multifamily residential development. The area around Business Center Drive contains a collection of commercial and light industrial uses with single-family and multifamily residences in proximity.
The introduction of additional apartments resulting from the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change is compatible with the existing and anticipated land uses in the vicinity.
D. The proposed amendment compliances with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Environmental Impact Report (ER2021-036) (Exhibit A) properly identifies and mitigates potentially significant Project impacts related to air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal resources, geology and soils, noise, and transportation. The Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts.
SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be effective 30 days following its adoption by the City Council. A summary of this Ordinance shall, within 15 days after passage, be published in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California with the names of the City Councilmembers voting for and against it.
INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Fairfield on the 15th day of August 2023, and
PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of _________________, 2023, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: MOY / BERTANI / CARR /PANDURO / TONNESEN/ VACCARO / WILLIAMS
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
CITY CLERK
Packet Page 529 of 860Attachment 7 Page 2 of 2
I 80MANGELS BL
I 680EB I80GR
E
E
N
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
CENTRAL WYLOPES RDBUSINESS CENTER DRNEITZEL RDP
A
V
I
L
I
O
N
D
R
DYNASTY DRWB I80SB I680 ONCORDELIA RD RITCH
IE
RDPALLADIO WYBRIDGEPORT AVSB I680ANTIQUITY DRW CORDELIA RDTROPHY DRLAKESHORE DRWB I80 ONVI A
D
E
B
E
L
L
A
HWY 12 OFFVENUS DRWE
S
T
AM
E
R
I
C
A
DRCITRINE CIRUNKNOWN
DI
T
T
M
E
R
R
D
WINDING SAIL
W
Y
BIANCO CIRWOODLAKE
D
R
COLL
E
C
T
L
NTERM RESERVOIR RDJULIA BERGER CIRVENETIAN DRBARO
Q
U
E
D
R
EM
E
R
A
L
D
B
A
Y
D
R
F
A
L
L
S
W
Y
COMMERCE CT
GLA
C
I
E
R
W
Y
LOCH LOMOND
WYJULMAR CIRAUTO PLAZA CTTAPESTRY CTGATHER WY
MU
R
A
L
L
N
NAPA SHO
R
E
D
R
WB I80 UNDER I680BLUE CTSIENA S
T LEONARDO CTTAHOE CTMIRROR CTI 80EB I80EB I80I 80I 80I 680WB I80 ONI 80IBP-NC IL
CR-NC
CS
CR
RM-NC
RL:8-NC
IL
RL:8-NC
OSC-NCRM-NC
CS
REC-NC
RLM:5-NC
CO-NC
CS(IL)
CROSC-NC
RH-NC
RL:10-NC-PD
PF-NC
RLM:5-NC
PF-NC
CO-NC
OSC-NC
RLM:5-NC
RLM:4.5-NC
REC-NC
RL:8-NC
RM-NC
RM-NC
RM-NC-PD
RLM:5-NC
CO
PF-NC
RLM:5-NC
RM-NC RVH-NCOSC-NC
PF-NC
OSC-NC
OSC-NC
PF-NC
PF-NCRL:10-NC-PD
(IL)
RL:10-NC-PD
±
LEGEND
Zone Designations
AG
CC
CD
CDC
CM
CN
CO
CR
CS
CT
IBP
IG
IL
ITP
OSC
PF
REC
RVL
RL
RLM
RM
RH
RVH
None
Overlays
-NC
-PD
-P1
-H
Agriculture
Community Commercial
Downtown Commercial
Downtown Commercial Core
Mixed Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial
Office Commercial
Regional Commercial
Service Commercial
Thoroughfare Commercial
Industrial Business Park
General Industrial
Limited Industrial
Industrial Technology Park
Open Space Conservation
Public Facilities
Recreation
Very Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Low-Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Very High Density Residential
Not in City / No Pre-Zoning
North Cordelia Overlay
Proposed Development Overlay
Downtown Parking Overlay
Hillside Overlay
Rezone IBP-NC to RVH-NC
Parcels
Zoning
ZONING EXHIBIT4840 Business Center Drive Zone Change(GPA2021-001)(ZC2021-003)(DR2021-013)(ER2021-036)
EXHIBIT E
Packet Page 530 of 860Attachment 8 Page 1 of 1
CITY OF FAIRFIELD
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-220
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD DENYING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA2021-001), ZONE CHANGE (ZC2021-003), AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (DR2021-013) FOR THE GREEN VALLEY 3 APARTMENTS PROJECT INVOLVING A MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH 185 APARTMENTS ON APPROXIMATELY 5.78 ACRES AT 4840 BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE (APN: 0148-540-350)
WHEREAS, on August 23, 2021, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Development Review, and Environmental Review applications for a proposed multifamily residential development involving 185 apartments and General Plan Amendment from Business and Industrial Park and a Zone Change from Industrial Business Park – North Cordelia Overlay (IBP-NC) District to Residential, Very High Density – North Cordelia Overlay (RVH-NC) District located at 4840 Business Center Drive (APN: 0148-540-350) (Project) was properly filed with the Department of Community Development in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the official filing of such applications; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on June 28, 2023. The City staff presented substantial factual information regarding the proposed Project in staff reports and through oral presentations before the commission, and the commission considered all public testimony and information presented during the public hearing re garding this application; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on August 15, 2023. City staff presented substantial factual information regarding the proposed Project in staff reports and through oral presentations before the council; and
WHEREAS, the City staff facilitated the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to identify and address environmental impacts associated with the Project based on its scope pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Sections 2000, et seq. and Section 15025(a) of the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 1500, et seq.). However, City staff has determined that the Project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15270(a), which provides that projects that are disapproved or rejected by a public agency are statutorily exempt from environmental review.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD HEREBY RESOLVES:
Section 1. The site should retain its current General Plan and Zoning designations of Industrial Business Park.
Packet Page 531 of 860Attachment 9 Page 1 of 2
RES. NO. 2023-220
Section 2. To deny the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Development Review requests.
Section 3. Pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000, et seq.) Section 15270, a project denied or rejected, is exempt from the requirements of CEQA.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of August, 2023, by the following vote:
AYES: MEMBERS: MOY / BERTANI / CARR /PANDURO / TONNESEN/ VACCARO / WILLIAMS
NOES: MEMBERS:
ABSENT: MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: MEMBERS:
______________________________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________
CITY CLERK
Packet Page 532 of 860Attachment 9 Page 2 of 2
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Page 533 of 860Attachment 10 Page 1 of 35
Packet Page 534 of 860Attachment 10 Page 2 of 35
Packet Page 535 of 860Attachment 10 Page 3 of 35
Packet Page 536 of 860Attachment 10 Page 4 of 35
Packet Page 537 of 860Attachment 10 Page 5 of 35
Packet Page 538 of 860Attachment 10 Page 6 of 35
Packet Page 539 of 860Attachment 10 Page 7 of 35
Packet Page 540 of 860Attachment 10 Page 8 of 35
Packet Page 541 of 860Attachment 10 Page 9 of 35
Packet Page 542 of 860Attachment 10 Page 10 of 35
Packet Page 543 of 860Attachment 10 Page 11 of 35
Packet Page 544 of 860Attachment 10 Page 12 of 35
Packet Page 545 of 860Attachment 10 Page 13 of 35
Packet Page 546 of 860Attachment 10 Page 14 of 35
Packet Page 547 of 860Attachment 10 Page 15 of 35
Packet Page 548 of 860Attachment 10 Page 16 of 35
Packet Page 549 of 860Attachment 10 Page 17 of 35
Packet Page 550 of 860Attachment 10 Page 18 of 35
Packet Page 551 of 860Attachment 10 Page 19 of 35
Packet Page 552 of 860Attachment 10 Page 20 of 35
Packet Page 553 of 860Attachment 10 Page 21 of 35
Packet Page 554 of 860Attachment 10 Page 22 of 35
Packet Page 555 of 860Attachment 10 Page 23 of 35
Packet Page 556 of 860Attachment 10 Page 24 of 35
Packet Page 557 of 860Attachment 10 Page 25 of 35
Packet Page 558 of 860Attachment 10 Page 26 of 35
Packet Page 559 of 860Attachment 10 Page 27 of 35
Packet Page 560 of 860Attachment 10 Page 28 of 35
Packet Page 561 of 860Attachment 10 Page 29 of 35
Packet Page 562 of 860Attachment 10 Page 30 of 35
Packet Page 563 of 860Attachment 10 Page 31 of 35
Packet Page 564 of 860Attachment 10 Page 32 of 35
Packet Page 565 of 860Attachment 10 Page 33 of 35
Packet Page 566 of 860Attachment 10 Page 34 of 35
Packet Page 567 of 860Attachment 10 Page 35 of 35
1 Atkinson, Jonathan
From:Raphael Okubo
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2023 10:37 PM
To:Atkinson, Jonathan
Subject:Apartment Buildings in Green Valley
Hello Jonathan,
I am a resident in Sienna housing in Fairfield in the Green Valley area. We were recently informed that some new apartments are planning to be erected overlooking our homes. I have a couple of concerns.
1.Privacy is a major concern for me. I'm worried that the new building will be too close to our property, and the residents will be able to look into our homes and yards. I value my privacy and don't want to feel like I'm living in a fishbowl.
2.The construction noise is a significant concern for me. I work from home on occasion and need a quiet environment. The construction could disrupt my work and make it difficult to focus on important tasks.
3.I'm worried about the increased traffic that will come with the new building. The area is already congested, and the additional traffic will make it harder for me to get around. It could also impact emergency response times if there's an accident or other emergency.
4.I'm concerned about the impact that the new building will have on the value of my property. If the new apartments are poorly maintained or unattractive, it could bring down property values in the area. I've invested a lot of time and money into my home, and I don't want to see it lose value.
5.Safety is a major concern for me, especially if there is an increase in crime in the area. I want to feel safe in my own home and neighborhood, and I worry that the new residents could attract criminal activity.
6.The environmental impact of the construction is also a concern. I'm worried about the noise and air pollution that the construction could create, as well as any potential damage to the local ecosystem.
7.I’m also concerned about the school zone. A lot of more housing developments have come up recently but no new schools.
Best,
Raphael
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 568 of 860Attachment 11 Page 1 of 2
www.solanoedc.org
5050 Business Center Drive, Suite 200
Fairfield, CA 94534
707.864.1855
June 28, 2023
Dear Fairfield Planning Commission:
I want to express my support for the Green Valley 3 Apartments being developed by the Spanos company.
There are all types of housing in the surrounding area, including condos, and starter homes. There are also a number of extended stay hotels nearby. There is, however, not enough multi-family, by a long shot. I know that the surrounding businesses will be thrilled to have a development that will cater to young professionals.
As you know, the project site is zoned Industrial Business Park (IBP). Spanos is requesting a General Plan Amendment and Re-zone to Residential, Very High Density (RVH).
I support this project because we need every level of housing in Fairfield and in Solano County to address key housing shortages that this region faces. If we are to attract the kind of high value employers that create high wage jobs, it's crucial that we continue to diversify our housing stock. We are particularly lacking the kind of market rate multifamily developments that young professionals are looking for and we are losing that demographic in droves because we aren't building for them. You can look down the road to the success of the Spanos Nova project to see that the demand is there. At my request, Nick Ruhl was kind enough to share some demographic data from that development. To no one’s surprise, the largest share of residents are young professionals. Somewhat surprising, however, is the number of airmen and other service members living there. Also, a number of retired people who have downsized from the single family home they were previously occupying. We need more of these kinds of developments for our regional economy to thrive. I’m confident that this project will be successful, and I urge you to support the 185-unit building.
Sincerely,
Chris Rico
President/CEO
Packet Page 569 of 860Attachment 11 Page 2 of 2
Green Valley 3 Final EIR – Late Comments and Responses 1 GREEN VALLEY 3 APARTMENTS PROJECT
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RESPONSES TO JUNE 26, 2023 LIUNA LETTER
The purpose of this document is to provide additional information in response to the late comments submitted to the City of Fairfield by Lozeau Drury LLP regarding the Green Valley 3 Apartments Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on behalf of the Laborers International Union of North America, Local 324, and its members living in and near the City of Fairfield (“LIUNA”). A lead agency may, but is not required to, respond in writing to comments submitted after expiration of the public comment period on the Draft EIR. (Residents Against Specific Plan 380 v. County of Riverside (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 941, 972; Pub. Resources Code, § 21091(d)(1); CEQA Guidelines, § 15088(a).) Here, the public comment period on the Draft EIR closed on February 23, 2023. LIUNA submitted comments on June 26, 2023, which was 2 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing and over 17 weeks after the close of the public comment period. To help inform the City Council and the public, and for purposes of clarification and a complete record, the City has prepared specific responses to the comments in the LIUNA letter.
The LIUNA letter follows this page and is followed by the City’s responses to the comments in the letter. Due to the length of the exhibits included in the LIUNA letter, the LIUNA letter exhibits are presented in Attachment 1. Please note that the exhibits have not been separately bracketed for purposes of responding to comments. However, the City carefully reviewed the exhibits to ensure that the issues raised in these exhibits were addressed as part of responses to comments raised in the body of the LIUNA letter itself and as part of WRA submissions provided to Jonathan Atkinson, City of Fairfield Senior Planner, on June 28, 2023, and included here as Attachment 2.
ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Page 570 of 860Attachment 12 Page 1 of 259
June 26, 2023
Via E-Mail
Jerome Childs
Chris Matthews
Melissa Cruzen
Lerecia Evans
Tina Werblin
Don Greve
Shashi Paul
Planning Commission
City of San Jose
1000 Webster Street
Fairfield, CA 94533
[email protected]
Cindy Garcia, Administrative Assistant
Planning Commission
City of San Jose
1000 Webster Street
Fairfield, CA 94533
[email protected]
Jonathan Atkinson, Planner
Community Development Department
City of Fairfield
1000 Webster Street, 2nd Floor
Fairfield, CA 94533
[email protected]
Re: GREEN VALLEY 3 APARTMENTS – Environmental Impact Report GPA2021-001; ZC2021-003; DR2021-013; ER2021-036
Planning Commission Item VII.A (June 28, 2023)
File No. SP20-004
Dear Honorable Planning Commissioners, Ms. Garcia, and Mr. Atkinson:
This comment is submitted on behalf of the Laborers International Union of North America, Local Union 324 and its members living in and around the City of Fairfield (“LIUNA”) regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) and Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) (collectively, “the EIR”) prepared for the Green Valley 3 Apartments Project (GPA2021-001; ZC2021-003; DR2021-013; ER2021-036) (“Project”) to be heard as Agenda Item VII.A at the Planning Commission’s June 28, 2023 meeting.
LIUNA agrees with Staff’s recommendation to deny the requested Development Review and to recommend that the City Council deny the requested General Plan Amendment and Zone Change because the Project does not meet the required findings for General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Development Review. However, if the Commission goes against Staff’s recommendation, the Commission should still deny the Project on the additional grounds that the EIR is inadequate under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) due to a lack of substantial evidence to support the EIR’s conclusions and, as a result, a failure to adequately disclose and mitigate the Project’s impacts.
Packet Page 571 of 860Attachment 12 Page 2 of 259
LIUNA Comment
Green Valley 3 Apartments
Agenda Item VII.A (June 28, 2023)
June 26, 2023
LIUNA’s review of the EIR was assisted by wildlife biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. indoor air quality expert Francis Offermann. CIH, and air quality experts Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., and Dr. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D., of the Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”), whose written comments are attached as Exhibit A, B, and C, respectively.
Due to the EIR’s shortcomings, LIUNA respectfully requests that the Planning Commission refrain from approving the Project at this time and instead direct staff to amend and recirculate the EIR to address the concerns discussed below.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project proposes the development of a multi-family apartment complex and two- story parking structure on an approximately 5.78-acre undeveloped project site located at 4840 Business Center Drive (APN) 0148-540-350). The proposed apartment building is four-stories tall and approximately 204,144 square feet (sf) and would contain 185 rental units. The apartment building would be centered around a 16,965 sf clubhouse providing recreational amenities for private resident use. The Project also includes the construction of a two-story parking garage.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
CEQA requires that an agency analyze the potential environmental impacts of its proposed actions in an EIR except in certain limited circumstances. The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. (Dunn-Edwards v. BAAQMD (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 644, 652.) “The ‘foremost principle’ in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.” (Communities for a Better Envt. v. Cal. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 109.)
CEQA has two primary purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. (14 CCR § 15002(a)(1).) “Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR ‘protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.’” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564.) The EIR has been described as “an environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return.” Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of Port Comm’rs. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1354 (Berkeley Jets); County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810.)
Second, CEQA requires public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when “feasible” by requiring “environmentally superior” alternatives and all feasible mitigation measures. (14 CCR § 15002(a)(2), (3); see also, Berkeley Jets, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, Packet Page 572 of 860Attachment 12 Page 3 of 259
LIUNA Comment
Green Valley 3 Apartments
Agenda Item VII.A (June 28, 2023)
June 26, 2023
1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley, supra, 52 Cal.3d at 564.) The EIR serves to provide agencies and the public with information about the environmental impacts of a proposed project and to “identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.” (14 CCR 15002(a)(2). If the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only if it finds that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible” and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns.” (PRC § 21081; 14 CCR 15092(b)(2)(A), (B).) The lead agency may deem a particular impact to be insignificant only if it produces rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence justifying the finding. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 732.)
The EIR is the very heart of CEQA “and the integrity of the process is dependent on the adequacy of the EIR.” (Berkeley Jets, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1355.) CEQA requires that a lead agency analyze all potentially significant environmental impacts of its proposed actions in an EIR. (PRC § 21100(b)(1); 14 CCR 15126(a); Berkeley Jets, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1354.) The EIR must not only identify the impacts, but must also provide “information about how adverse the impacts will be.” (Santiago County Water Dist. v. County of Orange (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 818, 831.) The lead agency may deem a particular impact to be insignificant only if it produces rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence justifying the finding. (Kings County Farm Bureau, supra, 221 Cal.App.3d at 732.) “The ‘foremost principle’ in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.” (Communities for a Better Envt., supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at 109.)
While the courts review an EIR using an “abuse of discretion” standard, “the reviewing court is not to ‘uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position. A ‘clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference.’” (Berkeley Jets, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1355 [quoting Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 391, 409 n. 12].) A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs “if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decisionmaking and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process.” (San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 722; Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Mgmt. Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1117; County of Amador v. El Dorado Cnty. Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.
App. 4th 931, 946.)
III. DISCUSSION
A. The EIR Fails to Disclose and Mitigate the Project’s Significant Impacts to Biological Resources.
Expert wildlife biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., found several deficiencies in the EIR’s analysis of the Project’s impacts on wildlife species. Dr. Smallwood’s comment and CV Packet Page 573 of 860Attachment 12 Page 4 of 259
LIUNA Comment
Green Valley 3 Apartments
Agenda Item VII.A (June 28, 2023)
June 26, 2023
are attached as Exhibit A. As discussed below, Dr. Smallwood concluded: (1) the EIR biological report underestimated the diversity of species and the Project’s likely impacts to those species; (2) the EIR biological report failed to provide substantial evidence of the Project’s impacts; (3) the EIR failed to assess or mitigate the Project’s impacts to species due to habitat loss, wildlife movement, window collisions, road mortality, and cumulative impacts; and (4) the EIR’s mitigation measures were inadequate to reduce the Project’s impacts to biological resources.
1. The EIR underestimates the diversity of species using the Project site.
Dr. Smallwood conducted a 2.7-hour site visit on March 4, 2023 and 2.75-hour site visit on March 25, 2023. (Ex. A, p. 1.) He detected 49 species of vertebrate wildlife, including several special-status species. (Id., pp. 1-2.) In contrast, the EIR’s biological report prepared by WRA Environmental Consultants (“WRA Report”) detected only 18 species of wildlife (37% of species observed by Dr. Smallwood). (Id., p 14.). Among the species observed by Dr, Smallwood were oak titmouse and Nuttall’s woodpecker (pictured below), both of which are listed as Birds of Conservation Concern by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service:
Packet Page 574 of 860Attachment 12 Page 5 of 259
LIUNA Comment
Green Valley 3 Apartments
Agenda Item VII.A (June 28, 2023)
June 26, 2023
Dr. Smallwood calculated that more thorough site visits would reveal an even greater diversity of wildlife. (Ex. A, pp. 14-17.) Given more time to survey the site, Dr. Smallwood’s predicts that he would have detected 154 species of vertebrate wildlife, 25 of which would be special-status species. (Id., p. 16.) Based on his review of the EIR and the site visits, Dr.
Smallwood concluded, “The site supports a richer community of wildlife species than most other sites I have surveyed in the region. . . . The DEIR’s impacts analysis is based on a sampling of only 11.7% of the species of wildlife likely to use the site, which is grossly deficient.” (Id., p. 14,
17.)
2. The EIR failed to disclose and mitigate the Project’s impacts on wildlife due to habitat loss, wildlife movement, window collisions, and road mortality.
Dr. Smallwood found that the EIR failed to adequately discuss numerous significant impacts that the Project may have on biological resources due to habitat loss, wildlife movement, window collisions, and road mortality. (Ex. A, pp. 27-36.) By failing to disclose and mitigate these impacts, the EIR is inadequate. As such, the EIR must be revised to account for the impacts discussed below.
a. Habitat loss and fragmentation.
Dr. Smallwood found that the EIR “expresses no concern over the project’s contribution to habitat fragmentation” (Ex. A, p. 27.) As Dr. Smallwood explains,
The project would contribute further to habitat fragmentation in an environmental setting in which wildlife would be devastated by the loss of one of the region’s last patches of naturally-covered open space. Habitat fragmentation and habitat loss have been recognized as the most likely leading causes of a documented 29% decline in overall bird abundance across North America over the last 48 years (Rosenberg et al. 2019). Habitat loss not only results in the immediate numerical decline of wildlife, but it also results in permanent loss of productive capacity.
(Ex. A, p. 27.) As a result of habitat loss and fragmentation, Dr. Smallwood predicts that the Project would result in a loss of 199 bird nests, which corresponds to an overall loss of 657 birds per year. (Id.) Dr. Smallwood concludes, “The loss of 199 nest sites would qualify as a significant project impact to birds that has not been quantitatively addressed in the DEIR. . . .
The DEIR needs to be revised to appropriately analyze the project’s impacts to wildlife caused by habitat loss and habitat fragmentation.” (Id., pp. 27-28.)
b. Wildlife Movement
Dr. Smallwood found that the EIR applied an improper standard to analyze the Project’s impacts to wildlife movement. (Ex. A, p. 28.) The EIR concluded that there would not be an Packet Page 575 of 860Attachment 12 Page 6 of 259
LIUNA Comment
Green Valley 3 Apartments
Agenda Item VII.A (June 28, 2023)
June 26, 2023
impact to wildlife movement because “the project site itself does not serve as a wildlife movement corridor.” (DEIR, p. 4.3-22.) However, as Dr. Smallwood explains, “[T]he CEQA standard goes to wildlife movement regardless of whether the movement is channeled by a corridor.” (Ex. A, p. 28.)
Based on his observations of “multiple species flying across the site between a wetland area to the southeast and to and from unknown locations to the northwest,” channeled “between the office complex to the east and the hotel under construction to the south ,” Dr. Smallwood concludes that the Project’s impact to wildlife movement would be significant and unmitigated by the EIR. (Ex. A, p. 28.)
c. Window collisions.
The EIR fails to account for the impact to bird species from collisions with the Project’s glass windows and facades. (Ex. A, p. 29.) The impacts from window collisions are important because such collisions “are often characterized as either the second or third largest source or human-caused bird mortality.” (Id.) Dr. Smallwood calculated that the Project would result in 146 bird deaths per year due to collisions with glass. (Id., p. 32.) The EIR fails to disclose, discuss, or mitigate this impact.
d. Road Mortality.
The EIR fails to address the impacts to wildlife from collisions with traffic generated by the Project. According to the EIR, the Project would result in 46.3 vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”) per multifamily dwelling unit, which amounts to 3,126,408 annual VMT. (Ex. A, p.
27.) Based on that VMT estimate, Dr. Smallwood estimates that traffic from the Project will kill at least 857 animals per year. l 3,018 animals annually. (Id., pp. 34-35.) Especially due to the special-status species likely to occur at or near the Project, these collisions represent a significant impact to wildlife that has not been addressed, discussed, or mitigated in the EIR.
4. The EIR’s proposed mitigation measures for biological resources are inadequate.
Dr. Smallwood critiqued the EIR’s proposed mitigation measures as being inadequate to reduce the Project’s impacts to biological resources. (Ex. A, pp. 38-41.) For example, many of the mitigation measures are requirements to preform willlfie surveys. However, as Dr.
Smallwood explains, these surveys should have been conducted prior to preparing the EIR in order to inform the EIR’s analysis. (Id., p. 38.)
Dr. Smallwood provides a list of feasible mitigation measures that should be incorporated into the Project to reduce impacts to biological resources. (Ex. A, pp. 41-42.) These measures include: (1) detection level surveys for multiple species, including California red-legged frog, western spadefoot, Swainson’s hawk, least Bell’s vireo, willow flycatcher, burrowing owl, and Packet Page 576 of 860Attachment 12 Page 7 of 259
LIUNA Comment
Green Valley 3 Apartments
Agenda Item VII.A (June 28, 2023)
June 26, 2023
white-tailed kite; (2) adhering to Bird-Safe Design Guidelines to reduce collisions with windows; (3) compensatory mitigation for wildlife killed/injured by vehicles and window collisions; (4) a prohibition against the use of rodenticides/avicides/poison bait; and (5) a requirement for native landscaping.
B. The EIR Fails to Disclose and Mitigate the Project’s Significant Indoor Air Quality Impacts.
The EIR fails to discuss, disclose, analyze, and mitigate the significant health risks posed by the Project from formaldehyde, a toxic air contaminant (“TAC”). Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis Offermann, PE, CIH, has conducted a review of the Project, attached as Exhibit B. Mr. Offermann is one of the world’s leading experts on indoor air quality, in particular emissions of formaldehyde, and has published extensively on the topic. As discussed below and set forth in Mr. Offermann’s comments, the Project’s emissions of formaldehyde to air will result in very significant cancer risks to future residents at the Project’s apartments. Mr.
Offermann’s expert opinion demonstrates the Project’s significant health risk impacts, which the City has a duty to investigate, disclose, and mitigate in a recirculated EIR.
Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen and listed by the State as a TAC.
BAAQMD has established a significance threshold of health risks for carcinogenic TACs of 10 in a million and a cumulative health risk threshold of 100 in a million. The DEIR fails to acknowledge the significant indoor air emissions that will result from the Project. Specifically, there is no discussion of impacts or health risks, no analysis, and no identification of mitigations for significant emissions of formaldehyde to air from the Project.
Mr. Offermann explains that many composite wood products typically used in home and apartment building construction contain formaldehyde-based glues which off-gas formaldehyde over a very long time period. He states, “The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particle board. These materials are commonly used in residential, office, and retail building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.” (Ex. B, pp. 2-3.)
Mr. Offermann found that future residents of the Project’s residential units will be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde of approximately 120 per million, even assuming that all materials are compliant with the California Air Resources Board’s formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure. (Ex. B, p. 4.) This is more than 12 times BAAQMD’s CEQA significance threshold of 10 per million. (Id.)
Mr. Offermann concludes that these significant environmental impacts must be analyzed in an EIR and mitigation measures should be imposed to reduce the risk of formaldehyde exposure. (Ex. B, pp. 5, 12-13.) He prescribes a methodology for estimating the Project’s formaldehyde emissions in order to do a more project-specific health risk assessment. (Id., pp. 5- Packet Page 577 of 860Attachment 12 Page 8 of 259
LIUNA Comment
Green Valley 3 Apartments
Agenda Item VII.A (June 28, 2023)
June 26, 2023
10.). Mr. Offermann also suggests several feasible mitigation measures, such as requiring the use of no-added-formaldehyde composite wood products, which are readily available. (Id., pp. 12-
13.) Mr. Offermann also suggests requiring air ventilation systems which would reduce formaldehyde levels. (Id.) Since the EIR does not analyze this impact at all, none of these or other mitigation measures have been considered.
When a Project exceeds a duly adopted CEQA significance threshold, as here, this alone establishes substantial evidence that the project will have a significant adverse environmental impact. Indeed, in many instances, such air quality thresholds are the only criteria reviewed and treated as dispositive in evaluating the significance of a project’s air quality impacts. (See, e.g.
Schenck v. County of Sonoma (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 949, 960 [County applies Air District’s “published CEQA quantitative criteria” and “threshold level of cumulative significance”]; see also Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 110-111 [“A ‘threshold of significance’ for a given environmental effect is simply that level at which the lead agency finds the effects of the project to be significant”].)
The California Supreme Court made clear the substantial importance that an air district significance threshold plays in providing substantial evidence of a significant adverse impact. (Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 327 [“As the District’s established significance threshold for NOx is 55 pounds per day, these estimates [of NOx emissions of 201 to 456 pounds per day] constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument for a significant adverse impact.”].) Since expert evidence demonstrates that the Project will exceed the BAAQMD’a CEQA significance threshold, there is substantial evidence that an “unstudied, potentially significant environmental effect[]” exists. (See Friends of Coll. of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo Cty. Cmty. Coll. Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 958 [emphasis added].)
The failure of the EIR to address the Project’s formaldehyde emissions is contrary to the California Supreme Court’s decision in California Building Industry Ass’n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 386 (“CBIA”). In that case, the Supreme Court expressly holds that potential adverse impacts to future users and residents from pollution generated by a proposed project must be addressed under CEQA. At issue in CBIA was whether the Air District could enact CEQA guidelines that advised lead agencies that they must analyze the impacts of adjacent environmental conditions on a project. The Supreme Court held that CEQA does not generally require lead agencies to consider the environment’s effects on a project. (CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800-01.) However, to the extent a project may exacerbate existing environmental conditions at or near a project site, those would still have to be considered pursuant to CEQA. (Id. at 801.) In so holding, the Court expressly held that CEQA’s statutory language required lead agencies to disclose and analyze “impacts on a project’s users or residents that arise from the project’s effects on the environment.” (Id. at 800 [emphasis added].)
Packet Page 578 of 860Attachment 12 Page 9 of 259
LIUNA Comment
Green Valley 3 Apartments
Agenda Item VII.A (June 28, 2023)
June 26, 2023
The carcinogenic formaldehyde emissions identified by Mr. Offermann are not an existing environmental condition. Those emissions to the air will be from the Project. People will be residing in and working in the Project’s buildings once built and emitting formaldehyde. Once built, the Project will begin to emit formaldehyde at levels that pose significant direct and cumulative health risks. The Supreme Court in CBIA expressly finds that this type of air emission and health impact by the project on the environment and a “project’s users and residents” must be addressed in the CEQA process. The existing TAC sources near the Project site would have to be considered in evaluating the cumulative effect on future residents of both the Project’s TAC emissions as well as those existing off-site emissions.
The Supreme Court’s reasoning is well-grounded in CEQA’s statutory language. CEQA expressly includes a project’s effects on human beings as an effect on the environment that must be addressed in an environmental review. “Section 21083(b)(3)’s express language, for example, requires a finding of a ‘significant effect on the environment’ (§ 21083(b)) whenever the ‘environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.’” (CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800.) Likewise, “the Legislature has made clear—in declarations accompanying CEQA’s enactment—that public health and safety are of great importance in the statutory scheme.” (Id. [citing e.g., PRC §§ 21000, 21001].) It goes without saying that the future residents of the Project are human beings and their health and safety must be subject to CEQA’s safeguards.
The City has a duty to investigate issues relating to a project’s potential environmental impacts. (See County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. County of Kern, (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1597–98. [“[U]nder CEQA, the lead agency bears a burden to investigate potential environmental impacts.”].) The proposed buildings will have significant impacts on air quality and health risks by emitting cancer-causing levels of formaldehyde into the air that will expose future residents to cancer risks potentially in excess of BAAQMD’s threshold of significance for cancer health risks of 10 in a million. Likewise, when combined with the risks posed by the nearby TAC sources, the health risks inside the project may exceed BAAQMD’s cumulative health risk threshold of 100 cancers in a million. Currently, outside of Mr. Offermann’s comments, the City does not have any idea what risks will be posed by formaldehyde emissions from the Project or the residences. As a result, the City must include an analysis and discussion in an updated EIR which discloses and analyzes the health risks that the Project’s formaldehyde emissions may have on future residents and identifies appropriate mitigation measures.
C. The EIR’s conclusions about the Project’s air quality impacts are not supported by substantial evidence.
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., and Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D., of the Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”) reviewed the air quality analysis in the EIR. SWAPE’s comment letter and CVs are attached as Exhibit C and their findings are summarized below.
Packet Page 579 of 860Attachment 12 Page 10 of 259
LIUNA Comment
Green Valley 3 Apartments
Agenda Item VII.A (June 28, 2023)
June 26, 2023
The EIR relies on emission estimates calculated from the California Emissions Estimator Model Version CalEEMod.2016.3.2 (“CalEEMod”). This model relies on recommended default values based on site specific information related to a number of factors. The model is used to generate a project’s construction and operational emissions. SWAPE reviewed the Project’s CalEEMod output files from the DEIR and found that the values input into the model were inconsistent with information provided in the DEIR, resulting in an underestimation of the Project’s emissions. (Ex. C, p. 2.)
Specifically, SWAPE found that the following values used in the EIR’s air quality analysis were either inconsistent with information provided in the EIR or otherwise unjustified:
1. Unsubstantiated changes to construction phase lengths (Ex. C, pp. 2-4.)
2. Unsubstantiated changes to construction equipment (Ex. C, pp. 2-3.)
3. Underestimated reductions to energy use values (Ex. C, pp. 5-6.)
4. Incorrect application of energy-related mitigation measures (Ex. C, pp. 6-7.)
5. Unsubstantiated changes to operational off-road fuel type (Ex. B, pp. 7-9.) As a result, the EIR’s air quality analysis fails to provide substantial evidence as to the Project’s air quality impacts. The EIR must be revised adequately evaluate the impacts that construction and operation of the Project will have on local and regional air quality.
