-03 0.156229E-02 0.105883E-01 19 0.117775E-01 (365,24) 0.0000E+00 0.117775E-01 0.301416E-03 0.126992E-02 0.102062E-01 20 0.108707E-01 (365,24) 0.0000E+00 0.108707E-01 0.268552E-03 0.103257E-02 0.956956E-02 Trinity Consultants CAL3QHCR+ (Dated: 95221) DATE : 02/02/2011 PAGE: 8 TIME : 17:04:25

JOB: ALBRIGHT RUN:

CALM DURATION FREQUENCY

Hours of Frequency Consecutive of Calm Winds Occurrence (Julian day/hour ending) of Significant Occurrences

1 8 ( 4,12)( 30,12)( 82, 8)(176,15)(215, 8)(271, 7)(333,11)(343,13) 3 2 ( 61,18)(228,15) 6 1 ( 62,16)

Program terminated normally

Page 8 Summary Results

Project Name: Albright Way Construction and Operations Project‐Baseline CO2e (metric tons/year) Project and Baseline Years: 2016 N/A 4,016.07 Transportation: 3,437.63 Unmitigated Project‐ Mitigated Project‐ 0.23 Baseline CO2e (metric Baseline CO2e Area Source: 0.23 Results tons/year) (metric tons/year) 2,579.01 Transportation: 4,016.07 3,437.63 Electricity: 2,579.01 Area Source: 0.23 0.23 420.34 Electricity: 2,579.01 2,579.01 Natural Gas: 420.34 Natural Gas: 420.34 420.34 40.16 Water & Wastewater: 40.16 40.16 Water & Wastewater: 40.16 Solid Waste: 211.77 211.77 211.77 Solid Waste: Agriculture: 0.00 0.00 211.77 Unmitigated Off‐Road Equipment: 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mitigated Agriculture: Refrigerants: 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sequestration: N/A 0.00 0.00 Off‐Road Equipment: Purchase of Offsets: N/A 0.00 0.00 Total: 7,267.57 6,689.13 0.00 Refrigerants: 0.00 0.00 Sequestration: Baseline is currently: OFF 0.00 0.00 Baseline Project Name: Purchase of Offsets: Go to Settings Tab to Turn On Baseline 0.00 0.00 500.00 1,000.00 1,500.00 2,000.00 2,500.00 3,000.00 3,500.00 4,000.00 4,500.00 Detailed Results

Unmitigated CO2 (metric tpy) CH4 (metric tpy) N2O (metric tpy) CO2e (metric tpy) % of Total Baseline CO2 (metric tpy) CH4 (metric tpy) N2O (metric tpy) CO2e (metric tpy) % of Total Transportation*: 4,016.07 55.26% Transportation*: 0.00 N/A Area Source: 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00% Area Source: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A Electricity: 2,574.88 0.02 0.01 2,579.01 35.49% Electricity: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A Natural Gas: 419.26 0.04 0.00 420.34 5.78% Natural Gas: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A Water & Wastewater: 40.09 0.00 0.00 40.16 0.55% Water & Wastewater: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A Solid Waste: 1.53 10.01 N/A 211.77 2.91% Solid Waste: 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A Agriculture: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Agriculture: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A Off‐Road Equipment: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Off‐Road Equipment: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A Refrigerants: N/A N/A N/A 0.00 0.00% Refrigerants: N/A N/A N/A 0.00 N/A Sequestration: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Sequestration: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Purchase of Offsets: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Purchase of Offsets: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total: 7,267.57 100.00% Total: 0.00 0.00%

* Several adjustments were made to transportation emissions after they have been imported from URBEMIS. After importing from URBEMIS, CO2 emissions are converted to metric tons and then adjusted to account for the "Pavley" regulation. Then, CO2 is converted to CO2e by multiplying by 100/95 to account for the contribution of other GHGs (CH4, N2O, and HFCs [from leaking air conditioners]) Finally, CO2e is adjusted to account for th low carbon fuels rule. Summary Results

Project Name: Albright Way Scenario C Project‐Baseline CO2e (metric tons/year) Project and Baseline Years: 2016 N/A 2,426.75 Transportation: 2,426.75 Unmitigated Project‐ Mitigated Project‐ 20.39 Baseline CO2e (metric Baseline CO2e Area Source: 20.39 Results tons/year) (metric tons/year) 2,555.86 Transportation: 2,426.75 2,426.75 Electricity: 2,555.86 Area Source: 20.39 20.39 896.71 Electricity: 2,555.86 2,555.86 Natural Gas: 896.71 Natural Gas: 896.71 896.71 Water & Wastewater: 87.46 Water & Wastewater: 87.46 87.46 87.46 Solid Waste: 883.18 883.18 Solid Waste: 883.18 Agriculture: 0.00 0.00 883.18 Unmitigated Off‐Road Equipment: 0.00 0.00 Mitigated Agriculture: 0.00 Refrigerants: 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sequestration: N/A 0.00 Off‐Road Equipment: 0.00 Purchase of Offsets: N/A 0.00 0.00 Total: 6,870.34 6,870.34 0.00 Refrigerants: 0.00

Sequestration: 0.00 Baseline is currently: OFF 0.00 Baseline Project Name: 0.00 Purchase of Offsets: 0.00 Go to Settings Tab to Turn On Baseline 0.00 500.00 1,000.00 1,500.00 2,000.00 2,500.00 3,000.00 Summary Results

Project Name: Albright Way Scenario D Project‐Baseline CO2e (metric tons/year) Project and Baseline Years: 2016 N/A 1,412.49 Transportation: 1,412.49 Unmitigated Project‐ Mitigated Project‐ 20.39 Baseline CO2e (metric Baseline CO2e Area Source: 20.39 Results tons/year) (metric tons/year) 2,555.86 Transportation: 1,412.49 1,412.49 Electricity: 2,555.86 Area Source: 20.39 20.39 896.71 Electricity: 2,555.86 2,555.86 Natural Gas: 896.71 Natural Gas: 896.71 896.71 87.46 Water & Wastewater: 87.46 87.46 Water & Wastewater: 87.46 Solid Waste: 883.18 883.18 Solid Waste: 883.18 Agriculture: 0.00 0.00 883.18 Unmitigated Off‐Road Equipment: 0.00 0.00 Mitigated Agriculture: 0.00 Refrigerants: 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sequestration: N/A 0.00 Off‐Road Equipment: 0.00 Purchase of Offsets: N/A 0.00 0.00 Total: 5,856.09 5,856.09 0.00 Refrigerants: 0.00

Sequestration: 0.00 Baseline is currently: OFF 0.00 Baseline Project Name: Purchase of Offsets: 0.00 Go to Settings Tab to Turn On Baseline 0.00 0.00 500.00 1,000.00 1,500.00 2,000.00 2,500.00 3,000.00

INITIAL STUDY – 90-160 ALBRIGHT WAY AND 14600 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD

ATTACHMENT 3

ARBORIST REPORT FOR 90-160 ALBRIGHT WAY AND 14600 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD LOS GATOS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PD-10-005

BY

DEBORAH ELLIS, MS

FEBRUARY 18, 2011

Deborah Ellis, MS

Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist

Service since 1984 Joel Paulson, Senior Planner Town of Los Gatos Community Planning Dept. 110 E. Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95031

February 18, 2011

Arborist Report for: 90-160 Albright Way and 14600 Winchester Boulevard, Los Gatos Planned Development Application PD-10-005

Dear Joel:

I have reviewed the Tree Location Exhibit dated February 2011, the previous Arborist Report for the site by McClenahan Consulting dated July 10, 2010, and the Memo from applicant Mike Keaney dated February 4, 2011. I also spent several hours at the site on February 16, looking at the trees and referring to the previous documents.

My assignment for this project is as follows:

1. Review the previous Arborist Report and Tree Location Exhibit (page 2)

2. Develop specific tree protection measures for those trees proposed to be retained (page 2)

3. Identify key specimen trees to retain on the site (if possible), and prepare tree protection measures for these trees. (page 6)

4. Develop tree protection measures for any other tree that it may be possible to retain (page 10)

******************************

I certify that the information contained in this report is correct to the best of my knowledge, and that this report was prepared in good faith. Thank you for the opportunity to provide service again. Please call me if you have questions or if I can be of further assistance.

Sincerely, Deborah Ellis Deborah Ellis, MS. Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Certified Professional Horticulturist #30022 ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #305 I.S.A. Board Certified Master Arborist WE-457B

PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. [email protected]. http://www.decah.com. 90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 1 of 23

Deborah Ellis, MS

Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist

Service since 1984

1. Review of previous Arborist Report and Tree Location Exhibit: There are 440 existing trees described in the previous arborist report. The majority these (391 trees) are tentatively proposed for removal, as part of a “worst case scenario” for CEQA purposes. There are three groups of trees along the perimeter of the property that the developer proposes to save at this time, totaling 49 trees.

The condition of the great majority of the trees on this site is listed as “Fair” or less, as per the July 10 Arborist Report. Only one tree on the site is listed as having “Good” condition, and this is tree #283, a 7-inch trunk diameter Chinese pistache tree. The next-best category of trees in terms of tree condition is “Fair to Good”. There are 118 trees in this category, which is 27% of the entire tree population. Although these “Fair to Good” trees are scattered throughout the site, the majority of them are located in the west-central portion of the site including most of the trees that are proposed to be saved along Winchester Boulevard. I have highlighted and labeled this area on the Tree Location Exhibit Plan on the next page.

I did not recheck every tree and the tree data listed in the previous Arborist Report. Based upon spending several hours at the site and referencing the information in the report on a dozen or so trees, I can say that I agree with the tree condition ratings. The tree trunk diameters and tree sizes listed also seem to be correct. In my opinion the Arborist Report by McClenahan is a good report and it will be a useful tool in helping to make final decisions on which specific trees to save or remove.

2. Develop specific tree protection measures for those trees proposed to be retained a) The Town of Los Gatos General Tree Protection Directions are included on page 11. These minimum standards will apply to all trees that will be retained on the site, and involve primarily tree protection fencing. In these directions either 5 or 6-foot high chain link fencing is allowed. In order to provide maximum protection for trees to be retained I require that only 6-foot high chain link fencing be used. b) In addition I have provided some Supplemental Tree Protection Specifications that address construction zone/tree protection topics other than tree protection fencing; for example dealing with tree roots, tree irrigation, pruning for construction clearance, etc. These Supplemental Specifications begin on page 12. c) There are 3 main groups of trees that are proposed to be saved; all located along the perimeter of the project. I have labeled these trees as Groups A, B and C in the Tree Exhibit Location Plan on the next page. I have also attached a separate, larger copy of this plan for your convenience. To follow is a short description of each group, and the main tree protection considerations for that group.

PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. [email protected]. http://www.decah.com. 90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 2 of 23

Deborah Ellis, MS

Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist

Service since 1984

Tree Location Exhibit Plan, February 2011 (with mark-ups by D. Ellis, 2/17/11) A separate, larger copy of this plan is also enclosed

1) Group A on the southern property line adjacent to the existing residential area near Charter Oaks Drive includes 17 trees (#124 – 132, 134 - 141): This row of trees includes mostly coast redwoods with several deodar cedars and one red gum (#141). All trees are listed as having “Fair” or less condition. Trunk diameters of the trees range from 8 to 25 inches, with most in the 12 to 18 inch range. These trees serve as screen trees between adjacent properties. There is a deep drainage swale between the trees and the adjacent property to the south. This swale will make installing tree protection fencing on both sides of the trees difficult. Since there will not be any construction on the neighboring property (and there may have to be a perimeter construction fence along the property line anyway) the tree protection fencing may be placed on the project (North) side and at each end of the tree row (East and West) sides. Spacing will be tight between the tree protection fence and the existing buildings and

PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. [email protected]. http://www.decah.com. 90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 3 of 23

Deborah Ellis, MS

Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist

Service since 1984 other improvements, but it can be done. Fencing should be placed as far from the tree trunks as possible while still allowing demolition to proceed. After demolition is completed, the tree protection fencing may need to be moved farther from the tree trunks; the setback for proposed parking will be 15 feet from the property line. Before this location is finalized I want to check and make sure this will be far enough from the trees. It is possible that some trees may be recommended for removal if grading will be too close to the trunk. The final tree protection fencing should be placed as far from the tree trunks as possible while still allowing construction to take place. The project consulting arborist must assist in the fencing location process in order to make sure that the fencing is not located unnecessarily close to the tree trunks. This will depend somewhat on whether or not the existing swale will be filled in between the trees and the proposed parking lot.

Group A trees to save, the east end of the tree row with red gum #141.

PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. [email protected]. http://www.decah.com. 90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 4 of 23

Deborah Ellis, MS

Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist

Service since 1984 2) Group B (Southwest corner of site, west of Group A, trees #25 – 28. 106, 107 and 113 – 116): These10 trees include mostly Canary Island pines with trunk diameters greater than 18 inches. There are also a few coast live oaks and one Aristocrat pear. Trunk diameters range from 7 to 23 inches. All of the trees are listed as having “Fair” or less condition. These trees are located within or on the perimeter of an existing parking area, adjacent to a residential area to the south. Recommendations for tree protection fencing are the same as for Group A trees. I will also need to check the actual distances from tree trunks to improvements to make sure all of the trees can actually be saved.

Group B trees to save.

Upper photo: The North end of the tree row, with Canary Island pine #108 in foreground.

Lower photo: The South end of the row with Canary Island pine #28 at far right.

PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. [email protected]. http://www.decah.com. 90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 5 of 23

Deborah Ellis, MS

Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist

Service since 1984 3) Group C (Winchester Boulevard perimeter, along the railroad right-of-way, trees #324 and 326 – 346). There are 22 trees in this tree row; mostly redwoods and deodar cedars. The applicant states that the majority of the site improvements will be in areas of the site that are already developed with parking and other improvements, so it will be possible to save these trees. Most of these trees are listed as having “Fair to Good” condition, a lesser number in “Fair” condition and a few trees in “Fair to Poor” condition. Recommendations for tree protection fencing are also the same as for Group A trees, and I will also need to check the distances to improvements to make sure all of the trees can actually be saved.

Group C trees to save starting with Coast redwood #346 at the North end and progressing South to #324.

3. Identify key specimen trees to retain on the site (if possible), and prepare tree protection measures for these trees.

There are a lot of nice trees on this site, and although many of these trees are not perfect, they are worth saving if possible. The best trees on site seem to be the large Canary Island pines, coast redwoods and deodar cedars. There are also many nice smaller trees such as crape myrtles and flowering pears. There are many similar trees to these and other species in various areas of the site,

PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. [email protected]. http://www.decah.com. 90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 6 of 23

Deborah Ellis, MS

Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist

Service since 1984 and it is difficult to differentiate between them in order to pick out “key” trees. So instead I recommend trying to save as many trees in “Fair to Good” to “Good” condition as possible, with a lesser number of trees in “Fair” condition. Trees listed in “Fair to Poor” condition should probably be removed. Trees in “Poor” condition should definitely be removed. It is important to understand that by “save” I mean designing improvements and landscaping around these trees so that the trees can survive for a long time, for example 20 years or more. Do not try to fit the trees into too-small spaces where they will quickly decline, die or fail. How much room does an individual tree need? We never really know, but we (by we, I mean arborists including myself) have some guidelines that we start with, for planning purposes. More on this in Section #4 of this report.

Some of the larger and most impressive trees on site (the numbers and locations of these trees are included in the Tree Exhibit map in this report):

• Red oak #93: I think this is probably a pin oak (Quercus palustris) or another eastern U.S. oak species. The tree’s trunk diameter is 16. 8 inches, overall tree size 50 feet tall by 20 feet wide, “Fair to Good” condition, canopy overlaps with canopies of other trees. This is a very large specimen for this oak in this area. Its relatively large size and fair to good condition on this site; probably due to the large uncovered (no buildings or pavement) ground surface around the tree. I strongly encourage you to design around this tree in order to save it. Right now it is scheduled to be removed. Root protection distances: This tree should have a minimum of 7 feet undisturbed of soil all around the trunk, including any over- excavation margins required beyond improvements. This means 7’ + 7’ + 2’ trunk width = 16 foot diameter circle, with the trunk in the center. Use this as a preliminary planning guideline only – I will work with the architects to come up with a final plan for this tree. Distances to buildings or other improvements that might interfere with the canopy of this tree must also be taken into consideration. Don’t locate a building close to the tree so that a large amount of the tree’s canopy will have to be removed – this will ruin the aesthetic appeal of this fine oak. On the Tree Exhibit Plan this oak may be located far away enough from a proposed parking lot and other improvements, if this plan is implemented. This oak species is from to the eastern United States and does require summer irrigation in this area, as receives now.

PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. [email protected]. http://www.decah.com. 90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 7 of 23

Deborah Ellis, MS

Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist

Service since 1984 • Valley oak #268: This is the largest tree on the site in terms of trunk diameter, at 44.6 inches. It is 55 feet in height with a canopy spread of 60 feet. Condition is listed as “Fair”, and I would agree with this rating. This is an impressive tree, and it is a native, natural-growth oak that pre-existed site development. So far this old oak has survived less-than-ideal environmental changes around it – such as an irrigated landscape area filled with English ivy. The reason for the tree’s survival is probably due at least in part to the relatively large uncovered ground-surface area in which is it located. I would not make a final decision to keep this tree until it is evaluated in greater detail; especially to see if there are any obvious root problems close to the trunk (because the tree has been located in an irrigated area). For such an investigation a root collar excavation1 would be necessary. I also advise a thorough aerial inspection2 of the tree. If after these tests the tree is a candidate for saving, the landscape area in which it is located should not be made any smaller width-wise, and it should be at least as long as the dripline of the tree length-wise. Preferably the uncovered ground area around the tree should be made larger. This tree really deserves a “mini-park” around it in order to do it justice.

McClenahan listed this tree as in only “Fair” condition for a good reason – it is in “so-so” condition and if there is something significantly wrong with it now or if it will be mistreated through development and relandscaping in the future, then it should not be saved. Another important consideration is whether or not this tree will be located in a frequently used high- target area. Right now it is located alongside a proposed parking lot area and is shown to be removed. If the tree remains, it should preferably be located in a large, unplanted, non-irrigated and mulched area with none to infrequent irrigation. The tree should receive infrequent summer irrigation for the first few years after relandscaping in order to wean it off the irrigation it is receiving now.

1 Root collar excavation and examination: The root collar (junction between trunk and roots) is critical to whole-tree health and stability. A root collar excavation carefully uncovers this area (with hand tools, water or pressurized air). The area is then examined to assess its health and structural stability.

2 Aerial inspection: an experienced tree climber climbs into the tree and looks for and examines in greater detail, any structural defects and concerns from within the tree canopy. Such defects may not be visible or may not be visible enough from the ground in order to make a more accurate assessment of their significance. If reporting back to another consulting arborist, the climber may notes, take photographs or perform certain tests (such as advanced decay detection tests with certain decay detection instrumentation).

PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. [email protected]. http://www.decah.com. 90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 8 of 23

Deborah Ellis, MS

Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist

Service since 1984 • Deodar cedars #118, 119 and 120: These trees have trunk diameters of 26.6, 22.6 and 28.5 inches respectively, heights of 50, 48 and 45 feet and canopy spreads of 40, 35 and 45 feet. Functionally these trees are a grove3 which should be preserved intact. They are a very nice large group of trees of a different species than most of the larger trees on site, which are redwoods, Canary Island pines and ash trees. The condition rating for all three deodar cedars is “Fair” with tree #119 and 120 listed as being somewhat chlorotic4. Chlorosis can be caused by many things, but with these trees it may something very minor. It may be worthwhile to further evaluate these trees and their present environment in more detail, to determine whether it would be worthwhile to try to save them. I would start first with a root collar excavation. If that checks out alright then I would investigate soil pH5 in the planting area. If the trees will remain, the landscape area in which they are located should not be reduced in size. The size of the present landscape area probably has much to do with the size and relatively good condition of the trees.

3 Grove: is a group of trees that located close together that shelter each other from wind and the elements, having “knit” canopies. If of the same species, there is usually root grafting between trees, which lends support from the ground, as well as water and mineral sharing. Removal of one or some grove members could cause remaining members to be unstable due to a reduction of previous shelter. Grove trees often have asymmetrical canopies when viewed as individuals.

4 Chlorotic: a plant symptom of discolored (yellowish) plant tissue that should (usually) be green in color. The loss of green color is due to the destruction of the green pigment chlorophyll, which can be due to many causes including certain plant diseases. A high soil pH is a common cause of chlorosis in this area.

5 pH: a measure of acidity or alkalinity ranging from 1 to 14, on a logarithmic scale. A measurement of 1 is most acidic, 14 is most alkaline, and 7 is neutral. Soil pH influences the availability of plant nutrients. Most plants prefer soils with pH between 6 and 7. Many acid soil adapted plants prefer soil pH in the 4 – 5 range, and plants adapted to alkaline conditions prefer soil pH above 7, often 8 to 10. Few plants grow at the extreme ends of the pH scale (3 or less, or greater than 10).

PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. [email protected]. http://www.decah.com. 90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 9 of 23

Deborah Ellis, MS

Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist

Service since 1984 4. Develop tree protection measures for any other tree that it may be possible to retain I have provided some specific tree protection measures for the Group A, B and C trees, as well as for the specimen trees mentioned previously in Section 3. If other trees are retained I may develop more specific measures for them as well, including minimum root and canopy protection zones. In general however, the Town of Los Gatos Tree Protection Directions (page 11) must be followed, as well as the more detailed Supplemental Tree Protection Specifications I have included beginning on page 12.

For planning purposes I recommend keeping in mind the following information regarding tree protection distances, which I use:

3 to 5 X DBH No one can estimate and predict with absolute certainty how far a soil disturbance such as an excavation must be from the edge of the trunk of an individual tree to affect tree stability or health at a low, moderate or severe degree -- there are simply too many variable involved that we cannot see or anticipate. 3xDBH however, is a reasonable “rule of thumb” minimum distance (in feet) any excavation should be from the edge of the trunk on one side of the trunk. This is supported by several separate research studies including (Smiley, Fraedrich, & Hendrickson 2002, Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories. DBH is trunk “diameter at breast height” (4.5 feet above the ground). This distance is often used during the design and planning phases of a construction project in order to estimate root damage to a tree due to the proposed construction. It tends to correlate reasonably well with the zone of rapid taper, which is the area in which the large buttress roots (main support roots close to the trunk) rapidly decrease in diameter with increasing distance from the trunk. For example, using the 3X DBH guideline an excavation should be no closer than 4.5 feet from the trunk of an 18-inch DBH tree. Such distances are guidelines only, and should be increased for trees with heavy canopies, significant leans, decay, structural problems, etc. It is also important to understand that in actual field conditions we often find that much less root damage occurs than was anticipated by the guidelines. 3xDBH may be more of an aid in preserving tree stability and not necessarily long-term tree health. 5X DBH or greater is the “preferred” minimum distance which should be strived for, and this distance or greater should probably be used when there are multiple trenches on more than one side of the trunk. The roots beyond the zone of rapid taper form an extensive network of long, rope-like roots one to two inches in diameter. These woody perennial roots are referred to as transport roots because they function primarily to transport water and minerals. Maintaining a 5xDBH tree protection zone or greater around a tree will preserve more of these transport roots, which will have less of an impact on tree health than if the excavation were closer to the trunk.

OTPZ (Optimum Tree Protection Zone) OTPZ is the distance in feet from the trunk of the tree, all around the tree, that construction or other disturbance should not encroach within. If this zone is respected, then chances of the tree surviving construction disturbance are very good. This method takes into account tree age and the particular species tolerance to root disturbance. Although there are no scientifically based methods to determine the minimum distance for construction (for example, root severance) from trees to assure their survival and stability, there are some guidelines that are often used in the arboricultural industry. The most current guideline comes from the text, Trees & Development, Matheny et al., International Society of Arboriculture, 1998. The tree protection zone calculation method in this text was used to obtain the OTPZ’s provided in this report. Due to the crowded, constrained nature of many building sites it is often not be possible to maintain the OPTZ distance recommended for many of the trees -- therefore I have also listed alternate distances of 3 and 5X DBH (see paragraph above).

PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. [email protected]. http://www.decah.com. 90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 10 of 23

Deborah Ellis, MS

Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist

Service since 1984 GENERAL TREE PROTECTION DIRECTIONS From the Los Gatos Municipal Code, Sec. 29.10.1005 -- Protection of trees during construction. a) Protective tree fencing shall specify the following: 1) Size and materials: Six (6) foot high chain link fencing, mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, shall be driven into the ground to a depth of at least two (2) feet at no more than 10-foot spacing. For paving area that will not be demolished and when stipulated in a tree preservation plan, posts may be supported by a concrete base. 2) Area type to be fenced. Type I: Enclosure with chain link fencing of either the entire dripline area or at the tree protection zone (TPZ), when specified by a certified or consulting arborist. Type II: Enclosure for street trees located in a planter strip: chain link fence around the entire planter strip to the outer branches. Type III: Protection for a tree located in a small planter cutout only (such as downtown): orange plastic fencing shall be wrapped around the trunk from the ground to the first branch with 2-inch wooden boards bound securely on the outside. Caution shall be used to avoid damaging any bark or branches. 3) Duration of Type I, II, III fencing. Fencing shall be erected before demolition, grading or construction begins and remain in place until final landscaping is required. Contractor shall first obtain the approval of the project arborist on record prior to removing a tree protection fence. 4) Warning sign. Each tree fence shall have prominently displayed an 8.5 x 11-inch sign stating: "Warning—Tree Protection Zone-this fence shall not be removed and is subject to penalty according to Town Code 29.10.1025". b) All persons, shall comply with the following precautions: 1) Prior to the commencement of construction, install the fence at the dripline, or tree protection zone (TPZ) when specified in an approved arborist report, around any tree and/or vegetation to be retained which could be affected by the construction and prohibit any storage of construction materials or other materials or vehicles inside the fence. The dripline shall not be altered in any way so as to increase the encroachment of the construction. 2) Prohibit excavation, grading, drainage and leveling within the dripline of the tree unless approved by the director. 3) Prohibit disposal or depositing of oil, gasoline, chemicals or other harmful materials within the dripline of or in drainage channels, swales or areas that may lead to the dripline of a protected tree 4) Prohibit the attachment of wires, signs or ropes to any protected tree. 5) Design utility services and irrigation lines to be located outside of the dripline when feasible. 6) Retain the services of the certified or consulting arborist for periodic monitoring of the project site and the health of those trees to be preserved. The certified or consulting arborist shall be present whenever activities occur that pose a potential threat to the health of the trees to be preserved. 7) The director and project arborist shall be notified of any damage that occurs to a protected tree during construction so that proper treatment may be administered.

PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. [email protected]. http://www.decah.com. 90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 11 of 23

Deborah Ellis, MS

Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist

Service since 1984 SUPPLEMENTAL TREE PROTECTION SPECIFICATIONS (From Deborah Ellis, MS. Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist, 2/17/11)

1) GENERAL:

a Read and understand these entire Specifications prior to the beginning of any work on site. Call the project arborist if you have any questions or concerns before any site work begins.

b These Tree Protection Specifications Apply To Any Existing Tree On Site That Will Not Be Removed And Will Be Within Or Near Any Area Where Demo Or Construction Will Occur. This includes any tree that is not located in an area that is completely fenced off from construction with a perimeter construction fence. If any portion of the canopy of a tree outside the construction zone overhangs a perimeter construction fence, these specifications shall apply to such trees as well.

c The consulting arborist for this project may be Deborah Ellis or another consulting arborist pre-approved by Deborah Ellis. The project arborist will be in charge of tree protection site inspections and other arborist services on an as needed basis for the duration of the project. The project arborist must be either an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Board-Certified Master Arborist or an American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) Registered Consulting Arborist.

d The general contractor or owner should arrange to hire laborers who’s specific job it will be to carry out the tree protection work; for example installing (and moving if necessary) tree protection fencing, obtaining and spreading mulch, watering trees, etc. Qualified tree services (recommended by the project arborist) can do some of this work such as watering trees (e.g. water jet irrigation), and other specialized tasks such as pruning. This recommendation is designed to avoid the problem of not having the labor to do tree protection tasks as written in these Specifications and also any additional work requested by the project arborist.

a The contractor shall include a separate line item in their Schedule of Values for Tree Protection

e Unexpected conditions occur and changes are necessary on all construction projects. Such situations may necessitate that changes or modifications be made to these Tree Protection Specifications. Any concerns or conflicts with these Specifications should be brought to the attention of the project arborist immediately so that alternate methods may be agreed upon.

f Notify the arborist as soon as there are changes in site and construction management, for example a new site superintendent, a different construction management company and/or contact, a different City planner working on the project, etc. The arborist must always be provided with current contact information for the parties who are involved with the project.

PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. [email protected]. http://www.decah.com. 90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 12 of 23

Deborah Ellis, MS

Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist

Service since 1984 2) DESIGN PHASE:

a Design The Site & Improvements so as to Stay as Far Away From Existing Tree Trunks and Canopies as Possible. Use the least-damaging improvements possible when working near trees, for example pier on grade beam foundation (with no excavation for grade beam) instead of slab with concrete perimeter foundation, or a cantilevered foundation, or pathways constructed on existing grade with little or no excavation and comprised of porous material such as gold fines. Alterations of natural grade must ensure that water drains away rather than toward tree trunks.

b Landscaping should be compatible with existing trees. Refrain from rototilling within tree driplines. Any planting within this area should be done by hand and not using power equipment such as soil augers. Plants and new irrigation including irrigation trenching are best kept at least 5 to 10 feet away from the trunks of existing trees (or 3xDBH6, whichever is greater), depending upon the size and type of tree, and the environmental conditions. Farther is better. Some established tree species should have no planting or irrigation in their vicinity, for example California native oaks. Refrain from making any major changes to the present landscape environment, as large mature trees often cannot adapt so such changes and may decline and die over time because of them. Contact the project arborist for assistance in the landscape design phase if necessary.

c Underground utilities: Deborah Ellis has not reviewed the utility plans. Every attempt should be made to keep underground utility lines outside tree protection zones. If any utility lines will pass through tree protection zones, Deborah Ellis or the project arborist must review these plans and prescribe any mitigation procedures that will reduce damage to trees such as tunneling below or between roots to remain, air spade7 excavation of trenches, hand digging or a combination of such methods. It utilities must pass through tree protection zones, the project arborist must be on site to supervise this work and assist in dealing with roots. Abandoned pipes and utilities should be cut at existing grade and not pulled out, if their removal would damage tree roots.

d Bioswales are very “green” but they can also be very damaging to tree roots, which is not green. Please do not locate bioswales near trees and especially not within tree protection zones. e Construction Vehicle Access: There should be a defined route for construction vehicles and large equipment, in order to reduce damage to trees and other vegetation. Clearly show and label

6 DBH is tree trunk diameter in inches “at breast height”, measured at 4.5 feet above ground level. This is the forestry and arboricultural standard measurement height that is also used in many tree-related calculations.

7 Air : a commercial grade, hand-held metal probe attached to a large air compressor by a hose. This equipment is specialized, industrial equipment that is intended for use by trained professionals. Pressurized air is discharged from the tip of the probe. The air is used to excavate soil away from items such as tree roots, or to dig trenches or remove soil with minimal damage to tree roots (compared to traditional soil removal methods). Information for horticultural uses of the air spade is available at on line at: http://www.air-spade.com/market_arboriculture.html. Pre-irrigation to soften the soil a few days before is recommended, and is often done by the company that is providing the service. In addition it is also helpful to use a pickaxe to loosen very hard surface soil before and often during the use of an air spade. Air spade works is somewhat expensive, but it may be economical if a root collar or other excavation is extensive, difficult, the tree species is very sensitive to root damage, if many roots must be exposed, the undersides of roots must be exposed, or multiple excavations will occur. You may contact me for referrals to companies that provide this service.

PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. [email protected]. http://www.decah.com. 90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 13 of 23

Deborah Ellis, MS

Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist

Service since 1984 the construction vehicle route on the Tree Protection Plan as well as grading and other applicable construction plans. Preferably there should be one entrance and one exit to the site.

f Designated Storage & Parking Areas: There must be designated storage and parking areas on site, away from protected trees. Such areas must be shown on the Tree Protection Plan as well as grading and other applicable construction plans.

g The existing trees that will be retained on the project site must be shown and numbered (with the tree numbers used in the arborist report for this project) on all applicable construction plans such as the general site plan, demo plan, grading/drainage/utility plan, landscape and irrigation plans. Tree Protection Fencing locations for the trees must be shown on the Demolition and Grading plans.

h These specifications must be included in their entirety on a separate, dedicated plan sheet in the general plans. The plan sheet shall be entitled EXISTING TREE PROTECTION.

3) PRE-DEMOLITION/CONSTRUCTION:

a Pre-Demolition/Construction Meeting at the site shall be conducted with the project arborist, the developer, and the general contractor. The general contractor is responsible to see that these tree protection specifications are implemented and that all people working at the site are aware and adhere to these specifications. A copy of these Specifications is to remain and be accessible at the site at all times. Additional meetings on site with workers may be necessary and should be organized with the project arborist. Tail-gate meetings may be recommended to include review of unusual circumstances, conditions or procedures to be followed.

b Irrigation. Make sure that any trees that will be near construction or demo disturbance are well hydrated before any demo or construction work begins. Irrigate the trees if necessary approximately 2 weeks before any work will begin if the soil is not moist to at least 12 inches below the surface8. This will help the trees go into the project strong and not drought-stressed, so they will be better able to weather any damage they may experience. The frequency and amount of water will depend upon the weather, the damage to the tree, and the soil moisture status. The project arborist should provide directions for irrigation depending upon tree condition just prior to construction, site conditions, weather and other factors. Be prepared to supply the trees with non- recycled water from a water truck at least several times per week during the normally rainless months, as well as if there is insufficient rain during the normal wet season.

c Pruning for Site Access and Construction Clearance. Tree pruning should be as little as possible, and only what is required to allow site access, demo and construction. An exception to this would be pruning to mitigate an acute hazardous condition, which should always be done as soon as possible. Aesthetic or other pruning can be done after the project has been completed so do not mix this with site access or construction pruning. Prior any work begins on site perform site access clearance pruning only. Do not do any construction clearance pruning until improvements have been staked in the field, in order to avoid unnecessary pruning. Branches

8 At the Project Arborist’s discretion, such irrigation may include drought tolerant trees which should normally be “summer dry” such as native California oaks, if they are expected to experience root damage during construction.

PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. [email protected]. http://www.decah.com. 90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 14 of 23

Deborah Ellis, MS

Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist

Service since 1984 that must be shortened should be cut back to appropriately sized lateral branches whenever possible, and not to stubs. Use a qualified tree service with an ISA Certified Arborist on staff, in a supervisory position for the work, and pre-approved by the project arborist. The tree pruner shall follow the most current version of the arboriculture industry standards:

i) Tree Pruning Standards: • Best Management Practices, Tree Pruning. 2008. International Society of Arboriculture, PO Box 3129, Champaign, IL 61826-3129. 217-355-9411. • ANSI Z1331 American National Standards for Tree Care Operations. 2006 Edition. Secretariat: National Arborist Association, Inc. American National Standards Institute, 11 West 42nd St., New York, New York, 10036. (Covers safety). • ANSI A300 Pruning Standards. 2008 Edition. Ibid. (Covers tree care methodology).

o If urgent pruning is necessary for immediate construction clearance this may be done by the general or demo contractor. In this case a short stub should be left which can be removed by a qualified tree service at a later time. Please consult with the project arborist prior to such pruning. d Fencing (see also Town of Los Gatos General Tree Protection Directions, page 11.

i) The arborist must meet with the general contractor prior to any work beginning on site, to discuss tree protection fencing requirements and to agree upon tree protection fencing. The arborist must also inspect tree protection fencing after it has been installed and before any work begins, and sign-off on the fencing before any work may begin on site, including demolition. After inspection of the fencing the arborist must supply a letter stating that the fencing is either adequate or inadequate. If the fencing is adequate, work may begin on site. If the fencing is inadequate then directions to make the fencing adequate will be included in the letter. Any changes to original tree protection fencing maps or directions must be included in the letter from the arborist.

ii) Install Tree Protection Fencing BEFORE any demolition or construction begins. The area inside the fencing is termed the TPZ (Tree Protection Zone). In all cases place the fencing as far from protected tree’s trunks as possible, in order to provide the maximum amount of protected space for each tree or group of trees as well as future landscape areas in general, while still allowing for site work to progress. The fencing shall not be taken down or moved without the project arborist’s permission. The arborist should be on site during demo near the trees and should also supervise any necessary work inside the fencing.

iii) Tree Protection Fencing and all Tree Protection Practices must also remain in place and in effect during landscape installation to the greatest extent possible. A great deal of damage can occur to trees during the landscaping phase of a project. Do not remove fencing to begin landscape work until the project arborist approves fence removal or moving. It is likely that some of the tree protection will need to remain in place during landscaping. The arborist should be on site to supervise landscape work within the vicinity of protected existing trees. The landscape contractor should meet on site with the project arborist to review the Tree Protection Specifications and discuss how existing tree protection will continue to be carried out during landscaping.

iv) Four-foot high orange plastic fencing may be used for tree protection fencing in certain areas where the terrain makes the use of the required cyclone fencing PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. [email protected]. http://www.decah.com. 90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 15 of 23

Deborah Ellis, MS

Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist

Service since 1984 difficult, or in certain other situations as approved by the project arborist. The project arborist must pre-approve any plastic fencing locations. If plastic fencing is used, it must be installed as follows:

(1) Metal T-posts shall be used as the fencing posts. These posts shall be driven at least 12 inches into the ground and shall extend up to the top of the 4-foot orange plastic fencing. Stakes must be placed no further than 6 feet apart (closer if necessary to keep the fencing taught). The plastic fencing must be attached to the metal posts with plastic wire ties – one tie around fencing and post at the top, bottom and middle of the length of the post above the ground. A top wire must be strung through the fencing and must loop around near the top of the post to additionally stabilize the fencing. v) Tree Protection Fencing locations for the trees must be shown on the Demolition and Grading plans. vi) Durable neon-colored flagging tape can be woven through the top of the fence, or about 12 inches of orange plastic ski fencing can be attached to the top of the cyclone fencing to increase visibility to vehicle operators. vii) If it is not possible to fence off a particular tree, then the trunk of the tree must be wrapped spirally with a commercial straw wattle roll from the ground up to at least the height of the lowest branches or 10 feet, whichever is less. The wattling is then wrapped with orange plastic fencing so that it covers the entire wattling. Meet with the project arborist to determine how each tree will be specifically dealt with in this manner. Such trees also require ground protection underneath as much of the dripline as possible as specified in item # 4.b. viii) Alternate fencing for small areas: ¾ or 1” thick plywood, 4 or 5 feet tall can be supported with an above-ground from constructed from 2x4” lumber, as tree protection for a small area such as a cut-out planter in a paved area. ix) Fencing Phases & Locations: x) Pre-Demo: Install this phase of tree protection fencing before any demolition begins. The fencing shall be installed 1 to 2 feet beyond existing structures or pavement to be removed (or slightly more if necessary to allow for work) required for each improvement. In all cases place the fencing as far from protected tree’s trunks as possible, in order to provide the maximum amount of protected space. For this particular project, the easiest thing to do would be to fence off as much of the project from the trees, where this is possible, instead of fencing off individual trees from construction. Of course, do fence off individual trees or groups of trees, when necessary to protect them.

xi) Post-Demo, Pre-Construction: Move the fencing outward to 1 to 2 feet beyond proposed structures or other improvement (or more if necessary to allow for work) required for each improvement, otherwise at or beyond the dripline of the tree (or groups of trees), whichever is greater. In all cases place the fencing as far from protected tree’s trunks as possible, in order to provide the maximum amount of protected space the trees as well as any additional future landscaping. As with pre-demo fencing, the fencing should enclose as much of the site outside of the construction zone as possible, not just a small area around the trunk, or the driplines of individual trees. You will need additional fencing for this phase, since the fencing will have to enclose a larger area than for demo.

PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. [email protected]. http://www.decah.com. 90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 16 of 23

Deborah Ellis, MS

Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist

Service since 1984 xii) Trees located outside construction zone or on Neighboring Property. If any portion of the canopy of a tree on adjacent property or on jobsite property overhangs the construction zone and/or perimeter construction zone fencing, these specifications shall apply to such trees as well. The portion of the canopy that overhangs the job site must be fenced off at the dripline or as close to this distance as possible while allowing for construction work.

xiii) Tree Protection Signage shall be posted on the fencing every 25 feet or in each cardinal direction (whichever is less), clearly proclaiming that there is to be no unauthorized work or persons within the tree protection zone, no dumping of chemicals or storage of materials or equipment, and who to contact regarding this. Use the template sign that I have provided. Signs must be either laminated or metal. For more durable and reusable signs, you may send the template and explanatory sheet (also available from me) to a sign company to have the appropriate number of durable aluminum signs made for the project. Signs must be attached to the fencing with plastic wire ties – 1 wire tie at each of the 4 corners.

e Mulching. No supplemental mulching is required for existing trees to remain on this project – however; the existing natural topsoil, surface plant litter and live vegetation must remain in place until landscaping, in order to protect the root system of the trees. No site clearing or grubbing (e.g. scraping of surface of soil to remove vegetation and plant debris) shall occur except in the distinct areas where improvements will be located. Depending upon tree and site conditions, the project arborist may call for mulch material (tree trimming chippings from a local tree service) to be delivered to the site and spread around trees as the project progresses.

4) DURING DEMO/CONSTRUCTION

a) Except in the distinct areas where improvements will be located and soil disturbance is necessary for construction, the existing natural topsoil, surface plant litter and live vegetation must remain in place until landscaping, in order to protect the root system of the trees. No site clearing or grubbing (e.g. scraping of surface of soil to remove vegetation and plant debris) shall occur except in those areas approved for soil disturbance. Depending upon tree and site conditions, the project arborist may call for mulch material (tree trimming chippings from a local tree service) to be delivered to the site and spread around trees as the project progresses.

b) Unavoidable Vehicle Traffic within Tree Protection Zones: Where vehicles or equipment must travel within tree protection zones, protection of the soil to reduce compaction must be accomplished through one of the following: i) Apply 6-12 inches of woodchip mulch to the area ii) Lay ¾ inch thick plywood or 4 x 4 inch wood beams over a 4+ inch thick layer of mulch iii) Apply 4 to 6 inches of gravel over a taut, staked geotextile fabric iv) Placing commercial logging or road mats on top of a 4+ inch thick mulch layer v) Note that stone, geotextile and mulch exceeding 4 inches in depth will need to be removed after work in the area has been completed.

c) Unavoidable foot traffic or worker access for construction within tree protection zones: The ground surface should be cushioned with flakes taken from bales of hay and overlain with ¾ or 1” thick sheets of plywood. Use at least 2 layers of flakes (or as many as needed to provide

PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. [email protected]. http://www.decah.com. 90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 17 of 23

Deborah Ellis, MS

Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist

Service since 1984 a 4 to 6 inch height. Move this protection as needed to build the addition, but keep as much of this protection in place as possible. Usually I specify 6-inches of mulch overlain by plywood, but the hay bale flakes will provide a more uniform height and stable surface for the construction workers. d) Do Not Dump Cement Tailings, Chemicals or Other Waste Products into any Future Landscape Area, not just within tree protection zones. Preferably, have a designated washout pit far from landscape areas. e) Liming of the soil for soil compaction is not allowed near trees. Liming is toxic to plant roots! If there will be any liming on site consult with the project arborist long beforehand in order to make sure that the lime is not anywhere near trees or other vegetation that is planned to be saved. A very large lime-free buffer zone should be maintained between vegetation and liming. f) Dealing with Roots that are exposed, must be removed or are damaged: i) Covering Roots: Exposed roots 2-inches in diameter or larger within the Tree Protection Zone shall be covered (either by backfilling or with other permanent covering) as soon as possible. If possible spray uncovered exposed roots within one hour of uncovering with non- recycled water to thoroughly moisten the roots and the surrounding soil. Trench walls must be covered with draping at least 2 layers of non-synthetic burlap or bed sheets or carpet sections (carpet surface facing roots) or cardboard over the upper 3 feet of trench walls. The covering materials must be kept wet until backfilled to reduce evaporation from trench walls. Horizontal cuts or root exposure on the soil surface: Spray with water within 1 hour of uncovering. If possible spread mulch over the exposed surface and wet the mulch thoroughly with water after spreading. Alternatively two or more layers of non-synthetic burlap, carpet sections, cardboard or other material approved by the Project Arborist may be used for soil covering.

ii) Cutting Roots: Damaged roots 2-inches in diameter or larger shall be cut back to undamaged root tissue whenever possible and practical. Damaged roots less than 2 inches in diameter in the Tree Protection Zone may (and are encouraged) to be cut back to undamaged tissue. Damaged roots 4 inches or greater in diameter may not be cut without the Project Arborist’s approval – try to tunnel underneath or otherwise preserve these roots if possible. Exposed roots that are not damaged but must be removed follow the same procedures as above. Root cutting should be done with sharp tools, at a right angle and as close to the soil line as possible. Cut back to a lateral root when possible when this will not increase the extent of root loss or damage. It is strongly recommended that the Project Arborist (with their own root cutting equipment) be on site during these times to assist with root assessment and cutting and to document and make recommendations regarding root damage.

(1) Place all cut root sections in a pile near where the roots have been cut, so the Project Arborist can review and document.

(2) Sometimes less root damage will occur if roots are precut 6 to 12 inches beyond the planned excavation. Specialized root-pruning equipment such as a Vermeer™ or Dosco™ root pruner machine can be used. If roots are not precut, then encountered roots that must be removed must be cut cleanly and at a right angle if possible. If you are uncertain about the size or status of roots and what to do about them, contact the Project Arborist for assistance.

(3) Methods of root pruning (in descending order of preference):

PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. [email protected]. http://www.decah.com. 90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 18 of 23

Deborah Ellis, MS

Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist

Service since 1984 (a) Soil excavation using (1) air spade or pressurized water (hydro-excavation)9 (b) Hand digging with hand tools. Followed by selective root cutting, and leaving roots intact (digging underneath) when possible. (c) Using a root cutting machine (e.g. Dosco™ or Vermeer™ Root Pruner) cutting along predetermined line on the soil surface. These machines cut roots cleanly, but indiscriminately. (d) Mechanically excavating (e.g. with trencher or backhoe) and hand pruning what is left of roots. Preferably use backhoe, work slowly and have ground person cleanly cut roots as soon as possible after encountered.

(4) The following root cutting tools are mandatory for the contractor: (a) Round-blade (b) Large (c) Tree pruning saws designed for root cutting (d) Pruning with 1-inch diameter capacity

(5) The following root cutting tools are recommended for the contractor: (a) Hand mattock (b) Hand shovel (c) Recipro-saw with wood cutting blades (especially pruning blades – have several new blades on hand) (d) Concrete circular saw (rock or root cutting saw, e.g. Stihl TS-400 with a 12-inch blade, preferably carbon or diamond-tipped – start with a new blade and have extra blades on hand). (e) Chain saws (for large roots, e.g. over 4 inches in diameter start with a new chain and have extra chains on hand)

iii) Management of construction activities that impact roots: (1) If heavy equipment is used for grading, a ground person (preferably the project Arborist) listens and watches for roots as does the equipment operator. When roots are encountered that must be removed, grading stops and the roots are cut right away rather than tearing them back toward the trunk by continuing to operate the heavy equipment. If hand digging is used for grading the same procedure is followed. Use appropriate tools for the root(s) in question. In order to properly cut roots you may have to carefully dig back into the soil by hand with a shovel, hand trowel or mattock behind the root, so have these tools on hand as well. Digging back behind or underneath roots may be necessary in order to have room to operate the saw and cut the root. Grade cuts must be kept moist by spraying frequently with water until they are covered or backfilled. (2) Trench excavations: must be dug by hand, air spade or by mechanically tunneling under roots within the area underneath the canopy of trees or the 3xDBH distance for that tree, whichever is greater. Any exceptions to this requirement require written permission from the Project Arborist. (3) When mechanical tunneling (boring) is substituted for open trenching, maintain the following depths per trunk DBH in Table 1 below. The nearest edge of the excavation for launching and recovery pits must be located a minimum of 3xDBH distance from the edge

9 Hydro-excavation requires that the soil/water slurry be vacuumed up and placed somewhere. A temporary holding area can be constructed with double-stacked railroad ties lined with polyethylene plastic. The slurry can be left to dry and then picked up more easily. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. [email protected]. http://www.decah.com. 90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 19 of 23

Deborah Ellis, MS

Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist

Service since 1984 of the trunk of the tree. Less root damage will occur if the tunnel is located directly underneath the trunk versus to the side of the trunk.