D. The EIR Fails to Disclose and Mitigate the Project’s Significant Greenhouse Gas Impacts.
The EIR estimated that the Project would generate net annual greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions of 738.1 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (“MT CO2e/year”)a nd would not exceed BAAQMD’s significance threshold of 880 MT CO2e/year. However, the EIR’s estimate of the Project’s GHG emissions was based on the faulty air quality analysis discussed above, which underestimated the Project’s emissions.
SWAPE prepared an updated CalEEMod emissions analysis, which corrected for the errors identified by SWAPE in the EIR’s emissions analysis. (Ex. C, pp. 8-9.) SWAPE’s updated analysis found that the Project would result in 1,001.55 MT CO2e/year, in excess of the 880 MT Co2e/year threshold. (Id., p. 9.) As such, the EIR failed to disclose and mitigate the Project’s significant GHG impacts. This shortcoming must be addressed in a revised EIR prior to approval of the Project.
E. The EIR’s Analysis of the Project’s Energy Impacts Is Inadequate.
CEQA provides that all Projects must include mitigation measures “to reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy.” (Pub. Res. Code § 21100(b)(3).) Energy conservation under CEQA is defined as the “wise and efficient use of energy.” (CEQA Guidelines, app. F, § I.) The “wise and efficient use of energy” is achieved by “(1) decreasing Packet Page 580 of 860Attachment 12 Page 11 of 259
LIUNA Comment
Green Valley 3 Apartments
Agenda Item VII.A (June 28, 2023)
June 26, 2023
overall per capita energy consumption, (2) decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil, and (3) increasing reliance on renewable energy resources.” (Id.)
Mere compliance with the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 24, part 6) (“Title 24”) does not constitute an adequate analysis of energy. (League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain Area Preservation Foundation v. County of Placer (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 63, 165 (League to Save Lake Tahoe); Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 Cal. App. 4th 256, 264-65; California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 209-13.) Even where an agency has concluded that a project’s impacts on energy resources would be less than significant, a lead agency must still analyze implementation of all “renewable energy options that might have been available or appropriate for [a] project.” (League to Save Lake Tahoe, supra, 75 Cal.App.5th at 166-67.) A lead agency’s failure to consider implementation of all feasible renewable energy proposals raised during the environmental review process constitutes a “prejudicial error.” (Id. at 168.)
Despite CEQA’s requirement to consider all renewable energy options, the EIR only mentions that” a minimum of 15 percent of the roof areas would be reserved for future photovoltaic (PV) solar installation.” (DEIR, p. 4.5-9.) The EIR makes no mention of renewable energy features that could be incorporated into the Project now, such as rooftop solar for the apartment building. There is no guarantee that solar panels will ever actually be installed on the “reserved” portion. CEQA requires that the EIR consider the feasibility of incorporating renewable energy features before concluding that energy impacts would be less than significant.
This analysis must be incorporated into a revised EIR prior to approval of the Project.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the EIR for the Project should be revised and circulated for public review and comment in accordance with CEQA in the event that the Commission does not follow staff’s recommendation to deny the Project. LIUNA respectfully requests that the Planning Commission refrain from approving the Project at this time and, if the Project moves forward, instead direct staff to revise and recirculate the EIR to address the issues discussed above.
Sincerely,
Brian Flynn
Lozeau | Drury LLP
Packet Page 581 of 860Attachment 12 Page 12 of 259
Green Valley 3 Final EIR – Late Comments and Responses 2 LETTER 1 LIUNA
Response to Comment LIUNA 1-1
This comment is a set of general introductory remarks regarding Lozeau Drury LLP’s representation of the Laborers International Union of North America, Local 324, and its members living in and near the City of Fairfield (“LIUNA”), a general statement raising concerns regarding the adequacy of various analyses in the EIR, a request to revise and recirculate the EIR based on these alleged inadequacies, a restatement of the project description, and a recitation of the legal background of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The comment presents no environmental issues within the meaning of CEQA, and no specific response is required. Further, the issues raised in this comment have been addressed in detail below. The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed project.
Response to Comment LIUNA 1-2
This comment is a set of general introductory remarks regarding the observations of “Expert wildlife biologist Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.”, and a statement referencing several alleged deficiencies in the EIR’s analysis of the project’s impacts on wildlife species. It presents no environmental issues within the meaning of CEQA, and no specific response is required. Further, the issues have been addressed in detail below. The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed project.
Response to Comment LIUNA 1-3
Observations of species composition on a given day may vary dependent on various factors, including time of year, time of day, weather, and other factors. The commenter’s species observations are acknowledged, and it is agreed that additional survey time would presumably yield additional species observations. The biological report prepared for the project by WRA and the Draft EIR, which included a reconnaissance biological survey by LSA, do not state or insinuate that the number of species observed by the biologists was conclusive as to the diversity of fauna that may occur at the project site; these observations represented a snapshot of what was present during the site visits and were not presented as the results of a dedicated bird/wildlife survey (e.g., a point- count survey or other protocol-level effort). CEQA-level biological reports primarily assess habitats and the potential for species (primarily special-status taxa) to be present based on existing conditions on and around the project site. Additionally, WRA and LSA only recorded species that were observed in direct association with the project site; species that are observed only in aerial transit well above a given site or on an adjacent site are not typically considered to be present there.
Aerial foraging above the project site warrant inclusion in some cases, e.g., for raptors (birds of prey) and bats, if relevant. However, waterbirds flying from one habitat patch to another (e.g., great egret, as referenced in the comment letter) generally do not warrant such inclusion. For these reasons, bird species (and other wildlife) are generally assessed based on the likelihood of a site to support critical life functions, rather than the potential for the species to simply fly over.
The commenter also references on-site observations of Nuttall’s woodpecker and oak titmouse, both named as Birds of Conservation Concern by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as Packet Page 582 of 860Attachment 12 Page 13 of 259
Green Valley 3 Final EIR – Late Comments and Responses 3 numerous other species with similar status. These findings are unremarkable. First, while standards as to what constitutes a “special-status” species may vary somewhat, Bird of Conservation Concern is a relatively low-level status that is often not considered “special-status” in CEQA assessments.
Species typically regarded as “special-status” under CEQA include those that have been formally listed or are candidates for such listing under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and/or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), CDFW Fully Protected Species, and CDFW Species of Special Concern (see Section 4.3.1.5 of the EIR). Most of the observed species that the commenter classifies as “special-status” are common and widespread species that are not typically given special consideration under CEQA. Second, both subject species (Nuttall’s woodpecker and oak titmouse), as well as the others that were listed in the comment letter exhibit from Dr. Smallwood, are common throughout the region in a variety of environments/land covers ranging from wildlands to suburban developments; habitats that include native oak trees and/or riparian woodland are especially favorable. Both would be expected in the riparian woodland adjacent to the project site and their presence there does not call into question the findings in WRA’s report or conclusions in the relevant sections of the EIR. Further, the project site is heavily disturbed and, save for the riparian corridor which would be avoided and preserved, does not provide high habitat value and function. Loss of this marginal habitat is not significant and would be mitigated through the required compensatory offsite mitigation set forth in the EIR and referenced below.
Response to Comment LIUNA 1-4
This comment is a set of general introductory remarks related to Dr. Smallwood’s assertion that the EIR failed to adequately discuss numerous significant impacts that the project would have on biological resources due to habitat loss, wildlife movement, window collisions, and road mortality. It presents no environmental issues within the meaning of CEQA, and no specific response is required.
Further, the specific issues are addressed in detail below, and no revisions to the EIR are required in response to the comments. The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed project.
Response to Comment LIUNA 1-5
The commenter’s assertion that potential nesting habitat for some bird species would be lost due to land conversion is acknowledged. However, it is unclear how Dr. Smallwood’s numbers were derived, and their validity is questionable. The project site is characterized by non-native annual grassland with a history of disturbance (i.e., semi-regular discing) that is surrounded on three sides by urban development. The highest quality bird nesting habitat present is the riparian corridor along the western periphery of the site, which is outside the footprint of development. The riparian corridor would not be impacted by the project, and the associated wildlife movement corridor and connection with the larger Green Valley Creek riparian corridor would remain intact. The project would not result in the loss of active bird nests with the implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-3, and BIO-4 (preconstruction surveys for nesting birds). In addition, most of the bird species observed on-site are tolerant of anthropogenic activities and disturbance and often occur year-round, inclusive of successful breeding, in developed areas. Furthermore, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 (i.e., acquiring suitable habitat land and permanently preserving Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat or acquiring foraging habitat mitigation credits from a mitigation bank approved by CDFW) would compensate for the loss of foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk and burrowing owl. In Packet Page 583 of 860Attachment 12 Page 14 of 259
Green Valley 3 Final EIR – Late Comments and Responses 4 conclusion, there is no reason to assert that loss of this habitat within the site would constitute a potentially significant impact under CEQA.
Response to Comment LIUNA 1-6
The commenter’s claim that project implementation would result in significant impacts to wildlife movement is unfounded. Above all, wildlife corridors must link two areas of core habitat and should not direct wildlife to developed areas or areas that are otherwise void of core habitat. The project site is a disturbed site with existing development (hardscape) and infrastructure on three sides, including Business Center Drive and Interstate 80 (freeways and associated roadways). The site includes a riparian corridor and drainage in the western portion of the site that presumably provides local movement for common wildlife species as well as aquatic habitat connectivity. However, as stated in the EIR, the riparian zone would be left intact as part of the project and this existing movement corridor connecting to Green Valley Creek would remain unchanged. Regionally common wildlife species are expected to continue to use the riparian corridor west of the residential development area. Only one multi-trunk valley oak would be removed from the northern corner of the site. In addition, most of the bird species observed on-site are tolerant of anthropogenic activities and disturbance and often occur year-round in developed areas. The project would not inhibit the overhead movement or migration of birds. Therefore, the proposed development of the project will not result in any potentially significant impacts on local or regional wildlife movement.
Response to Comment LIUNA 1-7
The commenter references that bird collision impacts are not discussed or mitigated in the EIR.
While avian mortality due to window collisions is a real phenomenon, CEQA-level assessments of this risk are typically limited to developments with an especially high percentage of clear and/or reflective glazing (glass, windows) on exterior facades, and/or other specific elements deemed likely to result in a high rate of collisions. As noted by the commenter, several design factors are associated with the average rate of bird collisions, including the total extent of exterior glazing, size and placement of individual contiguous glazing panels, glazing reflectivity and transparency, and types and siting of landscaping.
Glazing on the GV 3 development is minimal. The glazing included in the project consists entirely of windows for the residential units, all of which are isolated from each other at regular intervals (versus being grouped/conjoined to form larger contiguous window panels), and each is further divided into smaller areas. The elevations also feature forms of architectural relief (overhangs, spatially offset adjacent faces) as well as varied (opaque) materials and colors, all of which would “break up” the exterior visually (i.e., create “visual noise”), and increase the likelihood that birds would perceive the building overall as a solid surface. Finally, balcony guardrails in the development would be made of metal screening, versus transparent glazing (refer to Figures 3-7 and 3-8 in the Draft EIR), which effectively eliminates what may have otherwise been a notable collision risk.
Overall, by current architectural/design standards, the project provides minimal risk of bird collisions. The number of birds that would collide with the building over time is virtually impossible to estimate, and thus speculative. In any event, these impacts are unlikely to be significant at a regional or even local scale. In particular, bird strikes (to the degree that such occur, if at all) are Packet Page 584 of 860Attachment 12 Page 15 of 259
Green Valley 3 Final EIR – Late Comments and Responses 5 more likely to involve common (and not special-status) species given their relative abundance in the area and local conditions. The impact related to bird collisions would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Response to Comment LIUNA 1-8
The commenter calculates how many additional animals will die as roadkill due to the proposed project. However, the validity of the calculations is questionable and relevance to the project site is unclear. The commenter compares the project site, which is located in an urban area with existing traffic, to areas that are significantly different, such as roadways adjacent to significant open space areas in Contra Costa County. The commenter does not explain why the project site, which is located within a developed, urban area, has any similarity to the sites referenced in the comment letter. The nature and type of species identified in the comment letter, including California red- legged frogs (CRLF) and California tiger salamanders (CTS) (both listed species), also demonstrate that the commenter’s reference sites are significantly different than the project site. Road mortality is a concern for CRLF and CTS. However, CTS is not present on the project site or vicinity and, as explained in the Draft EIR, the nearest CRLF breeding site is 1 mile away and due to existing development between the breeding site and the project site, CRLF is unlikely to occur on the project site.
Thus, due to the project location, any species present on the already highly traveled roads surrounding the project site are expected to be common, urban-adapted species, and any increase in traffic associated with the project is not expected to result in significant additional mortality to even the common species. To the extent the project would generate increased vehicle miles traveled (VMT), those miles and vehicles would be allocated to streets in an existing urban environment, as is the character of the surrounding roadway network. It should also be noted that the threshold for CEQA significance is not applicable to non-special-status species unless the project would have a regional impact on the viability of a species or species group, which the project will not. As there would be no impact on special-status wildlife species from road mortality and the impact on common wildlife species would be less than significant, no mitigation is required.
Response to Comment LIUNA 1-9
The commenter suggests the EIR’s biological resources mitigation is insufficient because the required preconstruction surveys fail to detect most species. Preconstruction surveys, as specified under Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-3, and BIO-4, are a common and widely accepted CEQA practice to mitigate impacts to nesting birds, including listed bird species such as Swainson’s hawk or tricolored blackbird, as well as other more common native bird species protected under the MBTA and CFGC. Furthermore, the biological impact analysis analyzed species potential based on their likelihood to occupy habitat in the project area for critical life functions, rather than their simple known presence in the greater vicinity or region, and recommended mitigation, as needed, to reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. The commenter does not acknowledge that the EIR accounts for the potential for special-status species, including Swainson’s hawk, white- tailed kite, and burrowing owl, to occur in the project area and includes mitigation to address the loss of foraging habitat and potential impacts to nesting during construction. For some of the remaining species referenced by the commenter, WRA’s biological report and the Draft EIR outlined Packet Page 585 of 860Attachment 12 Page 16 of 259
Green Valley 3 Final EIR – Late Comments and Responses 6 rationale for why these species are unlikely to occur at the site, namely CRLF. Of the remaining referenced species, willow flycatcher does not breed in the region, least Bell’s vireo is considered effectively extirpated in the region, and western spadefoot is unlikely to occur given the presence of only highly marginal habitat. In summary, no potentially significant impacts to the latter group of species are anticipated due to the project and no avoidance (mitigation) measures related to them are warranted. Further, as explained in LIUNA Response 1-7 and LIUNA Response 1-8, the impacts related to bird strikes and road mortality would be less than significant and no compensatory mitigation is required. The commenter also asserts that mitigation measures should be added to require native landscaping and prohibit the use of rodenticides and poison bait. As specified in Section 3.3.6 of the Draft EIR, new landscape plants would be drought tolerant, native to California or other Mediterranean climates, or other low water use species. The claim that the project would result in a significant impact to special-status species unless a mitigation measure prohibiting the use of rodenticides and poison bait around the building is speculative and unsubstantiated.
Furthermore, highly toxic rodenticides would not be used by the project in compliance with the State’s ban on second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides under the California Ecosystems Protection Act of 2020.
Response to Comment LIUNA 1-10
The commenter claims that the air quality analysis is insufficient because it does not include potential health risks associated with formaldehyde. The commenter claims that future residents of the project would be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde of 120 per million. The commenter states their provided expert evidence demonstrates that the health risk from formaldehyde emissions due to the proposed project will exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) health risk significance threshold. The commenter asserts that the primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea- formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particle board.
A future resident’s indoor air exposure to pollutants is regulated under Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements and State building code standards and is not a CEQA issue. (See, e.g., California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 387 [CEQA contemplates a project’s impacts on the “environment,” not potential impacts on future residents]; Martin v. City and County of San Francisco (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 392 [interior elements of home project not subject to CEQA as they did not implicate an adverse effect on the “environment”].) There are no BAAQMD thresholds for exposure to formaldehyde emissions.
In addition, the claim that the project would result in a significant impact based on the potential for the project to be constructed with composite wood materials containing formaldehyde is considered speculative and based on assumptions regarding project construction and health risk modeling of formaldehyde (specifically the type of ventilation and how various products may off- gas). Further, the project would comply with mandatory and applicable regulatory requirements, many of which were not in place when the homes in the 2009 and 2018 studies referenced by the commenter were built. The applicable requirements are presented below.
The Composite Wood Products Regulation is a California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulation that reduces public exposure to formaldehyde through the establishment of strict emission performance standards on particleboard, medium density fiberboard and hardwood plywood (collectively known Packet Page 586 of 860Attachment 12 Page 17 of 259
Green Valley 3 Final EIR – Late Comments and Responses 7 as composite wood products). The regulation, adopted in 2007, established two phases of emissions standards: an initial Phase I, and later, a more stringent Phase 2 that requires all finished goods, such as flooring, destined for sale or use in California to be made using compliant composite wood products. As of January 2014, only Phase 2 products are legal for sale in California. After March 22, 2019, composite wood products must be labeled Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Title VI compliant. Moreover, the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 62.2 ventilation and air filtration requirements in the state’s Title 24 Building Code improves indoor air quality, and these standards are scheduled to become more stringent with the adoption of the 2022 Title 24 Building Code that the project will comply with.
On December 12, 2016, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the Federal Register a final rule to reduce exposure to formaldehyde emissions from certain wood products produced domestically or imported into the United States. EPA worked with CARB to help ensure the final national rule was consistent with California’s requirements for similar composite wood products (Agency docket number EPA-HQOPPT- 2016-0461 FRL-9949-90).
While the second study cited by the commenter was published in 2018, it assessed homes built in 2011, before the newest CARB formaldehyde standards (Phase 2 standards) were put into place (2014). Thus, these studies do not provide evidence that the project, which will be subject to current building standards, will include particular wood products in the construction of individual homes and result in any significant formaldehyde emissions. In addition, the studies assume that the residential occupants will potentially have a continuous 24 hours per day, 52 weeks per year exposure and 100 percent absorption by the respiratory system over a 70-year period. However, this unrealistic assumption regarding the project residents is unsupported by any information. For these reasons, the project can be distinguished from the homes studied in the 2009 and 2018 studies. Regardless, the use of composite wood products is speculative and subject to federal, State, and regional regulations. No further analysis is required regarding the effects of the environment to residents of the project site.
Response to Comment LIUNA 1-11
The commenter states that there were various changes to the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2016.3.2 (CalEEMod) modeling conducted for the proposed project and asserts that these changes were either inconsistent with information provided in the EIR or otherwise unjustified.
These questioned changes include the following: 1) changes to construction phase lengths; 2) changes to construction equipment; 3) reductions to energy use values; 4) application of operational energy-related mitigation measures; and 5) changes to operational off-road fuel types.
First, emissions were estimated for the project using CalEEMod version 2020.4.0; therefore, the commenter is incorrect that CalEEMod version 2016.3.2 was used.
In addition, the commenter states that there were various changes to the project construction schedule and equipment entered in CalEEMod. As identified on pages 4.2-24 and 4.2-25 of the Draft EIR, the project’s construction duration was based on the project applicant’s anticipated construction schedule, which assumes that construction would begin in Summer 2023 and end in Spring 2025. In addition, the project applicant also provided construction fleet details, which were Packet Page 587 of 860Attachment 12 Page 18 of 259
Green Valley 3 Final EIR – Late Comments and Responses 8 included in CalEEMod. This is consistent with the instructions in the CalEEMod User’s Guide that directs the user to use project and site-specific phasing. As discussed in the CalEEMod User’s Guide, pages 30 through 31, the construction tab contains default information obtained from a survey conducted by South Coast Air Quality Management District of construction sites with a range of project types and sizes and provides default construction equipment lists and phase length data based on the total lot acreage of a project. The User’s Guide states: “If the user has more detailed site-specific equipment and phase information, the user should override the default values.” The analysis properly relied on project-specific construction information which accurately reflects the required construction activities necessary for project buildout. The commenter has not provided any supporting documentation as to why the construction assumptions used in the analysis would not be representative of the project’s construction. The construction analysis is accurate as presented.
In addition, the commenter claims that there were unsubstantiated changes to operational off-road fuel types. The project would not include any operational off-road equipment; however, the analysis did assume that construction of the proposed project would utilize Tier 2 construction equipment, as Tier 2 equipment is required by the CARB In-Use Off-Road Diesel Fueled Fleets Regulation.1 As such, the proposed project would be required to meet this CARB regulation by using a minimum standard of Tier 2 equipment or better during construction.
The commenter also states that there were reductions made to energy use values and energy- related mitigation measures. As discussed on page 4.2-27 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would be all-electric. Since the proposed project would not include natural gas, natural gas usage was removed in CalEEMod as a project feature. In addition, as discussed on page 4.2-27, the proposed project would install LED lighting, ENERGY STAR appliances, PV solar installation,2 low-flow plumbing, water-efficient landscaping, which was included in CalEEMod. As such, these assumptions were included in CalEEMod as project features. This analysis is accurate as presented.
The commenter claims that the EIR’s air quality analysis fails to provide substantial evidence as to the project’s air quality impacts. However, the CalEEMod model allows the user to change the default values and shows these changes in the “output files” after the model run. CalEEMod was designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site- or project-specific information, when available. The model provides several opportunities for the user to change the defaults in the model; and those changes require users to provide justification for all changes made to the default settings (e.g., reference more appropriate data sources). The assumptions outlined in the analysis provide justification for the more accurately estimated project-generated emissions. The commenter’s Updated Analysis incorrectly reverted back substantiated project-specific changes made to CalEEMod and does not reflect the project as proposed. The commenter has not provided
1 California Air Resources Board (CARB). Guide to Off-Road Vehicle & Equipment Regulations. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/offroadzone/pdfs/offroad_booklet.pdf (accessed July 2023). 2 An errata to the Final EIR has been prepared and included with the Staff Report clarifying and confirming that the Applicant had already committed to install (not just reserve) PV solar panels and all associated conduit and infrastructure necessary to cover a minimum of 15 percent of the usable roof areas as a design feature of the project. This commitment is also being included as a condition of the City’s approval of the project.
Packet Page 588 of 860Attachment 12 Page 19 of 259
Green Valley 3 Final EIR – Late Comments and Responses 9 any supporting documentation as to why the assumptions used in the EIR’s analysis would not be representative of the project.
Response to Comment LIUNA 1-12
The commenter states that SWAPE prepared an updated CalEEMod model that purportedly demonstrates that the project would result in a potentially significant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impact that was not disclosed or mitigated in the EIR.
As described in Response to Comment LIUNA 1-11 above, the CalEEMod model allows the user to change the default values and shows these changes in the “output files” after the model run.
CalEEMod was designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site- or project-specific information, when available. The model provides several opportunities for the user to change the defaults in the model; and those changes require users to provide justification for all changes made to the default settings (e.g., reference more appropriate data sources). The assumptions outlined in the analysis provide justification for the more accurately estimated project-generated emissions.
The commenter’s Updated Analysis incorrectly reverted back substantiated project-specific changes made to CalEEMod and does not reflect the project that is currently proposed and evaluated in this EIR. The commenter has not provided any supporting documentation as to why the assumptions used in the EIR’s analysis would not be representative of the project.
As such, the project was properly modeled and analyzed and the EIR appropriately determined that the project would not generate substantial GHG impacts. Therefore, no additional analysis or mitigation is required.
Response to Comment LIUNA 1-13
The commenter claims that all projects must include mitigation measures “to reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy.” In addition, the commenter claims that compliance with Title 24 standards does not constitute an adequate analysis of energy and that a lead agency must still analyze implementation of all “renewable energy options that might have been available or appropriate for a project.”
As described on pages 4.5-8 through 4.5-11 of the Draft EIR, electrical demand associated with project operations would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region. The project would be required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including the Title 24 standards. Title 24 building energy efficiency standards establish minimum efficiency standards related to various building features, including appliances, water and space heating and cooling equipment, building insulation and roofing, and lighting. In addition, the proposed project would include the following sustainability features: photovoltaic (PV) solar panels would be installed to cover a minimum of 15 percent of the usable roof areas; the building would be equipped with automated electrical lighting controls and occupancy sensor technology; all appliances would be electric and ENERGY STAR certified; all water fixtures (faucets, showerheads, and toilets) would be low flow and/or WaterSense certified for low water use; windows would be treated with energy efficient low Packet Page 589 of 860Attachment 12 Page 20 of 259
Green Valley 3 Final EIR – Late Comments and Responses 10 emissivity (Low-E) coatings; paint would have reduced amounts of volatile organic compounds (low VOC) and be Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) version 4 qualified; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment would consist of high-efficiency ENERGY STAR certified condensing units with a seasonal energy efficiency rating (SEER) of 15; roofing material would include an ENERGY STAR rated thermoplastic polyolefin (TPO) membrane to reflect ultraviolet rays and heat from the building; high-efficiency central heat pump boiler system would be installed for efficient hot water distribution throughout the residential building; swimming pool water would be heated using energy from solar panels installed on nearby roof areas; floor systems would be fully insulated, and 2-inch by 6-inch exterior walls would provide added building insulation; energy efficient light-emitting diode (LED) light fixtures would be installed in the apartment building and for exterior lighting; and new landscape plants would be drought tolerant, native to California or other Mediterranean climates, or other low water use species. Although energy consumption is largely a function of personal choice and the physical structure and layout of buildings, due to the features built into the project in compliance with CALGreen, the expected energy consumption during operation of the proposed project is expected to be lower than the typical usage rates for existing multi-family residential uses.
Further, as discussed in Section 4.5.3 of the Draft EIR, thresholds for impacts related to energy used in the analysis are consistent with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, which state that development of the proposed project would result in a potentially significant environmental impact related to energy if it would involve wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation; or conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. In addition, Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines states that EIRs include a discussion of the potential energy impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy. As demonstrated in Section 4.5, Energy, the proposed project would not result in inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy and the project would not result in a significant energy impact based on the energy efficient design features of the project and substantial solar energy to be generated by the rooftop panels referenced above. Further, the project was properly analyzed and the EIR appropriately determined that the project would not result in an inefficient, wasteful or unnecessary use of energy and the impact is considered less than significant. Therefore, no additional analysis or mitigation is required.
Response to Comment LIUNA 1-14
The comment requests that the Commissioners refrain from approving the EIR until the document is revised and recirculated. It presents no environmental issues within the meaning of CEQA, and no specific response is required. However, for the record, based on the preceding responses, the City has determined that the EIR is compliant with CEQA and no recirculation is required.
The comment letter and its attachments will be included in its entirety as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed project.
Packet Page 590 of 860Attachment 12 Page 21 of 259
Green Valley 3 Final EIR – Late Comments and Responses 11 ATTACHMENT 1
LIUNA LETTER EXHIBITS
Packet Page 591 of 860Attachment 12 Page 22 of 259
EXHIBIT A
Packet Page 592 of 860Attachment 12 Page 23 of 259
1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
City of Fairfield Community Development Department
1000 Webster Street
Fairfield, California 94533 28 March 2023
RE: Green Valley III Apartments
To Whom It May Concern,
I write to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and WRA’s (2022) memo on biological resources that were prepared in support of the proposed Green Valley III Apartments Project, which I understand would add 204,144 square feet of apartments (185 rental units) is a single 55-foot-tall building on 5.8 acres located on APN 148‐540‐350 at 4840 Business Center Drive. The project would include a 3,471- square-foot dog run next to what is referred to as a drainage ditch, but which supports a mature riparian woodland and drains directly into Green Valley Creek.
My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D. degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I also worked as a post- graduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, wildlife interactions with the anthrosphere, and conservation of rare and endangered species. I authored many papers on these and other topics. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society – Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife Society and Raptor Research Foundation, and I’ve lectured part-time at California State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of wildlife biology’s premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for thirty-seven years. My CV is attached.
SITE VISITS
I visited the site of the proposed project for 2.67 hours from 07:20 to 10:00 hours on 4 March 2023, and for 2.75 hours from 16:50 to 19:35 hours on 25 March 2023. I walked the site’s western perimeter, stopping to scan for wildlife with use of binoculars. I recorded all species of vertebrate wildlife I detected, including those whose members flew over the site or were seen nearby, off the site. I either omitted animals of uncertain species identity, or I recorded them to the Genus or higher taxonomic level. Conditions were mostly cloudy with a few showers and winds of 0 to 19 mph and temperatures ranging 44―50° F on the 4th, and scattered clouds with winds 0 to 10 mph and temperatures of 60―53° F on the 25th. The site was covered by a non-native annual grassland inclusive of riparian woodland along the west side (Photos 1―4), residential to the north, office buildings to the east and a new hotel building to the south.
Packet Page 593 of 860Attachment 12 Page 24 of 259
2 Photos 1 and 2. View to the east of the project site (top) and of the stream within the riparian woodland on the west side, 25 March 2023.
Packet Page 594 of 860Attachment 12 Page 25 of 259
3 Photos 3 and 4. Views of the riparian woodland on the project’s west side, including of mature oaks, 4 March 2023.
During my first survey, I detected 34 species of vertebrate wildlife at the project site, including 6 species with special status (Table 1). During my second survey, I detected 38 species of vertebrate wildlife at the project site, including 6 species with special status (Table 1). My second survey increased my totals to 49 species of wildlife, including 8 special-status species. A striking survey outcome was the difference in the species I detected between the surveys. Also striking was my failure during my second survey to detect certain species that were readily detectable only 3 weeks earlier. The converse was also true. During my first survey, I repeatedly saw white-crowned sparrow, which I could not find during my second survey, and during my second survey I saw one great egret after another fly northward over the project site, over which I previously saw no great egrets. And many Sierran treefrogs called during my second survey, but not during my first. Additional examples of differences in survey outcomes are evident in Table 1.
Packet Page 595 of 860Attachment 12 Page 26 of 259
4 Table 1. Species of wildlife I observed during 5.42 hours of survey on 4th and 25th March 2023.
Common name Species name Status1 Survey Notes
California slender salamander Batrachoseps attenuatus Both Riparian woodland Sierran treefrog Pseudacris sierra 2nd Riparian woodland Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Both Flyovers, males chasing females Double-crested cormorant Nannopterum auritum TWL 2nd Pair flew over Rock pigeon Columba livia Non-native Both Perched, office building Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Both Pairs
Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Non-native 2nd Grassland Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna Both Territory defense; foraged on site Ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis Both Flyovers
California gull Larus californicus BCC, TWL Both Flyovers Great blue heron Ardea herodias 1st Flyover
Great egret Ardea alba 2nd Flyovers in evening
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Both Numerous flyovers Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii TWL, BOP Both Captured bird on site; pair Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, BCC, CFP, TWL,
BOP
2nd
Flyover
Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP 1st Calling
Downy woodpecker Dryobates pubescens 1st Riparian woodland Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Both Riparian woodland Northern flicker Colaptes auratus Both Riparian woodland Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans 2nd Foraged on site
California scrub-jay Aphelocoma californica Both Pair
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Both Grassland and riparian Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Both Riparian woodland Cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota 2nd Foraged on site Northern rough-winged
swallow
Stelgidopteryx
serripennis
2nd Foraged on site
Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor Both Foraged on site
Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus 1st Flock
Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula Both Riparian woodland White-breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis Both Riparian woodland Packet Page 596 of 860Attachment 12 Page 27 of 259
5 Common name Species name Status1 Survey Notes
European starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native Both Flying all around Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum 2nd 2 large flocks
Western bluebird Sialia mexicana Both Foraged on site
Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus 2nd Riparian woodland
American robin Turdus migratorius Both Grassland and riparian Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos 2nd Foraged on site House finch Haemorphous mexicanus Both Foraged on site Chipping sparrow Spizella passerina 1st Riparian woodland Fox sparrow Passerella iliaca 1st Riparian woodland
White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys 1st Foraged on site Golden-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla 2nd Riparian woodland Song sparrow Melospiza melodia Both Grassland and riparian California towhee Melozone crissalis 1st Riparian woodland Spotted towhee Pipilo maculatus Both Riparian woodland Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta Both Flock
Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus 2nd Flyover
Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata Both Foraged on site Bat Myotis sp. 2nd Small bat in riparian
Fox squirrel Sciurus niger Non-native Both Copulated
1 Listed as BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, CFP = California Fully Protected (California Fish and Game Code 3511), TWL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), BOP = Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5).
Packet Page 597 of 860Attachment 12 Page 28 of 259
6 I saw Cooper’s hawk and red-shouldered hawk (Photos 5 and 6), oak titmouse (Photos 7 and 8), Nuttall’s woodpecker and downy woodpecker (Photos 9 and 10), California scrub-jay and California towhee (Photos 11 and 12), ruby-crowned kinglet and bushtit (Photos 13 and 14), yellow-rumped warbler and song sparrow (Photos 15 and 16), white- breasted nuthatch and fox sparrow (Photo 17 and 18), California slender salamander (Photo 19), black phoebe (Photos 20 and 21), hermit thrush and northern flicker (Photos 22 and 23), and great egrets (Photo 24), among the other species listed in Table 1. I saw an abundance of wildlife at the project site within only a short time.
The riparian woodland on the project site’s western edge is mature and connects to Green Valley Creek. It supports many birds. A large group of oak titmouse followed me around, calling all the while. Anna’s hummingbirds actively defended breeding territories. A red-shouldered hawk incessantly called for mates, and received some call - backs from nearby. A Cooper’s hawk resided in the woodland until it flew off to forage over the grassland of the project site. During my second survey, I saw a Cooper’s hawk carry a bird it caught from the grassland of the project site to its mate in the riparian woodland. Sparrows of various species were abundant, as were bushtits and tree swallows and ruby-crowned kinglets and yellow-rumped warblers. Nuttall’s woodpeckers and downy woodpeckers were also prominently present while I was there.
Several times, a large flock of western meadowlarks flew off the grassland of the project site to relocate. House finches were also abundant, and fully involved in courtship behaviors. The project site is of high value to wildlife, and it is productive.
Photos 5 and 6. Cooper’s hawk (left) and red-shouldered hawk (right) on the project site, 4 March 2023. The Cooper’s hawk foraged over the grass field, and the red- shouldered hawk repeatedly called for a mate.
Packet Page 598 of 860Attachment 12 Page 29 of 259
7 Photos 7 and 8. Oak titmouse on the project site, 4 March 2023. Oak titmouse is a US Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern.
Photos 9 and 10. Nuttall’s woodpecker (left) and downy woodpecker (right) on the project site, 4 March 2023.
Packet Page 599 of 860Attachment 12 Page 30 of 259
8 Photos 11 and 12. California scrub-jay (left) and California towhee (right) at the project site, 4 March 2023.
Photos 13 and 14. Ruby-crowned kinglet (left) and bushtit (right) on the project site, 4 March 2023.
Packet Page 600 of 860Attachment 12 Page 31 of 259
9 Photos 15 and 16. Yellow-rumped warbler (left) and song sparrow (right) on the project site, 4 March 2023.
Photos 17 and 18. White-breasted nuthatch (left) and fox sparrow (right) on the project site, 4 March 2023.
Packet Page 601 of 860Attachment 12 Page 32 of 259
10 Photo 19. California slender salamander in the riparian woodland on the west side of the project site, 25 March 2023.
Photo 20.
Black phoebe
hunting on the
project site, 25
March 2023.
Packet Page 602 of 860Attachment 12 Page 33 of 259
11 Photo 21. Black phoebe flycatching for gnats where the project’s dog run is proposed.
Photos 22 and 23. Hermit thrush (left) and northern flicker (right) adjacent to the site of the proposed dog run, 25 March 2023.
Packet Page 603 of 860Attachment 12 Page 34 of 259
12 Photo 24. One of multiple great egrets that flew northward over the project site in the evening, 25 March 2023.
EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The first step in analysis of potential project impacts to biological resources is to accurately characterize the existing environmental setting, including the biological species that use the site, their relative abundances, how they use the site, key ecological relationships, and known and ongoing threats to those species with special status. A reasonably accurate characterization of the environmental setting can provide the basis for determining whether the site holds habitat value to wildlife, as well as a baseline against which to analyze potential project impacts. For these reasons, characterization of the environmental setting, including the project’s site’s regional setting, is one of CEQA’s essential analytical steps (§15125). Methods to achieve this first step typically include (1) surveys of the site for biological resources, and (2) reviews of literature, databases and local experts for documented occurrences of special-status species. In the case of this project, these essential steps remain incomplete and misleading.
Environmental Setting informed by Field Surveys
To CEQA’s primary objective to disclose potential environmental impacts of a proposed project, the analysis of potential project impacts benefits from identifying as many as Packet Page 604 of 860Attachment 12 Page 35 of 259
13 reasonably possible the biological species that occur at the project site, and the special- status species that are otherwise likely to occur. It is also important to disclose the limitations of the survey effort directed to the project site. Analysts need this information to characterize the environmental setting as a basis for opining on, or predicting, potential project impacts to biological resources.
The DEIR prepared for Green Valley III inaccurately characterizes the wildlife community as part of the existing environmental setting, and it fails to disclose the limitations of the surveys that were implemented to sample the species composing the wildlife community. According to the DEIR (2023:4.3-1), “Detailed field surveys of the project site were conducted by WRA for the preparation of the Biological Assessment and a reconnaissance-level survey was conducted by LSA to confirm the information presented in the Biological Assessment and document current site conditions.” WRA (2022) reports having surveyed for plants and wildlife on 30 March 2021, and the DEIR reports that LSA completed a survey on 3 February 2022, but no details of this latter survey appear in any of the CEQA documents I reviewed, such as exactly who performed the surveys, when the surveys started and how long they lasted. The DEIR refers to App.
C for a list of all the wildlife species detected by LSA, but App. C lists only those species detected by WRA; because the LSA survey was completed one year later, its results could not have been included in App. C. Although the DEIR reports that the LSA survey was undertaken to confirm the findings of WRA (2022), no such confirmation is reported, nor is it explained what exactly was intended to be confirmed other than “information.”
It is also unclear what the DEIR means by its report that WRA conducted detailed “field surveys” of the project site. The survey was a reconnaissance-level survey, which means that the biologists simply wandered around the site looking for whatever species of plants and animals that their experience prepared them to find during some portion of a single day of the year. It is unclear whether the detailed survey refers to the methods implemented by WRA or to their findings, but either way, details are lacking.
The effort directed toward identifying species of wildlife that occur at the site were deficient, as was the effort to identify those special-status species likely to occur. WRA’s (2022) survey objectives were to “evaluate the potential presence of sensitive vegetation communities and aquatic features, and the potential for the Study Area to support special‐status plant and wildlife species.” WRA (2022) leaves unclear how these evaluations were performed, other than having two biologists traverse the site on foot on 30 March 2021. No details are described about the pedestrian survey, such as when it began and how long it lasted, nor are any metrics or standards of evaluation defined. It is implied, however, that those species of wildlife that were detected by the biologists composed the wildlife community, and that those species of wildlife that were not detected are absent from the project site’s wildlife community. This latter implication is unsupportable without the completion of protocol-level detection surveys (see below).
WRA (2022) reports that none of the wildlife species they detected on site were special- status species. The DEIR (2023:4.3-7) adds that “No special-status wildlife species were observed during the site surveys conducted by WRA or LSA.” But this reporting is Packet Page 605 of 860Attachment 12 Page 36 of 259
14 inaccurate. In fact, four of the species that were detected by WRA were special-status species, including oak titmouse, red-tailed hawk, red-shouldered hawk and turkey vulture. As for any other special-status species of wildlife, having not detected them during a reconnaissance-level survey is irrelevant, because absence determinations can be supported only by meeting the minimum standards of the available protocol-level detection surveys prepared for each species, or alternatively by meeting the minimum standards of detection surveys generally, i.e., by use of best scientific practices (see below).
WRA failed to detect most of the species of wildlife that occur at the site. Although WRA deployed two biologists to their survey, WRA detected only 18 species of wildlife, or about half the number I detected after my first survey and only 37% of the number I detected after both of my surveys. WRA detected 2 (11%) species that I did not, including red-tailed hawk and raccoon, but I detected 33 (67%) species that WRA did not. Between their survey and mine, we detected 51 species of wildlife at the project site.
Yet, even this number comprised only a sampling of the wildlife that rely on the site as habitat.
Reconnaissance-level surveys cannot support species’ absence determinations, but they can be useful for confirming presence of species that were detected, but they can also be useful for estimating the number of species that were not detected. One can model the pattern in species detections during a survey as a means to estimate the number of species that used the site but were undetected during the survey. To support such a modeling effort, the observer needs to record the times into the survey when each species was first detected. The cumulative number of species’ detections increases with increasing survey time, but eventually with diminishing returns (Figure 1). Due to reporting shortfalls, I was unable to model the pattern of species detections from WRA’s survey, and most certainly not from LSA’s survey, but I could model my own pattern of species detections at the project site.
In the case of my survey of 4 March 2023, the pattern in the data predicts that had I spent more time on the site, or had I help from additional biologists, I would have detected 48 species of vertebrate wildlife that day, which would have been 50% more species than I actually detected (Figure 1). On 25 March 2023, the pattern in the data indicates that I would have continued detecting additional species indefinitely had I continued the survey, but in reality, darkness was approaching and my detection rate would have dropped off had I continued the survey. The pattern in the data also indicates the site’s wildlife species richness exceeds the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval estimated from other project sites I have surveyed in the East Bay Region (Figure 1). The site supports a richer community of wildlife species than most other sites I have surveyed in the region.
Packet Page 606 of 860Attachment 12 Page 37 of 259
15 Figure 1. Actual (circles)
and predicted (lines)
relationships between the
number of vertebrate
wildlife species detected and
the elapsed survey time
based on my visual-scan
surveys on 4 and 25 March
2023, and compared to the
mean and 95% CI of 18
surveys I completed at sites
proposed for projects in the
East Bay Region of
California. Note that the
relationship would differ if
the survey was based on
another method or during
another season.
The site supports many species of wildlife, including many more than I could detect during a brief reconnaissance-level survey. However, although this modeling approach is useful for more realistically representing the species richness of the site at the time of a survey, it cannot represent the species richness throughout the year or across multiple years because many species are seasonal or even multi-annual in their movement patterns and in their occupancy of habitat.
By use of an analytical bridge, a modeling effort applied to a much larger, more robust data set at a research site can predict the number of vertebrate wildlife species likely making use of the site over the longer term. As part of my research, I completed a much larger survey effort across 167 km2 of annual grasslands of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, where from 2015 through 2019 I performed 721 1-hour visual-scan surveys, or 721 hours of surveys, at 46 stations. I used binoculars and otherwise the methods were the same as the methods I and other consulting biologists use for surveys at proposed project sites. At each of the 46 survey stations at my research site, I tallied new species detected with each sequential survey at that station, and then related the cumulative species detected to the hours (number of surveys, as each survey lasted 1 hour) used to accumulate my counts of species detected. I used combined quadratic and simplex methods of estimation in Statistica to estimate least-squares, best-fit nonlinear models of the number of cumulative species detected regressed on hours of survey (number of surveys) at the station: 𝑅̂=1
1 𝑎⁄+𝑎×(𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑟)𝑐 , where 𝑅̂ represented cumulative
Y03/25/23
Y03/04/23
Model prediction
r2 = 0.99, loss = 24.2
95% CI of visual-
scan surveys 2019-2022
03/04/23 count of species
Model prediction
r2 = 0.99, loss = 56.5
03/25/23 count of species
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Minutes into survey
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 Cumulative number of wildlife species detectedPacket Page 607 of 860Attachment 12 Page 38 of 259
16 species richness detected. The coefficients of determination, r2, of the models ranged
0.88 to 1.00, with a mean of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96, 0.98); or in other words, the models were excellent fits to the data.
I projected the predictions of each model to thousands of hours to find predicted asymptotes of wildlife species richness. The mean model-predicted asymptote of species richness was 57 after 11,857 hours of visual-scan surveys among the 46 stations. I also averaged model predictions of species richness at each incremental increase of number of surveys, i.e., number of hours (Figure 2). On average I detected 11.7 species over the first 2.67 hours of surveys in the Altamont Pass (2.67 hours to match the number of hours I surveyed at the project site ont he 4th), which composed 20.5% of the total predicted species I would detect with a much larger survey effort. Given the example illustrated in Figure 2, the 34 species I detected after 2.67 hours of survey at the project site on the 4th likely represented 20.5% of the species to be detected after many more visual-scan surveys over another year or longer. With many more repeat surveys through the year, I would likely detect 34 0.205⁄=166 species of vertebrate wildlife at the site. Assuming my ratio of special-status to non-special-status species was to hold through the detections of all 166 predicted species, then continued surveys would eventually detect 29 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife.
Figure 2. Mean (95% CI)
predicted wildlife species
richness, 𝑅̂, as a nonlinear
function of hour-long
survey increments across
46 visual-scan survey
stations across the
Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area, Alameda
and Contra Costa
Counties, 2015‒2019.
Repeating the same estimation steps as above, but applied to the combined outcome of both of my surveys, would predict 154 species of vertebrate wildlife would be detected at the project site over one or more years of surveys. It would also predict the detection of 25 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife. Again, however, my prediction of 154 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 25 special-status species, is derived from visual- 0 20 40 60 80 1000
10 20
30 40
50 Cumulative number of surveys (hours)(95% CI)Packet Page 608 of 860Attachment 12 Page 39 of 259
17 scan surveys during the daytime, and would not detect many nocturnal birds and mammals. The true number of species composing the wildlife community of the site must be larger. A single reconnaissance-level survey should serve only as a starting point toward characterization of a site’s wildlife community, but it certainly cannot alone inform of the inventory of species that use the site. In the case of WRA’s (2022) survey, WRA detected 18 wildlife species of the 154 that my empirical model predicts, or only 11.7% of the species composition of the wildlife community. The DEIR’s impacts analysis is based on a sampling of only 11.7% of the species of wildlife likely to use the site, which is grossly deficient. Even more deficient, WRA (2022) reports nothing about the species of wildlife they detected, such as where they were located, their abundance and what they were doing there. Much more effort is needed to accurately characterize the wildlife community as part of the existing environmental setting. In the meantime, the DEIR lacks the basis needed for concluding that impacts to wildlife would be less than significant, even with mitigation.
Environmental Setting informed by Desktop Review
The purpose of literature and database review, and of consulting with local experts, is to inform the reconnaissance-level survey, to augment it, and to help determine which protocol-level detection surveys should be implemented. Analysts need this information to identify which species are known to have occurred at or near the project site, and to identify which other special-status species could conceivably occur at the site due to geographic range overlap and site conditions. This step is important because the reconnaissance-level survey is not going to detect all of the species of wildlife that make use of the site. This step can identity those species yet to be detected at the site but which have been documented to occur nearby or whose available habitat associations are consistent with site conditions. Some special-status species can be ruled out of further analysis, but only if compelling evidence is available in support of such determinations.
Insufficient use was made of the available databases of wildlife species occurrences.
Perhaps for this reason, WRA (2022) analyzes the occurrence potentials of only 27 special-status species out of the 120 such species listed in Table 2, or only 22.5% of the species in Table 2. Of these 27 species, WRA determines 25 (92.6%) to have no potential or to unlikely occur at the site. And of these 25 species, 2 have been documented just off site, another 6 have been documented within 1.5 miles and another 4 have been documented within 1.5 and 4 miles of the site. Half of the special-status species that WRA (2022) determines to have no potential or to be unlikely have been documented within only a few miles of the project site. There would have to be very compelling reasons for determining that these species have no potential or are unlikely to occur at the site. Two of these species seen very close to the site were seen by me, including northern harrier and tricolored blackbird, both species of which could readily occur on the project site. I see no reason for determining these species to be unlikely to occur at the site. Two species seen just offsite include golden eagle and loggerhead shrike, but WRA determines these species are unlikely to occur on the site. Again, why? A golden eagle occurring within 1.5 miles away could be at the project site within 5 minutes (Smallwood 2016). Based on my experience, the site appears to be ideal loggerhead Packet Page 609 of 860Attachment 12 Page 40 of 259
18 shrike habitat (Smallwood and Smallwood 2022). And during my second survey, a golden eagle flew over the project site.
WRA (2022:5) reports “No burrowing owls have been documented within 3 miles of the Study Area (CDFW 2022, eBird 2022). As such, burrowing owl is assessed as unlikely to occur within the Study Area.” This determination is inappropriate, as it inappropriately interprets California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) and eBird. As noted by CNDDB, “The CNDDB is a positive sighting database. It does not predict where something may be found. We map occurrences only where we have documentation that the species was found at the site. There are many areas of the state where no surveys have been conducted and therefore there is nothing on the map. That does not mean that there are no special status species present.” CNDDB and eBird rely entirely on volunteer reporting from biologists who were allowed access to whatever properties they report from. Many properties have never been surveyed by biologists. Many properties have been surveyed, but the survey outcomes never reported to CNDDB or eBird. Many properties have been surveyed multiple times, but not all survey outcomes reported to CNDDB or eBird. WRA (2022) misuses CNDDB and eBird.
WRA (2022) does provide reasons why northern harriers, golden eagles and tricolored blackbirds and loggerhead shrikes are unlikely to occur at the project site. However, the reasons given are flawed. Golden eagles are described as nesting in cliff-walled canyons, but this is not the case in the region of the project site. In fact, the highest nesting density recorded worldwide is on the north side of the Diablo Range not far from the project site, and the golden eagles there do not nest in cliff-walled canyons. Regardless, WRA (2022) attempts to distinguish nesting habitat from foraging habitat, which is a false distinction. No animal can successfully nest without finding sufficient forage during both the breeding and non-breeding seasons. Habitat is habitat, which is defined as that part of the environment used by members of a given species (Hall et al. 1997).
WRA’s determination that golden eagles are unlikely to occur due to the project site’s lack of cliff-walled canyons is misleading.
For tricolored blackbirds, WRA (2022) again argues that breeding habitat does not occur on the project site, so tricolored blackbirds are unlikely to occur. WRA reports that breeding habitat is either marsh or willow thickets. But this is not true. I documented tricolored blackbirds nesting in annual grassland. But even where they nest in marsh or willow thickets, which I agree is usually where they nest, breeding tricolored blackbirds must forage over grassland, often at great distances from their breeding sites.
I have seen tricolored blackbirds foraging in the area of the project site, which means that they are likely breeding nearby. But again, whether the project site includes breeding substrate is not determinative of whether the site includes habitat for tricolored blackbirds. WRA (2022) contrives a false distinction between breeding habitat and other types of habitat, and assigns a false value to one type over another.
WRA (2022) argues that northern harriers are unlikely because “The Study Area is disturbed and nearly surrounded by development.” I concur that the site is disturbed and nearly surrounded by development, and I would agree that these factors are negative factors on the occurrence likelihood of northern harrier. However, there are Packet Page 610 of 860Attachment 12 Page 41 of 259
19 fewer and fewer places for northern harriers to survive, so they occur where they must.
If disturbance was a determining factor, assuming we can agree on what is meant by disturbance, northern harriers would be extinct by now. As for the site representing a habitat fragment surrounded by development, I have many times recorded northern harriers in such places. For example, on 16 October 2019, I saw one foraging a 32-acre site that was completely surrounded by warehouses located only one mile away from the project site. In recent years, I have recorded northern harrier at 9 sites of proposed projects that were completely surrounded by development, and at 16 sites that were incompletely surrounded by development. The reasons WRA (2022) cites for unlikely occurrence of northern harrier lack foundation.
WRA (2022) argues that loggerhead shrikes are unlikely because “The Study Area is disturbed and nearly surrounded by development, reducing potential for occurrence.
Not observed during site visits.” As above in the case of northern harrier, I concur with the description of the site as disturbed and nearly surrounded by development, but I cannot agree that these conditions reduce the potential of loggerhead shrike occurrence to the degree that a determination of unlikely occurrence is justified. In recent years I recorded loggerhead shrikes at three sites completely surrounded by development and at 13 sites nearly completely surrounded by development. WRA (2022) mischaracterizes loggerhead shrike habitat and mischaracterizes the occurrence likelihood of loggerhead shrike at the project site.
WRA (2022) reports multiple additional inaccurate determinations of occurrence likelihood of special-status species of wildlife. WRA reports that the site includes only one tree that is suitable for nesting, but this is simply not true. White-tailed kites can nest in any or the trees in the riparian woodland on the project’s west side or in the trees within the grass field (Erichsen et al. 1995, Smallwood unpublished data). And even if white-tailed kites nest nearby but not on the site, the nesting white-tailed kites would need the project site for forage in support of their breeding effort. On 18 November 2019, I saw white-tailed kites on the west side of the Green Valley II project site, only
0.5 miles east of the Green Valley III project site. It is highly likely that these white- tailed kites, only 0.5 miles away, also make use of the Green Valley III project site, as over the last several years I have followed white-tailed kites returning from their nest sites from foraging up to several miles away.
WRA (2022) reports that the site lacks cliffs and man -made structures needed to support peregrine falcon nests. This is another contrivance that all a species needs to successfully breed is a suitable nest structure, and not forage and all of the other resources in the species’ habitat. Areas that provide peregrine falcons with forage are just as important as the availability of nest substrate. Peregrine falcons must be nesting nearby, as I recently saw one only 4 miles away in Fairfield when it arrived to an annual grassland to forage (Figure 17). Unfortunately, that annual grassland no longer exists, having been replaced by a warehouse. The Green Valley III site, therefore, has been elevated in its importance to the peregrine falcons that nest in the area.
Packet Page 611 of 860Attachment 12 Page 42 of 259
20 Photo 17. Peregrine falcon
at a project site 4 miles east
of the Green Valley III site,
18 September 2021.
Despite the title of WRA’s memo to the project applicant, due diligence is lacking in the DEIR’s desktop review of wildlife species occurrences. WRA (2022) repeatedly pigeon - holes species into unrealistically narrow portions of the environment, and then reports that the contrived habitat is missing from the project site. The evidence refutes WRA’s reporting. WRA (2022) also fails to consider the occurrence potentials of most of the special-status species of wildlife that could occur at the site (Table 2).
In my assessment based on database reviews and a site visit, 120 special-status species of wildlife are known to occur near enough to the site to be analyzed for occurrence potential at one time or another (Table 2). Of these, 13 (10.8%) were confirmed on the site or immediately adjacent to the site by my survey visit, and 34 (28.3%) have been documented in databases within 1.5 miles of the site (‘Very close’), 19 (15.8%) within 1.5 and 4 miles (‘Nearby’), and another 51 (42.5%) within 4 to 30 miles (‘In region’). More than half (55%) of the species in Table 2 have been reportedly seen within 4 miles of the project site. The site therefore likely supports more special-status species of wildlife than I saw there. On any given day, one or more yet-to-be documented special-status species likely make use of the project site, but being there to document that use probably requires multiple surveys (see Figures 1 and 2). Reconnaissance-level surveys are not designed to support absence determinations of any of these species Therefore, sufficient survey effort should be directed to the site to either confirm the species in Table 2 use the site or to support absence determinations.
Packet Page 612 of 860Attachment 12 Page 43 of 259
21 Detection Surveys
Protocol-level detection surveys have been formulated for special-status species. It is these surveys that are most likely to detect species where the species occurs at a site, and it is these surveys that can support determinations of absence. If such a survey has not been formulated for a particular special-status species, then usually biologists can apply the protocol formulated for related species. For each special-status species, appropriate methods need to be implemented with sufficient effort over the appropriate times of day and season(s) of the year to maximize the likelihood of detection should the species be present. So long as performance standards are achieved, detection survey outcomes either confirm the species’ presence or support an absence determination.
WRA (2022) implemented no protocol-level detection surveys for any species of wildlife.
To support determinations of occurrence likelihoods such as “No potential” and “Unlikely,” WRA (2022) would have needed to complete detection surveys or otherwise to have provided very compelling arguments. The arguments were not compelling, and for those species I addressed in my earlier comments, the arguments were readily refuted. The detection surveys for Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl, and other special- status species were formulated to prevent biased occurrence likelihood determinations and subsequent weak or misleading foundation for the DEIR’s impacts analyses. Partly because no detection surveys have been implemented, the DEIR’s characterization of the existing environmental setting is inaccurate.
In the case of this project, the detection surveys that were appropriate as foundation for the impacts analysis are inappropriately proposed solely as mitigation measures.
Furthermore, the surveys that are typically applied as detection surveys would, in this case, be applied as preconstruction, take-avoidance surveys. Preconstruction surveys are not the same type of survey as detection surveys, as they pursue entirely different objectives and they cannot be implemented to the same standards of rigor. For example, breeding-season detection surveys for burrowing owls require at least 4 surveys, each separated by 3 weeks, and the first to be completed prior to a specific date and the last to be completed after another specific date. A preconstruction survey cannot meet this schedule. To report that the CDFW (2012) survey guidelines would be completed as a mitigation measure for burrowing owls is misleading. The same is true for the proposed surveys for Monarch butterfly, Swainson’s hawk and breeding birds.
In the case of Swainson’s hawk, the DEIR summarizes the preconstruction survey guidelines (CDFW 2000), but neglects to summarize the detection survey guidelines and their intended timing relative to CEQA review. According to CEC and CDFW (2010), “The following survey protocols and monitoring/mitigation recommendations suggest surveys and acquisition of mitigation lands prior to construction of the project if nests are found within five miles of a project site.”
Packet Page 613 of 860Attachment 12 Page 44 of 259
22 Table 2. Occurrence likelihoods of special-status bird species at or near the proposed project site, according to eBird/iNaturalist records ( https://eBird.org , https://www.inaturalist.org) and on-site survey findings, where ‘Very close’ indicates within 1.5 miles of the site, “nearby” indicates within 1.5 and 4 miles, and “in region” indicates within 4 and 30 miles, and ‘in range’ means the species’ geographic range overlaps the site.
Common name
Species name
Status1
Occurrence
potential
WRA
2022
Database
records,
Site visits
California freshwater shrimp Syncaris pacifica FE, CE None In region Monarch Danaus plexippus FC Unlikely Very close
Crotch’s bumble bee Bombus crotchii CCE In region
California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense FT, CT, WL In region California giant salamander Dicamptodon ensatus SSC None In region Red-bellied newt Taricha rivularis SSC In region
Foothill yellow-legged frog Rana boylii CT, SSC None Nearby California red-legged frog Rana draytonii FT, SSC Unlikely In region Western pond turtle Emys marmorata SSC Unlikely Very close Brant Branta bernicla SSC2 In region
Cackling goose (Aleutian) Branta hutchinsii leucopareia WL Nearby Redhead Aythya americana SSC2 Very close
Harlequin duck Histrionicus histrionicus SSC2 In region Barrow’s goldeneye Bucephala islandica SSC In region
Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis BCC Nearby
Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii BCC Nearby
Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis FT, CE, BCC Unlikely In region Black swift Cypseloides niger SSC3, BCC Nearby
Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2, BCC Very close
Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae BCC In region
Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC Very close
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC Very close
Yellow rail Coturnicops noveboracensis SSC, BCC None In region Lesser sandhill crane Antigone canadensis canadensis SSC3 In region Packet Page 614 of 860Attachment 12 Page 45 of 259
23 Common name
Species name
Status1
Occurrence
potential
WRA
2022
Database
records,
Site visits
Mountain plover Charadrius montanus SSC2, BCC Unlikely Nearby Snowy plover Charadrius nivosus BCC Nearby
Western snowy plover Charadrius nivosus nivosus FT, SSC, BCC None In region Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus BCC In region
Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus BCC, WL Very close Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa BCC Nearby
Red knot (Pacific) Calidris canutus BCC In region
Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus BCC Nearby
Willet Tringa semipalmata BCC Very close
Laughing gull Leucophaeus atricilla WL In region
Heermann’s gull Larus heermanni BCC In region
Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC Very close
California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL On site
California least tern Sternula antillarum browni FE, CE, FP None In region Caspian tern Hydroprogne caspia BCC Nearby
Black tern Chlidonias niger SSC2, BCC In region
Elegant tern Thalasseus elegans BCC, WL In region
Black skimmer Rynchops niger BCC, SSC3 In region
Common loon Gavia immer SSC Nearby
Brandt’s cormorant Urile penicillatus BCC In region
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL Very close American white pelican Pelacanus erythrorhynchos SSC1, BCC Very close California brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis californicus FP In region Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis SSC2 In region
White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi WL Very close
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP On site
Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL, BOP Just off site
White-tailed kite Elanus luecurus CFP, WL, BOP Moderate Very close Packet Page 615 of 860Attachment 12 Page 46 of 259
24 Common name
Species name
Status1
Occurrence
potential
WRA
2022
Database
records,
Site visits
Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, CFP, BOP Unlikely Just off site Northern harrier Circus cyaneus BCC, SSC3, BOP Unlikely Very close Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Just off site Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP On site
Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis SSC2 In region
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus BGEPA, BCC, CFP Very close Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP On site
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP Moderate Very close Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Very close
Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL, BOP Just off site
Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus BOP Just off site
Barn owl Tyto alba BOP Very close
Western screech-owl Megascops kennicotti BCC, BOP Very close Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP Very close
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, SSC2, BOP Unlikely Nearby Long-eared owl Asio Otis BCC, SSC3 In region
Short-eared owl Asia flammeus BCC, SSC3, BOP Unlikely Very close Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC Very close
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC On site
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Very close
Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP Just off site
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus CFP, BCC, BOP Unlikely Very close Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus BCC, WL, BOP Very close Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi BCC, SSC2 Nearby Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii CE, BCC Very close Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 In region Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE, CE In region Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus BCC, SSC2 Unlikely Just off site Packet Page 616 of 860Attachment 12 Page 47 of 259
25 Common name
Species name
Status1
Occurrence
potential
WRA
2022
Database
records,
Site visits
Yellow-billed magpie Pica nuttalli BCC Very close
Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC On site
California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL Very close Bank swallow Riparia riparia CT In region
Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 Nearby
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC Very close
California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC Very close Cassin’s finch Haemorhous cassinii BCC Nearby
Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Very close
Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 Nearby
Samuels song sparrow Melospiza melodia samuelis BCC, SSC None In region Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis BCC In region Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri BCC In region
Bell’s sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL, BCC Nearby
Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2, BCC In region Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 In region
Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus SSC3 None In region Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC Very close
Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC, SSC1 Unlikely Very close Lucy’s warbler Leiothlypis luciae SSC3, BCC In region
Virginia’s warbler Leiothlypis virginiae WL, BCC In region San Francisco common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas sinuosa SSC3, BCC Unlikely In range Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia BCC, SSC2 Very close Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 In region
Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG:H Unlikely In region Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC, WBWG:H None In region Canyon bat Parastrellus hesperus WBWG:L In region
Big brown bat Episticus fuscus WBWG:L In region
Packet Page 617 of 860Attachment 12 Page 48 of 259
26 Common name
Species name
Status1
Occurrence
potential
WRA
2022
Database
records,
Site visits
Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans WBWG:M In region Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG:H In range Big brown bat Episticus fuscus WBWG:L In region
Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG:M In region
Miller’s myotis Myotis evotis WBWG:M In region
Little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus WBWG:M In region
Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes WBWG:H In range
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis WBWG:LM In region
California myotis Myotis californicus WBWG:L In region Mexican free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis WBWG:M Nearby Salt-marsh harvest mouse Reithrodontomys raviventris FE, CE, FP None In region American badger Taxidea taxus SSC Unlikely Nearby
1 Listed as FT or FE = federal threatened or endangered, FC = federal candidate for listing, BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, CT or CE = California threatened or endangered, CCT or CCE = Candidate California threatened or endangered, CFP = California Fully Protected (California Fish and Game Code 3511), SSC = California Species of Special Concern (not threatened with extinction, but rare, very restricted in range, declining throughout range, peripheral portion of species' range, associated with habitat that is declining in extent), SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively (Shuford and Gardali 2008), WL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and BOP = Birds of Prey (CFG Code 3503.5), and WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H).
Packet Page 618 of 860Attachment 12 Page 49 of 259
27 POTENTIAL BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS
An impacts analysis should consider whether and how a proposed project would affect members of a species, larger demographic units of the species, the whole of a species, and ecological communities. In the following I analyze several types of impacts likely to result from the project, and none of which are analyzed in the DEIR.
HABITAT LOSS
The DEIR fails to analyze the site’s capacity to support wildlife. The project area has undergone severe habitat fragmentation, which is a process widely believed to pose the greatest threat to wildlife conservation (Smallwood 2015). The project would contribute further to habitat fragmentation in an environmental setting in which wildlife would be devastated by the loss of one of the region’s last patches of naturally-covered open space. Habitat fragmentation and habitat loss have been recognized as the most likely leading causes of a documented 29% decline in overall bird abundance across North America over the last 48 years (Rosenberg et al. 2019). Habitat loss not only results in the immediate numerical decline of wildlife, but it also results in permanent loss of productive capacity. All this said, the very late stage of habitat fragmentation represented at the project site warrants concern, but the DEIR expresses no concern over the project’s contribution to habitat fragmentation. The DEIR instead uses the existing advanced level of habitat fragmentation as its basis for speculating that multiple special-status species have low occurrence potentials; that is, the DEIR (and WRA 2022) repeatedly points out that the project site is nearly completely surrounded by development. Any concern that the project would eliminate the open space of the site as one of the last remaining patches of habitat is dismissed by the DEIR with the inaccurate explanation that ample open space remains within the region.
In the case of birds, two methods exist for estimating the loss of productive capacity that would be caused by the project. One method would involve surveys to count the number of bird nests and chicks produced. Such counts would need to be made in the nesting season, but neither WRA (2022) lor LSA directed any effort to finding and recording all of the bird nests on site. The alternative method is to estimate productive capacity based on what is known of total nest density elsewhere. Two study sites in grassland -wetland- woodland complexes had total bird nesting densities of 32.8 and 35.8 nests per acre (Young 1948, Yahner 1982) for an average 34.3 nests per acre. Assuming the 5.8-acre project site supports about the same total nesting density of the above-referenced study sites, one can predict a loss of 199 bird nests.
The loss of 199 nest sites would qualify as a significant project impact to birds that has not been quantitatively addressed in the DEIR. But the impact does not end with the immediate loss of nest sites as nest substrate is removed and foraging grounds graded in preparation for impervious surfaces. The reproductive capacity of the site would be lost.
The average number of fledglings per nest in Young’s (1948) study was 2.9. Assuming Young’s (1948) study site typifies bird productivity, the project would prevent the production of 577 fledglings per year. Assuming an average bird generation time of 5 years, the lost capacity of both breeders and annual fledgling production can be Packet Page 619 of 860Attachment 12 Page 50 of 259
28 estimated from an equation in Smallwood (2022): {(nests/year × chicks/nest × number of years) + (2 adults/nest × nests/year) × (number of years ÷ years/generation)} ÷ (number of years) = 657 birds per year denied to California. The DEIR proposes no mitigation for this impact. The DEIR needs to be revised to appropriately analyze the project’s impacts to wildlife caused by habitat loss and habitat fragmentation.
WILDLIFE MOVEMENT
One of CEQA’s principal concerns regarding potential project impacts is whether a proposed project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. According to the DEIR (2023:4.3-22), “the project site itself does not serve as a wildlife movement corridor,” because it is surrounded by roads and development. This argument implies that wildlife cannot move without direct terrestrial linkage to other patches of terrestrial habitat. Birds, bats and many arthropods have wings, meaning the aerosphere is part of their habitat linking the project site to other patches of terrestrial habitat. Wildlife that use the site got there by exploiting their own modes of movement. For example, the Cooper’s hawk I observed foraging over the project site did not get there by walking. By flight was how most of the animals seen at the site actually arrived to the site.