Table 1

4) When using a backhoe to remove soil near trees: The backhoe or other equipment must sit on existing pavement (if available) and work backwards so as to remain on the pavement or otherwise outside tree protection zones, or at least as far away from tree trunks as is possible. Work very slowly with the backhoe, removing soil in no greater than 6 inch lifts, and have 2 workers on the ground with and a large and small mattock (preferably one of the workers is the Project Arborist) watching for roots. The backhoe operator should “feel” for roots as well. As roots are uncovered and/or contacted the ground workers cut roots cleanly with a saw as directed in item #4.c. above

5) For basement or underground garage excavations use soil nailing and shotcrete construction to avoid over-excavation.

6) Structure demolition: structures should be collapsed inward and/or away from adjacent trees. Demolition equipment must sit outside tree protection zones.

7) Pavement removal: This may be done with a backhoe if done carefully so as not to damage the trunk of the tree, and to disturb the roots of the tree as little as possible. The backhoe or other equipment must sit on existing pavement and work backwards so as to remain on the pavement or otherwise outside tree protection zones. Alternatively, pavement may be broken into manageable pieces (e.g. by hand with ) and hand placed onto a loader. Where roots larger than 2 inches in diameter have grown into the existing base course material, use the existing material as the new material and do not remove and replace it.

8) Trees to be removed: Trees to be removed must be removed without damaging trees that will remain. If tree canopies are knit together (branches from more than one tree intermingle with each other) then the demo contractor may NOT remove these trees – they must instead be removed by a qualified tree service that will cut the trees down carefully in order to avoid PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. [email protected]. http://www.decah.com. 90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 20 of 23

Deborah Ellis, MS

Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist

Service since 1984 damage to adjacent trees. If trees to be removed are far away from trees that will remain, the demo contractor may remove these trees by pulling or pushing them over as long as roots or aboveground portions of nearby remaining trees will not be damaged. Alternatively grind the stumps of trees to be removed to 12 inches below grade, again if this grinding will not be near trees that will remain. If trees to be removed are close to trees that will remain then do not push or pull over the tree or grind the stump, but rather cut the trunk to a stump that is as flush with the ground as possible. The method of tree removal should be agreed upon at the site on a tree by tree basis between the Project Arborist and contractor prior to any tree removals.

9) Damage to trees: Any damage or injury to trees shall be reported within 6-hours to the Project Arborist, if applicable. All mechanical or chemical injury to branches, trunk or to roots over 2- inches in diameter shall be reported in the monthly Tree Protection Inspection Report. In the event of injury, the Project Arborist shall prescribe mitigation measures such as: • Root injury: Bark or trunk wounding: Current bark tracing and treatment methods shall be performed by a qualified tree care specialist within two days. • Scaffold branch or leaf canopy injury: Remove broken or torn branches back to an appropriate branch capable of resuming terminal growth within five days. If leaves are heat scorched from equipment exhaust pipes, consult the Project Arborist within 6 hours. • Penalty for damage to street trees: In the event that street trees or their roots have been damaged, the contractor shall be subject to the penalty rate of $100.00 per inch of damage Measurement of the damage shall be the width of the wound measured across the grain at the widest point. Penalty fee shall be paid to the Town and deposited to the general fund as required.

5) OTHER:

a No herbicides are allowed to be used underneath pavement or in any other area on site.

b Dust Control Program. During periods of extended drought, wind or grading, spray wash trunk, limbs and foliage to remove accumulated construction dust. The Project Arborist may request that this be done at their discretion.

c Trees shall not be fertilized before, during or after the construction process unless specifically prescribed by the Project Arborist. Most fertilizer applications to established trees in this area are unnecessary and often cause more harm than good. For example, nitrogen increases plant metabolism and can put additional stress on trees that are already under stress from site (environment) changes and root damage such as commonly occurs during construction projects. Fertilization can also promote unnecessary growth of foliage which removes energy reserves from roots and increases the tree water requirement. Fertilizers are salts that increase the osmotic potential of the soil and can magnify drought stress injury to plants.

d Moving/Transplanting Trees:

i) Use a qualified tree moving service pre-approved by the Project Arborist. The tree moving service should irrigate the trees thoroughly 1 to 2 weeks prior to digging, move and replant the trees, construct an 8-inch high water berm 12 inches beyond the edge of the newly planted tree rootballs, irrigate the transplanted trees thoroughly after moving by hand with a hose and hose- end watering wand, set up a temporary drip irrigation system for the newly planted trees, install a

PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. [email protected]. http://www.decah.com. 90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 21 of 23

Deborah Ellis, MS

Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist

Service since 1984 4 inch depth of coarse wood chip mulch within the planting hole, and be hired by the contractor or to inspect and maintain the trees during the duration of construction and until landscaping is completed. ii) If possible, it will assist the tree’s establishment in its new location to pre-cut roots 6 to 12 inches inside the root ball that will be dug when the tree is planted. Precutting should preferably be done about 6 month prior to digging, but no later than 3 months prior to digging. iii) If trees will be stored prior to planting there must be a designated storage area for the trees on site, where non-recycled water is available. The trees must be fenced off (as a group if necessary or as individual trees) from construction as per the previous fencing directions with the addition that the fencing must be placed outside the dripline of the tree(s). During storage and preferably at planting orient the tree in the same direction as it was positioned in the landscape. To assist proper orientation draw a red `N’ (for North) with a construction crayon on the trunk of the tree. iv) If the trees will be planted immediately after digging, tree root collars must remain at the same elevation above grade as existed prior to digging. Immediately after replanting into the landscape construct an 8-inch high water berm 12 inches beyond the edge of the newly planted tree rootball, irrigate the transplanted tree thoroughly after moving by hand with a hose and hose- end watering wand, set up an adequate irrigation system for the newly planted tree and install a 4 inch depth of coarse wood chip mulch within the planting hole. v) Tree protection fencing must be placed beyond the planting hole and also beyond the canopy of the replanted tree.

6) TREE PROTECTION SUPERVISION

a Tree Protection Inspections & Documentation: The Project Arborist must supervise any work within the tree protection zone, or when roots or branches of the tree are encountered or are expected to be encountered – whether or not these are within or above the TPZ. The Project Arborist will inspect the site for tree protection specification compliance at least monthly from prior to demolition until immediately after construction is completed. Immediately after each tree protection inspection an inspection report should be submitted to the Project Manager for distribution. The inspection report shall include status of the following:

i) Inspector name and contact information ii) Date and time of inspection: iii) Date of last inspection iv) Reason for inspection v) Weather (approximate temperature, any rainfall, etc.) vi) Current demolition or construction work on site vii) Additional demolition or construction work completed since last inspection viii) Tree protection fencing status (including tree protection signage) ix) Mulching status (if required) x) Tree work done within last inspection period (pruning, irrigation, etc.) xi) Grading, trenching, excavations, cut or exposed roots, root recutting and protection xii) Other

b The following Project Arborist site inspections are mandatory and must be documented as per the items listed in Tree Protection Inspections & Documentation, item 6.a. above:

PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. [email protected]. http://www.decah.com. 90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 22 of 23

Deborah Ellis, MS

Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist

Service since 1984 i) Tree Protection Fencing. The project contractor and City Planning Department planner assigned to the project shall be in receipt of a written statement from the Project Arborist verifying that he/she has conducted a field inspection of the trees and that the protective tree fencing is in place. ii) Pre-Construction Meeting. Prior to commencement of demolition or construction, the Project Arborist shall conduct a pre-demolition/construction meeting to discuss tree protection with the site superintendent, grading equipment operators and the owner’s representatives. iii) Inspections of Rough Grading or Trenching. The Project Arborist shall perform an inspection during the course of rough grading adjacent to the Tree Protection Zone to ensure trees will not be injured by compaction, but or fill, drainage and trenching, and if required, inspect tree wells, drains and special paving. The contractor shall provide the Project Arborist at least 48 hours advance notice of such activity. iv) Monthly General Tree Protection Inspections: The Project Arborist shall perform monthly inspections to monitor changing site and tree condition. These inspections should preferably be unannounced. The City Planning Department planner assigned to the project, the general contractor and the job superintendent shall be in receipt of the monthly inspection reports containing status of the topics listed in item 6.a. above. v) Special Activity within the Tree Protection Zone. Work within this area requires the direct onsite supervision of the Project Arborist.

7) Enclosures: a Tree Protection Sign Template (D. Ellis) b Form letter to order metal signs from a sign company

8) References: a Arboriculture – Integrated Management of Landscape Trees, Shrubs & Vines, 4th edition. Harris et al. Prentice Hall. 2004. b Tree Technical Manual. Standards & Specifications. City of Palo Alto. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 8.10030. Dave Dockter, June 2001 (First edition). Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment. Available online at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=6436 c Pruning Standards: i) Best Management Practices, Tree Pruning. 2008. International Society of Arboriculture, PO Box 3129, Champaign, IL 61826-3129. 217-355-9411 ii) ANSI Z133.1 American National Standards for Tree Care Operations. 2006 Edition. Secretariat: National Arborist Association, Inc. American National Standards Institute, 11 West 42nd St., New York, New York, 10036. iii) ANSI A300 Pruning Standards. 2008 Edition. Ibid. d Trees & Development. Matheny et al. International Society of Arboriculture. 1998. e The Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th edition. Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers. International Society of Arboriculture. 2000. f Species Classification and Group Assignment, Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture, 2004.

PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. [email protected]. http://www.decah.com. 90-160 Albright Way & 14600 Winchester Blvd. Page 23 of 23

INITIAL STUDY – 90-160 ALBRIGHT WAY AND 14600 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD

ATTACHMENT 4

ACOUSTICAL ASSESSMENT ALBRIGHT WAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

BY

RBF CONSULTING

MARCH 2011

Albright Way Development Project ACOUSTICAL ASSESSMENT

Consultant:

RBF CONSULTING 14725 Alton Parkway Irvine, California 92618 Contact: Mr. Eddie Torres, INCE, REA Director of Technical Studies 949.855.3612

March 31, 2011

JN 40‐100419

Albright Way Development Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT SUMMARY...... 2 1.1 Project Location ...... 2 1.2 Project Characteristics...... 2

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF NOISE METRICS ...... 6 2.1 Standard Unit of Measurement...... 6 2.2 Health Effects of Noise ...... 6

3.0 LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, AND STANDARDS ...... 11 3.1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency...... 11 3.2 California Environmental Quality Act ...... 11 3.3 Local Jurisdiction...... 12

4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS...... 18 4.1 Noise Measurements ...... 18 4.2 Sensitive Receptors...... 18 4.3 Existing Noise Levels...... 20

5.0 POTENTIAL ACOUSTICAL IMPACTS ...... 22

6.0 REFERENCES ...... 43 6.1 List of Preparers...... 43 6.2 Documents...... 43 6.3 Software/Websites...... 44

APPENDIX A – NOISE MEASUREMENT SHEETS APPENDIX B – MODELING DATA

Acoustical Assessment i March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1 – Regional Vicinity ...... 3

Exhibit 2 – Local Vicinity ...... 4

Exhibit 3 – Conceptual Site Layout...... 5

Exhibit 4 – Common Environmental Noise Levels ...... 7

Exhibit 5 – Noise Measurement Locations ...... 19

Exhibit 6 – On‐Site Sensitive Receptors ...... 30

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 – Noise Descriptors ...... 8

Table 2 – Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments...... 13

Table 3 – Outdoor Noise Limits ...... 13

Table 4 – Noise Measurements...... 18

Table 5 – Sensitive Receptors...... 20

Table 6 – Existing Traffic Noise Levels ...... 21

Table 7 – Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment ...... 25

Table 8 – Traffic Noise Levels ...... 27

Table 9 – Forecast Year Traffic Noise Levels ...... 28

Table 10 – On‐Site Noise Levels ...... 31

Table 11 – Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment...... 34

Table 12 – Cumulative Noise Scenario ...... 40

Acoustical Assessment ii March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

DEFINITIONS OF COMMONLY USED TERMS IN NOISE CONTROL

The definitions that follow are in general agreement with those contained in publications of various professional organizations, including the American National Standards Institute (ANSI); the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM); the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air‐Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE); the International Organization for Standardization (ISO); and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC).

TERMINOLOGY acoustic; acoustical: Acoustic is usually used when the term being qualified designates something that has the properties, dimensions, or physical characteristics associated with sound waves (e.g., acoustic power); acoustical is usually used when the term which it modifies does not explicitly designate something thate has th properties, dimensions, or physical characteristics of sound (e.g., acoustical material). ambient noise: The all‐encompassing noise associated with a given environment at a specified time, usually being a composite of sound from many sources arriving from many directions, near and far; no particular sound is dominant. attenuation: The decrease in level of sound, usually from absorption, divergence, scattering, or the cancellation of the sound waves. average sound level (Leq): The level of a steady sound which, in a stated time period and at a stated location, has the same A‐weighted sound energy as the time‐varying sound. Unit: decibel.

A‐weighted sound level (LA): The sound level measured with a sound‐level meter using A‐ weighting. Unit: decibel (dBA). background noise: The total noise from all sources other than a particular sound that is of interest (e.g., other than the noise being measured or other than the speech or music being listened to). decibel (dB): A unit of level which denotes the ratio between two quantities that are proportional to power; the number of decibels correspond to the logarithm (to the base 10) of this ratio. [In many sound fields, the sound pressure ratios are not proportional to the corresponding power ratios, but it is common practice to extend the use of the decibel to such cases. One decibel equals one‐tenth of a bel.] equivalent continuous sound level (average sound level) (Leq): The level of a steady sound which, in a stated time period and at a stated location, has the same A‐weighted sound energy as the time‐varying sound. Unit: decibel (dBA).

Acoustical Assessment iii March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

frequency (ƒ): Of a periodic function, the number of times that a quantity repeats itself in one second, i.e., the number of cycles per second. Unit: hertz (Hz). noise: Any disagreeable or undesired sound, i.e., unwanted sound. noise level: Same as sound level. Usually used to describe the sound level of an unwanted sound. noise reduction (NR): The difference in sound pressure level between any two points along a path of sound propagation. sound: (1) A change in air pressure that is capable of being detected by the human ear. (2) The hearing sensation excited by a change in air pressure. sound level: Ten times the logarithm to the base 10 of the square of the ratio of the frequency‐ weighted (and time‐averaged) sound pressure to the reference sound pressure of 20 micropascals. The frequency‐weightings and time‐weighting employed should be specified; if they are not , specified it is understood that A‐frequency‐weighting is used and that an averaging time of 0.125 is used. Unit: decibel (dBA).

Acoustical Assessment iv March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

SYMBOLS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND ACRONYMS

ADT Average Daily Traffic ANSI American National Standards Institute AM Ante Meridiem CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level dB decibel dBA A‐weighted decibel FHWA Federal Highway Administration INCE Institute of Noise Control Engineering Ldn average day/night sound level Leq equivalent sound level Lmax maximum noise level Lmin minimum noise level Ln exceedance level MPH miles per hour PM Post Meridiem RCNM Roadway Construction Noise Model

Acoustical Assessment v March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this Acoustical Assessment is to evaluate potential short‐ and long‐term noise impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed Albright Way Development Project (project). The project is located in the Town of Los Gatos (Town), along Albright Way, southeast of the State Route 85 (SR‐85) and Winchester Boulevard interchange.

The project proposes a Planned Development zoning that will all for flexibility in the ultimate mix of land uses on the site. The project may consist of office alone or a mix of office and high‐ density /senior residential units. As currently proposed, the project could include up to a maximum of 550,000 square feet of office space, or a combination of less office space with residential uses. Residential uses could include up to a maximum of 516 high‐density dwelling units or 600 senior residential uses. This Acoustical Assessment evaluates Scenario 1 as identified in the March 17, 2011 Albright Way Development Traffic Impact Analysis. Scenario 1 consists of the replacement of 250,000 square feet of existing office park buildings with new office buildings totaling 550,000 square feet. Under Scenario 1, the new office buildings would provide an additional 300,000 square feet of office space and result in additional 3,126 daily vehicle trips. Three parking structures are also proposed under this Scenario. As noted, the Planned Development zoning will provide flexibility for mixed use scenarios, provided that the noise impacts of those scenarios are not substantially more severe than the noise impacts of Scenario 1.

Temporary Impacts. Based upon the results of the analysis, construction activities would be perceptible at nearby sensitive receptors. However, the Town’s Municipal Code exempts construction activities during permitted hours. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would further reduce short‐term noise impacts. Temporary noise impacts would be less than significant for each scenario.

Long‐Term Impacts. The analysis has concluded that project implementation would result in less than significant impacts in regard to mobile and stationary sources for each scenario.

Cumulative Impacts. The proposed project would increase traffic noise levels on local roadways when comparing the “Existing” to “Cumulative With Project” scenario. However, the proposed project would result in less than significant cumulative impacts to noise levels along local roadway segments for each scenario.

Acoustical Assessment 1 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT SUMMARY

The purpose of this Acoustical Assessment is to evaluate potential short‐ and long‐term noise impacts resulting from implementation of the Albright Way Development Project (project), located in the Town of Los Gatos (Town).

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION

The project is located in the Town of Los Gatos, California; refer to Exhibit 1, Regional Vicinity. Specifically, the project site is located along Albright Way, southeast of the State Route 85 (SR‐ 85) and Winchester Boulevard interchange; refer to Exhibit 2, Local Vicinity Map.

1.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS

The project proposes a Planned Development zoning that will all for flexibility in the ultimate mix of land uses on the site. The project may consist of office alone or a mix of office and high‐density /senior residential units. As currently proposed, the project could include up to a maximum of 550,000 square feet of office space, or a combination of less office space with residential uses. Residential uses could include up to a maximum of 516 high‐density dwelling units or 600 senior residential uses. An evaluation of each of the potential land use scenarios indicates that the development of the project site as all office uses would result in the greatest amount of traffic being added to the roadway system.1 Therefore, as vehicle trips are typically largest source of noise for development projects of this type, this analysis evaluates the Scenario 1 as identified in the March 17, 2011 Albright Way Development Traffic Impact Analysis. Scenario 1 consists of the replacement of 250,000 square feet (s.f.) of existing office park buildings with new office buildings totaling 550,000 s.f.; refer to Exhibit 3, Conceptual Site Layout.

It should be noted that the project may ultimately consist of office alone or a mix of office and high‐ density/senior residential uses. The Town has developed additional illustrative land use scenarios:

• Scenario 1: Replacement of the 250,000 s.f. of existing office park buildings on the site with new office buildings totaling 550,000 s.f. • Scenario 2: Minimum of 200,000 s.f. new office plus 141,000 s.f. (remaining) office • Scenario 3: 200,000 s.f. new office plus up to 516 high‐density units • Scenario 4: 200,000 s.f. new office plus up to 600 senior units

Because the office use would generate more daily and peak hour trips than would residential, this study first presents the analysis of a proposed project scenario consisting of the replacement of the 250,000 s.f. of existing office park buildings on the site with new office buildings totaling 550,000 s.f. Then, in order to determine whether the addition of residential uses would generate any greater impacts than the 550,000 s.f. office scenario, supplemental analyses were completed for the three additional scenarios.

1 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., Albright Way Development Traffic Impact Analysis, March 17, 2011.

Acoustical Assessment 2 March 2011 Sebastopol NAPA 505 YOLO SACRAMENTO 29 COUNTY COUNTY 116 COUNTY Rohnert 12 84 Park 121 Vacaville Cotati SONOMA 80 113 Bodega COUNTY Napa SOLANO 5 Bay Sonoma Fairfield COUNTY 101 160 104 Petaluma Suisun City Galt 116 220 12 121 12 Rio 29 Vista 99 37 Vallejo 680 Lodi 12 Novato Benicia MARIN 160 COUNTY 780 1 San 4 4 Rafael 80 Hercules Richmond Martinez Antioch 4 580 Concord Stockton 101 Lafayette CONTRA COSTA 24 Walnut Creek SAN COUNTY 4 Berkley Orinda JOAQUIN Sausalito COUNTY Danville 80 13 SAN FRANCISCO Lathrop 680 COUNTY Oakland 120 San San Ramon Alameda 205 Francisco 580 Tracy Dublin 5 Daly 101 San 580 Hayward Livermore 580 City Leandro 880 Pleasanton Pacifica 84 238 132 San 92 ALAMEDA Millbrae Mateo Union COUNTY City 33 1 280 Hillsborough 5 Redwood 84 Newark City Fremont 92 Half Moon Bay 35 82 Palo Milpitas Alto 880 680 SAN MATEO 280 101 COUNTY Los Altos Santa STANISLAUS Clara COUNTY 84 Cupertino San Jose Saratoga 85 87 82 SANTA 9 CLARA COUNTY Los Project 35 Gatos 17 236 Site P A COF I C E A N Morgan Hill 9 Scotts 1 Valley SANTA CRUZ COUNTY 156 152 Santa Capitola Gilroy Cruz 152

25 Watsonville 129

Hollister 156 SAN BENITO COUNTY 156 101 MONTEREY 25 COUNTY 1 183 Salinas Marina

ALBRIGHT WAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ACOUSTICAL ASSESSMENT 0 10 20 miles

APPROXIMATE Regional Vicinity 1/26/11 JN 40-100419-17193 MAS Exhibit 1 Source: Google Earth aerial. ALBRIGHT WAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ACOUSTICAL ASSESSMENT not to scale Local Vicinity 1/26/11 JN 40-100419-17193 MAS Exhibit 2 Source: Form4 Architecture. ALBRIGHT WAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 0 160' ACOUSTICAL ASSESSMENT APPROXIMATE Conceptual Site Layout 1/26/11 JN 40-100419-17193 MAS Exhibit 3 Albright Way Development Project

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF NOISE METRICS

2.1 STANDARD UNIT OF MEASUREMENT

Sound is described in terms of the loudness (amplitude) of the sound and frequency (pitch) of the sound. The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (dB). Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency‐ dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A‐weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by differentiating among frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear.

Decibels are based on the logarithmic scale. The logarithmic scale compresses the wide range in sound pressure levels to a more usable range of numbers in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquakes. In terms of human response to noise, a sound 10 dBA higher than another is perceived to be twice as loud and 20 dBA higher is perceived to be four times as loud, and so forth. Everyday sounds normally range from 30 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Examples of various sound levels in different environments are illustrated on Exhibit 4, Common Environmental Noise Levels.

Many methods have been developed for evaluating community noise to account for, among other things:

• The variation of noise levels over time; • The influence of periodic individual loud events; and • The community response to changes in the community noise environment.

Table 1, Noise Descriptors, provides a listing of methods to measure sound over a period of time.

2.2 HEALTH EFFECTS OF NOISE

Human response to sound is highly individualized. Annoyance is the most common issue regarding community noise. The percentage of people claiming to be annoyed by noise generally increases with the environmental sound level. However, many factors also influence people’s response to noise. The factors can include the character of the noise, the variability of the sound level, the presence of tones or impulses, and the time of day of the occurrence. Additionally, non‐acoustical factors, such as the person’s opinion of the noise source, the ability to adapt to the noise, the attitude towards the source and those associated with it, and the predictability of the noise, all influence people’s response. As such, response to noise varies widely from one person to another and with any particular noise, individual responses would range from “not annoyed” to “highly annoyed.”

Acoustical Assessment 6 March 2011 ALBRIGHT WAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ACOUSTICAL ASSESSMENT Common Environmental Noise Levels 1/26/11 JN 40-100419-17193 MAS Exhibit 4 Albright Way Development Project

Table 1 Noise Descriptors

Term Definition Decibel (dB) The unit for measuring the volume of sound equal to 10 times the logarithm (base 10) of the ratio of the pressure of a measured sound to a reference pressure (20 micropascals). A-Weighted Decibel (dBA) A sound measurement scale that adjusts the pressure of individual frequencies according to human sensitivities. The scale accounts for the fact that the region of highest sensitivity for the human ear is between 2,000 and 4,000 cycles per second (hertz). Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) The sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given time period. The Leq is the value that expresses the time averaged total energy of a fluctuating sound level. Maximum Sound Level (Lmax) The highest individual sound level (dBA) occurring over a given time period. Minimum Sound Level (Lmin) The lowest individual sound level (dBA) occurring over a given time period. Community Noise Equivalent Level A rating of community noise exposure to all sources of sound that (CNEL) differentiates between daytime, evening, and nighttime noise exposure. These adjustments are +5 dBA for the evening, 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM, and +10 dBA for the night, 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. Day/Night Average (Ldn) The Ldn is a measure of the 24-hour average noise level at a given location. It was adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for developing criteria for the evaluation of community noise exposure. It is based on a measure of the average noise level over a given time period called the Leq. The Ldn is calculated by averaging the Leq’s for each hour of the day at a given location after penalizing the “sleeping hours” (defined as 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) by 10 dBA to account for the increased sensitivity of people to noises that occur at night. Exceedance Level (Ln) The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 1%, 10%, 50%, and 90% (L01, L10, L50, L90, respectively) of the time during the measurement period. Source: Cyril M. Harris, Handbook of Noise Control, 1979.

When the noise level of an activity rises above 70 dBA, the chance of receiving a complaint is possible, and as the noise level rises, dissatisfaction among the public steadily increases. However, an individual’s reaction to a particular noise depends on many factors, such as the source of the sound, its loudness relative to the background noise, and the time of day. The reaction to noise can also be highly subjective; the perceived effect of a particular noise can vary widely among individuals in a community.

The effects of noise are often only transitory, but adverse effects can be cumulative with prolonged or repeated exposure. The effects of noise on the community can be organized into six broad categories:

• Noise‐Induced Hearing Loss; • Interference with Communication; • Effects of Noise on Sleep; • Effects on Performance and Behavior;

Acoustical Assessment 8 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

• Extra‐Auditory Health Effects; and • Annoyance.

Although it often causes discomfort and sometimes pain, noise‐induced hearing loss usually takes years to develop. Noise‐induced hearing loss can impair the quality of life through a reduction in the ability to hear important sounds and to communicate with family and friends. Hearing loss is one of the most obvious and easily quantified effects of excessive exposure to noise. While the loss may be temporary at first, it could become permanent after continued exposure. When combined with hearing loss associated with aging, the amount of hearing loss directly caused by the environment is difficult to quantify. Although the major cause of noise‐ induced hearing loss is occupational, substantial damage can be caused by non‐occupational sources.

According to the United States Public Health Service, nearly ten million of the estimated 21 million Americans with hearing impairments owe their losses to noise exposure. Noise can mask important sounds and disrupt communication between individuals in a variety of settings. This process can cause anything from a slight irritation to a serious safety hazard, depending on the circumstance. Noise can disrupt face‐to‐face communication and telephone communication, and the enjoyment of music and television in the home. It can also disrupt effective communication between teachers and pupils in schools, and can cause fatigue and vocal strain in those who need to communicate in spite of the noise.

Interference with communication has proved to be one of the most important components of noise‐related annoyance. Noise‐induced sleep interference is one of the critical components of community annoyance. Sound level, frequency distribution, duration, repetition, and variability can make it difficult to fall asleep and may cause momentary shifts in the natural sleep pattern, or level of sleep. It can produce short‐term adverse effects on mood changes and job performance, with the ypossibilit of more serious effects on health if it continues over long periods. Noise can cause adverse effects on task performance and behavior at work, and non‐ occupational and social settings. These effects are the subject of some controversy, since the presence and degree of effects depends on a variety of intervening variables. Most research in this area has focused mainly on occupational settings, where noise levels must be sufficiently high and the task sufficiently complex for effects on performance to occur.

Recent research indicates that more moderate noise levels can produce disruptive after‐effects, commonly manifested as a reduced tolerance for frustration, increased anxiety, decreased incidence of “helping” behavior, and increased incidence of “hostile” behavior. Noise has been implicated in the development or exacerbation of a variety of health problems, ranging from hypertension to psychosis. As with other categories, quantifying these effects is difficult due to the amount of variables that need to be considered in each situation. As a biological stressor, noise can influence the entire physiological system. Most effects seem to be transitory, but with continued exposure some effects have been shown to be chronic in laboratory animals.

Acoustical Assessment 9 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

Annoyance can be viewed as the expression of negative feelings resulting from interference with activities, as well as the disruption of one’s peace of mind and the enjoyment of one’s environment. Field evaluations of community annoyance are useful for predicting the consequences of planned actions involving highways, airports, road traffic, railroads, or other noise sources. The consequences of noise‐induced annoyance are privately held dissatisfaction, publicly expressed complaints to authorities, and potential adverse health effects, as discussed above. In a study conducted by the United States Department of Transportation, the effects of annoyance to the community were quantified. In areas where noise levels were consistently above 60 dBA CNEL, approximately nine percent of the community is highly annoyed. When levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL, that percentage rises to 15 percent. Although evidence for the various effects of noise have differing levels of certainty, it is clear that noise can affect human health. Most of the effects are, to a varying degree, stress related.

Acoustical Assessment 10 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

3.0 LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, AND STANDARDS

Land uses deemed sensitive by the State of California (State) include schools, hospitals, rest homes, and long‐term care and mental care facilities. Many jurisdictions also consider residential uses particularly noise‐sensitive because families and individuals expect to use time in the home for rest and relaxation, and noise can interfere with those activities. Some jurisdictions may also identify other noise‐sensitive uses such as churches, libraries, and parks. Land uses that are relatively insensitive to noise include office, commercial, and retail developments. There is a range of insensitive noise receptors that include uses that generate significant noise levels and that typically have a low level of human occupancy.

This noise analysis was conducted in accordance with Federal, State, and local criteria described in the following sections.

3.1 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) offers guidelines for community noise exposure in the publication Noise Effects Handbook – A Desk Reference to Health and Welfare Effects of Noise. These guidelines consider occupational noise exposure as well as noise exposure in homes. The EPA recognizes an exterior noise level of 55 decibels day‐night level (dB Ldn) as a general goal to protect the public from hearing loss, activity interference, sleep disturbance, and annoyance. The EPA and other Federal agencies have adopted suggested land use compatibility guidelines that indicate that residential noise exposures of 55 to 65 dB Ldn are acceptable. However, the EPA notes that these levels are not regulatory goals, but are levels defined by a negotiated scientific consensus, without concern for economic and technological feasibility or the needs and desires of any particular community.

3.2 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was enacted in 1970 and requires that all known environmental effects of a project be analyzed, including environmental noise impacts. Under CEQA, a project has a potentially significant impact if the project exposes people to noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance. Additionally, under CEQA, a project has a potentially significant impact if the project creates a substantial increase in the ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. If a project has a potentially significant impact, mitigation measures must be considered. If mitigation measures to reduce the impact to less than significant are not feasible due to economic, social, environmental, legal, or other conditions, the most feasible mitigation measures must be considered.

Acoustical Assessment 11 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

3.3 LOCAL JURISDICTION

Town of Los Gatos General Plan

The Noise Element of the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan (General Plan) dated January 7, 2011, identifies and evaluates unwanted noise sources in the Town, and establishes goals and policies for reducing noise levels in the Town. Policies aimed at reducing noise levels must address specific sources of unwanted noise, as well as noise‐sensitive receptors. Noise level generation, intensity, and related impacts should be considered in determining the placement of housing, open space areas, and other noise‐sensitive land uses.

The State of California Office of Planning and Research Noise Element Guidelines (Guidelines) include recommended interior and exterior noise level standards for local jurisdictions to identify and prevent the creation of incompatible land uses due to noise. These Guidelines describe the compatibility of various land uses with a range of environmental noise levels in terms of dBA CNEL, as explained in Table 1, above.

According to the State, a noise environment of 50 dBA CNEL to 60 dBA CNEL is considered to be “normally acceptable” for residential uses. Therefore, locating residential units, parks, and institutions (such as churches, schools, libraries, and hospitals) in areas where exterior ambient noise levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL is undesirable. Additionally, more restrictive standards for quiet suburban and rural communities may be reduced by 5 to 10 dB to reflect their lower existing outdoor noise levels in comparison with urban environments.

Title 25, Section 1092 of the California Code of Regulations also sets forth requirements for the insulation of multiple‐family residential dwelling units from excessive and potentially harmful noise. Whenever multiple‐family residential dwelling units are proposed in areas with excessive noise exposure, the developer must incorporate construction features into the building’s design that reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA CNEL.

Table 2, Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments, depicts the State guidelines established by the State Department of Health Services for acceptable noise levels for each jurisdiction. These standards and criteria are incorporated into the land use planning process to reduce future noise and land use incompatibilities. These guidelines help the Town ensure integrated planning for compatibility between land uses and outdoor noise.

Acoustical Assessment 12 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

Table 2 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments

Community Noise Exposure (CNEL) Land Use Category Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Residential-Low Density, Single-Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes 50 - 60 55 - 70 70 – 75 75 – 85 Residential – Multiple Family 50 – 65 60 – 70 70 – 75 70 – 85 Transient Lodging – Motel, Hotels 50 – 65 60 – 70 70 – 80 80 – 85 Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes 50 – 70 60 – 70 70 – 80 80 – 85 Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters NA 50 – 70 NA 65 – 85 Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator Sports NA 50 – 75 NA 70 – 85 Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 50 – 70 NA 67.5 – 77.5 72.5 – 85 Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries 50 – 70 NA 70 – 80 80 – 85 Office Buildings, Business Commercial and Professional 50 – 70 67.5 – 77.5 75 – 85 NA Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture 50 – 75 70 – 80 75 – 85 NA CNEL = community noise equivalent level; NA = not applicable NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features have been included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice. NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE: New construction or development should be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise-insulation features must be included in the design. CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Source: Office of Planning and Research, California, General Plan Guidelines, October 2003.

Los Gatos has established outdoor noise limits, which represent long‐range community goals for different land use designations within the Town. The General Plan acknowledges that some of these may be presently unattainable. These outdoor noise limits are shown in Table 3, Outdoor Noise Limits. Based on Section 16.20.015 (Exterior Noise Levels for Residential Zones) of the Los Gatos Municipal Code indicates that these noise limits apply to stationary sources. 2 The land use compatibility guidelines are followed for noise limits from mobile sources; refer to Table 2, above.

Table 3 Outdoor Noise Limits

Land Use Max Ldn Value Max Leq 24 Value Comparable Noise Source Response Residential 55 dBA -- Light auto traffic (100 feet) Quiet Commercial -- 70 dBA Freeway traffic (50 feet) Telephone use difficult Industrial -- 70 dBA Freeway traffic (50 feet) Telephone use difficult Open Space Intensive Light auto traffic -- 55 dBA Quiet (Developed Park) (100 feet)

2 Town of Los Gatos, 2020 General Plan EIR, 2010.

Acoustical Assessment 13 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

Table 3 (continued) Outdoor Noise Limits

Land Use Max Ldn Value Max Leq 24 Value Comparable Noise Source Response Passive -- 50 dBA Light auto traffic (100 feet) Quiet (Nature Park) Hospital -- 55 dBA Light auto traffic (100 feet) Quiet Education -- 55 dBA Light auto traffic (100 feet) Quiet Source: Town of Los Gatos, Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan, dated January 7, 2011.

The following goal, policy, and action statements are intended to limit the exposure of the community to excessive noise levels, and are applicable to the proposed project.

Goal NOI‐1 To ensure that noise from new development and new land uses does not adversely affect neighboring land uses.

Policy NOI‐1.1 The Town, as part of the Environmental Review process, shall require applicants to submit an acoustical analysis of projects. All input related to noise levels shall use the adopted standard of measurement shown in Table 3. Noise impacts of new development shall be evaluated in terms of any increase of the existing ambient noise levels and the potential for adverse noise and groundborne vibrations impacts on nearby or adjacent properties. The evaluation shall consider short‐term construction noise and on‐going operational noise.

Policy NOI‐1.3 Employ the Ldn scale for the evaluation of outdoor noise for residential land uses and the Leq scale for evaluation of outdoor noise for non‐residential uses, as shown in Table 3. Pursue the outdoor noise limits shown in Table 3 as representing the long range community aspirations and work toward their accomplishment, even though some may be presently unattainable.

Policy NOI‐1.4 Apply the same indoor noise levels standards for single family residential uses and multi‐family dwellings.

Goal NOI‐2 To ensure that proposed development is not adversely affected by existing noise levels.

Policy NOI‐2.1 Evaluate the potential for existing ambient and/or intrusive noise to adversely affect new development.

Acoustical Assessment 14 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

Policy NOI‐2.2 Require all noise‐sensitive developments adjacent to or within an area where noise levels exceed community aspirations to include a noise study and recommendation for reducing noise impact to an acceptable level.

Goal NOI‐5 To ensure that residential land uses are not adversely affected by noise.

Policy NOI‐5.1 Protect residential areas from noise by requiring appropriate site and building design, sound walls, and landscaping and by the use of noise attenuating construction techniques and materials.

Policy NOI‐5.2 For commercial and industrial developments adjacent to residential neighborhoods, additional restrictions beyond the Noise Ordinance may be applied to reduce noise intrusions in residential districts to an acceptable level.

Goal NOI‐6 To ensure that sensitive receptors are not exposed to unacceptable noise levels.

Policy NOI‐6.1 The Town shall not approve land use patterns and traffic patterns that expose sensitive land uses or sensitive noise receptors to unacceptable noise levels.

Action NOI‐7.3 Any Environmental Review document prepared for the Town for a project that identifies noise factors shall relate the noise data to the Townʹs Noise Ordinance to give the Planning Commission and Town Council a standard for comparison.

Town of Los Gatos Municipal Code

The Chapter 16, Noise, of the Town of Los Gatos Municipal Code (Municipal Code) includes standards and regulations pertaining to noise.

Section 16.20.035, Construction, describes when and how construction activities may occur, with the goal of reducing any short‐term impacts from construction noise, as follows:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekends and holidays, construction, alteration or repair activities which are authorized by a valid Town permit or as otherwise allowed by Town permit, shall be allowed if they meet at least one of the following noise limitations:

(1) No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding eighty‐five (85) dBA at twenty‐five (25) feet. If the device is located within

Acoustical Assessment 15 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

a structure on the property, the measurement shall be made at distances as close to twenty‐five (25) feet from the device as possible. (2) The noise level at any point outside of the property plane shall not exceed eighty‐five (85) dBA.

Chapter 16.20.015, Exterior Noise Levels for Residential Zones, states the following:

No person shall cause, make, suffer or allow to be made by any machine, animal, device or any combination of same in a residential zone, a noise level more than six (6) dB above the noise level specified for that particular noise zone, as shown on the Noise Zone Map, during that particular time frame, at any point outside of the property plane.

Chapter 16.20.020, Interior Noise Levels for Multi‐Family Residences, states the following:

No person shall cause, make, suffer or allow to be made by any machine, animal, device or any combination of same, in a multi‐family residential zone, a noise level more than six (6) dB above the local ambient (interior), three (3) feet from any common wall, floor or ceiling inside any dwelling unit on the same or adjacent property, except within the dwelling unit in which the noise source or sources may be located.

Chapter 16.20.025, Noise Levels for Commercial and Industrial Zones, states the following:

No person shall cause, make, suffer or allow to be made by any machine, animal, device or any combination of same, in any commercial or industrial zone, a noise level more than eight (8) dB above the noise level specified for that particular noise zone, as shown on the Noise Zone Map, during that particular time frame, at any point outside of the property plane.

Chapter 16.20.030, Public Property Noise Limits, states the following:

(a) No person shall cause, make, suffer or allow to be made by any machine, animal, device or combination of same, on public property a noise level more than fifteen (15) dB noise level specified for that particular noise zone, as shown on the Noise Zone Map, during that particular time frame, at any point outside of the property plane. (b) Public performances or special events not exceeding seventy (70) dBA at the property plane are exempt from this chapter when approval therefore has been obtained from the appropriate governmental entity. (c) Vehicle horns or other devices primarily intended to create a loud noise for warning purposes, shall not be used when the vehicle is at rest, or when a situation endangering life, health, or property is not imminent.

Acoustical Assessment 16 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

Chapter 16.20.060, Powered Equipment, states the following:

(a) Miscellaneous nonstationary noise sources such as; electric or gasoline lawn mowers, leafblowers, edge trimmers, hedge trimmers and other similar moveable noise sources shall be operated only during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekends and holidays in residential or noise sensitive zones. The use of powered equipment in commercial, industrial or public space shall not be time limited. Powered equipment shall be exempt from all other limitations and provisions of this chapter. (b) The provisions of this section shall not apply to emergency work as defined in article I of this chapter. (c) Powered toys and models. No person shall operate or permit to be operated any powered toy or model, as defined in article I of this chapter, so as to cause a noise disturbance across a residential property plane or violate the limitations and provisions of this chapter.

Acoustical Assessment 17 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

4.1 NOISE MEASUREMENTS

In order to quantify existing ambient noise levels in the project area, RBF Consulting conducted four noise measurements on December 3, 2010; refer to Table 4, Noise Measurements. The noise measurement sites were representative of typical existing noise exposure within and immediately adjacent to the project site. Ten‐minute measurements were taken, between 1:00 PM and 2:15 PM, at each site during the day. Short‐term (Leq) measurements are considered representative of the noise levels throughout the day and relate closely with the Town’s noise standards which are expressed in Ldn. Ldn values are calculated from hourly Leq values, with penalties for the nighttime period (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) to reflect the greater disturbance potential from nighttime noise. Noise sources in the project area (i.e., traffic and mechanical equipment) become less active and generate less noise in the project area during the nighttime period. As a result, the variance between Leq and Ldn is typically less than one dBA in areas such as the project site.

Meteorological conditions were clear skies, cool temperatures, with light wind speeds (0 to 5 miles per hour), and low humidity. Measured noise levels during the daytime measurements ranged from 52.3 to 67.4 dBA Leq. Noise monitoring equipment used for the ambient noise survey consisted of a Brüel & Kjær Hand‐held Analyzer Type 2250 equipped with a Type 4189 pre‐polarized microphone. The monitoring equipment complies with applicable requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for Type I (precision) sound level meters. The results of the field measurements are included in Appendix A, Noise Measurement Sheets. Refer to Exhibit 5, Noise Measurement Locations for the noise measurements sites.

Table 4 Noise Measurements

Leq Lmin Lmax L10 L50 L90 Site No. Location Time (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) 1 Center of the project site 57.7 53.6 68.8 57.0 55.5 54.7 1:22 PM 2 Northern portion of the project site 67.4 58.1 72.2 68.5 66.4 63.9 1:38 PM 3 Northern terminus of Charter Oaks Lane 52.3 45.8 63.8 52.5 50.5 48.3 1:54 PM Smith Ranch Court (across Winchester 4 55.9 43.4 67.4 56.8 51.7 46.1 2:11 PM Boulevard) Source: RBF Consulting, December 3, 2010.

4.2 SENSITIVE RECEPTORS

Certain land uses are particularly sensitive to noise, including schools, hospitals, rest homes, long‐term medical and mental care facilities, and parks and recreation areas. Residential areas are also considered noise sensitive, especially during the nighttime hours. Existing sensitive receptors located in the project vicinity include residential uses, recreational uses, schools, hospitals, and places of worship. Sensitive receptors are outlined in Table 5, Sensitive Receptors.

Acoustical Assessment 18 March 2011 2

4

1

3

1 Noise Measurement Locations

Source: Google Earth aerial. ALBRIGHT WAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ACOUSTICAL ASSESSMENT not to scale Noise Measurement Locations 1/26/11 JN 40-100419-17193 MAS Exhibit 5 Albright Way Development Project

Table 5 Sensitive Receptors

Distance from Project Type Name Direction from Project Site Site (feet) 475 North 875 Northeast 230 East 1,660 Southeast Residential Residential Uses Adjoining South 1,200 South 900 Southwest 130 West 600 Northwest Schools Yavneh Day School 820 Southeast Los Gatos Swim and Racquet Club 1,000 East Parks/Recreation Courtside Club 350 Southwest Places of Worship Addison Penzack Jewish Community Center 820 Southeast First Assembly of God 1,400 South Congregation Tsemach Adonai 1,450 South Hospitals El Camino Hospital Los Gatos 1,900 Northwest Source: Google Earth 2010.

4.3 EXISTING NOISE LEVELS

MOBILE SOURCES

In order to assess the potential for mobile source noise impacts, it is necessary to determine the noise currently generated by vehicles traveling through the project area. Noise models were run using the Federal Highway Administration’s Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA‐ RD‐77‐108) together with several roadway and site parameters; please refer to Appendix B, Modeling Data. These parameters determine the projected impact of vehicular traffic noise and include the roadway cross‐section (e.g., number of lanes), roadway width, average daily traffic (ADT), vehicle travel speed, percentages of auto and truck traffic, roadway grade, angle‐of‐ view, and site conditions (“hard” or “soft”). The model does not account for ambient noise levels (i.e., noise from adjacent land uses) or topographical differences between the roadway and adjacent land uses.

Noise projections are based on modeled vehicular traffic as derived from the Albright Way Development Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. on March 17, 2011. The posted speed limits are 35 miles per hour (mph) on Winchester Boulevard, 30 mph on Lark Avenue, and 25 mph on Wimbledon Drive. Existing modeled traffic noise levels are presented in Table 6, Existing Traffic Noise Levels.

Acoustical Assessment 20 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

Table 6 Existing Traffic Noise Levels

dBA @ 100 Feet Distance from Roadway Centerline to: (Feet) Roadway Segment ADT from Roadway 60 CNEL Noise 65 CNEL Noise 70 CNEL Noise Centerline Contour Contour Contour Winchester Boulevard North of SR-85 25,860 65.7 446 141 45 SR-85 to Wimbledon Drive 21,080 64.9 363 115 36 Wimbledon Drive to Lark Avenue 20,450 64.7 353 112 35 Lark Avenue Winchester Boulevard to Oka Road 10,040 60.4 124 39 12 Wimbledon Drive West of Winchester Boulevard 2,410 52.5 21 7 2 ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = community noise equivalent level Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., Albright Way Development Traffic Impact Analysis, dated March 17, 2011.

STATIONARY NOISE SOURCES

The primary sources of stationary noise in the project vicinity are those associated with on‐site HVAC units and off‐site residential uses.

Acoustical Assessment 21 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

5.0 POTENTIAL ACOUSTICAL IMPACTS

CEQA THRESHOLDS

Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines contains analysis guidelines related to the assessment of noise impacts. These guidelines have been utilized as thresholds of significance for this analysis. As stated in Appendix G, a project would create a significant environmental impact if it would:

• Expose persons to, or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies (refer to Impact Statements NOI‐1);

• Expose persons to or generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels (refer to Impact Statement NOI‐2);

• Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project (refer to Impact Statement NOI‐1);

• Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project (refer to Impact Statement NOI‐ 1);

• For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels (refer to Impact Statement NOI‐3); and

• For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels (refer to Impact Statement NOI‐3).