The DEIR implies the premise that interference with wildlife movement in the region can result only from the project’s disruption of the function of a wildlife movement corridor. This premise represents a false CEQA standard, and is therefore inappropriate to the analysis. The primary phrase of the CEQA standard goes to wildlife movement regardless of whether the movement is channeled by a corridor. A site such as the proposed project site is critically important for wildlife movement because it composes an increasingly diminishing area of open space within a growing expanse of anthropogenic uses, forcing more species of volant wildlife to use the site for stopover and staging during migration, dispersal, and home range patrol (Warnock 2010, Taylor et al. 2011, Runge et al. 2014).
Recent and ongoing development around the project site has channelized movement of birds over the project site, having generated a wildlife movement corridor as an outcome of habitat fragmentation (Smallwood 2015). I saw multiple species flying across the site between a wetland area to the southeast and to and from unknown locations to the northwest, although some of these species were flying to and from the riparian woodland west of the project site. Birds of these species were forced between the office complex to the east and the hotel under construction to the south, and included Cooper’s hawk, great egret, great blue heron, mallard, double-crested cormorant, California gull, ring-billed gull, turkey vulture, American crow and western meadowlark.
The project would cut these and other wildlife off from one of the last remaining stopover and staging opportunities in the project area, forcing volant wildlife to travel even farther between remaining stopover sites. This impact would be significant, and as the project is currently proposed, it would be unmitigated.
Packet Page 620 of 860Attachment 12 Page 51 of 259
29 BIRD-WINDOW COLLISIONS
Considering the project would add 185 apartment units in an expansive, 55-foot-tall building immediately adjacent to a riparian woodland, along with many glass windows on the building’s facades and glass carports, the DEIR neglects a large portion of habitat that is essential to many species. To understand this part of their habitat, one must consider the definition of habitat, which is a species’ use of the environment (Hall et al. 1997, Morrison et al. 1998, Smallwood 2002). The gaseous atmosphere, or aerosphere, is a principal medium of life to volant animals such as birds (Davy et al. 2017, Diehl et al. 2017). The aerosphere is where birds and bats and other volant animals with wings migrate, disperse, forage, perform courtship and where some of them mate. Birds are some of the many types of animals that evolved wings as a morphological adaptation to thrive by moving through the medium of the aerosphere. The aerosphere is habitat.
Indeed, an entire discipline of ecology has emerged to study this essential aspect of habitat – the discipline of aeroecology (Kunz et al. 2008).
Many special-status species of birds have been recorded at or near the aerosphere of the project site. My database review and the site visits indicate there are 95 special-status species of birds with potential to use the site’s aerosphere (Table 2). Of these, 13 have been recorded on or over or next to the project site, another 32 within 1.5 miles of the site (‘Very close’), another 16 within 1.5 and 4 miles (‘Nearby’), and another 33 within 4 to 30 miles (‘In region’). The birds reported within all these distance domains from the project site can quickly fly those distances, so they would all be within short flights of the proposed project’s windows.
Window collisions are often characterized as either the second or third largest source or human-caused bird mortality. The numbers behind these characterizations are often attributed to Klem’s (1990) and Dunn’s (1993) estimates of about 100 million to 1 billion bird fatalities in the USA, or more recently by Loss et al.’s (2014) estimate of 365 -988 million bird fatalities in the USA or Calvert et al.’s (2013) and Machtans et al.’s (2013) estimates of 22.4 million and 25 million bird fatalities in Canada, respectively. The proposed project would impose windows in the airspace normally used by birds.
Glass-façades of buildings kill many birds, but these façades are differentially hazardous to birds based on spatial extent, contiguity, orientation, and other factors. At Washington State University, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 bird fatalities of 41 species within 73 months of monitoring of a three-story glass walkway (no fatality adjustments attempted). Prior to marking the windows to warn birds of the collision hazard, the collision rate was 84.7 per year. At that rate, and not attempting to adjust the fatality estimate for the proportion of fatalities not found, 4,659 birds were likely killed over the 55 years since the start of their study, and that’s at a relatively small building façade. Accounting for the proportion of fatalities not found, the number of birds killed by this walkway over the last 55 years would have been about 14,535. And this is just for one 3-story, glass-sided walkway between two college campus buildings.
Klem’s (1990) estimate was based on speculation that 1 to 10 birds are killed per building per year, and this speculated range was extended to the number of buildings Packet Page 621 of 860Attachment 12 Page 52 of 259
30 estimated by the US Census Bureau in 1986. Klem’s speculation was supported by fatality monitoring at only two houses, one in Illinois and the other in New York. Also, the basis of his fatality rate extension has changed greatly since 1986. Whereas his estimate served the need to alert the public of the possible magnitude of the bird- window collision issue, it was highly uncertain at the time and undoubtedly outdated more than three decades hence. Indeed, by 2010 Klem (2010) characterized the upper end of his estimated range – 1 billion bird fatalities – as conservative. Furthermore, the estimate lumped species together as if all birds are the same and the loss of all birds to windows has the same level of impact.
By the time Loss et al. (2014) performed their effort to estimate annual USA bird- window fatalities, many more fatality monitoring studies had been reported or were underway. Loss et al. (2014) incorporated many more fatality rates based on scientific monitoring, and they were more careful about which fatality rates to include. However, they included estimates based on fatality monitoring by homeowners, which in one study were found to detect only 38% of the available window fatalities (Bracey et al. 2016). Loss et al. (2014) excluded all fatality records lacking a dead bird in hand, such as injured birds or feather or blood spots on windows. Loss et al.’s (2014) fatality metric was the number of fatalities per building (where in this context a building can include a house, low-rise, or high-rise structure), but they assumed that this metric was based on window collisions. Because most of the bird-window collision studies were limited to migration seasons, Loss et al. (2014) developed an admittedly assumption-laden correction factor for making annual estimates. Also, only 2 of the studies included adjustments for carcass persistence and searcher detection error, and it was unclear how and to what degree fatality rates were adjusted for these factors. Although Loss et al. (2014) attempted to account for some biases as well as for large sources of uncertainty mostly resulting from an opportunistic rather than systematic sampling data source, their estimated annual fatality rate across the USA was highly uncertain and vulnerable to multiple biases, most of which would have resulted in fatality estimates biased low.
In my review of bird-window collision monitoring, I found that the search radius around homes and buildings was very narrow, usually 2 meters. Based on my experience with bird collisions in other contexts, I would expect that a large portion of bird-window collision victims would end up farther than 2 m from the windows, especially when the windows are higher up on tall buildings. In my experience, searcher detection rates tend to be low for small birds deposited on ground with vegetation cover or woodchips or other types of organic matter. Also, vertebrate scavengers entrain on anthropogenic sources of mortality and quickly remove many of the carcasses, thereby preventing the fatality searcher from detecting these fatalities. Adjusting fatality rates for these factors – search radius bias, searcher detection error, and carcass persistence rates – would greatly increase nationwide estimates of bird-window collision fatalities.
Buildings can intercept many nocturnal migrants as well as birds flying in daylight. As mentioned above, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 bird fatalities of 41 species within 73 months of monitoring of a four-story glass walkway at Washington State University (no adjustments attempted for undetected fatalities). Somerlot (2003) found 21 bird fatalities among 13 buildings on a university campus within only 61 days.
Packet Page 622 of 860Attachment 12 Page 53 of 259
31 Monitoring twice per week, Hager at al. (2008) found 215 bird fatalities of 48 species, or 55 birds/building/year, and at another site they found 142 bird fatalities of 37 species for 24 birds/building/year. Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) recorded 5,400 bird fatalities under buildings in New York City, based on a decade of monitoring only during migration periods, and some of the high-rises were associated with hundreds of fatalities each. Klem et al. (2009) monitored 73 building façades in New York City during 114 days of two migratory periods, tallying 549 collision victims, nearly 5 birds per day. Borden et al. (2010) surveyed a 1.8 km route 3 times per week during 12-month period and found 271 bird fatalities of 50 species. Parkins et al. (2015) found 35 bird fatalities of 16 species within only 45 days of monitoring under 4 building façades. From 24 days of survey over a 48-day span, Porter and Huang (2015) found 47 fatalities under 8 buildings on a university campus. Sabo et al. (2016) found 27 bird fatalities over 61 days of searches under 31 windows. In San Francisco, Kahle et al. (2016) found 355 collision victims within 1,762 days under a 5-story building. Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016) searched the perimeters of 6 buildings on a university campus, finding 86 fatalities after 63 days of surveys. One of these buildings produced 61 of the 86 fatalities, and another building with collision-deterrent glass caused only 2 of the fatalities, thereby indicating a wide range in impacts likely influenced by various factors. There is ample evidence available to support my prediction that the proposed project would result in many collision fatalities of birds.
Project Impact Prediction
I have reviewed and processed results of bird collision monitoring at 213 buildings and façades for which bird collisions per m2 of glass per year could be calculated and averaged (Johnson and Hudson 1976, O’Connell 2001, Somerlot 2003, Hager et al. 2008, Borden et al. 2010, Hager et al. 2013, Porter and Huang 2015, Parkins et al. 2015, Kahle et al. 2016, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. 2016, Sabo et al. 2016, Barton et al. 2017, Gomez-Moreno et al. 2018, Schneider et al. 2018, Loss et al. 2019, Brown et al. 2020, City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon 2020, Riding et al. 2020). These study results averaged 0.073 bird deaths per m 2 of glass per year (95% CI: 0.042-0.102). This average and its 95% confidence interval provide a robust basis for predicting fatality rates at a proposed new project.
The DEIR does not directly disclose the extent of glass windows and glass railings on the proposed new buildings. Fortunately, I have maintained a database of the extent of glass windows relative to the extents of floor space among other projects for which I have prepared expert testimony. For 13 recently proposed California apartment projects, the ratio of m2 of windows to ft2 of floor space was 0.0129 (95% CI: 0.0071‒0.0187), which applied to the floor space of the new proposed project would predict 2,634 m2. Judging from the DEIR’s rendering of the building, I estimate the extent of windows would be a little lower, or about 2,000 m2. Applying the mean fatality rate (above) to my estimate of 2,000 m2 of glass in the project, I predict annual bird deaths of 146 (95% CI: 87‒246).
However, the proposed project would include an exceptionally hazardous glass feature in the form of glass carports and reflective glass windows on the building (Figure 3). The extent of glass on the carports would be about 59.3 m2. I have seen no study of the Packet Page 623 of 860Attachment 12 Page 54 of 259
32 impacts of glass carports on birds, but the orientation of glass on these carports appears especially hazardous to birds.
Figure 3. DEIR’s depiction of reflective windows and glass carports in the project.
The vast majority of these deaths would be of birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and under the California Migratory Bird Protection Act, thus causing significant unmitigated impacts. Given the predicted level of bird-window collision mortality, and the lack of any proposed mitigation, it is my opinion that the proposed project would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts. The DEIR should be revised to appropriately analyze the impact of bird-glass collisions that might be caused by the project.
TRAFFIC IMPACTS TO WILDLIFE
The DEIR neglects to address one of the project’s most obvious, substantial impacts to wildlife, and that is wildlife mortality and injuries caused by project-generated traffic.
Project-generated traffic would endanger wildlife that must, for various reasons, cross roads used by the project’s traffic (Photos 18―21), including along roads far from the project footprint. Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003). Across North America traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3,562 birds were estimated killed per 100 km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014). Local impacts can be more intense than nationally.
Packet Page 624 of 860Attachment 12 Page 55 of 259
33 Photo 18. Gambel’s quail dashes across
a road on 3 April 2021. Such road
crossings are usually successful, but too
often prove fatal to the animal. Photo by
Noriko Smallwood.
Photo 19. Great-tailed grackle walks
onto a rural road in Imperial County, 4
February 2022.
Photo 20. Mourning dove killed by
vehicle on a California road. Photo by
Noriko Smallwood, 21 June 2020.
Photo 21. Raccoon killed on Road 31 just east of
Highway 505 in Solano County. Photo taken on
10 November 2018.
Packet Page 625 of 860Attachment 12 Page 56 of 259
34 The nearest study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality was performed along a 2.5-mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California. Fatality searches in this study found 1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15 months of searches (Mendelsohn et al. 2009). This fatality number needs to be adjusted for the proportion of fatalities that were not found due to scavenger removal and searcher error. This adjustment is typically made by placing carcasses for searchers to find (or not find) during their routine periodic fatality searches. This step was not taken at Vasco Road (Mendelsohn et al. 2009), but it was taken as part of another study next to Vasco Road (Brown et al. 2016). Brown et al.’s (2016) adjustment factors for carcass persistence resembled those of Santos et al. (2011). Also applying searcher detection rates from Brown et al. (2016), the adjusted total number of fatalities was estimated at 12,187 animals killed by traffic on the road. This fatality number over 1.25 years and 2.5 miles of road translates to 3,900 wild animals per mile per year. In terms comparable to the national estimates, the estimates from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study would translate to 243,740 animals killed per 100 km of road per year, or 29 times that of Loss et al.’s (2014) upper bound estimate and 68 times the Canadian estimate. An analysis is needed of whether increased traffic generated by the project site would similarly result in local impacts on wildlife.
For wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and crushing under tires, road mortality can be predicted from the study of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) as a basis, although it would be helpful to have the availability of more studies like that of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) at additional locations. My analysis of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) data resulted in an estimated 3,900 animals killed per mile along a county road in Contra Costa County. Two percent of the estimated number of fatalities were birds, and the balance was composed of 34% mammals (many mice and pocket mice, but also ground squirrels, desert cottontails, striped skunks, American badgers, raccoons, and others),
52.3% amphibians (large numbers of California tiger salamanders and California red - legged frogs, but also Sierran treefrogs, western toads, arboreal salamanders, slender salamanders and others), and 11.7% reptiles (many western fence lizards, but also skinks, alligator lizards, and snakes of various species). Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is useful for predicting wildlife mortality because I was able to quantify miles traveled along the studied reach of Vasco Road during the time period of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009), hence enabling a rate of fatalities per VMT that can be projected to other sites, assuming similar collision fatality rates.
Predicting project-generated traffic impacts to wildlife
The DEIR only indirectly predicts annual VMT. It predicts 46.3 VMT/multifamily dwelling unit, and of course it proposes 185 family units. The product of these two values extended to a full year would predict 3,126,408 annual VMT. During the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, 19,500 cars traveled Vasco Road daily, so the vehicle miles that contributed to my estimate of non-volant fatalities was 19,500 cars and trucks × 2.5 miles × 365 days/year × 1.25 years = 22,242,187.5 vehicle miles per 12,187 wildlife fatalities, or 1,825 vehicle miles per fatality. This rate divided into the predicted annual VMT would predict 1,713 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year. But perhaps fewer animals would be killed in the urbanized part of Fairfield that surrounds the project site Packet Page 626 of 860Attachment 12 Page 57 of 259
35 as compared to the study area of Mendelsohn et al. (2009), but even assuming the true fatality rate would be half of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) rate, the annual death toll to wildlife resulting from project-generated traffic would be 857, which would still be a significant, unmitigated impact of the project.
Based on my indicator-level analysis, the project-generated traffic would cause substantial, significant impacts to wildlife. The DEIR does not address this potential impact, let alone propose to mitigate it. Mitigation measures to improve wildlife safety along roads are available and are feasible, and they need exploration for their suitability with the proposed project. Given the predicted level of project-generated traffic-caused mortality, and the lack of any proposed mitigation, it is my opinion that the proposed project would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts. The DEIR needs to be revised to appropriately analyze the impact of wildlife-automobile collisions resulting from project-generated traffic.
DOG PARK
The project proposes the inclusion of a dog park immediately adjacent to riparian woodland with flowing water through a streambed and many breeding birds. However, the DEIR fails to analyze potential impacts to wildlife that could result from the dog park. Dogs disturb and displace wildlife (Hennings 2016), and dog parks accumulate parasites. In one study of dog parks in Portugal (Ferreira et al. 2017), at least 7 different types of parasites were found in fecal and soil samples, and “the soil of all the parks was contaminated with hookworm eggs.” The parasite loading of the dog park could spill- over to wildlife of the immediate area or downstream to marine mammals in the San Joaquin Delta and California’s coast.
The converse is also true of the transmission pathway of parasites. The riparian woodland harbors western blacklegged ticks (Ixodes pacificus), which is a vector of Borrelia burgdorferi --the agent of Lyme disease, Borrelia miyamotoi and Borrelia hermsii, which cause relapsing fever Borreliosis, Ehrlichia muris, which causes ehrlichiosis, Anaplasma phagocytophilum, which causes anaplasmosis, Babesia microti, which causes babesiosis, and multiple species of Rickettsia, deer tick virus, and Powassan virus. Building a dog run next to a riparian woodland loaded with western blacklegged ticks, which it is, would put dogs and people in direct contact with this disease vector.
The DEIR needs to be revised to appropriately analyze the potential impacts to wildlife caused by the dog park, as well as the potential health risks to dogs and people posed by the western blacklegged tick that occupies the riparian woodland.
HOUSE CATS
The DEIR is silent on whether ownership of house cats would be allowed in the project , but even if cats are disallowed, apartment complexes typically attract feral house cats.
Considering national trends, it is safe to assume that house cats would be introduced to the project site by residents of the proposed residential units, and that feral cats will Packet Page 627 of 860Attachment 12 Page 58 of 259
36 accumulate. This is significant because house cats serve as one of the largest sources of avian mortality in North America (Dauphiné and Cooper 2009, Blancher 2013, Loss et al. 2013, Loyd et al. 2017). Loss et al. (2013) estimated 139 million cats in the USA in 2013 (range 114 to 164 million), which killed an estimated 16.95 billion vertebrate wildlife annually (range 7.6 to 26.3 billion). In 2012 there were 0.44 house cats per human, and 122 vertebrate animals were killed per cat. Free-ranging house cats killed disproportionately larger numbers of vertebrate wildlife. The DEIR predicts 509 residents. The above rates of cat ownership applied to 509 new residents would predict 224 new cats, which would kill 2,733 members of vertebrate wildlife per year. Even if there are only half this many house cats at Green Valley III, the annual death toll to wildlife would be predicted at 1,367, which would easily qualify as an unmitigated significant impact to wildlife. Many of the wildlife fatalities caused by house cats would be in neighboring riparian woodland to the west.
House cats also contribute to downstream loading of Toxoplasma gondii. According to a UC Davis wildlife health research program, “Toxoplasma gondii is a parasite that can infect virtually all warm-blooded animals, but the only known definitive hosts are cats – domesticated and feral house cats included. Cats catch the parasite through hunting rodents and birds and they offload it into the environment through their feces… and …rain that falls on cement creates more runoff than rain that falls on natural earth, which contributes to increased runoff that can carry fecal pathogens to the sea” ( http://www.evotis.org/ toxoplasma-gondii- sea-otters/).
If the project goes forward, it would be prudent to consider constraints on house cat ownership such as requiring cats to remain indoors. Another option would be to explore alternative project sites where free ranging cats would cause fewer wildlife fatalities due to lesser adjacency to open spaces. And another would be to fund the City to manage the feral house cats so that they do not increase in number and they do not hunt for wildlife in the riparian woodland.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The analysis of cumulative impacts to biological resources is flawed. The first flaw is in the DEIR’ attempt to minimalize the impacts with statements like, “the only habitats present on the site include the highly disturbed annual grassland and an approximately 430-foot unnamed drainage and associated riparian habitat.” It is irrelevant whether the drainage is named, nor is it relevant that the reach of drainage adjacent to the annual grassland of the project site is 430 feet long. And it is irrelevant that only two of the DEIR’s categories for vegetation/soil complexes are at risk of damage and destruction.
What is relevant is whether the project site and the riparian woodland next to the project site provides habitat value to plants and wildlife, and most especially whether it provides habitat value to special-status species. In fact, it does.
Next, the DEIR attempts to minimalize the impacts by pointing out that “The grassland is isolated, as it is not connected to other grassland habitats and is largely surrounded by urban development.” But whereas the site is relatively isolated from other patches of wildlife habitat, its degree of isolation is a function of the mode of locomotion of the Packet Page 628 of 860Attachment 12 Page 59 of 259
37 various species at issue. Animals that walk or crawl would find the site more isolated than those that fly. Many of the species that occur at the site can fly. And in fact, many species of wildlife occur at the site, which is a fact that refutes the DEIR’s characterization of the site as isolated. But even though it is relatively more isolated than patches of grassland and riparian woodland found outside the City Limits, the very fact of its relative isolation heightens the likely project contributions to cumulative impacts. The loss of yet another of the few remaining patches of habitat in the area brings the City of Fairfield closer yet to the culmination of the process of habitat fragmentation, which is one of the two anthropogenic impacts that most threatens species of plants and animals.
Then the DEIR states one of the most unfounded assertions I have seen in the hundreds of CEQA reviews I have read, and that is that “The loss of the on-site grasslands will not affect the viability of other grasslands in the region; the intactness, size, and connectedness of other grasslands will be unaffected by loss of this isolated grassland area.” The DEIR offers no evidence in support of this ridiculous assertion. The intactness and connectedness of the other grasslands in the region would be diminished by the projects, because the California gulls, horned larks, Cooper’s hawks, loggerhead shrikes, burrowing owls, white-tailed kites and many other species would no longer be able to fly from one to the next to forage, socialize, stop-over and breed. The extent of grassland in the region would be reduced by 5.8 acres, but the effect of habitat fragmentation would be greater than the loss of 5.8 acres. These impacts are well founded in the scientific literature; the converse that is asserted in the DEIR has no basis in the scientific literature nor in common sense.
The DEIR also asserts that “the development of the proposed project would not create any permanent ... wildlife movement barriers.” This assertion is not true. Birds and bats would be unable to fly through 55-foot-tall building sprawled between a riparian woodland and a wetlands area to the southeast. Birds would collide with the glass of the building and some would collide with portions of the building without glass. These birds would die, so their movement would be halted. Other birds and bats would have to fly around the building, thereby adding to their energy expenditures.
The DEIR reports that for the reasons cited above, “the geographical cumulative context for the evaluation of cumulative impacts on biological resources has been limited to the City of Fairfield and its Sphere of Influence (SOI), as well as portions of Solano County that adjoin the city limits.” However, there is no logical progression from the reasons cited to minimalize impacts and the choice of geographic scope of the cumulative impacts analysis. The DEIR’s argument for its geographic scope of analysis makes no sense.
The DEIR explains that “Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development in the City of Fairfield and its SOI as well as adjacent areas of unincorporated Solano County could result in individually significant impacts to biological resources, including impacts to special-status plant and wildlife species.” It then implies that larger plans would mitigate these individually significant impacts to less than significant impacts, thereby avoiding cumulative impacts. The DEIR implies that cumulative effects are Packet Page 629 of 860Attachment 12 Page 60 of 259
38 simply residual impacts of incomplete mitigation of project-level impacts. This notion is inconsistent with CEQA’s definition of cumulative impacts and how to analyze them. If this was CEQA’s standard, then cumulative effects analysis would be merely an analysis of mitigation efficacy.
The DEIR’s vague reliance on larger plans introduces yet another flaw in the analysis.
The DEIR says “Development in the City of Fairfield would adhere to requirements set forth in the Solano HCP. In addition, each of the approved and pending projects is or has been subject to review under CEQA and required to obtain necessary permits and approvals from federal and state resource agencies. As a result of these processes, each project would be required to avoid, minimize and compensate for its impacts on sensitive biological resources, such that the cumulative impacts would be reduced...” And, “...the proposed project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to potential cumulative impacts to biological resources” However, according to CEQA Guideline 15064(h)(3), “When relying on a plan, regulation or program, the lead agency should explain how implementing the particular requirements in the plan, regulation or program ensure that the project’s incremental contribution to the cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable.” The DEIR provides no explanation of how implementing the particular requirements of the Solano HCP would minimize, avoid or offset the project’s contributions to cumulative impacts.
In closing its cumulative impacts analysis, the DEIR claims that “the project site has the potential to provide marginal foraging and/or nesting habitat for special-status bird species, including Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl, and white-tailed kite.” However, the DEIR never explains what it means by marginal habitat and how the conclusion that only marginal habitat exists at the project site. No metrics are cited, nor are any scientific standards cited on what qualifies as marginal habitat. The DEIR appears to rely entirely on speculation biased in favor of the notion that the project’s impacts would be less than significant, and therefore the conclusions of less than significant impacts with mitigation lack substantial supporting evidence.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Multiple mitigation measures are not truly mitigation measures, but rather surveys for wildlife that are needed in support of the characterization of the existing environmental setting. Measures 1, 3, 4, and 5 are surveys needed to inform the DEIR, and should have been completed already. Measure 8 is also needed to inform the DEIR, and should have been completed already. By relocating the wildlife surveys and wetlands delineation from the front end to the back end of the EIR process, the City denies the public and decision-makers the information needed to assess the DEIR’s conclusions when their assessment matters. These surveys are needed in support of an accurate characterization of the existing environmental setting, which itself is needed for the DEIR’s impacts analysis and formulation of appropriate mitigation. The DEIR needs to be withdrawn so that it can be revised based on the outcomes of these and additional surveys for biological resources.
Packet Page 630 of 860Attachment 12 Page 61 of 259
39 MM BIO-1 Swainson’s hawk nest surveys
Swainson’s hawk nest surveys should be completed, but first they should be completed in support of a revised characterization of the existing environmental setting and they should meet the minimum standards of the existing survey guidelines (CEC and CDFW 2010). According to CEC and CDFW (2010), “Surveys should be conducted prior to environmental analysis.”
According to the CDFW (2000) guidelines on preconstruction surveys, multiple nest surveys need to be completed at the appropriate times of year. The DEIR identifies these times of year, but it incompletely and misleadingly summarizes the survey guidelines.
For example, the DEIR says the surveys need to minimally cover a 0.25-mile radius of the site, whereas the guidelines specify a o.5-mile survey radius around all project activities. In another example, the DEIR fails to mention the requirement of multiple surveys per nesting period. Whereas the DEIR says “If take of Swainson’s hawk cannot be avoided, the project applicant shall consult with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and obtain an Incidental Take Permit (ITP),” whereas the guidelines say that consultation must be initiated if an active nest is located within 0.5 miles of the project site.
MM BIO-2 Swainson’s hawk compensatory mitigation
The DEIR relies on a mitigation guideline that was developed 30 years ago. It would be prudent to consult with CDFW prior to circulation of the DEIR regarding the viability of the mitigation options that are presented in the 1994 guidelines. The DEIR proposes mitigation options that might no longer be viable or effective.
Also, the DEIR addresses mitigation of foraging habitat, but is silent on the potential need for mitigating impacts to nest sites.
MM BIO-3 Burrowing owl survey
As I commented earlier, the DEIR discusses the CDFW (2012) survey guidelines as if they are preconstruction survey guidelines, whereas the habitat assessment and breeding-season surveys are intended to precede rather than follow the CEQA review.
The DEIR has the intended sequence of steps backwards.
The habitat assessment is already effectively completed, because the DEIR acknowledges that the potential exists for burrowing owls to occur on the project site.
The next appropriate step, therefore, is to complete the breeding-season burrowing owl surveys so that the survey outcome can appropriately inform a revised DEIR.
MM BIO-4 Nesting bird survey
First, the DEIR needs to update the breeding season recognized by CDFW, which is 1 February to 15 September.
Packet Page 631 of 860Attachment 12 Page 62 of 259
40 Preconstruction surveys should be performed for nesting birds, but not without first having completed detection surveys to inform both an EIR and the preconstruction surveys. Preconstruction surveys are only intended as last-minute, one-time salvage and rescue operations targeting readily detectable nests or individuals before they are crushed under heavy construction machinery. Because most special-status species are rare and cryptic, and because most bird species are expert at hiding their nests lest they get predated, most of their nests will not be detected by preconstruction surveys without prior support of detection surveys. Locating all of the nests on site would require more effort than is committed during preconstruction surveys.
Detection surveys are needed to inform preconstruction take-avoidance surveys by mapping out where biologists performing preconstruction surveys are most likely to find animals or their breeding sites. Detection surveys are needed to assess impacts and to inform the formulation of appropriate mitigation measures, because preconstruction surveys are not intended for these roles either.
MM BIO-5 Monarch butterfly survey
The DEIR pigeon-holes Monarchs to an extremely narrow portion of the environment that they use. Whereas Monarchs lay their eggs on milkweed, these butterflies rely on many species of flowering plants for food ( https://www.fws.gov/story/spreading- milkweed-not-myths). Even Monarch caterpillars eat more than just milkweed. Whereas the presence of milkweed would indicate a higher likelihood of occurrence of Monarch, any given site can provide habitat to Monarchs with or without milkweed. Also important to Monarchs are opportunities for roosting in shrubs and trees, as well as habitat used in migration. Preconstruction survey needs to focus on more than whether milkweed grows on the project site.
MM BIO-6 Halt work and buffer around Monarch butterfly activity
I suggest that if Monarch is found doing anything on the project site during construction that the CDFW or USFWS be consulted before proceeding further with construction.
MM BIO-7 Fully avoid riparian habitat
I concur with this measure, but I must add that its credibility could be improved by planning the project to avoid operational impacts as well. No pedestrian trail should be built into it or next to it, no dog park should be built next to it, and no ornamental trees should be planted next to it.
I must also add that avoiding the riparian habitat would be impossible if the project goes forward. This is because to serve as habitat to most species, more than the riparian trees must exist; to many animals, riparian habitat is not habitat without the adjacent grasslands and shrublands and woodlands. Many animals that nest in riparian woodland or that find refuge in riparian woodland cannot persist without the adjacent upland spaces over which they forage and socialize.
Packet Page 632 of 860Attachment 12 Page 63 of 259
41 MM BIO-8 Complete wetland delineation
This is not an appropriate mitigation measure. It is a step that is needed in support of the accurate characterization of the existing environmental setting, which itself is needed for the DEIR’s impacts analysis and formulation of appropriate mitigation.
MM BIO-9 Construction to prevent damage to trees
I concur with this measure, but I must add that if the City is going to be sincere about this measure, it ought to eliminate the plantings of ornamental trees and the construction of a dog park along the edge of the riparian woodland. Furthermore, no pedestrian trail should be constructed through or adjacent to the riparian woodland, as planned.
RECOMMENDED MEASURES
Protocol-level Detection Surveys in Support of Mitigation: If the project goes forward, detection surveys need to be completed for multiple species including California red-legged frog, western spadefoot, Swainson’s hawk, least Bell’s vireo, willow flycatcher, burrowing owl, white-tailed kite, and a suite of special-status species of bats.
These surveys are needed to (1) support negative findings of species when appropriate, (2) inform preconstruction surveys to improve their efficacy, (3) estimate project impacts, and (4) inform compensatory mitigation and other forms of mitigation.
Detection survey protocols and guidelines are available from resource agencies for multiple special-status species. Otherwise, professional standards can be learned from the scientific literature and species’ experts.
Pest Control: The project should commit to no use of rodenticides and avicides. It should commit to no placement of poison bait stations outside the building.
Dog Run: If a dog run must be built as part of this project, then it should be built on the opposite side of the project to the east. The dog run should to be located as far from the riparian woodland as possible; else it should not be included in the project. A dug run adjacent to the riparian woodland would harm and harass wildlife in the woodland, and it would expose dogs and people to Lyme Disease and other diseases vectored by western blacklegged ticks.
House Cats: If the project goes forward, residents should not be allowed to let their cats range free, nor should feeding of feral cats be permitted. A fund should be established for long-term management of house cats in the project. Management could include public education about the environmental effects of outdoor and free -ranging cats. It could also include a program to spade and neuter cats, especially free-ranging cats. It could also involve some removals of feral cats.
Guidelines on Building Design to Minimize Bird-Window Collisions: If the project goes forward, it should at a minimum adhere to available Bird-Safe Guidelines, such as those prepared by American Bird Conservancy and New York and San Packet Page 633 of 860Attachment 12 Page 64 of 259
42 Francisco. The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) produced an excellent set of guidelines recommending actions to: (1) Minimize use of glass; (2) Placing glass behind some type of screening (grilles, shutters, exterior shades); (3) Using glass with inherent properties to reduce collisions, such as patterns, window films, decals or tape; and (4) Turning off lights during migration seasons (Sheppard and Phillips 2015). The City of San Francisco (San Francisco Planning Department 2011) also has a set of building design guidelines, based on the excellent guidelines produced by the New York City Audubon Society (Orff et al. 2007). The ABC document and both the New York and San Francisco documents provide excellent alerting of potential bird-collision hazards as well as many visual examples. The San Francisco Planning Department’s (2011) building design guidelines are more comprehensive than those of New York City, but they could have gone further. For example, the San Francisco guidelines probably should have also covered scientific monitoring of impacts as well as compensatory mitigation for impacts that could not be avoided, minimized or reduced.
New research results inform of the efficacy of marking windows. Whereas Klem (1990) found no deterrent effect from decals on windows, Johnson and Hudson (1976) reported a fatality reduction of about 69% after placing decals on windows. In an experiment of opportunity, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016) found only 2 of 86 fatalities at one of 6 buildings – the only building with windows treated with a bird deterrent film. At the building with fritted glass, bird collisions were 82% lower than at other buildings with untreated windows. Kahle et al. (2016) added external window shades to some windowed façades to reduce fatalities 82% and 95%. Brown et al. (2020) reported an 84% lower collision probability among fritted glass windows and windows treated with ORNILUX R UV. City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon (2020) reduced bird collision fatalities 94% by affixing marked Solyx window film to existing glass panels of Portland’s Columbia Building. Many external and internal glass markers have been tested experimentally, some showing no effect and some showing strong deterrent effects (Klem 1989, 1990, 2009, 2011; Klem and Saenger 2013; Rössler et al. 2015).
Monitoring and the use of compensatory mitigation should be incorporated at any new building project because the measures recommended in the available guidelines remain of uncertain efficacy, and even if these measures are effective, they will not reduce collision fatalities to zero. The only way to assess mitigation efficacy and to quantify post-construction fatalities is to monitor the project for fatalities.