Based on these standards and thresholds, the effects of the proposed project have been categorized as either a “less than significant impact” or a “potentially significant impact.” Mitigation measures are recommended for potentially significant impacts.

SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANGES IN TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS

If the ambient noise environment is quiet and the new noise source greatly increases the noise exposure, an impact may occur even though a criterion level might not be exceeded. The project would create a significant impact for traffic noise levels when the following occurs:

• An increase of the existing ambient noise levels by 5 dBA or more, where the ambient level is less than 60 dBA CNEL;

Acoustical Assessment 22 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

• An increase of the existing ambient noise level by 3 dBA or more, where the ambient level is 60 to 65 dBA CNEL; or • An increase of the existing ambient noise level by 1.5 dBA or more, where the ambient level is greater than 65 dBA CNEL.

SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANGES IN CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS

The project’s contribution to a cumulative traffic noise increase would be considered cumulatively considerable when the combined effect exceeds perception level (i.e., auditory level increase) threshold. The combined effect compares the “cumulative with project” condition to “existing” conditions. This comparison accounts for the traffic noise increase from the project generated in combination with traffic generated by projects in the cumulative projects list. The following criteria have been utilized to evaluate the combined effect of the cumulative noise increase.

Combined Effects: The cumulative with project noise level (“Cumulative With Project”) causes the following:

• An increase of the existing noise level by 5 dBA or more, where the existing level is less than 60 dBA CNEL; • An increase of the existing noise level by 3 dBA or more, where the existing level is 60 to 65 CNEL; or • An increase of the existing noise level by 1.5 dBA or more, where the existing level is greater than 65 dBA CNEL.

Although there may be a significant noise increase due to the proposed project in combination with other related projects (combined effects), it must also be demonstrated that the project has an incremental effect. In other words, a significant portion of the noise increase must be due to the proposed project. The following criteria have been utilized to evaluate the incremental effect of the cumulative noise increase.

Incremental Effects: The “Cumulative With Project” causes a 1 dBA increase in noise over the “Cumulative Without Project” noise level.

A significant impact would result only if both the combined and incremental effects criteria have been exceeded.

NOI‐1

• EXPOSE PERSONS TO, OR GENERATE NOISE LEVELS IN EXCESS OF STANDARDS ESTABLISHED IN THE LOCAL GENERAL PLAN OR NOISE ORDINANCE, OR APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF OTHER AGENCIES?

Acoustical Assessment 23 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

• A SUBSTANTIAL PERMANENT INCREASE IN AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS IN THE PROJECT VICINITY ABOVE LEVELS EXISTING WITHOUT THE PROJECT?

• A SUBSTANTIAL TEMPORARY OR PERIODIC INCREASE IN AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS IN THE PROJECT VICINITY ABOVE LEVELS EXISTING WITHOUT THE PROJECT?

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant.

Scenario 1

SHORT‐TERM CONSTRUCTION

Construction activities are generally temporary and short in duration, resulting in periodic increases in the ambient noise environment. Project construction would occur over six phases, including demolition of existing buildings, site grading, trenching, paving, building construction, and architectural coating. Staging for construction equipment would occur within the boundaries of the project site. Groundborne noise and other types of construction‐related noise impacts would typically occur during the initial site preparation, which can create the highest levels of noise. However, site preparation typically has the shortest duration of all construction phases. Activities that occur during this phase include demolition, earthmoving, and soils compaction. High groundborne noise levels and other miscellaneous noise levels can be created during this phase due to the operation of heavy‐duty trucks, backhoes, and front‐end loaders. A reasonable worst‐case assumption is that the three loudest pieces of equipment would operate simultaneously within a focused area and occur continuously over at least one hour.

Table 7, Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment, indicates the anticipated noise levels of construction equipment based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and noise receptor. It should be noted that the noise levels identified in Table 7 are maximum sound levels (Lmax) which are the highest individual sound occurring at an individual time period. The Town’s noise ordinance limits construction noise to 85 dBA at the property line and is based on the on the Ldn scale which is a noise level over a 24‐hour period. The Lmax values presented in Table 7 would be lower on the Ldn scale. Operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three or four minutes at lower power settings. The site preparation phase, which includes grading of the site, tends to generate the highest noise levels.

Acoustical Assessment 24 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

Table 7 Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment

Lmax at 50 Feet Type of Equipment Acoustical Use Factor1 (dBA) Cement/Mortar Mixer 40 79 Concrete/Industrial Saw 20 90 Crane 16 81 Dozer 40 82 Excavator 40 81 Forklift 40 79 Generator 50 81 Grader 40 85 Other Equipment (greater than five horse power) 50 85 Paver 50 77 Roller 20 80 Tractor 40 84 Truck 40 80 Welder 40 73 Note: 1 – Acoustical use factor (percent): Estimates the fraction of time each piece of construction equipment is operating at full power (i.e., its loudest condition) during a construction operation. Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA-HEP-05-054), dated January 2006.

Actual construction‐related noise activities would cease upon completion of construction. Construction would occur throughout the project site and would not be concentrated or confined in the area directly adjacent to residential neighborhood to the north and west; Los Gatos Creek Trail to the east; or the office building to the .south Therefore, construction noise would be acoustically dispersed throughout the project site and not concentrated in one area near adjacent sensitive uses (i.e., residents adjoining the project site to the north and west). Furthermore, Mitigation Measure NOI‐1 would require best management practices to reduce noise from engine exhausts and provide for Noise Disturbance Coordinator whom would be required to immediately address any noise complaints received. Property occupants located adjacent to the project boundary shall be sent a notice, at least 15 days prior to commencement of construction of each phase, regarding the construction schedule of the proposed project, and provided with the contact information for the Noise Disturbance Coordinator.

Pursuant to the Town of Los Gatos Municipal Code Section 16.20.035, construction activities may occur between the hours of 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM on weekdays and 9:00 AM and 7:00 PM weekends and holidays. This exemption is included in the code in recognition that construction activities undertaken during daytime hours are a typical part of living in an urban environment and does not cause a significant disruption. It should be noted that Section 16.20.035(2) of the Town Code also limits construction noise to 85 dBA at the property line. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI‐1 would further minimize impacts from construction noise as it requires construction equipment to be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other state required noise attenuation devices. The required noise disturbance coordinator would ensure that construction noise levels comply with the Town’s limits. Also,

Acoustical Assessment 25 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

nighttime construction would not occur. Thus, a less than significant noise impact would result from construction activities.

OPERATIONAL MOBILE NOISE SOURCES

The following analysis compares the “Existing” to the “Existing Plus Project” condition. There are often circumstances in which an “Existing Plus Project” analysis would result in only a hypothetical comparison of impacts which will not occur.

Project implementation would result in additional traffic on adjacent roadways, thereby increasing vehicular generated noise in the vicinity of the existing residential uses. Traffic volumes were analyzed under the “Existing” and “Existing Plus Project” conditions. As previously discussed when the resultant noise level exceeds Town standards, an increase of 5 dBA or greater in noise levels occurring from project‐related activities would be significant when the “No Project” noise level is below 60 dBA CNEL. An increase of 3 dBA or greater in noise levels occurring from project‐related activities would be significant when the “No Project” noise level is between 60 to 65 dBA CNEL. Finally, an increase of 1.5 dBA or greater would be significant if the “No Project” noise level is above 65 dBA CNEL.

According to Table 8, Traffic Noise Levels, under the “Existing” scenario, noise levels at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline would range from 52.5 dBA to 65.7 dBA. Under the “Existing Plus Project” scenario, noise levels at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline would range from 53.0 dBA to 65.8 dBA. The highest enois level for both scenarios would occur along Winchester Boulevard, north of SR‐85. The lowest noise levels for both scenarios would occur along Wimbledon Drive, west of Winchester Boulevard. Traffic noise levels would be higher with the Existing Plus Project traffic volumes as compared to Existing conditions. As indicated in Table 8, the maximum noise increase is 0.9 dBA. Thus, per the significance criteria mentioned above, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Acoustical Assessment 26 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

Table 8 Traffic Noise Levels

Existing Existing Plus Project Difference dBA CNEL dBA CNEL @ in dBA @ @ 100 Feet Significant Roadway Segment 100 Feet from 100 Feet ADT ADT from Impact? Roadway from Roadway Centerline Roadway Centerline Winchester Boulevard North of SR-85 25,860 65.7 26,710 65.8 0.1 No SR-85 to Wimbledon Drive 21,080 64.9 24.090 65.5 0.6 No Wimbledon Drive to Lark Avenue 20,450 64.7 22,780 65.1 0.4 No Lark Avenue Winchester Boulevard to Oka Road 10,040 60.4 12,490 61.3 0.9 No Wimbledon Drive West of Winchester Boulevard 2,410 52.5 2,480 53.0 0.5 No Notes: dBA = Decibel; ADT = Average Daily Traffic; CNEL = community noise equivalent level Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., Albright Way Development Traffic Impact Analysis, dated March 17, 2011.

Table 9, Future Traffic Noise Levels, depicts the mobile source noise under the Future scenario. The Future scenario condition is defined as existing plus approved (but not yet constructed) plus project conditions. According to Table 9, under the “Future Without Project” scenario, noise levels at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline would range from 53.0 dBA to 66.1 dBA. Under the “Future With Project” scenario, noise levels at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline would range from 53.1 dBA to 66.2 dBA. The highest noise level for both scenarios would occur along Winchester Boulevard, north of SR‐85. The lowest noise levels for both scenarios would occur along Wimbledon Drive, west of Winchester Boulevard. Traffic noise levels would be higher with the Future traffic volumes as compared to existing conditions. As indicated in Table 9, the maximum noise increase is 0.8 dBA. Thus, per the significance criteria mentioned above, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Acoustical Assessment 27 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

Table 9 Future Traffic Noise Levels

Future Without Project Future With Project Difference dBA CNEL dBA CNEL in dBA @ @ 100 Feet @ 100 Feet Significant Roadway Segment 100 Feet ADT from ADT from Impact? from Roadway Roadway Roadway Centerline Centerline Winchester Boulevard North of SR-85 28,330 66.1 29,180 66.2 0.1 No SR-85 to Wimbledon Drive 24,030 65.4 27,040 66.0 0.6 No Wimbledon Drive to Lark Avenue 23,990 65.4 26,320 65.8 0.4 No Lark Avenue Winchester Boulevard to Oka Road 12,110 61.2 14,560 62.0 0.8 No Wimbledon Drive West of Winchester Boulevard 2,460 53.0 2,530 53.1 0.1 No Notes: dBA = Decibel; ADT = Average Daily Traffic; CNEL = community noise equivalent level Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., Albright Way Development Traffic Impact Analysis, dated March 17, 2011.

OPERATIONAL STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE

Stationary noise sources associated with Scenario 1 would include noise associated with delivery truck loading and unloading, truck movements on driveways, and parking lot/structure activities. Noise impacts from these sources associated with the office uses in Scenario 1 would be infrequent and intermittent. Such isolated peak noises are measured in dBA Lmax, as the volume or frequency of such events is not critical, and the noises are not an averaged calculation, such as CNEL or Ldn. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems would be installed for the new buildings within the project site. HVAC systems result in noise levels that average between 40 and 50 dBA Leq at 50 feet from the equipment. The closest sensitive receptors would be more than 50 feet from the potential locations of the HVAC equipment.

Any new stationary noise source would be required to provide adequate sound attenuation such that Town noise standards are achieved. On‐site stationary sources or activities would be shielded by on‐ and off‐site buildings, vegetation, and traffic along adjacent streets and would not occur at distances closer to any existing residential uses in the project vicinity. Noise associated with these stationary sources would result in a less than significant impact on adjacent uses.

Acoustical Assessment 28 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

Scenario 2

The development of Scenario 2 would result in less commercial office space than considered under Scenario 1. Construction related noise impacts would be reduced due to the reduction construction activities required. At full development, Scenario 2 would result in 948 daily net new trips (as opposed to 3,126 for Scenario . 1) Thus, operational noise impacts would be proportionately reduced. Therefore, as with Scenario 1, mobile source impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, stationary source impacts would also be less than significant, as Scenario 2 would result in development that is less intense than Scenario 1.

Scenario 3

The development of Scenario 3 would result in less commercial office space than considered under Scenario 1. However, Scenario 3 also includes up to 516 high‐density units. Construction related noise impacts would be similar to that presented for Scenario 1. Therefore, as with Scenario 1, construction noise impacts would be less than significant with the incorporation of the recommended mitigation. At full development, Scenario 3 would result in 2,000 daily net new trips (as opposed to 3,126 for Scenario 1). Thus, operational noise impacts would be proportionately reduced. However, with the inclusion of residential uses on‐site, it is necessary to evaluate the traffic noise exposure to the residential uses and determine if they resultant on‐ site noise levels fall below the Town’s threshold of 65 dBA CNEL exterior and 45 dBA CNEL interior.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) TNM 2.5 model was used to evaluate the future with project traffic noise for future project traffic volumes. The Future project conditions were modeled with the residential sensitive receptor located immediately adjacent to Winchester Boulevard between SR‐85 and Wimbledon Drive within the proposed project area; resulting in a total of 8 modeled receptor locations. Exhibit 6, On‐Site Sensitive Receptors, indicates the receptor locations selected to determine noise levels within the project site. Table 10, On‐Site Noise Levels, illustrates the anticipated noise levels at each on‐site sensitive receptor.

As indicated in Table 10, on‐site noise levels would not exceed 64.6 dBA. The highest noise levels are located adjacent to SR‐85. Therefore, noise levels would be consistent with the established noise standards of 65 dBA at exterior living areas. Standard building construction practices typically results in approximately 20 dBA of noise attenuation with windows closed, which would result in interior noise levels being below 45 dBA. Therefore, operational noise impacts would be less than significant and no additional mitigation is required.

Acoustical Assessment 29 March 2011 WINCHESTER HIGHWAY

2 1 4 5 6

3 HIGHWAY 85

7

8

Residential not permitted within this area

CREEK TRAIL

LEGEND 1 Sensitive Receptor Location CHARTERDRIVE OAKS

Source: Form4 Architecture. ALBRIGHT WAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ACOUSTICAL ASSESSMENT not to scale On-Site Sensitive Receptors 3/31/11 JN 40-100419-17193 MAS Exhibit 6 Albright Way Development Project

Table 10 On‐Site Noise Levels

Exterior Interior Noise Location Number1 Noise Level2 Level3 (dBA CNEL) (dBA CNEL) 1 57.0 37.0 2 61.0 41.0 3 55.1 35.1 4 59.8 39.8 5 61.5 41.5 6 59.7 39.7 7 58.1 38.1 8 64.6 44.6 Notes: 1. Refer to Exhibit 6, On-Site Sensitive Receptors for a depiction of each lot orientation in regards to Winchester Boulevard between SR-85 and Wimbledon Drive. 2. It should be noted that the TNM 2.5 model has a tolerance standard deviation of +/-0.5 dBA. 3. A 20 dBA noise attenuation rate was utilized to determine the interior noise standards.

Mobile noise sources may also occur from adjacent rail operations. Past noise measurements collected on properties to the west and north of the project site (also adjacent to SR‐85 and Winchester Boulevard) indicate similar relationships between daytime Leq and Ldn. Noise measurements taken on the property west of the site also indicate that train operations on the tracks along the west side of the site increase Ldn noise levels by up to 2 dBA in proximity to the railroad tracks along Winchester Boulevard. With train operations, noise levels could reach 70 dBA along the western site boundary on the days when train operations occur. The planned Vasona Light Rail Station would be located on Winchester Boulevard, approximately 550 feet to the north of the site and SR‐85. Since the route for the light rail train ends at this station and this would be the closest distance between the site and these rail operations, noise from light rail operations or the station is not expected to affect noise levels at the project site.

Using the future traffic volumes on Winchester Boulevard (between SR‐85 and Wimbledon Drive) and the FHWA TNM 2.5 model, noise levels were estimated at eight potential receptor locations on the site; refer to Table 10. The highest levels (58 to 65 dBA) would be located adjacent to SR‐85, while future noise levels along Winchester Boulevard would be 55 to 62 dBA without train operations and 55 to 64 dBA along Winchester Boulevard with train operations. Standard building construction practices typically result in approximately 20 dBA of noise attenuation with windows closed, which would result in interior noise levels of less than 45 dBA. Therefore, noise impacts to on‐site sensitive uses (residents) from rail operations would be less than significant.

As with Scenario 1, stationary noise sources associated with the Scenario 3 would include noise from delivery truck loading and unloading, truck movements on driveways, and parking lot/structure activities. Noise impacts from these sources associated with office and residential

Acoustical Assessment 31 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

uses would be infrequent and intermittent. HVAC systems installed for the proposed office uses would result in noise levels that average between 40 and 50 dBA Leq at 50 feet from the equipment, which are within the Town’s noise standards. Although Scenario 3 proposes a mix of commercial and residential uses, the residential uses would be more than 50 feet from the potential locations of the HVAC equipment based on distances required for building setbacks and drive aisles. Pursuant to Section 16 (Noise) of the Town’s Municipal Code, any new stationary noise source would be required to provide adequate sound attenuation such that Town noise standards are achieved. This can be achieved through the use of HVAC silencers, acoustical enclosures, and/or locating mechanical equipment away from sensitive receptors. Compliance with the Town’s standards would reduce potential stationary source noise impacts to less than significant levels.

On‐site stationary sources or activities would be shielded by on‐ and off‐site buildings, vegetation, and traffic along adjacent streets and not occur at distances closer to any existing or proposed residential uses in the project vicinity, noise associated with these stationary sources would result in a less than significant impact.

Scenario 4

The development of Scenario 4 would result in a similar development plan as envisioned within Scenario 3. The primary difference would be that Scenario 3 proposes 516 high‐density units instead of 600 senior units. Although the proposed residential dwelling units would increase by 84, impacts would not increase because Scenario 3 analyzed a worst‐case noise scenario when modeling traffic noise impacts to on‐site residents. At full development, Scenario 4 would result in 1,442 daily net new trips (as opposed to 2,000 for Scenario 3). Thus, operational noise impacts would be proportionately reduced. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with the incorporation of the recommended mitigation.

Exposure of on‐site residents to noise from adjacent rail operations would be similar to that described for Scenario 3. Senior units would not be exposed to interior noise levels in excess of 45 dBA from rail operations. Therefore, noise impacts to on‐site sensitive uses (senior unit residents) from rail operations would be less than significant.

Stationary source noise generally produced in mixed‐use districts includes slow‐moving truck deliveries, traffic in parking areas and equipment noise from landscape maintenance. HVAC systems installed for the proposed office uses would result in noise levels that average between 40 and 50 dBA Leq at 50 feet from the equipment. As with Scenario 3, Scenario 4 proposes a mix of commercial and residential uses. The residential uses would be more than 50 feet from the potential locations of the HVAC equipment due to requirements for building setbacks and drive aisles. On‐site buildings, adjacent streets, street trees, and vegetation would serve as a buffer between the project site and nearby sensitive receptors. Pursuant to Section 16 (Noise) of the Town’s Municipal Code, these noise levels would not exceed the Town of Los Gatos’ exterior noise standards. Any new stationary noise source would be required to provide adequate sound attenuation such that Town noise standards are achieved. Impacts would be less than significant.

Acoustical Assessment 32 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

Mitigation Measures:

NOI‐1 Prior to Grading Permit issuance, the Contractor shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Town of Los Gatos Public Works Department that the project complies with the following:

• Construction contracts specify that all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other state required noise attenuation devices.

• Property occupants located adjacent to the project boundary shall be sent a notice, at least 15 days prior to commencement of construction of each phase, regarding the construction schedule of the proposed project. A sign, legible at a distance of 50 feet shall also be posted at the project construction site. All notices and signs shall be reviewed and approved by the Town of Los Gatos Public Works Department prior to mailing or posting and shall indicate the dates and duration of construction activities, as well as provide a contact name and a telephone number where residents can inquire about the construction process and register complaints.

• The Contractor shall provide, to the satisfaction of the Town of Los Gatos Public Works Department, a qualified “Noise Disturbance Coordinator.” The Disturbance Coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. When a complaint is received, the Disturbance Coordinator shall notify the Town within 24‐hours of the complaint and determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall implement reasonable measures to resolve the complaint, as deemed acceptable by the Public Works Department. All notices that are sent to residential units immediately surrounding the construction site and all signs posted at the construction site shall include the contact name and the telephone number for the Disturbance Coordinator.

• Construction haul routes shall be designed to avoid noise sensitive uses (e.g., residences, convalescent homes, etc.).

• During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers.

• Pursuant to the Town of Los Gatos Municipal Code Section 16.20.035, construction activities shall occur between the hours of 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM on weekdays and 9:00 AM and 7:00 PM on weekends and holidays. Additionally, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.20.035(2) the Contractor shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Town of Los Gatos Public Works Department, that construction noise shall not exceed 85 dBA outside of the property line. This shall be accomplished with implementation of methods previously described in this mitigation measure, above.

Acoustical Assessment 33 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

NOI‐2 EXPOSURE OF PERSONS TO OR GENERATION OF EXCESSIVE GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION OR GROUNDBORNE NOISE LEVELS?

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Scenario 1

Short‐Term (Construction) Impacts

Project construction can generate varying degrees of groundborne vibration, depending on the construction procedure and the construction equipment used. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. The effect on buildings located in the vicinity of the construction site often varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and construction characteristics of the receiver building(s). The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Groundborne vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that damage structures.

The types of construction vibration impact include human annoyance and building damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human perception for extended periods of time. Building damage can be cosmetic or structural. Ordinary buildings that are not particularly fragile would not experience any cosmetic damage (e.g., plaster cracks) at distances beyond 30 feet. This distance can vary substantially depending on the soil composition and underground geological layer between vibration source and receiver. In addition, not all buildings respond similarly to vibration generated by construction equipment. The vibration produced by construction equipment is illustrated in Table 11, Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment.

Table 11 Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment

Approximate peak particle velocity Approximate peak particle velocity Equipment at 25 feet (inches/second) at 75 feet (inches/second) Large bulldozer 0.089 0.017 Loaded trucks 0.076 0.015 Small bulldozer 0.003 0.001 Notes: 1 - Peak particle ground velocity measured at 25 feet unless noted otherwise. 2 - Root mean square amplitude ground velocity in decibels (VdB) referenced to 1 micro-inch/second. Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines, May 2006.

Acoustical Assessment 34 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

Groundborne vibration decreases rapidly with distance. As indicated in Table 11, based on the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operation that would be used during project construction range from 0.003 to 0.089 inch‐per‐second peak particle velocity (PPV) at 25 feet from the source of activity. At 75 feet from the source activity, vibration velocities range from 0.001 to 0.017 inch‐per‐second peak PPV. With regard to the proposed project, groundborne vibration would be generated primarily during site clearing and grading activities on‐site and by off‐site haul‐truck travel. Although the closest occupied residential uses are located within 25 feet of the project site (adjacent to the south), the proposed construction activities would not be capable of exceeding the 0.2 inch‐per‐second PPV significance threshold for vibration. Therefore, vibration impacts would be less than significant.

Long‐Term (Operational) Impacts

The project site is located adjacent to the east of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) alignment. The freight operations along UPRR currently operate at or below what it did 10 years ago (three times per week, twice per day). The sharp turn across Winchester Boulevard requires freight trains to reduce their speed significantly, which results in lower noise and vibration levels. According to the Federal Transit System’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (April 1995), typical transit vibration levels are approximately 70 VdB at 50 feet, and heavy locomotives average approximately five to 10 decibels higher than rail transit vehicles. Therefore, freight operations adjacent to the project site to the west would result in vibration levels of 75 to 80 VdB at 50 feet. However, it is noted that the levels are expected to be lower due to the sharp turn across Winchester Boulevard and the reduced speed of the trains. According to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) (Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006) and Federal Railroad Administration (High‐Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, December 1998), vibration levels of 85 VdB are acceptable if there are an infrequent number of events per day. The FTA screening procedure for vibration impacts in the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment applies to FTA‐assisted projects only and is intended to apply only to transit and commuter rail with 30 or more vibration events per day. Therefore, as the proposed project does not FTA assistance and would not be exposed to more than two vibration events per day, the FTA’s screening procedure does not apply. As freight trains pass by the project site very infrequently (up to three times per week, twice per day), and the trains would not result in vibration levels exceeding 85 VdB, no significant vibration impacts would occur.

Scenario 2

The development of Scenario 2 would result in less commercial office space than considered under Scenario 1. Construction related vibration impacts would be reduced due to the reduced construction activities required. Therefore, construction related activities associated with Scenario 2 would not be capable of exceeding the 0.2 inch‐per‐second PPV significance threshold at the residential uses to the south. Operational vibration impacts from freight operations along the adjacent UPRR alignment would be similar to those identified in

Acoustical Assessment 35 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

Scenario 1. As with Scenario 1, vibration impacts for Scenario 2 would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

Scenario 3

The development of Scenario 3 would result in less commercial office space than considered under Scenario 1. However, Scenario 3 also includes up to 516 high‐density units. These high‐ density units could be developed and occupied while construction of the commercial component is in progress. However, the proposed residential units would not be within 25 feet of the construction areas for the office uses. Additionally, the majority of construction activities would occur throughout the project site, and would not occur immediately adjacent to the residential dwelling units. Construction related vibration impacts would be similar to that presented for Scenario 1. Operational vibration impacts from freight operations along the adjacent UPRR alignment would also be similar to those identified in Scenario 1. Therefore, as with Scenario 1, vibration impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Scenario 4

The development of Scenario 4 would result in a similar development plan as envisioned within Scenario 3. The primary difference would be that Scenario 3 proposes 516 high‐density units instead of 600 senior units. As a result, construction related vibration impacts would be similar to that presented for Scenario 1 and Scenario 3. No significant construction activity associated with construction of the proposed office uses would occur within 25 feet of any previously developed senior units on‐site. Additionally, the majority of construction activities would occur throughout the project site, and would not occur immediately adjacent to the residential dwelling units. Therefore, construction vibration impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Operational vibration impacts from freight operations along the adjacent UPRR alignment would be similar to those identified in Scenario 1. Therefore, vibration impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Not Applicable.

NOI‐3

• FOR A PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN AN AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN OR, WHERE SUCH A PLAN HAS NOT BEEN ADOPTED, WITHIN TWO MILES OF A PUBLIC AIRPORT OR PUBLIC USE AIRPORT, EXPOSE PEOPLE RESIDING OR WORKING IN THE PROJECT AREA TO EXCESSIVE NOISE LEVELS?

Acoustical Assessment 36 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

• FOR A PROJECT WITHIN THE VICINITY OF A PRIVATE AIRSTRIP, EXPOSE PEOPLE RESIDING OR WORKING IN THE PROJECT AREA TO EXCESSIVE NOISE LEVELS?

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Scenario 1

The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan. There is no public airport, public use airport, or private airstrip located within the Town’s boundaries or within two miles of the project site. For air travel, the closest international airports are San Jose International Airport (SJC), San Francisco International Airport (SFO), and Oakland International Airport. The proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels. Therefore, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Scenario 2

Development of Scenario 2 would not change the location of the project site. There is no public or private airport within two miles of the project site and Scenario 2 would not expose people to excessive noise levels. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Scenario 3

Development of Scenario 3 would not expose people to excessive noise levels, as there is no public or private airport within two miles of the project site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Scenario 4

Development of Scenario 4 would not expose people to excessive noise levels. There is no public or private airport within two miles of the project site and Scenario 4. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Not Applicable.

Acoustical Assessment 37 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

Scenario 1

Cumulative Operational Noise

Scenario 1 would introduce the use of stationary equipment that would increase noise levels within the area. Based on the long‐term stationary noise impacts analysis above under Impact NOI‐1, impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, Scenario 1 would not result in stationary long‐term equipment that would significantly affect surrounding sensitive receptors. Furthermore, future development proposals, other than the project, within the Town would require separate discretionary approval and CEQA assessment, which would address potential noise impacts and identify necessary attenuation measures, where appropriate. Thus, cumulative noise exposure for long‐term operations would result in a less than significant impact.

Cumulative Mobile Noise

The cumulative condition is defined as the background conditions plus pending (but not yet approved) project trips. The cumulative mobile noise analysis is conducted in a two step process. First, the combined effects from both the proposed project and other projects are compared. Second, for combined effects that are determined to be cumulatively significant, the project’s incremental effects then are analyzed. The project’s cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulative traffic noise increase would be considered significant when the combined effect exceeds perception level (i.e., auditory level increase) threshold. The combined effect compares the “cumulative with project” condition to “existing” conditions. This comparison accounts for the traffic noise increase from the project generated in combination with traffic generated by projects in the cumulative projects list. The following criteria have been utilized to evaluate the combined effect of the cumulative noise increase.

Combined Effects: The cumulative with project noise level (“Cumulative With Project”) causes the following:

• An increase of the existing noise level by 5 dBA or more, where the existing level is less than 60 dBA CNEL; • An increase of the existing noise level by 3 dBA or more, where the existing level is 60 to 65 dBA CNEL; or • An increase of the existing noise level by 1.5 dBA or more, where the existing level is greater than 65 dBA CNEL.

Acoustical Assessment 38 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

Although there may be a significant noise increase due to the proposed project in combination with other related projects (combined effects), it must also be demonstrated that the project has an incremental effect. In other words, a significant portion of the noise increase must be due to the proposed project. The following criteria have been utilized to evaluate the incremental effect of the cumulative noise increase.

Incremental Effects: The “Cumulative With Project” causes a 1 dBA increase in noise over the “Cumulative Without Project” noise level.

A significant impact would result only if both the combined and incremental effects criteria have been exceeded.

Noise by definition is a localized phenomenon, and drastically reduces as distance from the source increases. Consequently, only proposed projects and growth due to occur in the general vicinity of the project site would contribute to cumulative noise impacts. Table 12, Cumulative Noise Scenario, lists the traffic noise effects along roadway segments in the project vicinity for “Existing,” “Cumulative Without Project,” and “Cumulative With Project,” including incremental and net cumulative impacts.

First, it must be determined whether the Cumulative With Project Increase Above Existing Conditions (Combined Effects) is exceeded. Per Table 12, this criteria is not exceeded.

Under the Incremental Effects criteria, cumulative noise impacts are defined by determining if the ambient (“Cumulative Without Project”) noise level is increased by 1 dBA or more. Per Table 12, this criteria is not exceeded.

Based on the results of Table 12, the maximum noise increase for combined effects criteria would be 1.8 dBA and 0.8 dBA for incremental effects criteria. Under the “Cumulative With Project” scenario noise levels at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline for Lark Avenue, between Winchester Boulevard and Oka Road are 62.2 dBA, which is below the Town’s standard of 65 dBA for residential exterior land uses. Furthermore, there would not be any roadway segments that would result in significant impacts, as they would not exceed the combined and incremental effects criteria. Therefore, the proposed project, in combination with cumulative background traffic noise levels, implementation of recommended mitigation measures, and compliance with Town noise standards, would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to noise in the area. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Acoustical Assessment 39 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

Table 12 Cumulative Noise Scenario

Cumulative Cumulative Combined Incremental Existing Without With Project Effects Effects Project Difference In dBA Cumulatively Difference In Roadway Segment dBA CNEL @ dBA CNEL @ dBA CNEL @ between Significant dBA Between 100 Feet from 100 Feet from 100 Feet from Cumulative Impact? Existing and Roadway Roadway Roadway Without Project Cumulative With Centerline Centerline Centerline and Cumulative Project With Project Winchester Boulevard North of SR-85 65.7 66.2 66.3 0.6 0.1 No SR-85 to Wimbledon 64.9 65.6 66.1 1.2 0.5 No Drive Wimbledon Drive to 64.7 65.5 65.9 1.2 0.4 No Lark Avenue Lark Avenue Winchester Boulevard 60.4 61.4 62.2 1.8 0.8 No to Oka Road Wimbledon Drive West of Winchester 52.5 54.1 54.2 1.7 0.1 No Boulevard dBA = A-weighted decibel(s); ADT = Average Daily Traffic; CNEL = community noise equivalent level Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., Albright Way Development Traffic Impact Analysis, dated March 17, 2011.

Scenario 2

Cumulative Operational Noise

Scenario 2 would introduce the use of stationary equipment that would increase noise levels within the area. Based on the long‐term stationary noise impacts analysis, stationary noise would not significantly affect surrounding sensitive receptors and impacts would be less than significant. As with Scenario 1, cumulative noise exposure for long‐term operations associated with Scenario 2 would result in a less than significant impact.

Cumulative Mobile Noise

At full development, Scenario 2 would result in 948 daily net new trips (as opposed to 3,126 for Scenario 1). Scenario 2 would contribute fewer trips to the surrounding roadway network, thereby generating less noise. Thus, cumulative noise impacts would be proportionately reduced. Therefore, as with Scenario 1, there would not be any roadway segments that would result in significant impacts, as they would not exceed the combined and incremental effects criteria. Therefore, Scenario 2, in combination with cumulative background traffic noise levels, implementation of recommended mitigation measures, and compliance with Town noise standards, would result in a less than significant impact in this regard.

Acoustical Assessment 40 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

Scenario 3

Cumulative Operational Noise

Scenario 3 involves a combination of office and residential uses and would introduce the use of stationary equipment that would increase noise levels within the area. Based on the long‐term stationary noise impacts analysis, stationary noise would not significantly affect the proposed on‐site or existing surrounding sensitive receptors and impacts would be less than significant. As with Scenario 1, cumulative noise exposure for long‐term operations associated with Scenario 3 would result in a less than significant impact.

Cumulative Mobile Noise

At full development, Scenario 3 would result in 2,000 daily net new trips (as opposed to 3,126 for Scenario 1). Thus, cumulative noise impacts would be proportionately reduced, as Scenario 3 would contribute fewer trips to the surrounding roadway network. As with Scenario 1, there would not be any roadway segments that would result in significant impacts, as they would not exceed the combined and incremental effects criteria. Additionally, the lower traffic volumes in Scenario 3 would ensure that residential uses on‐site would not experience traffic noise impacts. Therefore, Scenario 3, in combination with cumulative background traffic noise levels, implementation of recommended mitigation measures, and compliance with Town noise standards, would result in a less than significant impact in this regard.

Scenario 4

Cumulative Operational Noise

As with Scenario 3, Scenario 4 involves a combination of office and residential uses. This scenario would not significantly affect the proposed on‐site or existing surrounding sensitive receptors and impacts would be less than significant. As with Scenario 1, cumulative noise exposure for long‐term operations associated with Scenario 4D would result in a less than significant impact.

Cumulative Mobile Noise

At full development, Scenario 4 would result in 1,442 daily net new trips (as opposed to 2,000 for Scenario 3). Thus, cumulative noise impacts would be proportionately reduced as Scenario 4 would contribute fewer trips to the surrounding roadway network. As with Scenario 1, there would not be any roadway segments that would result in significant impacts, as they would not exceed the combined and incremental effects criteria. Additionally, the lower traffic volumes in Scenario 4 would ensure that residential uses on‐site would not experience traffic noise impacts. Therefore, Scenario 4, in combination with cumulative background traffic noise levels, implementation of recommended mitigation measures, and compliance with Town noise standards, would result in a less than significant impact in this regard.

Acoustical Assessment 41 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Not Applicable.

Acoustical Assessment 42 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

6.0 REFERENCES

6.1 LIST OF PREPARERS

RBF CONSULTING 14725 Alton Parkway Irvine, California 95618 949/472‐3505

Eddie Torres, INCE, REA, Director of Technical Studies Kristen Bogue, Environmental Analyst Brian Allee, Environmental Analyst Kelly Chiene, Environmental Analyst Gary Gick, Word Processor Linda Bo, Graphics

6.2 DOCUMENTS

1. Harris, Cyril, Handbook of Noise Control, 1979.

2. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., Albright Way Development Traffic Impact Analysis, dated March 17, 2011.

3. Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines, May 2006.

4. Leo L. Beraneck and Istvan L. Ver, Noise and Control Engineering: Principles and Applications, 1992.

5. State of California, Governors Office of Planning and Research, General Plan Guidelines, October 2003.

6. Town of Los Gatos, Town of Los Gatos Municipal Code, codified through Ordinance No. 2182, adopted November 2, 2009.

7. Town of Los Gatos, Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan, dated January 7, 2011.

8. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, The Noise Guidebook, undated.

9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Noise Effects Handbook – A Desk Reference to Health and Welfare Effects of Noise, October 1979 (revised July 1981).

Acoustical Assessment 43 March 2011 Albright Way Development Project

6.3 SOFTWARE/WEBSITES

1. FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, FHWA‐RD‐77‐108, Initial release date of December 1978.

2. FHWA TNM 2.5, Initial release date of April 2004.

3. Google Earth, 2010.

4. Town of Los Gatos website, http://www.town.los‐gatos.ca.us/index.aspx

Acoustical Assessment 44 March 2011

APPENDIX

A. NOISE MEASUREMENT SHEETS

Site Number: 1 Recorded By: Malisos Job Number: 40-100419 Date: 12.3.10 Time: 1:22 PM Location: Center of Project Site Source of Peak Noise: HVAC units Noise Data Leq (dB) Lmin (dB) Lmax (dB) Peak (dB) 57.7 53.6 68.8 87.3

Equipment Category Type Vendor Model Serial No. Cert. Date Note Sound Level Meter Brüel & Kjær 2250 2548189 9/10/2009

Microphone Brüel & Kjær 4189 2543364 9/10/2009 Sound Preamp Brüel & Kjær ZC 0032 4265 9/10/2009

Calibrator Brüel & Kjær 4231 2545667 9/10/2009 Weather Data Duration: 10 minutes Sky: ☼ Cloudy Note: dBA Offset = 0.00 Sensor Height (ft): 5 ft Est. Wind Ave Speed (mph / m/s) Temperature (degrees Fahrenheit) Barometer Pressure (hPa) >5 58 1017

Photo of Measurement Location

2250

Instrument: 2250 Application: BZ7225 Version 2.0.2 Start Time: 12/03/2010 14:22:25 End Time: 12/03/2010 14:32:25 Elapsed Time: 00:10:00 Bandwidth: Broadband Max Input Level: 140.14

Time Frequency Broadband (excl. Peak): FSI AC Broadband Peak: C Spectrum: FS Z

Instrument Serial Number: 2548189 Microphone Serial Number: 2543364 Input: Top Socket Windscreen Correction: None Sound Field Correction: Diffuse-field

Calibration Time: 12/03/2010 13:32:41 Calibration Type: External reference Sensitivity: 54.86 mV/Pa

ALB001

Start End Overload LAIeq LAFmax LAFmin time time [%] [dB] [dB] [dB] Value --- 57.7 68.8 53.6 Time 02:22:25 PM 02:32:25 PM Date 12/03/2010 12/03/2010 ALB001

dB 12/03/2010 02:22:25 PM - 02:32:25 PM 130 120

110

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20 10 12.50 31.50 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 A C Hz LZeq LZFmax LZFmin Cursor: (A) Leq=56.8 dB LFmax=68.8 dB LFmin=53.6 dB

ALB001

% Based on LAF , 10ms Class width: 0.2 dB 12/03/2010 02:22:25 PM - 02:32:25 PM 100 L1 = 65.6 dB L5 = 60.1 dB 90 L10 = 57.0 dB L50 = 55.5 dB L90 = 54.7 dB 80 L95 = 54.5 dB L99 = 54.1 dB 70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 dB Level Cumulative Cursor: [76.2 ; 76.4[ dB Level: 0.0% Cumulative: 0.0% ALB001 Sound

dB 140

120

100

80

60

40

20

02:23:00 PM 02:25:00 PM 02:27:00 PM 02:29:00 PM 02:31:00 PM LAIeq LAFmax LCpeak LAFmin Cursor: 12/03/2010 02:27:24 PM - 02:27:25 PM LAIeq=59.3 dB LAFmax=59.4 dB LCpeak=85.2 dB LAFmin=58.2 dB

ALB001

Start Elapsed LAIeq LAFmax LAFmin time time [dB] [dB] [dB] Value 59.3 59.4 58.2 Time 02:27:24 PM 0:00:01 Date 12/03/2010 ALB001

dB 12/03/2010 02:27:24 PM - 02:27:25 PM 140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0 12.50 31.50 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 A C Hz LZeq LZFmax LZFmin Cursor: (A) Leq=59.0 dB LFmax=59.4 dB LFmin=58.2 dB

ALB001

% Based on LAF , 10ms Class width: 0.2 dB 12/03/2010 02:27:24 PM - 02:27:25 PM 100 L1 = 59.5 dB L5 = 59.3 dB 90 L10 = 59.2 dB L50 = 58.9 dB L90 = 58.5 dB 80 L95 = 58.4 dB L99 = 58.3 dB 70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 dB Level Cumulative Cursor: [76.2 ; 76.4[ dB Level: 0.0% Cumulative: 0.0% ALB001 Periodic reports Sound

dB 140

120

100

80

60

40

20

02:30:00 PM 02:40:00 PM 02:50:00 PM 03:00:00 PM 03:10:00 PM 03:20:00 PM LAIeq LAFmax LCpeak LAFmin Cursor: 12/03/2010 02:22:25 PM - 03:22:25 PM LAIeq=57.7 dB LAFmax=68.8 dB LCpeak=87.3 dB LAFmin=53.6 dB

ALB001 Periodic reports

Start Elapsed Overload LAIeq LAFmax LAFmin time time [%] [dB] [dB] [dB] Value 0.00 57.7 68.8 53.6 Time 02:22:25 PM 0:10:00 Date 12/03/2010 ALB001 Periodic reports

dB 12/03/2010 02:22:25 PM - 02:32:25 PM 140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0 12.50 31.50 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 A C Hz LZeq LZFmax LZFmin Cursor: (A) Leq=56.8 dB LFmax=68.8 dB LFmin=53.6 dB

ALB001 Periodic reports

% Based on LAF , 10ms Class width: 0.2 dB 12/03/2010 02:22:25 PM - 02:32:25 PM 100 L1 = 65.6 dB L5 = 60.1 dB 90 L10 = 57.0 dB L50 = 55.5 dB L90 = 54.7 dB 80 L95 = 54.5 dB L99 = 54.1 dB 70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 dB Level Cumulative Cursor: [76.2 ; 76.4[ dB Level: 0.0% Cumulative: 0.0% ALB001 - Fast Logged Sound

dB 140

120

100

80

60

40

20

02:23:00 PM 02:25:00 PM 02:27:00 PM 02:29:00 PM 02:31:00 PM LAeq LAF Cursor: 12/03/2010 02:27:24 PM.900 - 02:27:25 PM.000 LAeq=59.5 dB LAF =59.4 dB

ALB001 - Fast Logged

Start Elapsed LAeq time time [dB] Value 59.5 Time 02:27:24 PM.900 0:00:00.100 Date 12/03/2010 Site Number: 2 Recorded By: Malisos Job Number: 40-100419 Date: 12.3.10 Time: 1:38 PM Location: Northern portion of the site Source of Peak Noise: freeway traffic Noise Data Leq (dB) Lmin (dB) Lmax (dB) Peak (dB) 67.4 58.1 72.2 91.6

Equipment Category Type Vendor Model Serial No. Cert. Date Note Sound Level Meter Brüel & Kjær 2250 2548189 9/10/2009

Microphone Brüel & Kjær 4189 2543364 9/10/2009 Sound Preamp Brüel & Kjær ZC 0032 4265 9/10/2009

Calibrator Brüel & Kjær 4231 2545667 9/10/2009 Weather Data Duration: 10 minutes Sky: ☼ Cloudy Note: dBA Offset = 0.00 Sensor Height (ft): 5 ft Est. Wind Ave Speed (mph / m/s) Temperature (degrees Fahrenheit) Barometer Pressure (hPa) >5 59 1017

Photo of Measurement Location

2250

Instrument: 2250 Application: BZ7225 Version 2.0.2 Start Time: 12/03/2010 14:38:17 End Time: 12/03/2010 14:48:17 Elapsed Time: 00:10:00 Bandwidth: Broadband Max Input Level: 140.14

Time Frequency Broadband (excl. Peak): FSI AC Broadband Peak: C Spectrum: FS Z

Instrument Serial Number: 2548189 Microphone Serial Number: 2543364 Input: Top Socket Windscreen Correction: None Sound Field Correction: Diffuse-field

Calibration Time: 12/03/2010 13:32:41 Calibration Type: External reference Sensitivity: 54.86 mV/Pa

ALB002

Start End Overload LAIeq LAFmax LAFmin time time [%] [dB] [dB] [dB] Value --- 67.4 72.2 58.1 Time 02:38:17 PM 02:48:17 PM Date 12/03/2010 12/03/2010 ALB002

dB 12/03/2010 02:38:17 PM - 02:48:17 PM 130 120

110

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20 10 12.50 31.50 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 A C Hz LZeq LZFmax LZFmin Cursor: (A) Leq=66.6 dB LFmax=72.2 dB LFmin=58.1 dB

ALB002

% Based on LAF , 10ms Class width: 0.2 dB 12/03/2010 02:38:17 PM - 02:48:17 PM 100 L1 = 70.0 dB L5 = 69.1 dB 90 L10 = 68.5 dB L50 = 66.4 dB L90 = 63.9 dB 80 L95 = 62.9 dB L99 = 60.8 dB 70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 dB Level Cumulative Cursor: [76.2 ; 76.4[ dB Level: 0.0% Cumulative: 0.0% ALB002 Sound

dB 140

120

100

80

60

40

20

02:39:00 PM 02:41:00 PM 02:43:00 PM 02:45:00 PM 02:47:00 PM LAIeq LAFmax LCpeak LAFmin Cursor: 12/03/2010 02:43:16 PM - 02:43:17 PM LAIeq=68.0 dB LAFmax=68.4 dB LCpeak=84.0 dB LAFmin=66.4 dB

ALB002

Start Elapsed LAIeq LAFmax LAFmin time time [dB] [dB] [dB] Value 68.0 68.4 66.4 Time 02:43:16 PM 0:00:01 Date 12/03/2010 ALB002

dB 12/03/2010 02:43:16 PM - 02:43:17 PM 140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0 12.50 31.50 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 A C Hz LZeq LZFmax LZFmin Cursor: (A) Leq=67.3 dB LFmax=68.4 dB LFmin=66.4 dB

ALB002

% Based on LAF , 10ms Class width: 0.2 dB 12/03/2010 02:43:16 PM - 02:43:17 PM 100 L1 = 68.4 dB L5 = 68.3 dB 90 L10 = 68.3 dB L50 = 67.6 dB L90 = 66.5 dB 80 L95 = 66.4 dB L99 = 66.3 dB 70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 dB Level Cumulative Cursor: [76.2 ; 76.4[ dB Level: 0.0% Cumulative: 0.0% ALB002 Periodic reports Sound

dB 140

120

100

80

60

40

20

02:40:00 PM 02:50:00 PM 03:00:00 PM 03:10:00 PM 03:20:00 PM 03:30:00 PM LAIeq LAFmax LCpeak LAFmin Cursor: 12/03/2010 02:38:17 PM - 03:38:17 PM LAIeq=67.4 dB LAFmax=72.2 dB LCpeak=91.6 dB LAFmin=58.1 dB

ALB002 Periodic reports

Start Elapsed Overload LAIeq LAFmax LAFmin time time [%] [dB] [dB] [dB] Value 0.00 67.4 72.2 58.1 Time 02:38:17 PM 0:10:00 Date 12/03/2010 ALB002 Periodic reports

dB 12/03/2010 02:38:17 PM - 02:48:17 PM 140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0 12.50 31.50 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 A C Hz LZeq LZFmax LZFmin Cursor: (A) Leq=66.6 dB LFmax=72.2 dB LFmin=58.1 dB