Road Mortality: Compensatory mitigation is needed for the increased wildlife mortality that would be caused by bird-window collisions and the project-generated road traffic in the region. I suggest that this mitigation can be directed toward funding research to identify fatality patterns and effective impact reduction measures such as reduced speed limits and wildlife under-crossings or overcrossings of particularly dangerous road segments. Compensatory mitigation can also be provided in the form of donations to wildlife rehabilitation facilities (see below).
Fund Wildlife Rehabilitation Facilities: Compensatory mitigation ought also to include funding contributions to wildlife rehabilitation facilities to cover the costs of Packet Page 634 of 860Attachment 12 Page 65 of 259
43 injured animals that will be delivered to these facilities for care. Many animals would likely be injured by collisions with windows and automobiles.
Landscaping: If the project goes forward, California native plant landscaping (i.e., chaparral, grassland, and locally appropriate scrub plants) should be considered to be used as opposed to landscaping with lawn and exotic shrubs. Native plants offer more structure, cover, food resources, and nesting substrate for wildlife than landscaping with lawn. Native plant landscaping has been shown to increase the abundance of arthropods which act as importance sources of food for wildlife and are crucial for pollination and plant reproduction (Narango et al. 2017, Adams et al. 2020, Smallwood and Wood 2022.). Further, many endangered and threated insects require native host plants for reproduction and migration, e.g., monarch butterfly. Around the world, landscaping with native plants over exotic plants increases the abundance and diversity of birds, and is particularly valuable to native birds (Lerman and Warren 2011, Burghardt et al. 2008, Berthon et al. 2021, Smallwood and Wood 2022). Landscaping with native plants is a way to maintain or to bring back some of the natural habitat and lessen the footprint of urbanization by acting as interconnected patches of habitat for wildlife (Goddard et al. 2009, Tallamy 2020). Lastly, not only does native plant landscaping benefit wildlife, it requires less water and maintenance than traditional landscaping with lawn and hedges.
Thank you for your attention,
______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.
LITERATURE CITED
Adams, B. J., E. Li, C. A. Bahlai, E. K. Meineke, T. P. McGlynn, and B. V. Brown. 2020.
Local and landscape-scale variables shape insect diversity in an urban biodiversity hot spot. Ecological Applications 30(4):e02089. 10.1002/eap.2089
Barton, C. M., C. S. Riding, and S. R. Loss. 2017. Magnitude and correlates of bird collisions at glass bus shelters in an urban landscape. Plos One 12. (6): e0178667. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178667
Basilio, L. G., D. J. Moreno, and A, J. Piratelli. 2020. Main causes of bird-window collisions: a review. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 92(1): e20180745 DOI 10.1590/0001-3765202020180745.
Berthon, K., F. Thomas, and S. Bekessy. 2021. The role of ‘nativenes’ in urban greening to support animal biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning 205:103959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103959
Packet Page 635 of 860Attachment 12 Page 66 of 259
44 Bishop, C. A. and J. M. Brogan. 2013. Estimates of avian mortality attributed to vehicle collisions in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8:2. http://dx.doi.org/
10.5751/ACE-00604-080202.
Borden, W. C., O. M. Lockhart, A. W. Jones, and M. S. Lyons. 2010. Seasonal, taxonomic, and local habitat components of bird-window collisions on an urban university campus in Cleveland, OH. Ohio Journal of Science 110(3):44-52.
Bracey, A. M., M. A. Etterson, G. J. Niemi, and R. F. Green. 2016. Variation in bird- window collision mortality and scavenging rates within an urban landscape. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 128:355-367.
Brown, B. B., L. Hunter, and S. Santos. 2020. Bird-window collisions: different fall and winter risk and protective factors. PeerJ 8:e9401 http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9401
Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.
Burghardt, K. T., D. W. Tallamy, and W. G. Shriver. 2008. Impact of native plants on bird and butterfly biodiversity in suburban landscapes. Conservation Biology 23:219-224.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2000. Recommended timing and methodology for Swainson's Hawk nesting surveys in California's Central Valley.
Sacramento, California.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Sacramento, California.
CEC and CDFW (California Energy Commission and California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2010. Swainson’s Hawk Survey Protocols, Impact Avoidance, and Minimization Measures for Renewable Energy Projects in the Antelope Valley of Los Angeles and Kern Counties, California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, California.
Calvert, A. M., C. A. Bishop, R. D. Elliot, E. A. Krebs, T. M. Kydd, C. S. Machtans, and G.
J. Robertson. 2013. A synthesis of human-related avian mortality in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00581-080211
City of Fairfield. 2023. Draft Environmental Impact Report: Green Valley 3 Apartments Project, City of Fairfield, California. State Clearinghouse No. 2022030480.
Prepared by Barati Consulting, LLC.
City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon. 2020.
Collisions at the Columbia Building: A synthesis of pre- and post-retrofit monitoring. Environmental Services of City of Portland, Oregon.
Packet Page 636 of 860Attachment 12 Page 67 of 259
45 Dauphiné, N. and R. J. Cooper. 2009. Impacts of free-ranging domestic cats (Felis catus) on birds in the United States: a review of recent research with conservation and management recommendations. Pages 205-219 in T. D. Rich, C. Arizmendi, D.
W. Demarest, and C. Thompson, eds., Proceedings of the Fourth International Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics.
Davy, C. M., A. T. Ford, and K. C. Fraser. 2017. Aeroconservation for the fragmented skies. Conservation Letters 10(6): 773–780.
Diehl, R. H., A. C. Peterson, R. T. Bolus, and D. Johnson. 2017. Extending the habitat concept to the airspace. USGS Staff -- Published Research. 1129. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/1129
Dunn, E. H. 1993. Bird mortality from striking residential windows in winter. Journal of Field Ornithology 64:302-309.
Erichsen, A. L., K. S. Smallwood, A. M. Commandatore, D. M. Fry, and B. Wilson. 1996.
White-tailed Kite movement and nesting patterns in an agricultural landscape.
Pages 166-176 in D. M. Bird, D. E. Varland, and J. J. Negro, eds., Raptors in human landscapes. Academic Press, London.
Ferreira, A., A. M. Alho, D. Otero, L. Gomes, R. Nijsse, P. A. M. Overgaauw, and L.
Madeira de Carvalho. 2017. Urban dog parks as sources of canine parasites:
contamination rates and pet owner Behaviours in Lisbon, Portugal. Hindawi Journal of Environmental and Public Health Volume 2017, Article ID 5984086, 7 pages. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/5984086
Forman, T. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bisonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L.
Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T.
Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology. Island Press, Covello, California.
Gelb, Y. and N. Delacretaz. 2009. Windows and vegetation: Primary factors in Manhattan bird collisions. Northeastern Naturalist 16:455-470.
Goddard, M. A., A. J. Dougill, and T. G. Benton. 2009. Scaling up from gardens:
biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25:90-98. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.07.016
Gómez-Moreno, V. del C., J. R. Herrera-Herrera, and S. Niño-Maldonado. 2018. Bird collisions in windows of Centro Universitario Victoria, Tamaulipas, México. Huitzil, Revista Mexicana de Ornitología 19(2): 227-236. https://doi.org/10.28947/ hrmo.2018.19.2.347
Hager, S. B., H. Trudell, K. J. McKay, S. M. Crandall, and L. Mayer. 2008. Bird density and mortality at windows. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120:550-564.
Packet Page 637 of 860Attachment 12 Page 68 of 259
46 Hager S. B., B. J. Cosentino, K J. McKay, C. Monson, W. Zuurdeeg, and B. Blevins. 2013.
Window area and development drive spatial variation in bird-window collisions in an urban landscape. PLoS ONE 8(1): e53371. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053371
Hall, L. S., P. R. Krausman, and M. L. Morrison. 1997. “The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:173-82.
Hennings, L. 2016. Impacts of dogs on wildlife and water quality. Metro Parks Nature Technical Report DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1107.5445.
Johnson, R. E., and G. E. Hudson. 1976. Bird mortality at a glassed-in walkway in Washington State. Western Birds 7:99-107.
Kahle, L. Q., M. E. Flannery, and J. P. Dumbacher. 2016. Bird-window collisions at a west-coast urban park museum: analyses of bird biology and window attributes from Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. PLoS ONE 11(1):e144600 DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0144600.
Klem, D., Jr. 1989. Bird-window collisions. Wilson Bulletin 101:606-620.
Klem, D., Jr. 1990. Collisions between birds and windows: mortality and prevention.
Journal of Field Ornithology 61:120-128.
Klem, D., Jr. 2009. Preventing bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:314-321.
Klem, D., Jr. 2011. Evaluating the effectiveness of Acopian Birdsavers to deter or prevent bird-glass collisions. Unpublished report.
Klem, D., Jr. and P. G. Saenger. 2013. Evaluating the effectiveness of select visual signals to prevent bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 125:406–411.
Kunz, T. H., S. A. Gauthreaux Jr., N. I. Hristov, J. W. Horn, G. Jones, E. K. V. Kalko, R.
P. Larkin, G. F. McCracken, S. M. Swartz, R. B. Srygley, R. Dudley, J. K. Westbrook, and M. Wikelski. 2008. Aeroecology: probing and modelling the aerosphere.
Integrative and Comparative Biology 48:1-11. doi:10.1093/icb/icn037
Lerman, S. B. and P. S. Warren. 2011. The conservation value of residential yards:
linking birds and people. Ecological Applications 21:1327-1339.
Loss, S. R., T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Bird–building collisions in the United States: Estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. The Condor:
Ornithological Applications 116:8-23. DOI: 10.1650/CONDOR-13-090.1
Packet Page 638 of 860Attachment 12 Page 69 of 259
47 Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2013. The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States. Nature Communications 2380. DOI:
10.1038/ncomms2380
Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Estimation of Bird-Vehicle Collision Mortality on U.S. Roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:763-771.
Loss, S. R., S. Lao, J. W. Eckles, A. W. Anderson, R. B. Blair, and R. J. Turner. 2019.
Factors influencing bird-building collisions in the downtown area of a major North American city. PLoS ONE 14(11): e0224164. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal . pone.0224164
Loyd, K. A. T., S. M. Hernandez, and D. L. McRuer. 2017. The role of domestic cats in the admission of injured wildlife at rehabilitation and rescue centers. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:55-61.
Machtans, C. S., C. H. R. Wedeles, and E. M. Bayne. 2013. A first estimate for Canada of the number of birds killed by colliding with building windows. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2):6. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00568-080206
Mendelsohn, M., W. Dexter, E. Olson, and S. Weber. 2009. Vasco Road wildlife movement study report. Report to Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, California.
Morrison, M. L., B. G. Marcot, and R. W. Mannan. 1998. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships:
Concepts and Applications. 2nd edition. University of Wisconsin Press Madison, WI.
Narango, D. L., D. W. Tallamy, and P. P. Marra. 2017. Native plants improve breeding and foraging habitat for an insectivorous bird. Biological Conservation 213:42-50.
National Research Council. 1986. Ecological knowledge and environmental problem- solving: concepts and case studies. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Ocampo-Peñuela, N., R. S. Winton, C. J. Wu, E. Zambello, T. W. Wittig and N. L. Cagle . 2016. Patterns of bird-window collisions inform mitigation on a university campus.
PeerJ4:e1652;DOI10.7717/peerj.1652
O’Connell, T. J. 2001. Avian window strike mortality at a suburban office park. The Raven 72:141-149.
Orff, K., H. Brown, S. Caputo, E. J. McAdams, M. Fowle, G. Phillips, C. DeWitt, and Y.
Gelb. 2007. Bird-safe buildings guidelines. New York City Audubon, New York.
Parkins, K. L., S. B. Elbin, and E. Barnes. 2015. Light, glass, and bird–building collisions in an urban park. Northeastern Naturalist 22:84-94.
Packet Page 639 of 860Attachment 12 Page 70 of 259
48 Porter, A., and A. Huang. 2015. Bird collisions with glass: UBC pilot project to assess bird collision rates in Western North America. UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report. Report to Environment Canada, UBC SEEDS and UBC BRITE.
Riding, C. S., T. J. O’Connell, and S. R. Loss. 2020. Building façade-level correlates of bird–window collisions in a small urban area. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 122:1–14.
Rosenberg, K. V., A. M. Dokter, P. J. Blancher, J. R. Sauer, A. C. Smith, P. A. Smith, J. C.
Stanton, A. Panjabi , L. Helft , M. Parr, and P. P. Marra. 2019. Decline of the North American avifauna. Science 10.1126/science.aaw1313 (2019).
Rössler, M., E. Nemeth, and A. Bruckner. 2015. Glass pane markings to prevent bird- window collisions: less can be more. Biologia 70: 535—541. DOI: 10.1515/biolog- 2015-0057
Runge, C. A., T. G. Martin, H. P. Possingham, S. G. Willis, and R. A. Fuller. 2014.
Conserving mobile species. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 12(7): 395–402, doi:10.1890/130237.
Sabo, A. M., N. D. G. Hagemeyer, A. S. Lahey, and E. L. Walters. 2016. Local avian density influences risk of mortality from window strikes. PeerJ 4:e2170; DOI
10.7717/peerj.2170
San Francisco Planning Department. 2011. Standards for bird-safe buildings. San Francisco Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco, California.
Santos, S. M., F. Carvalho, and A. Mira. 2011. How long do the dead survive on the road? Carcass persistence probability and implications for road-kill monitoring surveys.
PLoS ONE 6(9): e25383. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025383
Schneider, R. M., C. M. Barton, K. W. Zirkle, C. F. Greene, and K. B. Newman. 2018.
Year-round monitoring reveals prevalence of fatal bird-window collisions at the Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center. PeerJ 6:e4562 https://doi.org/10.7717/ peerj.4562
Sheppard, C., and G. Phillips. 2015. Bird-friendly building design, 2nd Ed., American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, Virginia.
Shrader-Frechette, K. S., and E. D. McCoy. 1992. Statistics, Costs and Rationality in Ecological Inference. Tree 7: 96-99.
Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali, [eds.]. 2008. California bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California.
Packet Page 640 of 860Attachment 12 Page 71 of 259
49 Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Habitat models based on numerical comparisons. Pages 83-95 in Predicting species occurrences: Issues of scale and accuracy, J. M. Scott, P. J.
Heglund, M. Morrison, M. Raphael, J. Haufler, and B. Wall, editors. Island Press, Covello, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L.
Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management: e22216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22216
Smallwood, N. L., and E. M. Wood. 2022 (In press). The ecological role of native-plant landscaping in residential yards to birds during the nonbreeding period. Ecosphere 2022;e4360.
Somerlot, K. E. 2003. Survey of songbird mortality due to window collisions on the Murray State University campus. Journal of Service Learning in Conservation Biology 1:1–19.
Tallamy, D.W. 2020. Nature’s Best Hope: A New Approach to Conservation that Starts in Your Yard. Timber Press.
Taylor, P. D., S. A. Mackenzie, B. G. Thurber, A. M. Calvert, A. M. Mills, L. P. McGuire, and C. G. Guglielmo. 2011. Landscape movements of migratory birds and bats reveal an expanded scale of stopover. PlosOne 6(11): e27054. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027054.
Warnock, N. 2010. Stopping vs. staging: the difference between a hop and a jump.
Journal of Avian Biology 41:621-626.
Wood, E. M., and S. Esaian. 2020. The importance of street trees to urban avifauna.
Ecological Applications. 0:e02149.
WRA. 2022. Green Valley III Apartments Property ‐ Biological Due Diligence Assessment. Memorandum to The Spanos Corporation.
Yahner, R. H. 1982. Avian nest densities and nest-site selection in farmstead shelterbelts. The Wilson Bulletin 94:156-175.
Young, H. 1948. A comparative study of nesting birds in a five-acre park. The Wilson Bulletin 61:36-47.
Packet Page 641 of 860Attachment 12 Page 72 of 259
50 Red-shouldered hawk at the project site, 4 March 2023 Packet Page 642 of 860Attachment 12 Page 73 of 259
1 Kenneth Shawn Smallwood
Curriculum Vitae
3108 Finch Street Born May 3, 1963 in
Davis, CA 95616 Sacramento, California.
Phone (530) 756-4598 Married, father of two.
Cell (530) 601-6857
[email protected]
Ecologist
Expertise
• Finding solutions to controversial problems related to wildlife interactions with human industry, infrastructure, and activities;
• Wildlife monitoring and field study using GPS, thermal imaging, behavior surveys;
• Using systems analysis and experimental design principles to identify meaningful ecological patterns that inform management decisions.
Education
Ph.D. Ecology, University of California, Davis. September 1990.
M.S. Ecology, University of California, Davis. June 1987.
B.S. Anthropology, University of California, Davis. June 1985.
Corcoran High School, Corcoran, California. June 1981.
Experience
762 professional reports, including:
90 peer reviewed publications
24 in non-reviewed proceedings
646 reports, declarations, posters and book reviews
8 in mass media outlets
92 public presentations of research results
Editing for scientific journals: Guest Editor, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2012-2013, of invited papers representing international views on the impacts of wind energy on wildlife and how to mitigate the impacts. Associate Editor, Journal of Wildlife Management, March 2004 to 30 June 2007.
Editorial Board Member, Environmental Management, 10/1999 to 8/2004. Associate Editor, Biological Conservation, 9/1994 to 9/1995.
Member, Alameda County Scientific Review Committee (SRC), August 2006 to April 2011. The five-member committee investigated causes of bird and bat collisions in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, and recommended mitigation and monitoring measures. The SRC reviewed the science underlying the Alameda County Avian Protection Program, and advised Packet Page 643 of 860Attachment 12 Page 74 of 259
Smallwood CV
2 the County on how to reduce wildlife fatalities.
Consulting Ecologist, 2004-2007, California Energy Commission (CEC). Provided consulting services as needed to the CEC on renewable energy impacts, monitoring and research, and produced several reports. Also collaborated with Lawrence-Livermore National Lab on research to understand and reduce wind turbine impacts on wildlife.
Consulting Ecologist, 1999-2013, U.S. Navy. Performed endangered species surveys, hazardous waste site monitoring, and habitat restoration for the endangered San Joaquin kangaroo rat, California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, California clapper rail, western burrowing owl, salt marsh harvest mouse, and other species at Naval Air Station Lemoore; Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord; Naval Security Group Activity, Skaggs Island; National Radio Transmitter Facility, Dixon; and, Naval Outlying Landing Field Imperial Beach.
Part-time Lecturer, 1998-2005, California State University, Sacramento. Instructed Mammalogy, Behavioral Ecology, and Ornithology Lab, Contemporary Environmental Issues, Natural Resources Conservation.
Senior Ecologist, 1999-2005, BioResource Consultants. Designed and implemented research and monitoring studies related to avian fatalities at wind turbines, avian electrocutions on electric distribution poles across California, and avian fatalities at transmission lines.
Chairman, Conservation Affairs Committee, The Wildlife Society--Western Section, 1999-2001.
Prepared position statements and led efforts directed toward conservation issues, including travel to Washington, D.C. to lobby Congress for more wildlife conservation funding.
Systems Ecologist, 1995-2000, Institute for Sustainable Development. Headed ISD’s program on integrated resources management. Developed indicators of ecological integrity for large areas, using remotely sensed data, local community involvement and GIS.
Associate, 1997-1998, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, University of California, Davis. Worked with Shu Geng and Mingua Zhang on several studies related to wildlife interactions with agriculture and patterns of fertilizer and pesticide residues in groundwater across a large landscape.
Lead Scientist, 1996-1999, National Endangered Species Network. Informed academic scientists and environmental activists about emerging issues regarding the Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws. Testified at public hearings on endangered species issues.
Ecologist, 1997-1998, Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology. Conducted field research to determine the impact of past mercury mining on the status of California red-legged frogs in Santa Clara County, California.
Senior Systems Ecologist, 1994-1995, EIP Associates, Sacramento, California. Provided consulting services in environmental planning, and quantitative assessment of land units for their conservation and restoration opportunities basedon ecological resource requirements of 29 special-status species. Developed ecological indicators for prioritizing areas within Yolo County Packet Page 644 of 860Attachment 12 Page 75 of 259
Smallwood CV
3 to receive mitigation funds for habitat easements and restoration.
Post-Graduate Researcher, 1990-1994, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, U.C. Davis.
Under Dr. Shu Geng’s mentorship, studied landscape and management effects on temporal and spatial patterns of abundance among pocket gophers and species of Falconiformes and Carnivora in the Sacramento Valley. Managed and analyzed a data base of energy use in California agriculture. Assisted with landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California.
Work experience in graduate school: Co-taught Conservation Biology with Dr. Christine Schonewald, 1991 & 1993, UC Davis Graduate Group in Ecology; Reader for Dr. Richard Coss’s course on Psychobiology in 1990, UC Davis Department of Psychology; Research Assistant to Dr. Walter E. Howard, 1988-1990, UC Davis Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, testing durable baits for pocket gopher management in forest clearcuts; Research Assistant to Dr. Terrell P. Salmon, 1987-1988, UC Wildlife Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing empirical models of mammal and bird invasions in North America, and a rating system for priority research and control of exotic species based on economic, environmental and human health hazards in California. Student Assistant to Dr. E.
Lee Fitzhugh, 1985-1987, UC Cooperative Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing and implementing statewide mountain lion track count for long-term monitoring.
Fulbright Research Fellow, Indonesia, 1988. Tested use of new sampling methods for numerical monitoring of Sumatran tiger and six other species of endemic felids, and evaluated methods used by other researchers.
Projects
Repowering wind energy projects through careful siting of new wind turbines using map-based collision hazard models to minimize impacts to volant wildlife. Funded by wind companies (principally NextEra Renewable Energy, Inc.), California Energy Commission and East Bay Regional Park District, I have collaborated with a GIS analyst and managed a crew of five field biologists performing golden eagle behavior surveys and nocturnal surveys on bats and owls. The goal is to quantify flight patterns for development of predictive models to more carefully site new wind turbines in repowering projects. Focused behavior surveys began May 2012 and continue.
Collision hazard models have been prepared for seven wind projects, three of which were built.
Planning for additional repowering projects is underway.
Test avian safety of new mixer-ejector wind turbine (MEWT). Designed and implemented a before- after, control-impact experimental design to test the avian safety of a new, shrouded wind turbine developed by Ogin Inc. (formerly known as FloDesign Wind Turbine Corporation). Supported by a $718,000 grant from the California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research program and a 20% match share contribution from Ogin, I managed a crew of seven field biologists who performed periodic fatality searches and behavior surveys, carcass detection trials, nocturnal behavior surveys using a thermal camera, and spatial analyses with the collaboration of a GIS analyst. Field work began 1 April 2012 and ended 30 March 2015 without Ogin installing its MEWTs, but we still achieved multiple important scientific advances.
Packet Page 645 of 860Attachment 12 Page 76 of 259
Smallwood CV
4 Reduce avian mortality due to wind turbines at Altamont Pass. Studied wildlife impacts caused by 5,400 wind turbines at the world’s most notorious wind resource area. Studied how impacts are perceived by monitoring and how they are affected by terrain, wind patterns, food resources, range management practices, wind turbine operations, seasonal patterns, population cycles, infrastructure management such as electric distribution, animal behavior and social interactions.
Reduce avian mortality on electric distribution poles. Directed research toward reducing bird electrocutions on electric distribution poles, 2000-2007. Oversaw 5 founds of fatality searches at 10,000 poles from Orange County to Glenn County, California, and produced two large reports.
Cook et al. v. Rockwell International et al., No. 90-K-181 (D. Colorado). Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried and surface-deposited radioactive and hazardous chemical wastes at the Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado. Provided expert reports based on four site visits and an extensive document review of burrowing animals. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities.
Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals. I testified in federal court in November 2005, and my clients were subsequently awarded a $553,000,000 judgment by a jury. After appeals the award was increased to two billion dollars.
Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation. Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried radioactive wastes at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Washington. Provided three expert reports based on three site visits and extensive document review.
Predicted and verified a certain population density of pocket gophers on buried waste structures, as well as incidence of radionuclide contamination in body tissue. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities. Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals.
Expert testimony and declarations on proposed residential and commercial developments, gas-fired power plants, wind, solar and geothermal projects, water transfers and water transfer delivery systems, endangered species recovery plans, Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Communities Conservation Programs. Testified before multiple government agencies, Tribunals, Boards of Supervisors and City Councils, and participated with press conferences and depositions. Prepared expert witness reports and court declarations, which are summarized under Reports (below).
Protocol-level surveys for special-status species. Used California Department of Fish and Wildlife and US Fish and Wildlife Service protocols to search for California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, arroyo southwestern toad, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, western pond turtle, giant kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, Valley elderberry longhorn beetle and other special-status species.
Conservation of San Joaquin kangaroo rat. Performed research to identify factors responsible for the decline of this endangered species at Lemoore Naval Air Station, 2000-2013, and implemented habitat enhancements designed to reverse the trend and expand the population.
Impact of West Nile Virus on yellow-billed magpies. Funded by Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District, 2005-2008, compared survey results pre- and post-West Nile Virus epidemic for multiple bird species in the Sacramento Valley, particularly on yellow-billed magpie and American crow due to susceptibility to WNV.
Packet Page 646 of 860Attachment 12 Page 77 of 259
Smallwood CV
5 Workshops on HCPs. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison with organizing and conducting a 2-day workshop on Habitat Conservation Plans, sponsored by Southern California Edison, and another 1- day workshop sponsored by PG&E. These Workshops were attended by academics, attorneys, and consultants with HCP experience. We guest-edited a Proceedings published in Environmental Management.
Mapping of biological resources along Highways 101, 46 and 41. Used GPS and GIS to delineate vegetation complexes and locations of special-status species along 26 miles of highway in San Luis Obispo County, 14 miles of highway and roadway in Monterey County, and in a large area north of Fresno, including within reclaimed gravel mining pits.
GPS mapping and monitoring at restoration sites and at Caltrans mitigation sites. Monitored the success of elderberry shrubs at one location, the success of willows at another location, and the response of wildlife to the succession of vegetation at both sites. Also used GPS to monitor the response of fossorial animals to yellow star-thistle eradication and natural grassland restoration efforts at Bear Valley in Colusa County and at the decommissioned Mather Air Force Base in Sacramento County.
Mercury effects on Red-legged Frog. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison and US Fish and Wildlife Service in assessing the possible impacts of historical mercury mining on the federally listed California red-legged frog in Santa Clara County. Also measured habitat variables in streams.
Opposition to proposed No Surprises rule. Wrote a white paper and summary letter explaining scientific grounds for opposing the incidental take permit (ITP) rules providing ITP applicants and holders with general assurances they will be free of compliance with the Endangered Species Act once they adhere to the terms of a “properly functioning HCP.” Submitted 188 signatures of scientists and environmental professionals concerned about No Surprises rule US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, all US Senators.
Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan alternative. Designed narrow channel marsh to increase the likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild of giant garter snake, Swainson’s hawk and Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. The design included replication and interspersion of treatments for experimental testing of critical habitat elements. I provided a report to Northern Territories, Inc.
Assessments of agricultural production system and environmental technology transfer to China.
Twice visited China and interviewed scientists, industrialists, agriculturalists, and the Directors of the Chinese Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture to assess the need and possible pathways for environmental clean-up technologies and trade opportunities between the US and China.
Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan. Conducted landscape ecology study of Yolo County to spatially prioritize allocation of mitigation efforts to improve ecosystem functionality within the County from the perspective of 29 special-status species of wildlife and plants. Used a hierarchically structured indicators approach to apply principles of landscape and ecosystem ecology, conservation biology, and local values in rating land units. Derived GIS maps to help guide the conservation area design, and then developed implementation strategies.
Packet Page 647 of 860Attachment 12 Page 78 of 259
Smallwood CV
6 Mountain lion track count. Developed and conducted a carnivore monitoring program throughout California since 1985. Species counted include mountain lion, bobcat, black bear, coyote, red and gray fox, raccoon, striped skunk, badger, and black-tailed deer. Vegetation and land use are also monitored. Track survey transect was established on dusty, dirt roads within randomly selected quadrats.
Sumatran tiger and other felids. Upon award of Fulbright Research Fellowship, I designed and initiated track counts for seven species of wild cats in Sumatra, including Sumatran tiger, fishing cat, and golden cat. Spent four months on Sumatra and Java in 1988, and learned Bahasa Indonesia, the official Indonesian language.
Wildlife in agriculture. Beginning as post-graduate research, I studied pocket gophers and other wildlife in 40 alfalfa fields throughout the Sacramento Valley, and I surveyed for wildlife along a 200 mile road transect since 1989 with a hiatus of 1996-2004. The data are analyzed using GIS and methods from landscape ecology, and the results published and presented orally to farming groups in California and elsewhere. I also conducted the first study of wildlife in cover crops used on vineyards and orchards.
Agricultural energy use and Tulare County groundwater study. Developed and analyzed a data base of energy use in California agriculture, and collaborated on a landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California.
Pocket gopher damage in forest clear-cuts. Developed gopher sampling methods and tested various poison baits and baiting regimes in the largest-ever field study of pocket gopher management in forest plantations, involving 68 research plots in 55 clear-cuts among 6 National Forests in northern California.
Risk assessment of exotic species in North America. Developed empirical models of mammal and bird species invasions in North America, as well as a rating system for assigning priority research and control to exotic species in California, based on economic, environmental, and human health hazards.
Peer Reviewed Publications
Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management: e22216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22216
Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2021. Breeding Density and Collision Mortality of Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Diversity 13, 540. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13110540 .
Smallwood, K. S. 2020. USA wind energy-caused bat fatalities increase with shorter fatality search intervals. Diversity 12(98); https://doi.org/10.3390/d12030098
Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, and S. Standish. 2020. Dogs detect larger wind energy impacts on bats and birds. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:852-864. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21863.
Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell. 2020. Relating bat passage rates to wind turbine fatalities.
Packet Page 648 of 860Attachment 12 Page 79 of 259
Smallwood CV
7 Diversity 12(84); doi:10.3390/d12020084.
Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell. 2020. Effects of wind turbine curtailment on bird and bat fatalities. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:684-696. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21844
Kitano, M., M. Ino, K. S. Smallwood, and S. Shiraki. 2020. Seasonal difference in carcass persistence rates at wind farms with snow, Hokkaido, Japan. Ornithological Science 19: 63 –
71. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2018. Nest-site selection in a high-density colony of burrowing owls. Journal of Raptor Research 52:454-470.
Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, E. L. Walther, E. Leyvas, S. Standish, J. Mount, B. Karas. 2018.
Estimating wind turbine fatalities using integrated detection trials. Journal of Wildlife Management 82:1169-1184.
Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Long search intervals under-estimate bird and bat fatalities caused by wind turbines. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:224-230.
Smallwood, K. S. 2017. The challenges of addressing wildlife impacts when repowering wind energy projects. Pages 175-187 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts:
Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland.
May, R., Gill, A. B., Köppel, J. Langston, R. H.W., Reichenbach, M., Scheidat, M., Smallwood, S., Voigt, C. C., Hüppop, O., and Portman, M. 2017. Future research directions to reconcile wind turbine–wildlife interactions. Pages 255-276 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts: Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland.
Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Monitoring birds. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q
Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2017. Turbine siting for raptors: an example from Repowering of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q
Johnson, D. H., S. R. Loss, K. S. Smallwood, W. P. Erickson. 2016. Avian fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America: A comparison of recent approaches. Human–Wildlife Interactions 10(1):7-18.
Sadar, M. J., D. S.-M. Guzman, A. Mete, J. Foley, N. Stephenson, K. H. Rogers, C. Grosset, K. S.
Smallwood, J. Shipman, A. Wells, S. D. White, D. A. Bell, and M. G. Hawkins. 2015. Mange Caused by a novel Micnemidocoptes mite in a Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery 29(3):231-237.
Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L. Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions.
John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Packet Page 649 of 860Attachment 12 Page 80 of 259
EXHIBIT B
Packet Page 650 of 860Attachment 12 Page 81 of 259
INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103 San Francisco, California 94109 Telephone: (415) 567-7700
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.iee-sf.com
Date: March 6, 2023
To: Brian Flynn
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612
From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH
Subject: Indoor Air Quality: Green Valley 3 Apartments Project, Fairfield, CA (IEE File Reference: P-4688)
Pages: 19
Indoor Air Quality Impacts
Indoor air quality (IAQ) directly impacts the comfort and health of building occupants, and the achievement of acceptable IAQ in newly constructed and renovated buildings is a well- recognized design objective. For example, IAQ is addressed by major high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014). Indoor air quality in homes is particularly important because occupants, on average, spend approximately ninety percent of their time indoors with the majority of this time spent at home (EPA, 2011). Some segments of the population that are most susceptible to the effects of poor IAQ, such as the very young and the elderly, occupy their homes almost continuously. Additionally, an increasing number of adults are working from home at least some of the time during the workweek. Indoor air quality also is a serious concern for workers in hotels, offices and other business establishments.
The concentrations of many air pollutants often are elevated in homes and other buildings relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products used indoors contain and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson, Packet Page 651 of 860Attachment 12 Page 82 of 259
2 of 19
2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route of exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants.
Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact. In the California New Home Study (CNHS) of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured, and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), No Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e., ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 µg/day. The NSRL concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 µg is 2 µg/m3, assuming a continuous 24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m3, and 100% absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL concentration of 2 µg/m3. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 µg/m3, and ranged from 4.8 to 136 µg/m3, which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2 µg/m3 NSRL concentration of 18 and a range of 2.3 to 68.
Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 36 µg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde alone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD, 2017).
Besides being a human carcinogen, formaldehyde is also a potent eye and respiratory irritant. In the CNHS, many homes exceeded the non-cancer reference exposure levels (RELs) prescribed by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA, 2017b). The percentage of homes exceeding the RELs ranged from 98% for the Chronic REL of 9 µg/m3 to 28% for the Acute REL of 55 µg/m3.
The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and Packet Page 652 of 860Attachment 12 Page 83 of 259
3 of 19
particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.