ALB002 Periodic reports

% Based on LAF , 10ms Class width: 0.2 dB 12/03/2010 02:38:17 PM - 02:48:17 PM 100 L1 = 70.0 dB L5 = 69.1 dB 90 L10 = 68.5 dB L50 = 66.4 dB L90 = 63.9 dB 80 L95 = 62.9 dB L99 = 60.8 dB 70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 dB Level Cumulative Cursor: [76.2 ; 76.4[ dB Level: 0.0% Cumulative: 0.0% ALB002 - Fast Logged Sound

dB 140

120

100

80

60

40

20

02:39:00 PM 02:41:00 PM 02:43:00 PM 02:45:00 PM 02:47:00 PM LAeq LAF Cursor: 12/03/2010 02:43:16 PM.900 - 02:43:17 PM.000 LAeq=67.5 dB LAF =67.2 dB

ALB002 - Fast Logged

Start Elapsed LAeq time time [dB] Value 67.5 Time 02:43:16 PM.900 0:00:00.100 Date 12/03/2010 Site Number: 3 Recorded By: Malisos Job Number: 40-100419 Date: 12.3.10 Time: 1:54 PM Location: Northern terminus of Charter Oaks Lane Source of Peak Noise: Pedestrians using trail along Charter Oaks Lane Noise Data Leq (dB) Lmin (dB) Lmax (dB) Peak (dB) 52.3 45.8 63.8 87.0

Equipment Category Type Vendor Model Serial No. Cert. Date Note Sound Level Meter Brüel & Kjær 2250 2548189 9/10/2009

Microphone Brüel & Kjær 4189 2543364 9/10/2009 Sound Preamp Brüel & Kjær ZC 0032 4265 9/10/2009

Calibrator Brüel & Kjær 4231 2545667 9/10/2009 Weather Data Duration: 10 minutes Sky: ☼ Cloudy Note: dBA Offset = 0.00 Sensor Height (ft): 5 ft Est. Wind Ave Speed (mph / m/s) Temperature (degrees Fahrenheit) Barometer Pressure (hPa) >5 59 1017

Photo of Measurement Location

2250

Instrument: 2250 Application: BZ7225 Version 2.0.2 Start Time: 12/03/2010 14:54:12 End Time: 12/03/2010 15:04:44 Elapsed Time: 00:10:00 Bandwidth: Broadband Max Input Level: 140.14

Time Frequency Broadband (excl. Peak): FSI AC Broadband Peak: C Spectrum: FS Z

Instrument Serial Number: 2548189 Microphone Serial Number: 2543364 Input: Top Socket Windscreen Correction: None Sound Field Correction: Diffuse-field

Calibration Time: 12/03/2010 13:32:41 Calibration Type: External reference Sensitivity: 54.86 mV/Pa

ALB003

Start End Overload LAIeq LAFmax LAFmin time time [%] [dB] [dB] [dB] Value --- 52.3 63.8 45.8 Time 02:54:12 PM 03:04:44 PM Date 12/03/2010 12/03/2010 ALB003

dB 12/03/2010 02:54:12 PM - 03:04:44 PM 130 120

110

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20 10 12.50 31.50 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 A C Hz LZeq LZFmax LZFmin Cursor: (A) Leq=50.8 dB LFmax=63.8 dB LFmin=45.8 dB

ALB003

% Based on LAF , 10ms Class width: 0.2 dB 12/03/2010 02:54:12 PM - 03:04:44 PM 100 L1 = 54.3 dB L5 = 53.1 dB 90 L10 = 52.5 dB L50 = 50.5 dB L90 = 48.3 dB 80 L95 = 47.7 dB L99 = 46.8 dB 70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 dB Level Cumulative Cursor: [76.2 ; 76.4[ dB Level: 0.0% Cumulative: 0.0% ALB003 Sound

dB 140

120

100

80

60

40

20

02:56:00 PM 02:58:00 PM 03:00:00 PM 03:02:00 PM 03:04:00 PM LAIeq LAFmax LCpeak LAFmin Cursor: 12/03/2010 02:59:43 PM - 02:59:44 PM LAIeq=48.1 dB LAFmax=48.2 dB LCpeak=69.4 dB LAFmin=46.9 dB

ALB003

Start Elapsed LAIeq LAFmax LAFmin time time [dB] [dB] [dB] Value 48.1 48.2 46.9 Time 02:59:43 PM 0:00:01 Date 12/03/2010 ALB003

dB 12/03/2010 02:59:43 PM - 02:59:44 PM 140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0 12.50 31.50 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 A C Hz LZeq LZFmax LZFmin Cursor: (A) Leq=47.5 dB LFmax=48.2 dB LFmin=46.9 dB

ALB003

% Based on LAF , 10ms Class width: 0.2 dB 12/03/2010 02:59:43 PM - 02:59:44 PM 100 L1 = 48.2 dB L5 = 48.1 dB 90 L10 = 48.0 dB L50 = 47.6 dB L90 = 47.2 dB 80 L95 = 47.0 dB L99 = 46.9 dB 70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 dB Level Cumulative Cursor: [76.2 ; 76.4[ dB Level: 0.0% Cumulative: 0.0% ALB003 Periodic reports Sound

dB 140

120

100

80

60

40

20

03:00:00 PM 03:10:00 PM 03:20:00 PM 03:30:00 PM 03:40:00 PM 03:50:00 PM 04:00:00 PM LAIeq LAFmax LCpeak LAFmin Cursor: 12/03/2010 02:59:28 PM - 03:00:00 PM LAIeq=0.0 dB LAFmax=0.0 dB LCpeak=0.0 dB LAFmin=0.0 dB

ALB003 Periodic reports

Start Elapsed Overload LAIeq LAFmax LAFmin time time [%] [dB] [dB] [dB] Value 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 Time 02:59:28 PM 0:00:32 Date 12/03/2010 ALB003 Periodic reports

dB 12/03/2010 02:59:28 PM - 03:00:00 PM 140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0 12.50 31.50 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 A C Hz LZeq LZFmax LZFmin Cursor: (A) Leq=0.0 dB LFmax=0.0 dB LFmin=0.0 dB

ALB003 Periodic reports

% Based on LAF , 10ms Class width: 0.2 dB 12/03/2010 02:59:28 PM - 03:00:00 PM 100 L1 = 54.2 dB L5 = 53.3 dB 90 L10 = 52.6 dB L50 = 50.2 dB L90 = 48.1 dB 80 L95 = 47.6 dB L99 = 47.0 dB 70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 dB Level Cumulative Cursor: [76.2 ; 76.4[ dB Level: 0.0% Cumulative: 0.0% ALB003 - Fast Logged Sound

dB 140

120

100

80

60

40

20

02:56:00 PM 02:58:00 PM 03:00:00 PM 03:02:00 PM 03:04:00 PM LAeq LAF Cursor: 12/03/2010 02:59:43 PM.900 - 02:59:44 PM.000 LAeq=47.0 dB LAF =47.3 dB

ALB003 - Fast Logged

Start Elapsed LAeq time time [dB] Value 47.0 Time 02:59:43 PM.900 0:00:00.100 Date 12/03/2010 Site Number: 4 Recorded By: Malisos Job Number: 40-100419 Date: 12.3.10 Time: 2:11 PM Location: Smith Ranch Court (across Winchester Boulevard) Source of Peak Noise: traffic along Winchester Boulevard Noise Data Leq (dB) Lmin (dB) Lmax (dB) Peak (dB) 55.9 43.4 67.4 91.9

Equipment Category Type Vendor Model Serial No. Cert. Date Note Sound Level Meter Brüel & Kjær 2250 2548189 9/10/2009

Microphone Brüel & Kjær 4189 2543364 9/10/2009 Sound Preamp Brüel & Kjær ZC 0032 4265 9/10/2009

Calibrator Brüel & Kjær 4231 2545667 9/10/2009 Weather Data Duration: 10 minutes Sky: ☼ Cloudy Note: dBA Offset = 0.00 Sensor Height (ft): 5 ft Est. Wind Ave Speed (mph / m/s) Temperature (degrees Fahrenheit) Barometer Pressure (hPa) >5 59 1017

Photo of Measurement Location

2250

Instrument: 2250 Application: BZ7225 Version 2.0.2 Start Time: 12/03/2010 15:11:30 End Time: 12/03/2010 15:21:30 Elapsed Time: 00:10:00 Bandwidth: Broadband Max Input Level: 140.14

Time Frequency Broadband (excl. Peak): FSI AC Broadband Peak: C Spectrum: FS Z

Instrument Serial Number: 2548189 Microphone Serial Number: 2543364 Input: Top Socket Windscreen Correction: None Sound Field Correction: Diffuse-field

Calibration Time: 12/03/2010 13:32:41 Calibration Type: External reference Sensitivity: 54.86 mV/Pa

ALB004

Start End Overload LAIeq LAFmax LAFmin time time [%] [dB] [dB] [dB] Value --- 55.9 67.4 43.4 Time 03:11:30 PM 03:21:30 PM Date 12/03/2010 12/03/2010 ALB004

dB 12/03/2010 03:11:30 PM - 03:21:30 PM 130 120

110

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20 10 12.50 31.50 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 A C Hz LZeq LZFmax LZFmin Cursor: (A) Leq=53.5 dB LFmax=67.4 dB LFmin=43.4 dB

ALB004

% Based on LAF , 10ms Class width: 0.2 dB 12/03/2010 03:11:30 PM - 03:21:30 PM 100 L1 = 60.6 dB L5 = 58.0 dB 90 L10 = 56.8 dB L50 = 51.7 dB L90 = 46.1 dB 80 L95 = 45.4 dB L99 = 44.4 dB 70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 dB Level Cumulative Cursor: [76.2 ; 76.4[ dB Level: 0.0% Cumulative: 0.0% ALB004 Sound

dB 140

120

100

80

60

40

20

03:12:00 PM 03:14:00 PM 03:16:00 PM 03:18:00 PM 03:20:00 PM LAIeq LAFmax LCpeak LAFmin Cursor: 12/03/2010 03:16:29 PM - 03:16:30 PM LAIeq=49.4 dB LAFmax=49.3 dB LCpeak=72.9 dB LAFmin=46.1 dB

ALB004

Start Elapsed LAIeq LAFmax LAFmin time time [dB] [dB] [dB] Value 49.4 49.3 46.1 Time 03:16:29 PM 0:00:01 Date 12/03/2010 ALB004

dB 12/03/2010 03:16:29 PM - 03:16:30 PM 140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0 12.50 31.50 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 A C Hz LZeq LZFmax LZFmin Cursor: (A) Leq=47.9 dB LFmax=49.3 dB LFmin=46.1 dB

ALB004

% Based on LAF , 10ms Class width: 0.2 dB 12/03/2010 03:16:29 PM - 03:16:30 PM 100 L1 = 49.4 dB L5 = 49.3 dB 90 L10 = 49.0 dB L50 = 47.5 dB L90 = 46.5 dB 80 L95 = 46.3 dB L99 = 46.1 dB 70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 dB Level Cumulative Cursor: [76.2 ; 76.4[ dB Level: 0.0% Cumulative: 0.0% ALB004 Periodic reports Sound

dB 140

120

100

80

60

40

20

03:20:00 PM 03:30:00 PM 03:40:00 PM 03:50:00 PM 04:00:00 PM 04:10:00 PM LAIeq LAFmax LCpeak LAFmin Cursor: 12/03/2010 03:11:30 PM - 04:11:30 PM LAIeq=55.9 dB LAFmax=67.4 dB LCpeak=91.1 dB LAFmin=43.4 dB

ALB004 Periodic reports

Start Elapsed Overload LAIeq LAFmax LAFmin time time [%] [dB] [dB] [dB] Value 0.00 55.9 67.4 43.4 Time 03:11:30 PM 0:10:00 Date 12/03/2010 ALB004 Periodic reports

dB 12/03/2010 03:11:30 PM - 03:21:30 PM 140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0 12.50 31.50 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 A C Hz LZeq LZFmax LZFmin Cursor: (A) Leq=53.5 dB LFmax=67.4 dB LFmin=43.4 dB

ALB004 Periodic reports

% Based on LAF , 10ms Class width: 0.2 dB 12/03/2010 03:11:30 PM - 03:21:30 PM 100 L1 = 60.6 dB L5 = 58.0 dB 90 L10 = 56.8 dB L50 = 51.7 dB L90 = 46.1 dB 80 L95 = 45.4 dB L99 = 44.4 dB 70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 dB Level Cumulative Cursor: [76.2 ; 76.4[ dB Level: 0.0% Cumulative: 0.0% ALB004 - Fast Logged Sound

dB 140

120

100

80

60

40

20

03:12:00 PM 03:14:00 PM 03:16:00 PM 03:18:00 PM 03:20:00 PM LAeq LAF Cursor: 12/03/2010 03:16:29 PM.900 - 03:16:30 PM.000 LAeq=47.9 dB LAF =47.5 dB

ALB004 - Fast Logged

Start Elapsed LAeq time time [dB] Value 47.9 Time 03:16:29 PM.900 0:00:00.100 Date 12/03/2010

B. MODELING DATA

Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108 Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO) Project Name: Albright Way Office Development Project Scenario: Existing Analyst: Kelly Chiene Job #: 40-100419 Roadway: Winchester Boulevard Road Segment: North of SR-85 PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: 0 Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm): 0 Average Daily Traffic: 25860 Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 2586 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: 35 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: 45 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade): 0 Type Day Evening Night Daily Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet) Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8

UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 53.8 62.6 60.8 54.7 63.4 64.0 Medium Trucks: 63.5 55.5 49.1 47.5 56.0 56.2 Heavy Trucks: 68.7 56.8 47.7 49.0 58.9 59.0 Vehicle Noise: 71.2 64.5 61.4 56.7 65.2 65.7

MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Vehicle Noise:

CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR Roadway Centerline Noise Contour Unmitigated 60 dBA -446 446 -305 305 600 65 dBA -141 141 -96 96 70 dBA -45 45 400-45 45 Mitigated 200 60 dBA 0 Roadway Centerline

65 dBA Feet 70 dBA -200

-400

-600 Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108 Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO) Project Name: Albright Way Office Development Project Scenario: Existing Analyst: Kelly Chiene Job #: 40-100419 Roadway: Winchester Boulevard Road Segment: SR-85 to Wimbeldon Drive PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: 0 Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm): 0 Average Daily Traffic: 21080 Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 2108 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: 35 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: 40 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade): 0 Type Day Evening Night Daily Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet) Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8

UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 53.0 61.8 60.0 53.9 62.6 63.2 Medium Trucks: 62.7 54.6 48.3 46.7 55.2 55.4 Heavy Trucks: 67.9 56.0 46.9 48.2 58.1 58.2 Vehicle Noise: 70.4 63.7 60.5 55.9 64.4 64.9

MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Vehicle Noise:

CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR Roadway Centerline Noise Contour Unmitigated 60 dBA -363 363 -248 248 400 65 dBA -115 115 -79 79 300 70 dBA -36 36 -36 36 200 Mitigated 100 60 dBA 0 Roadway Centerline

65 dBA Feet 70 dBA -100 -200 -300 -400 Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108 Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO) Project Name: Albright Way Office Development Project Scenario: Existing Analyst: Kelly Chiene Job #: 40-100419 Roadway: Winchester Boulevard Road Segment: Wimbeldon Drive to Lark Avenue PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: 0 Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm): 0 Average Daily Traffic: 20450 Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 2045 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: 35 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: 45 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade): 0 Type Day Evening Night Daily Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet) Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8

UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 52.8 61.6 59.8 53.7 62.3 62.9 Medium Trucks: 62.5 54.4 48.1 46.5 55.0 55.2 Heavy Trucks: 67.7 55.8 46.7 47.9 57.9 58.0 Vehicle Noise: 70.2 63.5 60.3 55.6 64.2 64.7

MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Vehicle Noise:

CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR Roadway Centerline Noise Contour Unmitigated 60 dBA -353 353 -241 241 400 65 dBA -112 112 -76 76 300 70 dBA -35 35 -35 35 200 Mitigated 100 60 dBA 0 Roadway Centerline

65 dBA Feet 70 dBA -100 -200 -300 -400 Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108 Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO) Project Name: Albright Way Office Development Project Scenario: Existing Analyst: Kelly Chiene Job #: 40-100419 Roadway: Lark Avenue Road Segment: Winchester Boulevard to Oka Road PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: 0 Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm): 0 Average Daily Traffic: 10040 Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 1004 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: 30 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: 30 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade): 0 Type Day Evening Night Daily Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet) Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8

UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 48.0 56.8 55.0 48.9 57.6 58.2 Medium Trucks: 58.6 50.5 44.2 42.6 51.1 51.3 Heavy Trucks: 64.3 52.3 43.3 44.5 54.6 54.7 Vehicle Noise: 66.8 59.3 55.7 51.4 59.9 60.4

MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Vehicle Noise:

CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR Roadway Centerline Noise Contour Unmitigated 60 dBA -124 124 -85 85 150 65 dBA -39 39 -27 27 70 dBA -12 12 100-12 12 Mitigated 50 60 dBA 0 Roadway Centerline

65 dBA Feet 70 dBA -50

-100

-150 Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108 Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO) Project Name: Albright Way Office Development Project Scenario: Existing Analyst: Kelly Chiene Job #: 40-100419 Roadway: Wimbeldon Drive Road Segment: West of Winchester PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: 0 Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm): 0 Average Daily Traffic: 2410 Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 241 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: 25 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: 12 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade): 0 Type Day Evening Night Daily Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet) Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8

UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 39.9 48.6 46.8 40.8 49.4 50.0 Medium Trucks: 51.5 43.4 37.0 35.5 44.0 44.2 Heavy Trucks: 57.7 45.7 36.7 37.9 48.3 48.4 Vehicle Noise: 60.3 51.9 47.8 44.0 52.5 52.9

MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Vehicle Noise:

CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR Roadway Centerline Noise Contour Unmitigated 60 dBA -21 21 -14 14 30 65 dBA -7 7 -4 4 70 dBA -2 2 20 -2 2 Mitigated 10 60 dBA 0 Roadway Centerline

65 dBA Feet 70 dBA -10

-20

-30 Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108 Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO) Project Name: Albright Way Office Development Project Scenario: Future Analyst: Kelly Chiene Job #: 40-100419 Roadway: Winchester Boulevard Road Segment: North of SR-85 PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: 0 Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm): 0 Average Daily Traffic: 28330 Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 2833 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: 35 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: 45 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade): 0 Type Day Evening Night Daily Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet) Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8

UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 54.2 63.0 61.2 55.1 63.8 64.4 Medium Trucks: 63.9 55.9 49.5 47.9 56.4 56.6 Heavy Trucks: 69.1 57.2 48.1 49.4 59.3 59.4 Vehicle Noise: 71.6 64.9 61.8 57.1 65.6 66.1

MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Vehicle Noise:

CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR Roadway Centerline Noise Contour Unmitigated 60 dBA -488 488 -334 334 600 65 dBA -154 154 -106 106 70 dBA -49 49 400-49 49 Mitigated 200 60 dBA 0 Roadway Centerline

65 dBA Feet 70 dBA -200

-400

-600 Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108 Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO) Project Name: Albright Way Office Development Project Scenario: Future Analyst: Kelly Chiene Job #: 40-100419 Roadway: Winchester Boulevard Road Segment: SR-85 to Wimbeldon Drive PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: 0 Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm): 0 Average Daily Traffic: 24030 Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 2403 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: 35 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: 40 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade): 0 Type Day Evening Night Daily Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet) Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8

UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 53.6 62.3 60.6 54.5 63.1 63.7 Medium Trucks: 63.3 55.2 48.8 47.3 55.7 56.0 Heavy Trucks: 68.5 56.6 47.5 48.7 58.6 58.8 Vehicle Noise: 70.9 64.3 61.1 56.4 65.0 65.4

MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Vehicle Noise:

CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR Roadway Centerline Noise Contour Unmitigated 60 dBA -414 414 -283 283 500 65 dBA -131 131 400-90 90 70 dBA -41 41 300-41 41 Mitigated 200 60 dBA 100 0 Roadway Centerline

65 dBA Feet -100 70 dBA -200 -300 -400 -500 Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108 Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO) Project Name: Albright Way Office Development Project Scenario: Future Analyst: Kelly Chiene Job #: 40-100419 Roadway: Winchester Boulevard Road Segment: Wimbeldon Drive to Lark Avenue PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: 0 Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm): 0 Average Daily Traffic: 23990 Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 2399 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: 35 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: 45 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade): 0 Type Day Evening Night Daily Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet) Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8

UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 53.5 62.3 60.5 54.4 63.0 63.6 Medium Trucks: 63.2 55.1 48.7 47.2 55.7 55.9 Heavy Trucks: 68.4 56.5 47.4 48.6 58.5 58.7 Vehicle Noise: 70.9 64.2 61.0 56.3 64.9 65.4

MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Vehicle Noise:

CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR Roadway Centerline Noise Contour Unmitigated 60 dBA -414 414 -283 283 500 65 dBA -131 131 400-89 89 70 dBA -41 41 300-41 41 Mitigated 200 60 dBA 100 0 Roadway Centerline

65 dBA Feet -100 70 dBA -200 -300 -400 -500 Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108 Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO) Project Name: Albright Way Office Development Project Scenario: Future Analyst: Kelly Chiene Job #: 40-100419 Roadway: Lark Avenue Road Segment: Winchester Boulevard to Oka Road PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: 0 Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm): 0 Average Daily Traffic: 12110 Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 1211 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: 30 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: 30 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade): 0 Type Day Evening Night Daily Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet) Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8

UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 48.8 57.6 55.8 49.7 58.4 59.0 Medium Trucks: 59.4 51.4 45.0 43.4 51.9 52.1 Heavy Trucks: 65.1 53.1 44.1 45.3 55.4 55.5 Vehicle Noise: 67.6 60.1 56.5 52.2 60.8 61.2

MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Vehicle Noise:

CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR Roadway Centerline Noise Contour Unmitigated 60 dBA -150 150 -102 102 200 65 dBA -47 47 -32 32 150 70 dBA -15 15 -15 15 100 Mitigated 50 60 dBA 0 Roadway Centerline

65 dBA Feet 70 dBA -50 -100 -150 -200 Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108 Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO) Project Name: Albright Way Office Development Project Scenario: Future Analyst: Kelly Chiene Job #: 40-100419 Roadway: Wimbeldon Drive Road Segment: West of Winchester PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: 0 Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm): 0 Average Daily Traffic: 2460 Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 246 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: 25 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: 12 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade): 0 Type Day Evening Night Daily Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet) Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8

UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 39.9 48.7 46.9 40.8 49.5 50.1 Medium Trucks: 51.6 43.5 37.1 35.6 44.1 44.3 Heavy Trucks: 57.7 45.8 36.7 38.0 48.4 48.5 Vehicle Noise: 60.4 52.0 47.9 44.1 52.6 53.0

MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Vehicle Noise:

CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR Roadway Centerline Noise Contour Unmitigated 60 dBA -21 21 -14 14 25 65 dBA -7 7 20 -5 5 70 dBA -2 2 15 -2 2 Mitigated 10 60 dBA 5 0 Roadway Centerline

65 dBA Feet -5 70 dBA -10 -15 -20 -25 Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108 Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO) Project Name: Albright Way Office Development Project Scenario: Future Plus Project Analyst: Kelly Chiene Job #: 40-100419 Roadway: Winchester Boulevard Road Segment: North of SR-85 PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: 0 Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm): 0 Average Daily Traffic: 29180 Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 2918 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: 35 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: 45 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade): 0 Type Day Evening Night Daily Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet) Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8

UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 54.3 63.1 61.3 55.2 63.9 64.5 Medium Trucks: 64.0 56.0 49.6 48.0 56.5 56.7 Heavy Trucks: 69.3 57.3 48.3 49.5 59.4 59.5 Vehicle Noise: 71.7 65.1 61.9 57.2 65.8 66.2

MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Vehicle Noise:

CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR Roadway Centerline Noise Contour Unmitigated 60 dBA -503 503 -344 344 600 65 dBA -159 159 -109 109 70 dBA -50 50 400-50 50 Mitigated 200 60 dBA 0 Roadway Centerline

65 dBA Feet 70 dBA -200

-400

-600 Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108 Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO) Project Name: Albright Way Office Development Project Scenario: Future Plus Project Analyst: Kelly Chiene Job #: 40-100419 Roadway: Winchester Boulevard Road Segment: SR-85 to Wimbeldon Drive PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: 0 Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm): 0 Average Daily Traffic: 27040 Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 2704 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: 35 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: 40 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade): 0 Type Day Evening Night Daily Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet) Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8

UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 54.1 62.9 61.1 55.0 63.6 64.2 Medium Trucks: 63.8 55.7 49.3 47.8 56.3 56.5 Heavy Trucks: 69.0 57.1 48.0 49.2 59.1 59.3 Vehicle Noise: 71.4 64.8 61.6 56.9 65.5 66.0

MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Vehicle Noise:

CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR Roadway Centerline Noise Contour Unmitigated 60 dBA -467 467 -319 319 600 65 dBA -148 148 -101 101 70 dBA -47 47 400-47 47 Mitigated 200 60 dBA 0 Roadway Centerline

65 dBA Feet 70 dBA -200

-400

-600 Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108 Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO) Project Name: Albright Way Office Development Project Scenario: Future Plus Project Analyst: Kelly Chiene Job #: 40-100419 Roadway: Winchester Boulevard Road Segment: Wimbeldon Drive to Lark Avenue PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: 0 Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm): 0 Average Daily Traffic: 26320 Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 2632 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: 35 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: 45 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade): 0 Type Day Evening Night Daily Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet) Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8

UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 53.9 62.7 60.9 54.8 63.4 64.0 Medium Trucks: 63.6 55.5 49.1 47.6 56.1 56.3 Heavy Trucks: 68.8 56.9 47.8 49.0 58.9 59.1 Vehicle Noise: 71.3 64.6 61.4 56.7 65.3 65.8

MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Vehicle Noise:

CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR Roadway Centerline Noise Contour Unmitigated 60 dBA -454 454 -310 310 500 65 dBA -143 143 400-98 98 70 dBA -45 45 300-45 45 Mitigated 200 60 dBA 100 0 Roadway Centerline

65 dBA Feet -100 70 dBA -200 -300 -400 -500 Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108 Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO) Project Name: Albright Way Office Development Project Scenario: Future Plus Project Analyst: Kelly Chiene Job #: 40-100419 Roadway: Lark Avenue Road Segment: Winchester Boulevard to Oka Road PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: 0 Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm): 0 Average Daily Traffic: 14560 Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 1456 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: 30 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: 30 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade): 0 Type Day Evening Night Daily Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet) Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8

UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 49.6 58.4 56.6 50.5 59.2 59.8 Medium Trucks: 60.2 52.2 45.8 44.2 52.7 52.9 Heavy Trucks: 65.9 53.9 44.9 46.1 56.2 56.3 Vehicle Noise: 68.4 60.9 57.3 53.0 61.6 62.0

MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Vehicle Noise:

CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR Roadway Centerline Noise Contour Unmitigated 60 dBA -180 180 -123 123 200 65 dBA -57 57 -39 39 150 70 dBA -18 18 -18 18 100 Mitigated 50 60 dBA 0 Roadway Centerline

65 dBA Feet 70 dBA -50 -100 -150 -200 Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108 Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO) Project Name: Albright Way Office Development Project Scenario: Future Plus Project Analyst: Kelly Chiene Job #: 40-100419 Roadway: Wimbeldon Drive Road Segment: West of Winchester PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: 0 Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm): 0 Average Daily Traffic: 2530 Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 253 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: 25 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: 12 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade): 0 Type Day Evening Night Daily Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet) Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8

UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 40.1 48.8 47.1 41.0 49.6 50.2 Medium Trucks: 51.7 43.6 37.3 35.7 44.2 44.4 Heavy Trucks: 57.9 45.9 36.9 38.1 48.5 48.6 Vehicle Noise: 60.5 52.1 48.0 44.2 52.7 53.1

MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Vehicle Noise:

CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR Roadway Centerline Noise Contour Unmitigated 60 dBA -22 22 -15 15 25 65 dBA -7 7 20 -5 5 70 dBA -2 2 15 -2 2 Mitigated 10 60 dBA 5 0 Roadway Centerline

65 dBA Feet -5 70 dBA -10 -15 -20 -25 Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108 Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO) Project Name: Albright Way Office Development Project Scenario: Other Analyst: Kelly Chiene Job #: 40-100419 Roadway: Winchester Boulevard Road Segment: North of SR-85 PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: 0 Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm): 0 Average Daily Traffic: 29014 Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 2901.4 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: 35 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: 45 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade): 0 Type Day Evening Night Daily Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet) Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8

UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 54.3 63.1 61.3 55.2 63.9 64.5 Medium Trucks: 64.0 56.0 49.6 48.0 56.5 56.7 Heavy Trucks: 69.2 57.3 48.2 49.5 59.4 59.5 Vehicle Noise: 71.7 65.0 61.9 57.2 65.7 66.2

MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Vehicle Noise:

CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR Roadway Centerline Noise Contour Unmitigated 60 dBA -500 500 -342 342 600 65 dBA -158 158 -108 108 70 dBA -50 50 400-50 50 Mitigated 200 60 dBA 0 Roadway Centerline

65 dBA Feet 70 dBA -200

-400

-600 Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108 Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO) Project Name: Albright Way Office Development Project Scenario: Other Analyst: Kelly Chiene Job #: 40-100419 Roadway: Winchester Boulevard Road Segment: SR-85 to Wimbeldon Drive PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: 0 Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm): 0 Average Daily Traffic: 24714 Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 2471.4 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: 35 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: 40 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade): 0 Type Day Evening Night Daily Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet) Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8

UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 53.7 62.5 60.7 54.6 63.2 63.8 Medium Trucks: 63.4 55.3 49.0 47.4 55.9 56.1 Heavy Trucks: 68.6 56.7 47.6 48.8 58.8 58.9 Vehicle Noise: 71.1 64.4 61.2 56.5 65.1 65.6

MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Vehicle Noise:

CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR Roadway Centerline Noise Contour Unmitigated 60 dBA -426 426 -291 291 600 65 dBA -135 135 -92 92 70 dBA -43 43 400-43 43 Mitigated 200 60 dBA 0 Roadway Centerline

65 dBA Feet 70 dBA -200

-400

-600 Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108 Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO) Project Name: Albright Way Office Development Project Scenario: Other Analyst: Kelly Chiene Job #: 40-100419 Roadway: Winchester Boulevard Road Segment: Wimbeldon Drive to Lark Avenue PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: 0 Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm): 0 Average Daily Traffic: 24674 Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 2467.4 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: 35 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: 45 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade): 0 Type Day Evening Night Daily Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet) Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8

UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 53.6 62.4 60.6 54.5 63.2 63.8 Medium Trucks: 63.3 55.3 48.9 47.3 55.8 56.0 Heavy Trucks: 68.5 56.6 47.5 48.8 58.7 58.8 Vehicle Noise: 71.0 64.3 61.2 56.5 65.0 65.5

MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Vehicle Noise:

CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR Roadway Centerline Noise Contour Unmitigated 60 dBA -425 425 -291 291 600 65 dBA -134 134 -92 92 70 dBA -43 43 400-43 43 Mitigated 200 60 dBA 0 Roadway Centerline

65 dBA Feet 70 dBA -200

-400

-600 Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108 Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO) Project Name: Albright Way Office Development Project Scenario: Other Analyst: Kelly Chiene Job #: 40-100419 Roadway: Lark Avenue Road Segment: Winchester Boulevard to Oka Road PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: 0 Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm): 0 Average Daily Traffic: 12794 Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 1279.4 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: 30 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: 30 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade): 0 Type Day Evening Night Daily Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet) Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8

UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 49.1 57.8 56.0 50.0 58.6 59.2 Medium Trucks: 59.7 51.6 45.2 43.6 52.1 52.4 Heavy Trucks: 65.3 53.4 44.3 45.5 55.7 55.8 Vehicle Noise: 67.8 60.3 56.8 52.4 61.0 61.4

MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Vehicle Noise:

CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR Roadway Centerline Noise Contour Unmitigated 60 dBA -158 158 -108 108 200 65 dBA -50 50 -34 34 150 70 dBA -16 16 -16 16 100 Mitigated 50 60 dBA 0 Roadway Centerline

65 dBA Feet 70 dBA -50 -100 -150 -200 Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108 Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO) Project Name: Albright Way Office Development Project Scenario: Other Analyst: Kelly Chiene Job #: 40-100419 Roadway: Wimbeldon Drive Road Segment: West of Winchester PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: 0 Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm): 0 Average Daily Traffic: 3144 Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 314.4 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: 25 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: 12 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade): 0 Type Day Evening Night Daily Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet) Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8

UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 41.0 49.8 48.0 41.9 50.6 51.2 Medium Trucks: 52.7 44.6 38.2 36.6 45.1 45.3 Heavy Trucks: 58.8 46.9 37.8 39.0 49.4 49.5 Vehicle Noise: 61.5 53.0 49.0 45.2 53.7 54.1

MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Vehicle Noise:

CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR Roadway Centerline Noise Contour Unmitigated 60 dBA -27 27 -18 18 30 65 dBA -9 9 -6 6 70 dBA -3 3 20 -3 3 Mitigated 10 60 dBA 0 Roadway Centerline

65 dBA Feet 70 dBA -10

-20

-30 Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108 Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO) Project Name: Albright Way Office Development Project Scenario: Other Analyst: Kelly Chiene Job #: 40-100419 Roadway: Winchester Boulevard Road Segment: North of SR-85 PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: 0 Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm): 0 Average Daily Traffic: 29864 Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 2986.4 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: 35 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: 45 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade): 0 Type Day Evening Night Daily Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet) Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8

UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 54.4 63.2 61.4 55.3 64.0 64.6 Medium Trucks: 64.1 56.1 49.7 48.1 56.6 56.8 Heavy Trucks: 69.4 57.4 48.4 49.6 59.5 59.6 Vehicle Noise: 71.8 65.2 62.0 57.3 65.9 66.3

MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Vehicle Noise:

CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR Roadway Centerline Noise Contour Unmitigated 60 dBA -515 515 -352 352 600 65 dBA -163 163 -111 111 70 dBA -51 51 400-51 51 Mitigated 200 60 dBA 0 Roadway Centerline

65 dBA Feet 70 dBA -200

-400

-600 Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108 Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO) Project Name: Albright Way Office Development Project Scenario: Other Analyst: Kelly Chiene Job #: 40-100419 Roadway: Winchester Boulevard Road Segment: SR-85 to Wimbeldon Drive PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: 0 Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm): 0 Average Daily Traffic: 27724 Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 2772.4 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: 35 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: 40 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade): 0 Type Day Evening Night Daily Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet) Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8

UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 54.2 63.0 61.2 55.1 63.7 64.3 Medium Trucks: 63.9 55.8 49.5 47.9 56.4 56.6 Heavy Trucks: 69.1 57.2 48.1 49.3 59.3 59.4 Vehicle Noise: 71.6 64.9 61.7 57.0 65.6 66.1

MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Vehicle Noise:

CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR Roadway Centerline Noise Contour Unmitigated 60 dBA -478 478 -327 327 600 65 dBA -151 151 -103 103 70 dBA -48 48 400-48 48 Mitigated 200 60 dBA 0 Roadway Centerline

65 dBA Feet 70 dBA -200

-400

-600 Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108 Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO) Project Name: Albright Way Office Development Project Scenario: Other Analyst: Kelly Chiene Job #: 40-100419 Roadway: Winchester Boulevard Road Segment: Wimbeldon Drive to Lark Avenue PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: 0 Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm): 0 Average Daily Traffic: 27004 Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 2700.4 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: 35 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: 45 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade): 0 Type Day Evening Night Daily Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet) Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8

UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 54.0 62.8 61.0 54.9 63.6 64.2 Medium Trucks: 63.7 55.6 49.3 47.7 56.2 56.4 Heavy Trucks: 68.9 57.0 47.9 49.2 59.1 59.2 Vehicle Noise: 71.4 64.7 61.5 56.9 65.4 65.9

MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Vehicle Noise:

CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR Roadway Centerline Noise Contour Unmitigated 60 dBA -465 465 -318 318 600 65 dBA -147 147 -101 101 70 dBA -47 47 400-47 47 Mitigated 200 60 dBA 0 Roadway Centerline

65 dBA Feet 70 dBA -200

-400

-600 Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108 Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO) Project Name: Albright Way Office Development Project Scenario: Other Analyst: Kelly Chiene Job #: 40-100419 Roadway: Lark Avenue Road Segment: Winchester Boulevard to Oka Road PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: 0 Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm): 0 Average Daily Traffic: 15244 Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 1524.4 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: 30 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: 30 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade): 0 Type Day Evening Night Daily Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet) Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8

UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 49.8 58.6 56.8 50.7 59.4 60.0 Medium Trucks: 60.4 52.4 46.0 44.4 52.9 53.1 Heavy Trucks: 66.1 54.1 45.1 46.3 56.4 56.5 Vehicle Noise: 68.6 61.1 57.5 53.2 61.8 62.2

MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Vehicle Noise:

CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR Roadway Centerline Noise Contour Unmitigated 60 dBA -188 188 -129 129 250 65 dBA -60 60 200-41 41 70 dBA -19 19 150-19 19 Mitigated 100 60 dBA 50 0 Roadway Centerline 65 dBA Feet -50 70 dBA -100 -150 -200 -250 Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108 Traffic Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO) Project Name: Albright Way Office Development Project Scenario: Other Analyst: Kelly Chiene Job #: 40-100419 Roadway: Wimbeldon Drive Road Segment: West of Winchester PROJECT DATA SITE DATA Centerline Dist to Barrier 0 Road Grade: 0 Barrier (0=wall, 1= berm): 0 Average Daily Traffic: 3214 Receiver Barrier Dist: 0 Peak Hour Traffic: 321.4 Centerline Dist. To Observer: 100 Vehicle Speed: 25 Barrier Near Lane CL Dist: 0 Centerline Separation: 12 Barrier Far lane CL Dist: 0 NOISE INPUTS Pad Elevation: 0.5 Site conditions HARD SITE Road Elevation: 0 FLEET MIX Observer Height (above grade): 0 Type Day Evening Night Daily Barrier Height: 0 Auto 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 Rt View: 90 Lft View: -90 Med. Truck 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 NOISE SOURCE ELEVATIONS (Feet) Heavy Truck 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 Autos: 0 Medium Trucks: 2.3 Heavy Trucks: 8

UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (No topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: 41.1 49.9 48.1 42.0 50.7 51.3 Medium Trucks: 52.7 44.7 38.3 36.7 45.2 45.4 Heavy Trucks: 58.9 47.0 37.9 39.1 49.5 49.6 Vehicle Noise: 61.6 53.1 49.1 45.3 53.8 54.2

MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (With topographic or barrier attenuation) Vehicle Type Peak Leq Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos: Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Vehicle Noise:

CENTERLINE NOISE CONTOUR Roadway Centerline Noise Contour Unmitigated 60 dBA -28 28 -19 19 40 65 dBA -9 9 -6 6 30 70 dBA -3 3 -3 3 20 Mitigated 10 60 dBA 0 Roadway Centerline

65 dBA Feet 70 dBA -10 -20 -30 -40 Albright Way Office Development Project Sheet 1 of 1 26 Jan 2011 RBF Consulting Plan View Project/Contract No. Albright Run name: Albright TNM Version 2.5, Feb 2004 Scale: 200 feet Analysis By: Brian Allee Roadway: Ground Zone: polygon Receiver: Tree Zone: dashed polygon Barrier: Contour Zone: polygon Building Row: Parallel Barrier: Terrain Line: Skew Section:

6094000 6094200 6094400 6094600 6094800 6095000 6095200 6095400 6095600 6095800 6096000 RESULTS: SOUND LEVELS Albright

RBF Consulting 26 January 2011 Brian Allee TNM 2.5 Calculated with TNM 2.5 RESULTS: SOUND LEVELS PROJECT/CONTRACT: Albright RUN: Albright Way Office Development Project BARRIER DESIGN: INPUT HEIGHTS Average pavement type shall be used unless a State highway agency substantiates the use ATMOSPHERICS: 68 deg F, 50% RH of a different type with approval of FHWA. Receiver Name No. #DUs Existing No Barrier With Barrier Ldn Ldn Increase over existing Type Calculated Noise Reduction Calculated Crit'n Calculated Crit'n Impact Ldn Calculated Goal Calculated Sub'l Inc minus Goal dBA dBA dBA dB dB dBA dB dB dB Receiver39 39 1 0.0 57.0 66 57.0 10 ---- 57.0 0.0 8 -8.0 Receiver40 40 1 0.0 61.0 66 61.0 10 ---- 61.0 0.0 8 -8.0 Receiver41 41 1 0.0 55.1 66 55.1 10 ---- 55.1 0.0 8 -8.0 Receiver42 42 1 0.0 59.8 66 59.8 10 ---- 59.8 0.0 8 -8.0 Receiver43 43 1 0.0 61.5 66 61.5 10 ---- 61.5 0.0 8 -8.0 Receiver44 44 1 0.0 59.7 66 59.7 10 ---- 59.7 0.0 8 -8.0 Receiver45 45 1 0.0 58.1 66 58.1 10 ---- 58.1 0.0 8 -8.0 Receiver46 46 1 0.0 64.6 66 64.6 10 ---- 64.6 0.0 8 -8.0 Dwelling Units # DUs Noise Reduction Min Avg Max dB dB dB All Selected 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 All Impacted 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 All that meet NR Goal 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

C:\TNM25\Program\Albright\Albright 1 26 January 2011 INPUT: RECEIVERS Albright

RBF Consulting 26 January 2011 Brian Allee TNM 2.5

INPUT: RECEIVERS PROJECT/CONTRACT: Albright RUN: Albright Way Office Development Project Receiver Name No. #DUs Coordinates (ground) Height Input Sound Levels and Criteria Active X Y Z above Existing Impact Criteria NR in Ground Ldn Ldn Sub'l Goal Calc.

ft ft ft ft dBA dBA dB dB Receiver39 39 1 6,094,614.5 2,194,143.2 291.50 5.00 0.00 66 10.0 8.0 Y Receiver40 40 1 6,094,580.5 2,194,328.0 291.50 5.00 0.00 66 10.0 8.0 Y Receiver41 41 1 6,094,707.0 2,194,377.8 281.00 5.00 0.00 66 10.0 8.0 Y Receiver42 42 1 6,094,609.0 2,194,519.5 281.00 5.00 0.00 66 10.0 8.0 Y Receiver43 43 1 6,094,588.0 2,194,722.0 279.00 5.00 0.00 66 10.0 8.0 Y Receiver44 44 1 6,094,667.5 2,194,883.8 279.00 5.00 0.00 66 10.0 8.0 Y Receiver45 45 1 6,094,810.0 2,194,888.2 276.00 5.00 0.00 66 10.0 8.0 Y Receiver46 46 1 6,095,056.0 2,194,949.5 276.00 5.00 0.00 66 10.0 8.0 Y

C:\TNM25\Program\Albright\Albright 1 26 January 2 INPUT: BUILDING ROWS Albright

RBF Consulting 26 January 2011 Brian Allee TNM 2.5

INPUT: BUILDING ROWS PROJECT/CONTRACT: Albright RUN: Albright Way Office Developme Building Row Points Name Average Building No. Coordinates (ground) Height Percent X Y Z ft % ft ft ft Building10 12.00 20 37 6,094,624.5 2,194,140.0 291.50 38 6,094,588.5 2,194,331.5 291.50 39 6,094,674.5 2,194,353.2 291.50 40 6,094,713.0 2,194,163.5 291.50 41 6,094,624.5 2,194,141.8 291.50 Building11 12.00 20 42 6,094,719.5 2,194,374.2 281.00 43 6,094,613.5 2,194,525.0 281.00 44 6,094,687.0 2,194,582.8 281.00 45 6,094,794.0 2,194,428.2 281.00 46 6,094,719.5 2,194,374.0 281.00 Building15 12.00 20 62 6,094,596.5 2,194,713.5 279.00 63 6,094,677.5 2,194,882.8 279.00 64 6,094,767.0 2,194,826.8 279.00 65 6,094,697.5 2,194,664.8 279.00 66 6,094,596.0 2,194,712.8 279.00 Building17 12.00 20 67 6,094,808.0 2,194,881.2 276.00 68 6,095,064.5 2,194,944.5 276.00 69 6,095,088.0 2,194,827.5 276.00 70 6,094,825.5 2,194,760.2 276.00 71 6,094,807.5 2,194,881.0 276.00 Building19 36.00 20 74 6,094,555.5 2,195,121.5 278.00 75 6,095,051.5 2,195,121.5 278.00 76 6,095,051.5 2,195,026.0 278.00 77 6,094,552.0 2,195,025.8 278.00

C:\TNM25\Program\Albright\Albright 1 26 January 2 INPUT: BUILDING ROWS Albright 78 6,094,555.0 2,195,121.2 278.00

C:\TNM25\Program\Albright\Albright 2 26 January 2 INPUT: ROADWAYS Albright

RBF Consulting 26 January 2011 Brian Allee TNM 2.5

INPUT: ROADWAYS Average pavement type shall be used unless PROJECT/CONTRACT: Albright a State highway agency substantiates the use RUN: Albright Way Office Development Project of a different type with the approval of FHWA Roadway Points Name Width Name No. Coordinates (pavement) Flow Control Segment X Y Z Control Speed Percent Pvmt On Device Constraint Vehicles Type Struct? Affected ft ft ft ft mph % Winchester NB 12.0 point35 35 6,094,454.0 2,194,126.8 289.00 Average point36 36 6,094,454.0 2,194,498.5 285.00 Average point37 37 6,094,453.0 2,194,689.8 284.00 Average point38 38 6,094,453.0 2,195,154.0 280.00 Winchester SB 12.0 point39 39 6,094,418.5 2,195,151.8 280.00 Average point40 40 6,094,418.5 2,194,694.0 284.00 Average point41 41 6,094,418.5 2,194,496.0 285.00 Average point42 42 6,094,418.5 2,194,131.0 289.00 SR-85 SB 12.0 point43 43 6,094,351.5 2,195,217.2 260.00 Average point44 44 6,094,939.5 2,195,217.2 263.00 Average point45 45 6,095,517.0 2,195,217.2 267.00 SR-85 NB 12.0 point46 46 6,095,508.0 2,195,269.2 267.00 Average point47 47 6,094,935.5 2,195,269.2 263.00 Average point48 48 6,094,350.0 2,195,269.2 260.00

C:\TNM25\Program\Albright\Albright 1 26 January 2011 INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR Ldn Albright

RBF Consulting 26 January 2011 Brian Allee TNM 2.5

INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR Ldn PROJECT/CONTRACT: Albright RUN: Albright Way Office Development Project Roadway Points Name Name No. Segment ADT Autos MTrucks HTrucks Buses Motorcycles %D %N S %D %N S %D %N S %D %N S %D %N S veh/24hrs % % mph % % mph % % mph % % mph % % mph Winchester NB point35 35 12440 97 97 35 2 2 35 1 1 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 point36 36 12440 97 97 35 2 2 35 1 1 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 point37 37 12440 97 97 35 2 2 35 1 1 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 point38 38 Winchester SB point39 39 12440 97 97 35 2 2 35 1 1 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 point40 40 12440 97 97 35 2 2 35 1 1 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 point41 41 12440 97 97 35 2 2 35 1 1 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 point42 42 SR-85 SB point43 43 53000 97 97 65 2 2 65 1 1 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 point44 44 53000 97 97 65 2 2 65 1 1 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 point45 45 SR-85 NB point46 46 53000 97 97 65 2 2 65 1 1 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 point47 47 53000 97 97 65 2 2 65 1 1 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 point48 48

C:\TNM25\Program\Albright\Albright 1 26 January 2