In January 2009, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted an airborne toxics control measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, including hardwood plywood, particleboard, medium density fiberboard, and also furniture and other finished products made with these wood products (California Air Resources Board 2009). While this formaldehyde ATCM has resulted in reduced emissions from composite wood products sold in California, they do not preclude that homes built with composite wood products meeting the CARB ATCM will have indoor formaldehyde concentrations below cancer and non-cancer exposure guidelines.
A follow up study to the California New Home Study (CNHS) was conducted in 2016-2018 (Singer et. al., 2019), and found that the median indoor formaldehyde in new homes built after 2009 with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials had lower indoor formaldehyde concentrations, with a median indoor concentrations of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb) as compared to a median of 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS. Unlike in the CNHS study where formaldehyde concentrations were measured with pumped DNPH samplers, the formaldehyde concentrations in the HENGH study were measured with passive samplers, which were estimated to under-measure the true indoor formaldehyde concentrations by approximately 7.5%. Applying this correction to the HENGH indoor formaldehyde concentrations results in a median indoor concentration of 24.1 µg/m3, which is 33% lower than the 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS.
Thus, while new homes built after the 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM have a 33% lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime cancer risk is still 120 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood products.
This median lifetime cancer risk is more than 12 times the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer risk threshold (OEHHA, 2017a).
With respect to Green Valley 3 Apartments Project, Fairfield, CA, the buildings consist of residential spaces (i.e., apartments) and commercial spaces (1.e., property management and Packet Page 653 of 860Attachment 12 Page 84 of 259
4 of 19
maintenance).
The residential occupants will potentially have continuous exposure (e.g. 24 hours per day, 52 weeks per year). These exposures are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in residential construction.
Because these residences will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor residential formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 µg/m3 (Singer et. al., 2020).
Assuming that the residential occupants inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 482 µg/day for continuous exposure in the residences.
This exposure represents a cancer risk of 120 per million, which is more than 12 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. For occupants that do not have continuous exposure, the cancer risk will be proportionally less but still substantially over the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million (e.g. for 12/hour/day occupancy, more than 6 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million).
The employees of the commercial spaces are expected to experience significant indoor exposures (e.g., 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year). These exposures for employees are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences and hotels.
Because the commercial spaces will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 µg/m3 (Singer et. al., 2020)
Packet Page 654 of 860Attachment 12 Page 85 of 259
5 of 19
Assuming that the employees of commercial spaces work 8 hours per day and inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the formaldehyde dose per work-day at the offices is 161 µg/day.
Assuming that these employees work 5 days per week and 50 weeks per year for 45 years (start at age 20 and retire at age 65) the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 70.9 µg/day.
This is 1.77 times the NSRL (OEHHA, 2017a) of 40 µg/day and represents a cancer risk of 17.7 per million, which exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. This impact should be analyzed in an environmental impact report (“EIR”), and the agency should impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Several feasible mitigation measures are discussed below and these and other measures should be analyzed in an EIR.
In addition, we note that the average outdoor air concentration of formaldehyde in California is 3 ppb, or 3.7 µg/m3, (California Air Resources Board, 2004), and thus represents an average pre-existing background airborne cancer risk of 1.85 per million.
Thus, the indoor air formaldehyde exposures describe above exacerbate this pre-existing risk resulting from outdoor air formaldehyde exposures.
Appendix A, Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations and the CARB Formaldehyde ATCM, provides analyses that show utilization of CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials will not ensure acceptable cancer risks with respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products.
Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million.
The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.
Packet Page 655 of 860Attachment 12 Page 86 of 259
6 of 19
The following describes a method that should be used, prior to construction in the environmental review under CEQA, for determining whether the indoor concentrations resulting from the formaldehyde emissions of specific building materials/furnishings selected exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines. Such a design analyses can be used to identify those materials/furnishings prior to the completion of the City’s CEQA review and project approval, that have formaldehyde emission rates that contribute to indoor concentrations that exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, so that alternative lower emitting materials/furnishings may be selected and/or higher minimum outdoor air ventilation rates can be increased to achieve acceptable indoor concentrations and incorporated as mitigation measures for this project.
Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment
This formaldehyde emissions assessment should be used in the environmental review under CEQA to assess the indoor formaldehyde concentrations from the proposed loading of building materials/furnishings, the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate data for building materials/furnishings, and the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. This assessment allows the applicant (and the City) to determine, before the conclusion of the environmental review process and the building materials/furnishings are specified, purchased, and installed, if the total chemical emissions will exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, and if so, allow for changes in the selection of specific material/furnishings and/or the design minimum outdoor air ventilations rates such that cancer and non-cancer guidelines are not exceeded.
1.) Define Indoor Air Quality Zones. Divide the building into separate indoor air quality zones, (IAQ Zones). IAQ Zones are defined as areas of well-mixed air. Thus, each ventilation system with recirculating air is considered a single zone, and each room or group of rooms where air is not recirculated (e.g. 100% outdoor air) is considered a separate zone. For IAQ Zones with the same construction material/furnishings and design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. (e.g. hotel rooms, apartments, condominiums, etc.) the formaldehyde emission rates need only be assessed for a single IAQ Zone of that type.
Packet Page 656 of 860Attachment 12 Page 87 of 259
7 of 19
2.) Calculate Material/Furnishing Loading. For each IAQ Zone, determine the building material and furnishing loadings (e.g., m2 of material/m2 floor area, units of furnishings/m2 floor area) from an inventory of all potential indoor formaldehyde sources, including flooring, ceiling tiles, furnishings, finishes, insulation, sealants, adhesives, and any products constructed with composite wood products containing urea-formaldehyde resins (e.g., plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard).
3.) Calculate the Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each building material, calculate the formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) from the product of the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/m2-h) and the area (m2) of material in the IAQ Zone, and from each furnishing (e.g. chairs, desks, etc.) from the unit-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/unit-h) and the number of units in the IAQ Zone.
NOTE: As a result of the high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014), most manufacturers of building materials furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,” (CDPH, 2017), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. Most manufacturers of building furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using ANSI/BIFMA M7.1 Standard Test Method for Determining VOC Emissions (BIFMA, 2018), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods.
CDPH, BIFMA, and other chemical emission rate testing programs, typically certify that a material or furnishing does not create indoor chemical concentrations in excess of the maximum concentrations permitted by their certification. For instance, the CDPH emission rate testing requires that the measured emission rates when input into an office, school, or residential model do not exceed one-half of the OEHHA Chronic Exposure Guidelines (OEHHA, 2017b) for the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017). These certifications themselves do not provide the actual area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (i.e., µg/m2-h) of the product, but rather provide data that the formaldehyde emission rates do not exceed the maximum rate allowed Packet Page 657 of 860Attachment 12 Page 88 of 259
8 of 19
for the certification. Thus, for example, the data for a certification of a specific type of flooring may be used to calculate that the area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde is less than 31 µg/m2-h, but not the actual measured specific emission rate, which may be 3, 18, or 30 µg/m2-h. These area-specific emission rates determined from the product certifications of CDPH, BIFA, and other certification programs can be used as an initial estimate of the formaldehyde emission rate.
If the actual area-specific emission rates of a building material or furnishing is needed (i.e. the initial emission rates estimates from the product certifications are higher than desired), then that data can be acquired by requesting from the manufacturer the complete chemical emission rate test report. For instance if the complete CDPH emission test report is requested for a CDHP certified product, that report will provide the actual area -specific emission rates for not only the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017), but also all of the cancer and reproductive/developmental chemicals listed in the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), all of the toxic air contaminants (TACs) in the California Air Resources Board Toxic Air Contamination List (CARB, 2011), and the 10 chemicals with the greatest emission rates.
Alternatively, a sample of the building material or furnishing can be submitted to a chemical emission rate testing laboratory, such as Berkeley Analytical Laboratory ( https://berkeleyanalytical.com) , to measure the formaldehyde emission rate.
4.) Calculate the Total Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the total formaldehyde emission rate (i.e. µg/h) from the individual formaldehyde emission rates from each of the building material/furnishings as determined in Step 3.
5.) Calculate the Indoor Formaldehyde Concentration. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3) from Equation 1 by dividing the total formaldehyde emission rates (i.e. µg/h) as determined in Step 4, by the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate (m3/h) for the IAQ Zone.
Packet Page 658 of 860Attachment 12 Page 89 of 259
9 of 19
𝐶𝑖𝑛= 𝐸𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
𝑄𝑜𝑎
(Equation 1)
where:
Cin = indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3)
Etotal = total formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) into the IAQ Zone.
Qoa = design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone (m3/h)
The above Equation 1 is based upon mass balance theory, and is referenced in Section
3.10.2 “Calculation of Estimated Building Concentrations” of the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017).
6.) Calculate the Indoor Exposure Cancer and Non-Cancer Health Risks. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the cancer and non-cancer health risks from the indoor formaldehyde concentrations determined in Step 5 and as described in the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA, 2015).
7.) Mitigate Indoor Formaldehyde Exposures of exceeding the CEQA Cancer and/or Non- Cancer Health Risks. In each IAQ Zone, provide mitigation for any formaldehyde exposure risk as determined in Step 6, that exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million or the CEQA non-cancer Hazard Quotient of 1.0.
Provide the source and/or ventilation mitigation required in all IAQ Zones to reduce the health risks of the chemical exposures below the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.
Source mitigation for formaldehyde may include:
1.) reducing the amount materials and/or furnishings that emit formaldehyde
2.) substituting a different material with a lower area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde
Ventilation mitigation for formaldehyde emitted from building materials and/or furnishings may include:
Packet Page 659 of 860Attachment 12 Page 90 of 259
10 of 19
1.) increasing the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone.
NOTE: Mitigating the formaldehyde emissions through use of less material/furnishings, or use of lower emitting materials/furnishings, is the preferred mitigation option, as mitigation with increased outdoor air ventilation increases initial and operating costs associated with the heating/cooling systems.
Further, we are not asking that the builder “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,” (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier above (i.e. Pre- Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.
Outdoor Air Ventilation Impact. Another important finding of the CNHS, was that the outdoor air ventilation rates in the homes were very low. Outdoor air ventilation is a very important factor influencing the indoor concentrations of air contaminants, as it is the primary removal mechanism of all indoor air generated contaminants. Lower outdoor air exchange rates cause indoor generated air contaminants to accumulate to higher indoor air concentrations. Many homeowners rarely open their windows or doors for ventilation as a result of their concerns for security/safety, noise, dust, and odor concerns (Price, 2007). In the CNHS field study, 32% of the homes did not use their windows during the 24‐hour Test Day, and 15% of the homes did not use their windows during the entire preceding week.
Most of the homes with no window usage were homes in the winter field session. Thus, a substantial percentage of homeowners never open their windows, especially in the winter season. The median 24‐hour measurement was 0.26 air changes per hour (ach), with a range of 0.09 ach to 5.3 ach. A total of 67% of the homes had outdoor air exchange rates below the minimum California Building Code (2001) requirement of 0.35 ach. Thus, the relatively tight envelope construction, combined with the fact that many people never open their Packet Page 660 of 860Attachment 12 Page 91 of 259
11 of 19
windows for ventilation, results in homes with low outdoor air exchange rates and higher indoor air contaminant concentrations.
According to the Draft Environmental Impact Report – Green Valley 3 Apartments, Fairfield, CA (Barati Consulting, 2022), the Project is close to roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g., I-80, I-680, Green Valley Road, Business Center Road, Nietzel Road, Mangels Boulevard, etc.). In Table 4.10-7K, the opening year plus Project traffic noise levels range from 64.5 to 68.7 dBA Ldn.
As a result the Project site is a sound impacted site.
In order to design the building for this Project such that interior noise levels are acceptable, an acoustic study of the existing and future ambient noise levels needs to be conducted so that the building envelope and windows can be designed with a sufficient STL to achieve and acceptable indoor noise level.
As a result of the high outdoor noise levels, the current project will require a mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation to allow for a habitable interior environment with closed windows and doors. Such a ventilation system would allow windows and doors to be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control exterior noise within building interiors.
PM2.5 Outdoor Concentrations Impact. An additional impact of the nearby motor vehicle traffic associated with this project, are the outdoor concentrations of PM2.5. According to the Draft Environmental Impact Report – Green Valley 3 Apartments, Fairfield, CA (Barati Consulting, 2022), the Project is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Basin, which is a State and Federal non-attainment area for PM2.5.
An air quality analyses should be conducted to determine the concentrations of PM2.5 in the outdoor and indoor air that people inhale each day. This air quality analyses needs to consider the cumulative impacts of the project related emissions, existing and projected future emissions from local PM2.5 sources (e.g. stationary sources, motor vehicles, and airport traffic) upon the outdoor air concentrations at the Project site. If the outdoor Packet Page 661 of 860Attachment 12 Page 92 of 259
12 of 19
concentrations are determined to exceed the California and National annual average PM2.5 exceedence concentration of 12 µg/m3, or the National 24-hour average exceedence concentration of 35 µg/m3, then the buildings need to have a mechanical supply of outdoor air that has air filtration with sufficient removal efficiency, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles is less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards.
It is my experience that based on the projected high traffic noise levels, the annual average concentration of PM2.5 will exceed the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards and warrant installation of high efficiency air filters (i.e. MERV 13 or higher) in all mechanically supplied outdoor air ventilation systems.
Indoor Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures
The following are recommended mitigation measures to minimize the impacts upon indoor quality:
Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Mitigation. Use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins (CARB, 2009). CARB Phase 2 certified composite wood products, or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins, do not insure indoor formaldehyde concentrations that are below the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Only composite wood products manufactured with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins, such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.
Alternatively, conduct the previously described Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Chemical Emissions Assessment, to determine that the combination of formaldehyde emissions from building materials and furnishings do not create indoor formaldehyde concentrations that exceed the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.
Packet Page 662 of 860Attachment 12 Page 93 of 259
13 of 19
It is important to note that we are not asking that the builder “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described above (i.e.
Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.
Outdoor Air Ventilation Mitigation. Provide each habitable room with a continuous mechanical supply of outdoor air that meets or exceeds the California 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission, 2015) requirements of the greater of 15 cfm/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft2 of floor area. Following installation of the system conduct testing and balancing to insure that required amount of outdoor air is entering each habitable room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor airflow rates. Do not use exhaust only mechanical outdoor air systems, use only balanced outdoor air supply and exhaust systems or outdoor air supply only systems. Provide a manual for the occupants or maintenance personnel, that describes the purpose of the mechanical outdoor air system and the operation and maintenance requirements of the system.
PM2.5 Outdoor Air Concentration Mitigation. Install air filtration with sufficient PM2.5 removal efficiency (e.g. MERV 13 or higher) to filter the outdoor air entering the mechanical outdoor air supply systems, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles are less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards.
Install the air filters in the system such that they are accessible for replacement by the occupants or maintenance personnel. Include in the mechanical outdoor air ventilation system manual instructions on how to replace the air filters and the estimated frequency of replacement.
References
Packet Page 663 of 860Attachment 12 Page 94 of 259
14 of 19
Barati Consulting, 2023. Draft Environmental Impact Report – Green Valley 3 Apartments, Fairfield, CA, State Clearinghouse No. 20220304890.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, San Francisco, CA. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and- research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en
BIFA. 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines. www.bifma.org/page/standardsoverview
California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-final.pdf
California Air Resources Board. 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List.
California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/taclist.htm
California Building Code. 2001. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 Volume 1, Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division 1, Ventilation, Section 1207: 2001 California Building Code, California Building Standards Commission. Sacramento, CA.
California Building Standards Commission (2014). 2013 California Green Building Standards Code. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. California Building Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx .
California Energy Commission, PIER Program. CEC-500-2007-033. Final Report, ARB Contract 03-326. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/03-326.pdf .
Packet Page 664 of 860Attachment 12 Page 95 of 259
15 of 19
California Energy Commission, 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037- CMF.pdf
CDPH. 2017. Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1.
California Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.
EPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition, Chapter 16 – Activity Factors.
Report EPA/600/R-09/052F, September 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Hodgson, A. T., D. Beal, J.E.R. McIlvaine. 2002. Sources of formaldehyde, other aldehydes and terpenes in a new manufactured house. Indoor Air 12: 235–242.
OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.
OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2017a. Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels. No Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive Toxicity. Available at:
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf
OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2017b. All OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available at:
http://oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html
Offermann, F. J. 2009. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes. California Air Resources Board and California Energy Commission, PIER Energy‐Related Environmental Packet Page 665 of 860Attachment 12 Page 96 of 259
16 of 19
Research Program. Collaborative Report. CEC-500-2009-085. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/04-310.pdf
Offermann, F. J. and A. T. Hodgson. 2011. Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes. Proceedings Indoor Air 2011 (12th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate 2011), June 5-10, 2011, Austin, TX.
Singer, B.C, Chan, W.R, Kim, Y., Offermann, F.J., and Walker I.S. 2020. Indoor Air Quality in California Homes with Code-Required Mechanical Ventilation. Indoor Air, Vol 30, Issue 5, 885-899.
USGBC. 2014. LEED BD+C Homes v4. U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, D.C. http://www.usgbc.org/credits/homes/v4
Packet Page 666 of 860Attachment 12 Page 97 of 259
17 of 19
APPENDIX A
INDOOR FORMALDEHYDE CONCENTRATIONS
AND THE
CARB FORMALDEHYDE ATCM
With respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, the CARB ATCM regulations of formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, do not assure healthful indoor air quality. The following is the stated purpose of the CARB ATCM regulation - The purpose of this airborne toxic control measure is to “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, and finished goods that contain composite wood products, that are sold, offered for sale, supplied, used, or manufactured for sale in California”. In other words, the CARB ATCM regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality”, but rather “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products”.
Just how much protection do the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products? Definitely some, but certainly the regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality” when CARB Phase 2 products are utilized. As shown in the Chan 2019 study of new California homes, the median indoor formaldehyde concentration was of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb), which corresponds to a cancer risk of 112 per million for occupants with continuous exposure, which is more than 11 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million.
Another way of looking at how much protection the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products is to calculate the maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.
For this calculation I utilized the floor area (2,272 ft2), the ceiling height (8.5 ft), and the number of bedrooms (4) as defined in Appendix B (New Single-Family Residence Scenario) of the Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1, 2017, California Department of Public Health, Packet Page 667 of 860Attachment 12 Page 98 of 259
18 of 19
Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.
For the outdoor air ventilation rate I used the 2019 Title 24 code required mechanical ventilation rate (ASHRAE 62.2) of 106 cfm (180 m3/h) calculated for this model residence.
For the composite wood formaldehyde emission rates I used the CARB ATCM Phase 2 rates.
The calculated maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence, without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products.
Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 15 ft2 (0.7% of the floor area), or Particle Board – 30 ft2 (1.3% of the floor area), or
Hardwood Plywood – 54 ft2 (2.4% of the floor area), or
Thin MDF – 46 ft2 (2.0 % of the floor area).
For offices and hotels the calculated maximum amount of composite wood product (% of floor area) that can be used without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants, assuming 8 hours/day occupancy, and the California Mechanical Code minimum outdoor air ventilation rates are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products.
Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 3.6 % (offices) and 4.6% (hotel rooms), or Particle Board – 7.2 % (offices) and 9.4% (hotel rooms), or Hardwood Plywood – 13 % (offices) and 17% (hotel rooms), or Thin MDF – 11 % (offices) and 14 % (hotel rooms)
Clearly the CARB ATCM does not regulate the formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products such that the potentially large areas of these products, such as for flooring, baseboards, interior doors, window and door trims, and kitchen and bathroom cabinetry, could be used without causing indoor formaldehyde concentrations that result in CEQA Packet Page 668 of 860Attachment 12 Page 99 of 259
19 of 19
cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.
Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million.
The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.
If CARB Phase 2 compliant or ULEF composite wood products are utilized in construction, then the resulting indoor formaldehyde concentrations should be determined in the design phase using the specific amounts of each type of composite wood product, the specific formaldehyde emission rates, and the volume and outdoor air ventilation rates of the indoor spaces, and all feasible mitigation measures employed to reduce this impact (e.g. use less formaldehyde containing composite wood products and/or incorporate mechanical systems capable of higher outdoor air ventilation rates). See the procedure described earlier (i.e.
Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.
Alternatively, and perhaps a simpler approach, is to use only composite wood products (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins.
Packet Page 669 of 860Attachment 12 Page 100 of 259
EXHIBIT C
Packet Page 670 of 860Attachment 12 Page 101 of 259
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
May 10, 2023
Brian Flynn
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
Subject: Comments on the Green Valley 3 Apartments Project (SCH No. 2022030480) Dear Mr. Flynn,
We have reviewed the January 2023 Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the Green Valley 3 Apartments Project (“Project”) located in the City of Fairfield (“City”). The Project proposes to construct a 204,144-square-foot (“SF”) apartment building consisting of 185 dwelling units and 332 parking spaces on the 5.78-acre site.
Our review concludes that the DEIR fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s air quality and greenhouse gas impacts. As a result, emissions associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project may be underestimated and inadequately addressed. An updated EIR should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality and greenhouse gas impacts that the project may have on the environment.
Air Quality Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions The DEIR’s air quality analysis relies on emissions calculated with the California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”) Version 2020.4.0 (p. 4.2-20).1 CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project-specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence. 1 “CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/download-model .
Packet Page 671 of 860Attachment 12 Page 102 of 259
2 Once all of the values are inputted into the model, the Project's construction and operational emissions are calculated, and "output files" are generated. These output files disclose to the reader what parameters are utilized in calculating the Project's air pollutant emissions and make known which default values are changed as well as provide justification for the values selected.
When reviewing the Project’s CalEEMod output files, provided in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis (“AQ & GHG Analysis”) as Appendix B to the DEIR, we found that the model inputs were not consistent with information disclosed in the DEIR. As a result, the Project’s construction and operational emissions may be underestimated. An updated EIR should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that adequately evaluates the impacts that construction and operation of the Project will have on local and regional air quality.
Unsubstantiated Changes to Individual Construction Phase Lengths Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Green Valley 3 Apartments Project” and “Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Mitigated” models include several changes to the default individual construction phase lengths (see excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp. 3, 52, 94, 137).
As a result of these changes, the model includes the following construction schedule (see excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp. 51, 52, 84, 111).
As demonstrated above, the “Demolition and Site Preparation” phase is increased by 10%, from the default value of 20 to 22 days; the “Rough Grading” preparation phase is increased by 10%, from the default value of 20 to 22 days; the paving phase is increased by 10%, from the default value of 20 to 22 Packet Page 672 of 860Attachment 12 Page 103 of 259
3 days; the “Fine Grading” preparation phase is increased by 20%, from the default value of 20 to 24 days; the building construction phase is increased by 70%, from the default value of 230 to 391 days; the architectural coating phase is increased by 475%, from the default value of 20 to 115 days; and the “Finishing/Landscaping” phase is increased by 760%, from the default value of 10 to 86 days. As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.2 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is:
“Based on construction activities and schedule assumptions provided by Project Applicant.” (Appendix B, pp. 1, 50, 92, 134).
Regarding the Project’s anticipated construction schedule, the DEIR states:
“If approved, project construction is anticipated to commence in Summer 2023 and be completed in Spring 2025. Project occupancy is expected in Spring 2025” (p. 3-40).
However, the model’s revised construction schedule remains unsubstantiated as the DEIR fails to mention the Project’s proposed individual construction phases whatsoever. This is inconsistent with guidance provided by the CalEEMod User’s Guide:
“CalEEMod was also designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site-or project- specific information, when available, provided that the information is supported by substantial evidence as required by CEQA.”3
As the DEIR only justifies the total construction duration of 32 months, the DEIR fails to provide substantial evidence to support the revised individual construction phase lengths. As such, we cannot verify the changes. Instead, the model should have proportionately altered all phase lengths to match the proposed construction duration of 32 months.4
This presents an issue, as construction emissions are improperly spread out over a longer period of time for some phases, but not for others. According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide, each construction phase is associated with different emissions activities (see excerpt below).5 2 “CalEEMod User’s Guide Version 2020.4.0.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide , p. 1. 3 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide,p . 13,14.
4 See Attachment A for proportionately altered construction schedule. 5 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide , p. 32.
Packet Page 673 of 860Attachment 12 Page 104 of 259
4 By disproportionately altering and extending some of the individual construction phase lengths without proper justification, the model assumes there are a greater number of days to complete the construction activities required by the prolonged phases. As a result, there will be less construction activities required per day and, consequently, less pollutants emitted per day. Until we are able to verify the revised construction schedule, the model may underestimate the peak daily emissions associated with some phases of construction and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Construction Equipment Input Parameters Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Green Valley 3 Apartments Project” and “Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Mitigated” models include several changes to the default off-road construction equipment input parameters (see excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp. 2, 3, 51, 52, 93, 94, 135, 136).
*Note: the above excerpt does not capture all of the relevant changes.
Packet Page 674 of 860Attachment 12 Page 105 of 259
5 As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.6 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is:
“Equipment list based on information provided by Project Applicant.” (Appendix B, pp. 1, 50, 92, 134).
Regarding the proposed construction fleet, the DEIR states:
“The project applicant also provided construction fleet details, which were included in CalEEMod” (p. 4.2-25).
However, this justification is insufficient, as the DEIR fails to provide any additional information regarding the revised off-road construction equipment input parameters. As previously discussed, this is incorrect as the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires changes to be supported by substantial evidence.7 Therefore, until additional information becomes available that substantiates the revised load factors, equipment types, and unit amounts, we are unable to verify that the changes included in the models are an accurate reflection of the proposed construction equipment.
These unsubstantiated changes present an issue, as CalEEMod uses the off-road equipment input parameters to calculate the emissions associated with off-road construction equipment.8 By including unsubstantiated changes to the default off-road construction equipment unit amounts, the models may underestimate the Project’s construction-related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
Unsubstantiated Reductions to Energy Use Values
Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Green Valley 3 Apartments Project” and “Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Mitigated” models include several reductions to the default natural gas energy use values (see excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp. 3, 4, 52, 53, 94, 95, 137).
As demonstrated above, the Nontitle-24 natural gas (“NT24NG”), and Title-24 natural gas (“T24NG”) values were all reduced to 0 kilowatt hours per square feet (“KWhr/SF”). As previously mentioned, the 6 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide , p. 1, 14.
7 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide , p. 13, 14. 8 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide , p. 33, 34.
Packet Page 675 of 860Attachment 12 Page 106 of 259
6 CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified. 9 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is:
“Project would be all-electric” (Appendix B, pp. 2, 51, 93, 135).
Regarding the Project’s anticipated natural gas usage, the DEIR states:
“The building would be all-electric with no natural gas infrastructure for space or water heating and no appliances that operate on natural gas” (p. 3-36).
However, these changes remain unsubstantiated as the DEIR fails to include the above-mentioned project design feature (“PDF”) as a formal mitigation measure. This is incorrect, as according to the Association of Environmental Professionals’ (“AEP”) CEQA Portal Topic Paper on Mitigation Measures:
“While not ‘mitigation’, a good practice is to include those project design feature(s) that address environmental impacts in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP). Often the MMRP is all that accompanies building and construction plans through the permit process. If the design features are not listed as important to addressing an environmental impact, it is easy for someone not involved in the original environmental process to approve a change to the project that could eliminate one or more of the design features without understanding the resulting environmental impact.”10
As demonstrated above, PDFs that are not formally included as mitigation measures may be eliminated from the Project’s design altogether. Until the DEIR incorporates a formal mitigation measure that requires the Project to operate entirely without the use of natural gas, we cannot verify that the above changes are accurate. As such, the reductions to the natural gas energy use values are unsubstantiated.
These unsubstantiated reductions present an issue, as the energy use values are used by CalEEMod to calculate the Project’s emissions associated with building electricity and natural gas usage. 11 By assuming that the Project would not use natural gas, the model may underestimate the Project’s operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
Incorrect Application of Energy-Related Mitigation Measure Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Green Valley 3 Apartments Project” and “Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Mitigated” models include the following energy-related mitigation measures (see excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp. 38, 86, 128, 172):
9 “CalEEMod User’s Guide Version 2020.4.0.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide , p. 1, 14. 10 “CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures.” AEP, February 2020, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020.pdf , p. 6. 11 “CalEEMod User’s Guide Version 2020.4.0.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide , p. 43.
Packet Page 676 of 860Attachment 12 Page 107 of 259
7 As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.12 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is:
“The project would install solar and LED lighting throughout and all appliances would be ENERGY STAR certified.” (Appendix B, pp. 2, 51, 93, 135).
Regarding the on-site generation of renewable energy, the DEIR states:
“A minimum of 15 percent of the roof areas would be reserved for future photovoltaic (PV) solar installation. Infrastructure (e.g., conduit and structural elements, etc.) would be provided to facilitate the future PV solar installation” (p. 9).
However, the inclusion of the above-mentioned mitigation measure remains unsupported, as the Addendum fails to explicitly require on-site solar panels in a formal mitigation measure. As previously discussed, this is incorrect. According to the AEP CEQA Portal Topic Paper on Mitigation Measures:
“While not ‘mitigation’, a good practice is to include those project design feature(s) that address environmental impacts in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP). Often the MMRP is all that accompanies building and construction plans through the permit process. If the design features are not listed as important to addressing an environmental impact, it is easy for someone not involved in the original environmental process to approve a change to the project that could eliminate one or more of the design features without understanding the resulting environmental impact.”13
As demonstrated above, PDFs that are not mitigation measures and may be eliminated from the Project’s design. As the installation of solar panels on the Project site is not formally included as a mitigation measure, we cannot guarantee that it would be implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project site. As a result, the inclusion of the above-mentioned energy-related operational mitigation measure in the model is incorrect. By including an operational mitigation measure without properly committing to its implementation, the model may underestimate the Project’s operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
12 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide , p. 1, 14.
13 “CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures.” AEP, February 2020, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020.pdf , p. 6.
Packet Page 677 of 860Attachment 12 Page 108 of 259
8 Greenhouse Gas Failure to Adequately Evaluate Greenhouse Gas Impacts The DEIR estimates that the Project would generate net annual greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions of 738.1 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (“MT CO2e/year”), which would not exceed the extrapolated BAAQMD numeric threshold of 880 MT CO2e/year (see excerpt below) (p. 4.7-21, Table
4.7.D).
Furthermore, the DEIR’s analysis relies upon the Project’s consistency with the “goals of AB 32, the AB 32 Scoping Plan, EO B-30-15, SB 32, AB 197, EO S-2-05, and EO B-55-18” to conclude that the Project would result in a less-than-significant GHG impact (p. 4.7-24). However, the DEIR’s analysis, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for four reasons. (1)The DEIR’s quantitative analysis relies upon a flawed air model; (2)SWAPE’s updated air model indicates a potentially significant GHG impact; and (3)The DEIR fails to consider performance-based standards under CARB’s Scoping Plan. 1)Incorrect and Unsubstantiated Quantitative Analysis of Emissions As previously stated, the DEIR estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 738.1 MTCO2e (p. 4.7-21, Table 4.7.D). However, the DEIR’s quantitative analysis is unsubstantiated. As previously discussed, when reviewing the Project’s CalEEMod models, provided in the AQ & GHG Analysis, we found that several of the values inputted into the models are not consistent with information disclosed in the DEIR. As a result, the models may underestimate the Project’s emissions, and the DEIR’s quantitative analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. An updated EIR should be prepared that adequately assesses the potential GHG impacts that construction and operation of the proposed Project may have on the environment. 2) Updated Greenhouse Gas Analysis Indicates a Potentially Significant Impact In an effort to more accurately estimate the Project’s construction-related emissions we prepared an updated CalEEMod model, using the Project-specific information provided by the DEIR. In our updated model we omitted the unsubstantiated changes to the off-road construction input parameters, reductions to energy use values, and the incorporation of the energy-related operational mitigation Packet Page 678 of 860Attachment 12 Page 109 of 259
9 measure; and we proportionately altered the individual construction phase lengths to match the proposed construction duration of 32 months.14
SWAPE’s CalEEMod output files disclose the Project’s mitigated GHG emissions, which include approximately 544.02 MT CO2e/year of total construction emissions (sum of 2023, 2024, and 2025) and approximately 983.42 MT CO2e/year of net annual operational emissions (sum of area-, energy-, mobile-, waste, and water-related emissions). When amortizing the Project’s construction-related GHG emissions over a period of 30 years and summing them with the Project’s operational GHG emissions, we estimate net annual GHG emissions of approximately 1,001.55 MT CO2e/year. After applying the DEIR’s extrapolated threshold of 880 MT CO2e/year, our updated air model indicates a potentially significant GHG impact (see table below) (p. 4.7-21).
SWAPE Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Project Phase Proposed Project
Total Construction 544.02
Construction (amortized over 30 years) 18.13
Area 14.70
Energy 220.58
Mobile 620.81
Waste 99.36
Water 27.97
Annual Operational 983.42
Total Net Annual GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 1,001.55
Extrapolated BAAQMD Threshold (MT CO2e/year) 880
Exceeds? Yes
As demonstrated above, the Project’s net annual GHG emissions, as estimated by the SWAPE, exceed the extrapolated BAAQMD numeric threshold of 880 MT CO2e/year, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact. As such, an updated EIR should be prepared, including an updated GHG analysis and incorporating additional mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s GHG emissions to less-than- significant levels.
3) Failure to Consider Performance-based Standards Under CARB’s Scoping Plan The DEIR concludes that the Project would be consistent with CARB’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (p. 4.7-24). However, this is incorrect, as the DEIR fails to consider the following performance-based measures proposed by CARB.
14 See Attachment B for updated CalEEMod model.
Packet Page 679 of 860Attachment 12 Page 110 of 259
10 i. Passenger & Light Duty VMT Per Capita Benchmarks per SB 375 In reaching the State’s long-term GHG emission reduction goals, CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan explicitly cites to SB 375 and the VMT reductions anticipated under the implementation of Sustainable Community Strategies.15 CARB has identified the population and daily VMT from passenger autos and light-duty vehicles at the state and county level for each year between 2010 to 2050 under a “baseline scenario” that includes “current projections of VMT included in the existing Regional Transportation Plans/Sustainable Communities Strategies (RTP/SCSs) adopted by the State’s 18 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) pursuant to SB 375 as of 2015.”16 By dividing the projected daily VMT by the population, we calculated the daily VMT per capita for each year at the state and county level for 2010 (baseline year), 2025 (Project operational year), and 2030 (target years under SB 32) (see table below). 2017 Scoping Plan Daily VMT Per Capita
Solano County State
Year Population LDV VMT
Baseline
VMT Per
Capita Population LDV VMT
Baseline
VMT Per
Capita
2010 412,525 8,878,434.00 21.52 37,335,085 836,463,980.46 22.40 2025 480,712 12,445,004.00 25.89 42,326,397 929,443,512.65 21.96 2030 507,219 12,928,664.00 25.49 43,939,250 957,178,153.19 21.78 As the DEIR fails to evaluate the Project’s consistency with the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan performance- based daily VMT per capita projections, the DEIR’s claim that the proposed Project would not conflict with the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan is unsupported. An updated EIR should be prepared for the proposed Project to provide additional information and analysis to conclude less-than-significant GHG impacts. ii. Project Attributes for Residential and Mixed-Use Projects As previously discussed, the DEIR concludes that the Project would be consistent with CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan (p. 4.7-24). However, the DEIR fails to discuss CARB’s Updated 2022 Scoping Plan whatsoever, which was released in November 2022. Regarding residential and mixed-use projects, CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan states:
“[T]he first approach the State recommends for determining whether a proposed residential or mixed-use residential development would align with the State’s climate goals is to examine
15 “California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan.” CARB, November 2017, available at:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf , p. 25, 98, 101-103. 16 “Supporting Calculations for 2017 Scoping Plan-Identified VMT Reductions,” California Air Resources Board (CARB), January 2019, available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/carb-2017-scoping-plan- identified-vmt-reductions-and-relationship-state-climate; see also:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-01/sp_mss_vmt_calculations_jan19_0.xlsx .
Packet Page 680 of 860Attachment 12 Page 111 of 259
11 whether the project includes key project attributes that reduce operational GHG emissions while simultaneously advancing fair housing.”17
Specifically, among the project attributes identified by CARB to reduce GHG emissions, the DEIR fails to implement or consider the following:18
Table 3 – Key Residential and Mixed-Use Project Attributes that Reduce GHGs Priority Areas Key Project Attribute
Transportation Electrification • Provides EV charging infrastructure that, at minimum, meets the most ambitious voluntary standard in the
California Green Building Standards Code at the time of project approval.
VMT Reduction
• Does not result in the loss or conversion of natural and working lands.
• Consists of transit-supportive densities (minimum of 20 residential dwelling units per acre), or
Is in proximity to existing transit stops (within a half mile), or Satisfies more detailed and stringent criteria specified in the region’s SCS.
• Reduces parking requirements by: Eliminating parking
requirements or including maximum allowable parking
ratios (i.e., the ratio of parking spaces to residential units or square feet); or
Providing residential parking supply at a ratio of less than one parking space per dwelling unit; or
For multifamily residential development, requiring parking costs to be unbundled from costs to rent or own a
residential unit.
• At least 20 percent of units included are affordable to lower-income residents.
These features are intended to identify development projects that are clearly consistent with the State of California’s greenhouse gas emission targets. We recommend that an updated EIR be prepared which incorporates the above-mentioned measures into the Project’s design or provides further information and analysis demonstrating that the measures would not be applicable to the Project.
17 “Appendix D Local Actions,” California Air Resources Board (CARB), November 2022 , available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/2022-sp-appendix-d-local-actions.pdf , p. 21. 18 “Appendix D Local Actions,” California Air Resources Board (CARB), November 2022 , available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/2022-sp-appendix-d-local-actions.pdf , p. 22, 23.
Packet Page 681 of 860Attachment 12 Page 112 of 259
12 Mitigation Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions Our analysis demonstrates that the Project would result in potentially significant air quality and GHG impacts that should be mitigated further. In an effort to reduce the Project’s emissions, we recommend consideration of the following measures from SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS PEIR’s Greenhouse Gas Project Level Mitigation Measures (“PMM-GHG-1”), as described below: 19 SCAG RTP/SCS 2020-2045
Greenhouse Gas Project Level Mitigation Measures – PMM-GHG-1 In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects related to violating air quality standards. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
b) Reduce emissions resulting from projects through implementation of project features, project design, or other measures, such as those described in Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines. c) Include off-site measures to mitigate a project’s emissions. d) Measures that consider incorporation of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) during design, construction and operation of projects to minimize GHG emissions, including but not limited to:
i. Use energy and fuel-efficient vehicles and equipment; ii. Deployment of zero- and/or near zero emission technologies; iii. Use lighting systems that are energy efficient, such as LED technology; iv. Use the minimum feasible amount of GHG-emitting construction materials; v. Use cement blended with the maximum feasible amount of flash or other materials that reduce GHG emissions from cement production;
vi. Incorporate design measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse;
vii. Incorporate design measures to reduce energy consumption and increase use of renewable energy;
viii. Incorporate design measures to reduce water consumption; ix. Use lighter-colored pavement where feasible;
x. Recycle construction debris to maximum extent feasible; xi. Plant shade trees in or near construction projects where feasible; and xii. Solicit bids that include concepts listed above.
e) Measures that encourage transit use, carpooling, bike-share and car-share programs, active transportation, and parking strategies, including, but not limited to the following:
i. Promote transit-active transportation coordinated strategies; ii. Increase bicycle carrying capacity on transit and rail vehicles;
19 “4.0 Mitigation Measures.” Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report Addendum #1, September 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/fpeir_connectsocal_addendum_4_mitigationmeasures.pdf?1606004420, p. 4.0-2 – 4.0-10; 4.0-19 –
4.0-23; See also: “Certified Final Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report.” Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), May 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/peir .
Packet Page 682 of 860Attachment 12 Page 113 of 259
13 iii. Improve or increase access to transit;
iv. Increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and day care; v. Incorporate affordable housing into the project;
vi. Incorporate the neighborhood electric vehicle network; vii. Orient the project toward transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; viii. Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service; ix. Provide traffic calming measures;
x. Provide bicycle parking;
xi. Limit or eliminate park supply;
xii. Unbundle parking costs;
xiii. Provide parking cash-out programs;
xiv. Implement or provide access to commute reduction program; f) Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities into project designs, maintaining these facilities, and providing amenities incentivizing their use; and planning for and building local bicycle projects that connect with the regional network;
g) Improving transit access to rail and bus routes by incentives for construction and transit facilities within developments, and/or providing dedicated shuttle service to transit stations; and h) Adopting employer trip reduction measures to reduce employee trips such as vanpool and carpool programs, providing end-of-trip facilities, and telecommuting programs including but not limited to measures that:
i. Provide car-sharing, bike sharing, and ride-sharing programs; ii. Provide transit passes;
iii. Shift single occupancy vehicle trips to carpooling or vanpooling, for example providing ride- matching services;
iv. Provide incentives or subsidies that increase that use of modes other than single-occupancy vehicle;
v. Provide on-site amenities at places of work, such as priority parking for carpools and vanpools, secure bike parking, and showers and locker rooms;
vi. Provide employee transportation coordinators at employment sites; vii. Provide a guaranteed ride home service to users of non-auto modes. i) Designate a percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles or high-occupancy vehicles, and provide adequate passenger loading and unloading for those vehicles; j) Land use siting and design measures that reduce GHG emissions, including:
i. Developing on infill and brownfields sites;
ii. Building compact and mixed-use developments near transit; iii. Retaining on-site mature trees and vegetation, and planting new canopy trees; iv. Measures that increase vehicle efficiency, encourage use of zero and low emissions vehicles, or reduce the carbon content of fuels, including constructing or encouraging construction of electric vehicle charging stations or neighborhood electric vehicle networks, or charging for electric bicycles; and
v. Measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse.
k) Consult the SCAG Environmental Justice Toolbox for potential measures to address impacts to low-income and/or minority communities. The measures provided above are also intended to be applied in low income and minority communities as applicable and feasible.
l) Require at least five percent of all vehicle parking spaces include electric vehicle charging stations, or at a minimum, require the appropriate infrastructure to facilitate sufficient electric charging for passenger vehicles and trucks to plug-in.
Packet Page 683 of 860Attachment 12 Page 114 of 259
14 m)Encourage telecommuting and alternative work schedules, such as:
i.Staggered starting times
ii.Flexible schedules
iii.Compressed work weeks
n) Implement commute trip reduction marketing, such as:
i.New employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options ii.Event promotions
iii. Publications
o)Implement preferential parking permit program
p) Implement school pool and bus programs
These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently, reduce emissions released during Project construction and operation. An updated EIR should be prepared to include all feasible mitigation measures, as well as include updated air quality and GHG analyses to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to below thresholds. The updated EIR should also demonstrate a commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project’s significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible.
Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.
Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Packet Page 684 of 860Attachment 12 Page 115 of 259
15 Attachment A: Proportionately Altered Construction Schedule Attachment B: Updated CalEEMod Output Files
Attachment C: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment D: Paul Rosenfeld CV
Packet Page 685 of 860Attachment 12 Page 116 of 259
Phase
Default Phase
Length
Construction
Duration %
Construction
Duration
Revised Phase
Length
Demolition 20 475 0.0421 638 27
Site Preparation 10 475 0.0211 638 13
Grading 20 475 0.0421 638 27
Grading 20 475 0.0421 638 27
Construction 230 475 0.4842 638 309
Paving 20 475 0.0421 638 27
Architectural Coating 20 475 0.0421 638 27
457
Total Default
Construction
Duration
Revised
Construction
Duration
Start Date 6/15/2023 6/15/2023
End Date 10/2/2024 3/14/2025
Total Days 475 638
Construction Schedule Calculations
Attachment A
Packet Page 686 of 860Attachment 12 Page 117 of 259
Green Valley 3 Apartments Project
Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Land Use - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE's comment on "Unsubstantuated Changes to Individual Construction Phase Lengths".
Off-road Equipment - See SWAPE's comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Construction Equipment Input Parameters".
Off-road Equipment - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Trips and VMT - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Grading - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Vehicle Trips - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Enclosed Parking with Elevator 102.00 Space 0.59 54,845.00 0 Other Asphalt Surfaces 2.41 Acre 2.41 104,979.60 0
City Park 1.47 Acre 1.47 64,033.20 0
Health Club 19.71 1000sqft 0.00 19,714.00 0
Apartments Mid Rise 185.00 Dwelling Unit 1.32 204,144.00 529
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
4 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 64
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company
2025Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
203.98 0.033CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.004N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 1 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Attachment B
Packet Page 687 of 860Attachment 12 Page 118 of 259
Energy Use - See SWAPE's comment on "Unsubstantiated Reductions to Energy Use Values".
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Area Mitigation - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Energy Mitigation - See SWAPE's comment on "Incorect Application of Energy-Related Mitigation Measures".
Water Mitigation - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblAreaMitigation UseLowVOCPaintParkingCheck False True tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 7.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 7.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 15.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 2 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 688 of 860Attachment 12 Page 119 of 259
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 27.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 230.00 309.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 27.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 27.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 27.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 27.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 13.00
tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 10,300.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 40,800.00 54,845.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 19,710.00 19,714.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 185,000.00 204,144.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.92 0.59
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.45 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 4.87 1.32
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 21.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 50.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 18.00 50.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 50.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 50.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 10.00 75.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 236.00 100.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 75.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 47.00 50.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 3 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 689 of 860Attachment 12 Page 120 of 259
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 4.91 4.54
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.96 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 20.87 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 4.09 4.54
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.19 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 26.73 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 5.44 4.54
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 0.78 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 32.93 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 4 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 690 of 860Attachment 12 Page 121 of 259
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2023 2.7947 27.6019 32.2274 0.0681 20.0678 1.2681 21.3358 10.2114 1.1666 11.3780 0.0000 6,738.819 0 6,738.819
0 1.2017 0.5057 6,834.948
1 2024 1.7877 16.1572 19.1992 0.0458 1.2279 0.6329 1.8608 0.3349 0.5955 0.9304 0.0000 4,550.876 4 4,550.876
4 0.7264 0.2060 4,628.444
4 2025 116.8216 8.6754 16.1440 0.0278 0.6161 0.4213 1.0374 0.1634 0.3876 0.5510 0.0000 2,727.011 5 2,727.011
5 0.7250 0.0113 2,748.514
2 Maximum 116.8216 27.6019 32.2274 0.0681 20.0678 1.2681 21.3358 10.2114 1.1666 11.3780 0.0000 6,738.819 0 6,738.819
0 1.2017 0.5057 6,834.948
1 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2023 2.3131 41.2446 35.3992 0.0681 20.0678 1.4404 21.0160 10.2114 1.4392 11.1594 0.0000 6,738.819 0 6,738.819
0 1.2017 0.5057 6,834.948
1 2024 1.3970 26.2678 20.9061 0.0458 1.2279 0.9231 2.1510 0.3349 0.9222 1.2570 0.0000 4,550.876 4 4,550.876
4 0.7264 0.2060 4,628.444
4 2025 116.7646 20.2084 18.8617 0.0278 0.6161 0.6698 1.2859 0.1634 0.6695 0.8330 0.0000 2,727.011 5 2,727.011
5 0.7250 0.0113 2,748.514
2 Maximum 116.7646 41.2446 35.3992 0.0681 20.0678 1.4404 21.0160 10.2114 1.4392 11.1594 0.0000 6,738.819 0 6,738.819
0 1.2017 0.5057 6,834.948
1 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 5 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 691 of 860Attachment 12 Page 122 of 259
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.77 -67.30 -11.24 0.00 0.00 -30.62 -0.90 0.00 -40.99 -3.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 6 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 692 of 860Attachment 12 Page 123 of 259
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 82.2546 1.8578 115.7819 0.1945 14.3551 14.3551 14.3551 14.3551 1,548.606 6 713.0979 2,261.704
5 2.1456 0.1095 2,347.962
9 Energy 0.0611 0.5301 0.2831 3.3300e-
003
0.0422 0.0422 0.0422 0.0422 666.1477 666.1477 0.0128 0.0122 670.1063 Mobile 2.0540 1.8811 17.0050 0.0374 4.0831 0.0263 4.1094 1.0875 0.0245 1.1121 3,900.461 1 3,900.461
1 0.2251 0.1681 3,956.173
3 Total 84.3696 4.2690 133.0699 0.2352 4.0831 14.4236 18.5067 1.0875 14.4218 15.5093 1,548.606 6 5,279.706
7 6,828.313
3 2.3835 0.2897 6,974.242
5 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 6.1715 0.1758 15.2611 8.1000e-
004
0.0847 0.0847 0.0847 0.0847 0.0000 27.5097 27.5097 0.0264 0.0000 28.1694 Energy 0.0611 0.5301 0.2831 3.3300e-
003
0.0422 0.0422 0.0422 0.0422 666.1477 666.1477 0.0128 0.0122 670.1063 Mobile 2.0540 1.8811 17.0050 0.0374 4.0831 0.0263 4.1094 1.0875 0.0245 1.1121 3,900.461 1 3,900.461
1 0.2251 0.1681 3,956.173
3 Total 8.2865 2.5870 32.5491 0.0415 4.0831 0.1532 4.2363 1.0875 0.1514 1.2389 0.0000 4,594.118 5 4,594.118
5 0.2643 0.1803 4,654.449
0 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 7 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 693 of 860Attachment 12 Page 124 of 259
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition and Site Preparation Demolition 6/15/2023 7/21/2023 5 27 2 Finishing/Landscaping Site Preparation 7/22/2023 8/9/2023 5 13 3 Rough Grading Grading 8/10/2023 9/15/2023 5 27
4 Fine Grading Grading 9/16/2023 10/24/2023 5 27
5 Utility Trenching Trenching 10/25/2023 11/30/2023 5 27 6 Building Construction Building Construction 10/25/2023 12/30/2024 5 309 7 Paving Paving 12/31/2024 2/5/2025 5 27
8 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 2/6/2025 3/14/2025 5 27 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition and Site Preparation Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Demolition and Site Preparation Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38 Demolition and Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
90.18 39.40 75.54 82.34 0.00 98.94 77.11 0.00 98.95 92.01 100.00 12.99 32.72 88.91 37.78 33.26 Residential Indoor: 413,392; Residential Outdoor: 137,797; Non-Residential Indoor: 29,571; Non-Residential Outdoor: 9,857; Striped Parking Area: 9,589 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 19.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 27
Acres of Paving: 3
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 8 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 694 of 860Attachment 12 Page 125 of 259
Finishing/Landscaping Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40 Finishing/Landscaping Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Rough Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38
Rough Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Rough Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Rough Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
Fine Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38
Fine Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Fine Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Fine Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
Utility Trenching Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Utility Trenching Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition and Site
Preparation
6 50.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 21.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Finishing/Landscaping 7 50.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Rough Grading 6 50.00 0.00 1,288.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 9 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 695 of 860Attachment 12 Page 126 of 259
3.2 Demolition and Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.2691 21.4844 19.6434 0.0388 0.9975 0.9975 0.9280 0.9280 3,746.984 0 3,746.984
0 1.0494 3,773.218
3 Total 2.2691 21.4844 19.6434 0.0388 0.9975 0.9975 0.9280 0.9280 3,746.984 0 3,746.984
0 1.0494 3,773.218
3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Fine Grading 6 50.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Utility Trenching 4 75.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 100.00 60.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 75.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 50.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 10 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 696 of 860Attachment 12 Page 127 of 259
3.2 Demolition and Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1353 0.0777 1.1953 3.5600e-
003
0.4107 2.0400e-
003
0.4128 0.1090 1.8800e-
003
0.1108 364.4225 364.4225 9.1900e-
003
8.6500e-
003
367.2286
Total 0.1353 0.0777 1.1953 3.5600e-
003
0.4107 2.0400e-
003
0.4128 0.1090 1.8800e-
003
0.1108 364.4225 364.4225 9.1900e-
003
8.6500e-
003
367.2286
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.2617 32.6638 24.6739 0.0388 0.9135 0.9135 0.9135 0.9135 0.0000 3,746.984 0 3,746.984
0 1.0494 3,773.218
3 Total 1.2617 32.6638 24.6739 0.0388 0.9135 0.9135 0.9135 0.9135 0.0000 3,746.984 0 3,746.984
0 1.0494 3,773.218
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 11 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 697 of 860Attachment 12 Page 128 of 259
3.2 Demolition and Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1353 0.0777 1.1953 3.5600e-
003
0.4107 2.0400e-
003
0.4128 0.1090 1.8800e-
003
0.1108 364.4225 364.4225 9.1900e-
003
8.6500e-
003
367.2286
Total 0.1353 0.0777 1.1953 3.5600e-
003
0.4107 2.0400e-
003
0.4128 0.1090 1.8800e-
003
0.1108 364.4225 364.4225 9.1900e-
003
8.6500e-
003
367.2286
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Finishing/Landscaping - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 19.6570 0.0000 19.6570 10.1025 0.0000 10.1025 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.6595 27.5242 18.2443 0.0381 1.2660 1.2660 1.1647 1.1647 3,687.308 1 3,687.308
1 1.1926 3,717.121
9 Total 2.6595 27.5242 18.2443 0.0381 19.6570 1.2660 20.9230 10.1025 1.1647 11.2672 3,687.308 1 3,687.308
1 1.1926 3,717.121
9 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 12 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 698 of 860Attachment 12 Page 129 of 259
3.3 Finishing/Landscaping - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1353 0.0777 1.1953 3.5600e-
003
0.4107 2.0400e-
003
0.4128 0.1090 1.8800e-
003
0.1108 364.4225 364.4225 9.1900e-
003
8.6500e-
003
367.2286
Total 0.1353 0.0777 1.1953 3.5600e-
003
0.4107 2.0400e-
003
0.4128 0.1090 1.8800e-
003
0.1108 364.4225 364.4225 9.1900e-
003
8.6500e-
003
367.2286
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 19.6570 0.0000 19.6570 10.1025 0.0000 10.1025 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.2097 33.7214 22.9600 0.0381 0.9462 0.9462 0.9462 0.9462 0.0000 3,687.308 1 3,687.308
1 1.1926 3,717.121
9 Total 1.2097 33.7214 22.9600 0.0381 19.6570 0.9462 20.6032 10.1025 0.9462 11.0486 0.0000 3,687.308 1 3,687.308
1 1.1926 3,717.121
9 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 13 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 699 of 860Attachment 12 Page 130 of 259
3.3 Finishing/Landscaping - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1353 0.0777 1.1953 3.5600e-
003
0.4107 2.0400e-
003
0.4128 0.1090 1.8800e-
003
0.1108 364.4225 364.4225 9.1900e-
003
8.6500e-
003
367.2286
Total 0.1353 0.0777 1.1953 3.5600e-
003
0.4107 2.0400e-
003
0.4128 0.1090 1.8800e-
003
0.1108 364.4225 364.4225 9.1900e-
003
8.6500e-
003
367.2286
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Rough Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 7.1257 0.0000 7.1257 3.4313 0.0000 3.4313 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.7109 17.9359 14.7507 0.0297 0.7749 0.7749 0.7129 0.7129 2,872.691 0 2,872.691
0 0.9291 2,895.918
2 Total 1.7109 17.9359 14.7507 0.0297 7.1257 0.7749 7.9007 3.4313 0.7129 4.1442 2,872.691 0 2,872.691
0 0.9291 2,895.918
2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 14 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 700 of 860Attachment 12 Page 131 of 259
3.4 Rough Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1021 6.2339 1.5140 0.0288 0.8344 0.0523 0.8866 0.2287 0.0500 0.2787 3,136.957 1 3,136.957
1 0.1034 0.4971 3,287.671
6 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1353 0.0777 1.1953 3.5600e-
003
0.4107 2.0400e-
003
0.4128 0.1090 1.8800e-
003
0.1108 364.4225 364.4225 9.1900e-
003
8.6500e-
003
367.2286
Total 0.2374 6.3116 2.7093 0.0323 1.2451 0.0543 1.2994 0.3377 0.0519 0.3895 3,501.379 6 3,501.379
6 0.1126 0.5057 3,654.900
2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 7.1257 0.0000 7.1257 3.4313 0.0000 3.4313 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.0093 26.2791 18.9906 0.0297 0.7725 0.7725 0.7725 0.7725 0.0000 2,872.691 0 2,872.691
0 0.9291 2,895.918
2 Total 1.0093 26.2791 18.9906 0.0297 7.1257 0.7725 7.8982 3.4313 0.7725 4.2038 0.0000 2,872.691 0 2,872.691
0 0.9291 2,895.918
2 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 15 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 701 of 860Attachment 12 Page 132 of 259
3.4 Rough Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1021 6.2339 1.5140 0.0288 0.8344 0.0523 0.8866 0.2287 0.0500 0.2787 3,136.957 1 3,136.957
1 0.1034 0.4971 3,287.671
6 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1353 0.0777 1.1953 3.5600e-
003
0.4107 2.0400e-
003
0.4128 0.1090 1.8800e-
003
0.1108 364.4225 364.4225 9.1900e-
003
8.6500e-
003
367.2286
Total 0.2374 6.3116 2.7093 0.0323 1.2451 0.0543 1.2994 0.3377 0.0519 0.3895 3,501.379 6 3,501.379
6 0.1126 0.5057 3,654.900
2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Fine Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 7.0826 0.0000 7.0826 3.4247 0.0000 3.4247 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.7109 17.9359 14.7507 0.0297 0.7749 0.7749 0.7129 0.7129 2,872.691 0 2,872.691
0 0.9291 2,895.918
2 Total 1.7109 17.9359 14.7507 0.0297 7.0826 0.7749 7.8575 3.4247 0.7129 4.1377 2,872.691 0 2,872.691
0 0.9291 2,895.918
2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 16 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 702 of 860Attachment 12 Page 133 of 259
3.5 Fine Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1353 0.0777 1.1953 3.5600e-
003
0.4107 2.0400e-
003
0.4128 0.1090 1.8800e-
003
0.1108 364.4225 364.4225 9.1900e-
003
8.6500e-
003
367.2286
Total 0.1353 0.0777 1.1953 3.5600e-
003
0.4107 2.0400e-
003
0.4128 0.1090 1.8800e-
003
0.1108 364.4225 364.4225 9.1900e-
003
8.6500e-
003
367.2286
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 7.0826 0.0000 7.0826 3.4247 0.0000 3.4247 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.0093 26.2791 18.9906 0.0297 0.7725 0.7725 0.7725 0.7725 0.0000 2,872.691 0 2,872.691
0 0.9291 2,895.918
2 Total 1.0093 26.2791 18.9906 0.0297 7.0826 0.7725 7.8551 3.4247 0.7725 4.1972 0.0000 2,872.691 0 2,872.691
0 0.9291 2,895.918
2 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 17 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 703 of 860Attachment 12 Page 134 of 259
3.5 Fine Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1353 0.0777 1.1953 3.5600e-
003
0.4107 2.0400e-
003
0.4128 0.1090 1.8800e-
003
0.1108 364.4225 364.4225 9.1900e-
003
8.6500e-
003
367.2286
Total 0.1353 0.0777 1.1953 3.5600e-
003
0.4107 2.0400e-
003
0.4128 0.1090 1.8800e-
003
0.1108 364.4225 364.4225 9.1900e-
003
8.6500e-
003
367.2286
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Utility Trenching - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.6801 6.1686 10.9782 0.0166 0.3032 0.3032 0.2790 0.2790 1,603.364 3 1,603.364
3 0.5186 1,616.328
3 Total 0.6801 6.1686 10.9782 0.0166 0.3032 0.3032 0.2790 0.2790 1,603.364 3 1,603.364
3 0.5186 1,616.328
3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 18 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 704 of 860Attachment 12 Page 135 of 259
3.6 Utility Trenching - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.2029 0.1165 1.7929 5.3400e-
003
0.6161 3.0600e-
003
0.6192 0.1634 2.8100e-
003
0.1662 546.6337 546.6337 0.0138 0.0130 550.8429
Total 0.2029 0.1165 1.7929 5.3400e-
003
0.6161 3.0600e-
003
0.6192 0.1634 2.8100e-
003
0.1662 546.6337 546.6337 0.0138 0.0130 550.8429
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.6936 14.8449 12.5202 0.0166 0.5142 0.5142 0.5142 0.5142 0.0000 1,603.364 3 1,603.364
3 0.5186 1,616.328
3 Total 0.6936 14.8449 12.5202 0.0166 0.5142 0.5142 0.5142 0.5142 0.0000 1,603.364 3 1,603.364
3 0.5186 1,616.328
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 19 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 705 of 860Attachment 12 Page 136 of 259
3.6 Utility Trenching - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.2029 0.1165 1.7929 5.3400e-
003
0.6161 3.0600e-
003
0.6192 0.1634 2.8100e-
003
0.1662 546.6337 546.6337 0.0138 0.0130 550.8429
Total 0.2029 0.1165 1.7929 5.3400e-
003
0.6161 3.0600e-
003
0.6192 0.1634 2.8100e-
003
0.1662 546.6337 546.6337 0.0138 0.0130 550.8429
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 20 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 706 of 860Attachment 12 Page 137 of 259
3.7 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0653 2.5735 0.8218 0.0122 0.4064 0.0156 0.4219 0.1170 0.0149 0.1319 1,304.766 1 1,304.766
1 0.0267 0.1929 1,362.913
6 Worker 0.2705 0.1554 2.3905 7.1200e-
003
0.8215 4.0700e-
003
0.8256 0.2179 3.7500e-
003
0.2216 728.8449 728.8449 0.0184 0.0173 734.4572
Total 0.3358 2.7288 3.2124 0.0193 1.2278 0.0197 1.2475 0.3349 0.0187 0.3535 2,033.611 1 2,033.611
1 0.0451 0.2102 2,097.370
8 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0809 23.5544 17.8738 0.0269 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Total 1.0809 23.5544 17.8738 0.0269 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 21 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 707 of 860Attachment 12 Page 138 of 259
3.7 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0653 2.5735 0.8218 0.0122 0.4064 0.0156 0.4219 0.1170 0.0149 0.1319 1,304.766 1 1,304.766
1 0.0267 0.1929 1,362.913
6 Worker 0.2705 0.1554 2.3905 7.1200e-
003
0.8215 4.0700e-
003
0.8256 0.2179 3.7500e-
003
0.2216 728.8449 728.8449 0.0184 0.0173 734.4572
Total 0.3358 2.7288 3.2124 0.0193 1.2278 0.0197 1.2475 0.3349 0.0187 0.3535 2,033.611 1 2,033.611
1 0.0451 0.2102 2,097.370
8 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.4716 13.4438 16.1668 0.0270 0.6133 0.6133 0.5769 0.5769 2,555.698 9 2,555.698
9 0.6044 2,570.807
7 Total 1.4716 13.4438 16.1668 0.0270 0.6133 0.6133 0.5769 0.5769 2,555.698 9 2,555.698
9 0.6044 2,570.807
7 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 22 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 708 of 860Attachment 12 Page 139 of 259
3.7 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0634 2.5747 0.8043 0.0120 0.4064 0.0157 0.4221 0.1170 0.0150 0.1320 1,284.416 4 1,284.416
4 0.0266 0.1899 1,341.656
7 Worker 0.2527 0.1387 2.2280 6.8900e-
003
0.8215 3.8800e-
003
0.8254 0.2179 3.5700e-
003
0.2215 710.7611 710.7611 0.0166 0.0161 715.9800
Total 0.3161 2.7134 3.0323 0.0189 1.2279 0.0196 1.2475 0.3349 0.0186 0.3535 1,995.177 5 1,995.177
5 0.0432 0.2060 2,057.636
7 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0809 23.5544 17.8738 0.0270 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.0000 2,555.698 9 2,555.698
9 0.6044 2,570.807
7 Total 1.0809 23.5544 17.8738 0.0270 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.0000 2,555.698 9 2,555.698
9 0.6044 2,570.807
7 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 23 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 709 of 860Attachment 12 Page 140 of 259
3.7 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0634 2.5747 0.8043 0.0120 0.4064 0.0157 0.4221 0.1170 0.0150 0.1320 1,284.416 4 1,284.416
4 0.0266 0.1899 1,341.656
7 Worker 0.2527 0.1387 2.2280 6.8900e-
003
0.8215 3.8800e-
003
0.8254 0.2179 3.5700e-
003
0.2215 710.7611 710.7611 0.0166 0.0161 715.9800
Total 0.3161 2.7134 3.0323 0.0189 1.2279 0.0196 1.2475 0.3349 0.0186 0.3535 1,995.177 5 1,995.177
5 0.0432 0.2060 2,057.636
7 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.8 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Paving 0.2339 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.2220 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 24 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 710 of 860Attachment 12 Page 141 of 259
3.8 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1895 0.1041 1.6710 5.1700e-
003
0.6161 2.9100e-
003
0.6190 0.1634 2.6800e-
003
0.1661 533.0709 533.0709 0.0125 0.0121 536.9850
Total 0.1895 0.1041 1.6710 5.1700e-
003
0.6161 2.9100e-
003
0.6190 0.1634 2.6800e-
003
0.1661 533.0709 533.0709 0.0125 0.0121 536.9850
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9311 20.1146 17.2957 0.0228 0.6670 0.6670 0.6670 0.6670 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Paving 0.2339 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.1649 20.1146 17.2957 0.0228 0.6670 0.6670 0.6670 0.6670 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 25 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 711 of 860Attachment 12 Page 142 of 259
3.8 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1895 0.1041 1.6710 5.1700e-
003
0.6161 2.9100e-
003
0.6190 0.1634 2.6800e-
003
0.1661 533.0709 533.0709 0.0125 0.0121 536.9850
Total 0.1895 0.1041 1.6710 5.1700e-
003
0.6161 2.9100e-
003
0.6190 0.1634 2.6800e-
003
0.1661 533.0709 533.0709 0.0125 0.0121 536.9850
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.8 Paving - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9152 8.5816 14.5780 0.0228 0.4185 0.4185 0.3850 0.3850 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Paving 0.2339 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.1490 8.5816 14.5780 0.0228 0.4185 0.4185 0.3850 0.3850 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 26 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 712 of 860Attachment 12 Page 143 of 259
3.8 Paving - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1780 0.0938 1.5661 4.9900e-
003
0.6161 2.7800e-
003
0.6189 0.1634 2.5600e-
003
0.1660 520.2663 520.2663 0.0113 0.0113 523.9264
Total 0.1780 0.0938 1.5661 4.9900e-
003
0.6161 2.7800e-
003
0.6189 0.1634 2.5600e-
003
0.1660 520.2663 520.2663 0.0113 0.0113 523.9264
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9311 20.1146 17.2957 0.0228 0.6670 0.6670 0.6670 0.6670 0.0000 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Paving 0.2339 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.1649 20.1146 17.2957 0.0228 0.6670 0.6670 0.6670 0.6670 0.0000 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 27 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 713 of 860Attachment 12 Page 144 of 259
3.8 Paving - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1780 0.0938 1.5661 4.9900e-
003
0.6161 2.7800e-
003
0.6189 0.1634 2.5600e-
003
0.1660 520.2663 520.2663 0.0113 0.0113 523.9264
Total 0.1780 0.0938 1.5661 4.9900e-
003
0.6161 2.7800e-
003
0.6189 0.1634 2.5600e-
003
0.1660 520.2663 520.2663 0.0113 0.0113 523.9264
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.9 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 116.5321 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1709 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e-
003
0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Total 116.7029 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e-
003
0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 28 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 714 of 860Attachment 12 Page 145 of 259
3.9 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1187 0.0625 1.0441 3.3300e-
003
0.4107 1.8600e-
003
0.4126 0.1090 1.7100e-
003
0.1107 346.8442 346.8442 7.5400e-
003
7.5600e-
003
349.2843
Total 0.1187 0.0625 1.0441 3.3300e-
003
0.4107 1.8600e-
003
0.4126 0.1090 1.7100e-
003
0.1107 346.8442 346.8442 7.5400e-
003
7.5600e-
003
349.2843
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 116.5321 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1139 2.3524 1.8324 2.9700e-
003
0.0951 0.0951 0.0951 0.0951 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Total 116.6460 2.3524 1.8324 2.9700e-
003
0.0951 0.0951 0.0951 0.0951 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 29 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 715 of 860Attachment 12 Page 146 of 259
3.9 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1187 0.0625 1.0441 3.3300e-
003
0.4107 1.8600e-
003
0.4126 0.1090 1.7100e-
003
0.1107 346.8442 346.8442 7.5400e-
003
7.5600e-
003
349.2843
Total 0.1187 0.0625 1.0441 3.3300e-
003
0.4107 1.8600e-
003
0.4126 0.1090 1.7100e-
003
0.1107 346.8442 346.8442 7.5400e-
003
7.5600e-
003
349.2843
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 30 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 716 of 860Attachment 12 Page 147 of 259
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 2.0540 1.8811 17.0050 0.0374 4.0831 0.0263 4.1094 1.0875 0.0245 1.1121 3,900.461 1 3,900.461
1 0.2251 0.1681 3,956.173
3 Unmitigated 2.0540 1.8811 17.0050 0.0374 4.0831 0.0263 4.1094 1.0875 0.0245 1.1121 3,900.461 1 3,900.461
1 0.2251 0.1681 3,956.173
3 4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Mid Rise 839.90 839.90 839.90 1,939,839 1,939,839 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00
Health Club 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 839.90 839.90 839.90 1,939,839 1,939,839
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Mid Rise 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 3 City Park 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00 48.00 19.00 66 28 6
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Health Club 9.50 7.30 7.30 16.90 64.10 19.00 52 39 9
Other Asphalt Surfaces 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 31 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 717 of 860Attachment 12 Page 148 of 259
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Mid Rise 0.553839 0.058700 0.188468 0.120786 0.022796 0.005663 0.010629 0.007566 0.000983 0.000556 0.026354 0.000841 0.002820 City Park 0.553839 0.058700 0.188468 0.120786 0.022796 0.005663 0.010629 0.007566 0.000983 0.000556 0.026354 0.000841 0.002820 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.553839 0.058700 0.188468 0.120786 0.022796 0.005663 0.010629 0.007566 0.000983 0.000556 0.026354 0.000841 0.002820 Health Club 0.553839 0.058700 0.188468 0.120786 0.022796 0.005663 0.010629 0.007566 0.000983 0.000556 0.026354 0.000841 0.002820 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.553839 0.058700 0.188468 0.120786 0.022796 0.005663 0.010629 0.007566 0.000983 0.000556 0.026354 0.000841 0.002820
5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.0611 0.5301 0.2831 3.3300e-
003
0.0422 0.0422 0.0422 0.0422 666.1477 666.1477 0.0128 0.0122 670.1063 NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.0611 0.5301 0.2831 3.3300e-
003
0.0422 0.0422 0.0422 0.0422 666.1477 666.1477 0.0128 0.0122 670.1063
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Install High Efficiency Lighting
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 32 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 718 of 860Attachment 12 Page 149 of 259
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Mid
Rise
4248.25 0.0458 0.3915 0.1666 2.5000e-
003
0.0317 0.0317 0.0317 0.0317 499.7940 499.7940 9.5800e-
003
9.1600e-
003
502.7640
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Health Club 1414.01 0.0153 0.1386 0.1165 8.3000e-
004
0.0105 0.0105 0.0105 0.0105 166.3538 166.3538 3.1900e-
003
3.0500e-
003
167.3423
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0611 0.5301 0.2831 3.3300e-
003
0.0422 0.0422 0.0422 0.0422 666.1477 666.1477 0.0128 0.0122 670.1063 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 33 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 719 of 860Attachment 12 Page 150 of 259
Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Interior
Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Exterior
Use Low VOC Paint - Non-Residential Interior
Use Low VOC Paint - Non-Residential Exterior
No Hearths Installed
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Mid
Rise
4.24825 0.0458 0.3915 0.1666 2.5000e-
003
0.0317 0.0317 0.0317 0.0317 499.7940 499.7940 9.5800e-
003
9.1600e-
003
502.7640
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Health Club 1.41401 0.0153 0.1386 0.1165 8.3000e-
004
0.0105 0.0105 0.0105 0.0105 166.3538 166.3538 3.1900e-
003
3.0500e-
003
167.3423
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0611 0.5301 0.2831 3.3300e-
003
0.0422 0.0422 0.0422 0.0422 666.1477 666.1477 0.0128 0.0122 670.1063 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 34 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 720 of 860Attachment 12 Page 151 of 259
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 6.1715 0.1758 15.2611 8.1000e-
004
0.0847 0.0847 0.0847 0.0847 0.0000 27.5097 27.5097 0.0264 0.0000 28.1694 Unmitigated 82.2546 1.8578 115.7819 0.1945 14.3551 14.3551 14.3551 14.3551 1,548.606 6 713.0979 2,261.704
5 2.1456 0.1095 2,347.962
9 6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.8620 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
4.8505 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 76.0831 1.6820 100.5208 0.1937 14.2704 14.2704 14.2704 14.2704 1,548.606 6 685.5882 2,234.194
8 2.1192 0.1095 2,319.793
5 Landscaping 0.4590 0.1758 15.2611 8.1000e-
004
0.0847 0.0847 0.0847 0.0847 27.5097 27.5097 0.0264 28.1694 Total 82.2546 1.8578 115.7819 0.1945 14.3551 14.3551 14.3551 14.3551 1,548.606 6 713.0979 2,261.704
5 2.1456 0.1095 2,347.962
9 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 35 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 721 of 860Attachment 12 Page 152 of 259
Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet
Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet
Install Low Flow Toilet
Install Low Flow Shower
Use Water Efficient Irrigation System
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.8620 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
4.8505 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.4590 0.1758 15.2611 8.1000e-
004
0.0847 0.0847 0.0847 0.0847 27.5097 27.5097 0.0264 28.1694 Total 6.1715 0.1758 15.2611 8.1000e-
004
0.0847 0.0847 0.0847 0.0847 0.0000 27.5097 27.5097 0.0264 0.0000 28.1694 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 36 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 722 of 860Attachment 12 Page 153 of 259
11.0 Vegetation
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
8.0 Waste Detail
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 37 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 723 of 860Attachment 12 Page 154 of 259
Green Valley 3 Apartments Project
Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Land Use - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE's comment on "Unsubstantuated Changes to Individual Construction Phase Lengths".
Off-road Equipment - See SWAPE's comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Construction Equipment Input Parameters".
Off-road Equipment - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Trips and VMT - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Grading - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Vehicle Trips - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Enclosed Parking with Elevator 102.00 Space 0.59 54,845.00 0 Other Asphalt Surfaces 2.41 Acre 2.41 104,979.60 0
City Park 1.47 Acre 1.47 64,033.20 0
Health Club 19.71 1000sqft 0.00 19,714.00 0
Apartments Mid Rise 185.00 Dwelling Unit 1.32 204,144.00 529
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
4 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 64
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company
2025Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
203.98 0.033CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.004N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 1 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 724 of 860Attachment 12 Page 155 of 259
Energy Use - See SWAPE's comment on "Unsubstantiated Reductions to Energy Use Values".
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Area Mitigation - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Energy Mitigation - See SWAPE's comment on "Incorect Application of Energy-Related Mitigation Measures".
Water Mitigation - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblAreaMitigation UseLowVOCPaintParkingCheck False True tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 7.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 7.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 15.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 2 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 725 of 860Attachment 12 Page 156 of 259
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 27.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 230.00 309.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 27.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 27.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 27.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 27.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 13.00
tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 10,300.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 40,800.00 54,845.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 19,710.00 19,714.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 185,000.00 204,144.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.92 0.59
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.45 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 4.87 1.32
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 21.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 50.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 18.00 50.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 50.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 50.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 10.00 75.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 236.00 100.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 75.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 47.00 50.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 3 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 726 of 860Attachment 12 Page 157 of 259
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 4.91 4.54
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.96 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 20.87 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 4.09 4.54
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.19 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 26.73 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 5.44 4.54
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 0.78 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 32.93 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 4 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 727 of 860Attachment 12 Page 158 of 259
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2023 0.1587 1.5432 1.4885 3.5100e-
003
0.3855 0.0648 0.4503 0.1761 0.0602 0.2362 0.0000 315.8110 315.8110 0.0651 0.0113 320.7982 2024 0.2321 2.1279 2.4949 5.9400e-
003
0.1548 0.0828 0.2376 0.0424 0.0779 0.1203 0.0000 534.7683 534.7683 0.0771 0.0246 544.0201 2025 1.5941 0.1294 0.2460 4.4000e-
004
0.0130 6.2000e-
003
0.0192 3.4700e-
003
5.7600e-
003
9.2300e-
003
0.0000 39.2002 39.2002 8.8500e-
003
2.4000e-
004
39.4944
Maximum 1.5941 2.1279 2.4949 5.9400e-
003
0.3855 0.0828 0.4503 0.1761 0.0779 0.2362 0.0000 534.7683 534.7683 0.0771 0.0246 544.0201 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2023 0.1051 2.2969 1.7614 3.5100e-
003
0.3855 0.0693 0.4547 0.1761 0.0692 0.2453 0.0000 315.8107 315.8107 0.0651 0.0113 320.7979 2024 0.1811 3.4527 2.7190 5.9400e-
003
0.1548 0.1208 0.2756 0.0424 0.1207 0.1631 0.0000 534.7679 534.7679 0.0771 0.0246 544.0197 2025 1.5936 0.2956 0.2817 4.4000e-
004
0.0130 0.0100 0.0231 3.4700e-
003
0.0100 0.0135 0.0000 39.2002 39.2002 8.8500e-
003
2.4000e-
004
39.4943
Maximum 1.5936 3.4527 2.7190 5.9400e-
003
0.3855 0.1208 0.4547 0.1761 0.1207 0.2453 0.0000 534.7679 534.7679 0.0771 0.0246 544.0197 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 5 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 728 of 860Attachment 12 Page 159 of 259
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
5.30 -59.06 -12.60 0.00 0.00 -30.07 -6.54 0.00 -38.96 -15.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 6-15-2023 9-14-2023 0.8598 1.1246
2 9-15-2023 12-14-2023 0.7313 1.1133
3 12-15-2023 3-14-2024 0.5959 0.9054
4 3-15-2024 6-14-2024 0.5908 0.9101
5 6-15-2024 9-14-2024 0.5896 0.9090
6 9-15-2024 12-14-2024 0.5882 0.9041
7 12-15-2024 3-14-2025 1.7964 2.0194
Highest 1.7964 2.0194
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 6 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 729 of 860Attachment 12 Page 160 of 259
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 1.5107 0.0256 1.9613 1.2400e-
003
0.0917 0.0917 0.0917 0.0917 8.4341 5.7104 14.1445 0.0157 5.5000e- 004
14.7020
Energy 0.0111 0.0968 0.0517 6.1000e-
004
7.7000e-
003
7.7000e-
003
7.7000e-
003
7.7000e-
003
0.0000 218.8491 218.8491 0.0197 4.1500e-
003
220.5780
Mobile 0.3352 0.3720 3.1140 6.4600e-
003
0.7150 4.7900e-
003
0.7198 0.1910 4.4600e-
003
0.1955 0.0000 611.1042 611.1042 0.0398 0.0292 620.8078
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 40.1070 0.0000 40.1070 2.3703 0.0000 99.3633 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.1938 9.8775 14.0713 0.4324 0.0104 27.9686 Total 1.8570 0.4944 5.1269 8.3100e-
003
0.7150 0.1041 0.8192 0.1910 0.1038 0.2948 52.7349 845.5411 898.2760 2.8777 0.0443 983.4197 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 7 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 730 of 860Attachment 12 Page 161 of 259
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 1.0838 0.0158 1.3735 7.0000e-
005
7.6200e-
003
7.6200e-
003
7.6200e-
003
7.6200e-
003
0.0000 2.2461 2.2461 2.1500e-
003
0.0000 2.2999
Energy 0.0111 0.0968 0.0517 6.1000e-
004
7.7000e-
003
7.7000e-
003
7.7000e-
003
7.7000e-
003
0.0000 218.8491 218.8491 0.0197 4.1500e-
003
220.5780
Mobile 0.3352 0.3720 3.1140 6.4600e-
003
0.7150 4.7900e-
003
0.7198 0.1910 4.4600e-
003
0.1955 0.0000 611.1042 611.1042 0.0398 0.0292 620.8078
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 40.1070 0.0000 40.1070 2.3703 0.0000 99.3633 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.3551 8.3550 11.7101 0.3460 8.3000e- 003
22.8324
Total 1.4302 0.4846 4.5391 7.1400e-
003
0.7150 0.0201 0.7351 0.1910 0.0198 0.2108 43.4620 840.5544 884.0164 2.7778 0.0417 965.8814 Mitigated Operational
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition and Site Preparation Demolition 6/15/2023 7/21/2023 5 27 2 Finishing/Landscaping Site Preparation 7/22/2023 8/9/2023 5 13 3 Rough Grading Grading 8/10/2023 9/15/2023 5 27
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
22.99 1.99 11.46 14.08 0.00 80.69 10.26 0.00 80.95 28.50 17.58 0.59 1.59 3.47 5.89 1.78 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 8 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 731 of 860Attachment 12 Page 162 of 259
4 Fine Grading Grading 9/16/2023 10/24/2023 5 27
5 Utility Trenching Trenching 10/25/2023 11/30/2023 5 27 6 Building Construction Building Construction 10/25/2023 12/30/2024 5 309 7 Paving Paving 12/31/2024 2/5/2025 5 27
8 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 2/6/2025 3/14/2025 5 27 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition and Site Preparation Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Demolition and Site Preparation Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38 Demolition and Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40 Finishing/Landscaping Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40 Finishing/Landscaping Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Rough Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38
Rough Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Rough Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Rough Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
Fine Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38
Fine Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Fine Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Fine Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
Utility Trenching Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Utility Trenching Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37 Residential Indoor: 413,392; Residential Outdoor: 137,797; Non-Residential Indoor: 29,571; Non-Residential Outdoor: 9,857; Striped Parking Area: 9,589 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 19.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 27
Acres of Paving: 3
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 9 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 732 of 860Attachment 12 Page 163 of 259
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition and Site
Preparation
6 50.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 21.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Finishing/Landscaping 7 50.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Rough Grading 6 50.00 0.00 1,288.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Fine Grading 6 50.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Utility Trenching 4 75.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 100.00 60.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 75.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 50.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 10 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 733 of 860Attachment 12 Page 164 of 259
3.2 Demolition and Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0306 0.2900 0.2652 5.2000e-
004
0.0135 0.0135 0.0125 0.0125 0.0000 45.8893 45.8893 0.0129 0.0000 46.2106 Total 0.0306 0.2900 0.2652 5.2000e-
004
0.0135 0.0135 0.0125 0.0125 0.0000 45.8893 45.8893 0.0129 0.0000 46.2106 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.7300e-
003
1.1800e-
003
0.0150 5.0000e-
005
5.3300e-
003
3.0000e-
005
5.3600e-
003
1.4200e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.4400e-
003
0.0000 4.1803 4.1803 1.2000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
4.2175
Total 1.7300e-
003
1.1800e-
003
0.0150 5.0000e-
005
5.3300e-
003
3.0000e-
005
5.3600e-
003
1.4200e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.4400e-
003
0.0000 4.1803 4.1803 1.2000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
4.2175
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 11 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 734 of 860Attachment 12 Page 165 of 259
3.2 Demolition and Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0170 0.4410 0.3331 5.2000e-
004
0.0123 0.0123 0.0123 0.0123 0.0000 45.8892 45.8892 0.0129 0.0000 46.2105 Total 0.0170 0.4410 0.3331 5.2000e-
004
0.0123 0.0123 0.0123 0.0123 0.0000 45.8892 45.8892 0.0129 0.0000 46.2105 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.7300e-
003
1.1800e-
003
0.0150 5.0000e-
005
5.3300e-
003
3.0000e-
005
5.3600e-
003
1.4200e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.4400e-
003
0.0000 4.1803 4.1803 1.2000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
4.2175
Total 1.7300e-
003
1.1800e-
003
0.0150 5.0000e-
005
5.3300e-
003
3.0000e-
005
5.3600e-
003
1.4200e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.4400e-
003
0.0000 4.1803 4.1803 1.2000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
4.2175
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 12 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 735 of 860Attachment 12 Page 166 of 259
3.3 Finishing/Landscaping - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1278 0.0000 0.1278 0.0657 0.0000 0.0657 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0173 0.1789 0.1186 2.5000e-
004
8.2300e-
003
8.2300e-
003
7.5700e-
003
7.5700e-
003
0.0000 21.7430 21.7430 7.0300e-
003
0.0000 21.9188
Total 0.0173 0.1789 0.1186 2.5000e-
004
0.1278 8.2300e-
003
0.1360 0.0657 7.5700e-
003
0.0732 0.0000 21.7430 21.7430 7.0300e-
003
0.0000 21.9188
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 8.3000e-
004
5.7000e-
004
7.2100e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.5700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
2.5800e-
003
6.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.0127 2.0127 6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
2.0306
Total 8.3000e-
004
5.7000e-
004
7.2100e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.5700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
2.5800e-
003
6.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.0127 2.0127 6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
2.0306
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 13 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 736 of 860Attachment 12 Page 167 of 259
3.3 Finishing/Landscaping - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1278 0.0000 0.1278 0.0657 0.0000 0.0657 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 7.8600e-
003
0.2192 0.1492 2.5000e-
004
6.1500e-
003
6.1500e-
003
6.1500e-
003
6.1500e-
003
0.0000 21.7429 21.7429 7.0300e-
003
0.0000 21.9187
Total 7.8600e-
003
0.2192 0.1492 2.5000e-
004
0.1278 6.1500e-
003
0.1339 0.0657 6.1500e-
003
0.0718 0.0000 21.7429 21.7429 7.0300e-
003
0.0000 21.9187
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 8.3000e-
004
5.7000e-
004
7.2100e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.5700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
2.5800e-
003
6.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.0127 2.0127 6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
2.0306
Total 8.3000e-
004
5.7000e-
004
7.2100e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.5700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
2.5800e-
003
6.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.0127 2.0127 6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
2.0306
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 14 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 737 of 860Attachment 12 Page 168 of 259
3.4 Rough Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0962 0.0000 0.0962 0.0463 0.0000 0.0463 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0231 0.2421 0.1991 4.0000e-
004
0.0105 0.0105 9.6200e-
003
9.6200e-
003
0.0000 35.1818 35.1818 0.0114 0.0000 35.4663
Total 0.0231 0.2421 0.1991 4.0000e-
004
0.0962 0.0105 0.1067 0.0463 9.6200e-
003
0.0559 0.0000 35.1818 35.1818 0.0114 0.0000 35.4663
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.3400e-
003
0.0873 0.0205 3.9000e-
004
0.0109 7.1000e-
004
0.0116 3.0000e-
003
6.8000e-
004
3.6700e-
003
0.0000 38.4335 38.4335 1.2600e-
003
6.0900e-
003
40.2800
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.7300e-
003
1.1800e-
003
0.0150 5.0000e-
005
5.3300e-
003
3.0000e-
005
5.3600e-
003
1.4200e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.4400e-
003
0.0000 4.1803 4.1803 1.2000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
4.2175
Total 3.0700e-
003
0.0885 0.0355 4.4000e-
004
0.0162 7.4000e-
004
0.0170 4.4200e-
003
7.1000e-
004
5.1100e-
003
0.0000 42.6138 42.6138 1.3800e-
003
6.2000e-
003
44.4975
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 15 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 738 of 860Attachment 12 Page 169 of 259
3.4 Rough Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0962 0.0000 0.0962 0.0463 0.0000 0.0463 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0136 0.3548 0.2564 4.0000e-
004
0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0000 35.1818 35.1818 0.0114 0.0000 35.4663 Total 0.0136 0.3548 0.2564 4.0000e-
004
0.0962 0.0104 0.1066 0.0463 0.0104 0.0568 0.0000 35.1818 35.1818 0.0114 0.0000 35.4663 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.3400e-
003
0.0873 0.0205 3.9000e-
004
0.0109 7.1000e-
004
0.0116 3.0000e-
003
6.8000e-
004
3.6700e-
003
0.0000 38.4335 38.4335 1.2600e-
003
6.0900e-
003
40.2800
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.7300e-
003
1.1800e-
003
0.0150 5.0000e-
005
5.3300e-
003
3.0000e-
005
5.3600e-
003
1.4200e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.4400e-
003
0.0000 4.1803 4.1803 1.2000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
4.2175
Total 3.0700e-
003
0.0885 0.0355 4.4000e-
004
0.0162 7.4000e-
004
0.0170 4.4200e-
003
7.1000e-
004
5.1100e-
003
0.0000 42.6138 42.6138 1.3800e-
003
6.2000e-
003
44.4975
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 16 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 739 of 860Attachment 12 Page 170 of 259
3.5 Fine Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0956 0.0000 0.0956 0.0462 0.0000 0.0462 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0231 0.2421 0.1991 4.0000e-
004
0.0105 0.0105 9.6200e-
003
9.6200e-
003
0.0000 35.1818 35.1818 0.0114 0.0000 35.4663
Total 0.0231 0.2421 0.1991 4.0000e-
004
0.0956 0.0105 0.1061 0.0462 9.6200e-
003
0.0559 0.0000 35.1818 35.1818 0.0114 0.0000 35.4663
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.7300e-
003
1.1800e-
003
0.0150 5.0000e-
005
5.3300e-
003
3.0000e-
005
5.3600e-
003
1.4200e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.4400e-
003
0.0000 4.1803 4.1803 1.2000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
4.2175
Total 1.7300e-
003
1.1800e-
003
0.0150 5.0000e-
005
5.3300e-
003
3.0000e-
005
5.3600e-
003
1.4200e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.4400e-
003
0.0000 4.1803 4.1803 1.2000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
4.2175
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 17 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 740 of 860Attachment 12 Page 171 of 259
3.5 Fine Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0956 0.0000 0.0956 0.0462 0.0000 0.0462 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0136 0.3548 0.2564 4.0000e-
004
0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0000 35.1818 35.1818 0.0114 0.0000 35.4663 Total 0.0136 0.3548 0.2564 4.0000e-
004
0.0956 0.0104 0.1060 0.0462 0.0104 0.0567 0.0000 35.1818 35.1818 0.0114 0.0000 35.4663 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.7300e-
003
1.1800e-
003
0.0150 5.0000e-
005
5.3300e-
003
3.0000e-
005
5.3600e-
003
1.4200e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.4400e-
003
0.0000 4.1803 4.1803 1.2000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
4.2175
Total 1.7300e-
003
1.1800e-
003
0.0150 5.0000e-
005
5.3300e-
003
3.0000e-
005
5.3600e-
003
1.4200e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.4400e-
003
0.0000 4.1803 4.1803 1.2000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
4.2175
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 18 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 741 of 860Attachment 12 Page 172 of 259
3.6 Utility Trenching - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 9.1800e-
003
0.0833 0.1482 2.2000e-
004
4.0900e-
003
4.0900e-
003
3.7700e-
003
3.7700e-
003
0.0000 19.6364 19.6364 6.3500e-
003
0.0000 19.7952
Total 9.1800e-
003
0.0833 0.1482 2.2000e-
004
4.0900e-
003
4.0900e-
003
3.7700e-
003
3.7700e-
003
0.0000 19.6364 19.6364 6.3500e-
003
0.0000 19.7952
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.5900e-
003
1.7700e-
003
0.0225 7.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
003
4.0000e-
005
8.0400e-
003
2.1300e-
003
4.0000e-
005
2.1700e-
003
0.0000 6.2704 6.2704 1.8000e-
004
1.7000e-
004
6.3262
Total 2.5900e-
003
1.7700e-
003
0.0225 7.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
003
4.0000e-
005
8.0400e-
003
2.1300e-
003
4.0000e-
005
2.1700e-
003
0.0000 6.2704 6.2704 1.8000e-
004
1.7000e-
004
6.3262
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 19 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 742 of 860Attachment 12 Page 173 of 259
3.6 Utility Trenching - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 9.3600e-
003
0.2004 0.1690 2.2000e-
004
6.9400e-
003
6.9400e-
003
6.9400e-
003
6.9400e-
003
0.0000 19.6364 19.6364 6.3500e-
003
0.0000 19.7951
Total 9.3600e-
003
0.2004 0.1690 2.2000e-
004
6.9400e-
003
6.9400e-
003
6.9400e-
003
6.9400e-
003
0.0000 19.6364 19.6364 6.3500e-
003
0.0000 19.7951
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.5900e-
003
1.7700e-
003
0.0225 7.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
003
4.0000e-
005
8.0400e-
003
2.1300e-
003
4.0000e-
005
2.1700e-
003
0.0000 6.2704 6.2704 1.8000e-
004
1.7000e-
004
6.3262
Total 2.5900e-
003
1.7700e-
003
0.0225 7.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
003
4.0000e-
005
8.0400e-
003
2.1300e-
003
4.0000e-
005
2.1700e-
003
0.0000 6.2704 6.2704 1.8000e-
004
1.7000e-
004
6.3262
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 20 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 743 of 860Attachment 12 Page 174 of 259
3.7 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0378 0.3452 0.3899 6.5000e-
004
0.0168 0.0168 0.0158 0.0158 0.0000 55.6331 55.6331 0.0132 0.0000 55.9640 Total 0.0378 0.3452 0.3899 6.5000e-
004
0.0168 0.0168 0.0158 0.0158 0.0000 55.6331 55.6331 0.0132 0.0000 55.9640 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 1.5300e-
003
0.0640 0.0200 2.9000e-
004
9.4500e-
003
3.7000e-
004
9.8200e-
003
2.7300e-
003
3.6000e-
004
3.0900e-
003
0.0000 28.4249 28.4249 5.8000e-
004
4.2000e-
003
29.6925
Worker 6.1400e-
003
4.2000e-
003
0.0532 1.6000e-
004
0.0190 1.0000e-
004
0.0191 5.0500e-
003
9.0000e-
005
5.1400e-
003
0.0000 14.8632 14.8632 4.3000e-
004
4.1000e-
004
14.9954
Total 7.6700e-
003
0.0682 0.0733 4.5000e-
004
0.0284 4.7000e-
004
0.0289 7.7800e-
003
4.5000e-
004
8.2300e-
003
0.0000 43.2881 43.2881 1.0100e-
003
4.6100e-
003
44.6879
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 21 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 744 of 860Attachment 12 Page 175 of 259
3.7 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0259 0.5653 0.4290 6.5000e-
004
0.0217 0.0217 0.0217 0.0217 0.0000 55.6331 55.6331 0.0132 0.0000 55.9639 Total 0.0259 0.5653 0.4290 6.5000e-
004
0.0217 0.0217 0.0217 0.0217 0.0000 55.6331 55.6331 0.0132 0.0000 55.9639 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 1.5300e-
003
0.0640 0.0200 2.9000e-
004
9.4500e-
003
3.7000e-
004
9.8200e-
003
2.7300e-
003
3.6000e-
004
3.0900e-
003
0.0000 28.4249 28.4249 5.8000e-
004
4.2000e-
003
29.6925
Worker 6.1400e-
003
4.2000e-
003
0.0532 1.6000e-
004
0.0190 1.0000e-
004
0.0191 5.0500e-
003
9.0000e-
005
5.1400e-
003
0.0000 14.8632 14.8632 4.3000e-
004
4.1000e-
004
14.9954
Total 7.6700e-
003
0.0682 0.0733 4.5000e-
004
0.0284 4.7000e-
004
0.0289 7.7800e-
003
4.5000e-
004
8.2300e-
003
0.0000 43.2881 43.2881 1.0100e-
003
4.6100e-
003
44.6879
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 22 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 745 of 860Attachment 12 Page 176 of 259
3.7 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1920 1.7544 2.1098 3.5200e-
003
0.0800 0.0800 0.0753 0.0753 0.0000 302.5631 302.5631 0.0716 0.0000 304.3518 Total 0.1920 1.7544 2.1098 3.5200e-
003
0.0800 0.0800 0.0753 0.0753 0.0000 302.5631 302.5631 0.0716 0.0000 304.3518 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 8.1100e-
003
0.3483 0.1066 1.5600e-
003
0.0514 2.0500e-
003
0.0534 0.0149 1.9600e-
003
0.0168 0.0000 152.1522 152.1522 3.1400e-
003
0.0225 158.9368
Worker 0.0313 0.0204 0.2704 8.4000e-
004
0.1031 5.1000e-
004
0.1036 0.0274 4.7000e-
004
0.0279 0.0000 78.8252 78.8252 2.1100e-
003
2.0700e-
003
79.4937
Total 0.0394 0.3687 0.3770 2.4000e-
003
0.1545 2.5600e-
003
0.1571 0.0423 2.4300e-
003
0.0447 0.0000 230.9774 230.9774 5.2500e-
003
0.0246 238.4305
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 23 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 746 of 860Attachment 12 Page 177 of 259
3.7 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1411 3.0739 2.3325 3.5200e-
003
0.1179 0.1179 0.1179 0.1179 0.0000 302.5627 302.5627 0.0716 0.0000 304.3514 Total 0.1411 3.0739 2.3325 3.5200e-
003
0.1179 0.1179 0.1179 0.1179 0.0000 302.5627 302.5627 0.0716 0.0000 304.3514 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 8.1100e-
003
0.3483 0.1066 1.5600e-
003
0.0514 2.0500e-
003
0.0534 0.0149 1.9600e-
003
0.0168 0.0000 152.1522 152.1522 3.1400e-
003
0.0225 158.9368
Worker 0.0313 0.0204 0.2704 8.4000e-
004
0.1031 5.1000e-
004
0.1036 0.0274 4.7000e-
004
0.0279 0.0000 78.8252 78.8252 2.1100e-
003
2.0700e-
003
79.4937
Total 0.0394 0.3687 0.3770 2.4000e-
003
0.1545 2.5600e-
003
0.1571 0.0423 2.4300e-
003
0.0447 0.0000 230.9774 230.9774 5.2500e-
003
0.0246 238.4305
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 24 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 747 of 860Attachment 12 Page 178 of 259
3.8 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 4.9000e-
004
4.7600e-
003
7.3100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
2.3000e-
004
2.3000e-
004
2.2000e-
004
2.2000e-
004
0.0000 1.0013 1.0013 3.2000e-
004
0.0000 1.0094
Paving 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 6.1000e-
004
4.7600e-
003
7.3100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
2.3000e-
004
2.3000e-
004
2.2000e-
004
2.2000e-
004
0.0000 1.0013 1.0013 3.2000e-
004
0.0000 1.0094
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 9.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
7.8000e-
004
0.0000 3.0000e-
004
0.0000 3.0000e-
004
8.0000e-
005
0.0000 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.2265 0.2265 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.2284
Total 9.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
7.8000e-
004
0.0000 3.0000e-
004
0.0000 3.0000e-
004
8.0000e-
005
0.0000 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.2265 0.2265 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.2284
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 25 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 748 of 860Attachment 12 Page 179 of 259
3.8 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 4.7000e-
004
0.0101 8.6500e-
003
1.0000e-
005
3.3000e-
004
3.3000e-
004
3.3000e-
004
3.3000e-
004
0.0000 1.0013 1.0013 3.2000e-
004
0.0000 1.0094
Paving 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 5.9000e-
004
0.0101 8.6500e-
003
1.0000e-
005
3.3000e-
004
3.3000e-
004
3.3000e-
004
3.3000e-
004
0.0000 1.0013 1.0013 3.2000e-
004
0.0000 1.0094
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 9.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
7.8000e-
004
0.0000 3.0000e-
004
0.0000 3.0000e-
004
8.0000e-
005
0.0000 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.2265 0.2265 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.2284
Total 9.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
7.8000e-
004
0.0000 3.0000e-
004
0.0000 3.0000e-
004
8.0000e-
005
0.0000 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.2265 0.2265 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.2284
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 26 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 749 of 860Attachment 12 Page 180 of 259
3.8 Paving - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0119 0.1116 0.1895 3.0000e-
004
5.4400e-
003
5.4400e-
003
5.0100e-
003
5.0100e-
003
0.0000 26.0250 26.0250 8.4200e-
003
0.0000 26.2355
Paving 3.0400e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0149 0.1116 0.1895 3.0000e-
004
5.4400e-
003
5.4400e-
003
5.0100e-
003
5.0100e-
003
0.0000 26.0250 26.0250 8.4200e-
003
0.0000 26.2355
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.2000e-
003
1.3700e-
003
0.0190 6.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
003
4.0000e-
005
7.7400e-
003
2.0500e-
003
3.0000e-
005
2.0800e-
003
0.0000 5.7485 5.7485 1.4000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
5.7952
Total 2.2000e-
003
1.3700e-
003
0.0190 6.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
003
4.0000e-
005
7.7400e-
003
2.0500e-
003
3.0000e-
005
2.0800e-
003
0.0000 5.7485 5.7485 1.4000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
5.7952
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 27 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 750 of 860Attachment 12 Page 181 of 259
3.8 Paving - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0121 0.2615 0.2248 3.0000e-
004
8.6700e-
003
8.6700e-
003
8.6700e-
003
8.6700e-
003
0.0000 26.0250 26.0250 8.4200e-
003
0.0000 26.2354
Paving 3.0400e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0151 0.2615 0.2248 3.0000e-
004
8.6700e-
003
8.6700e-
003
8.6700e-
003
8.6700e-
003
0.0000 26.0250 26.0250 8.4200e-
003
0.0000 26.2354
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.2000e-
003
1.3700e-
003
0.0190 6.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
003
4.0000e-
005
7.7400e-
003
2.0500e-
003
3.0000e-
005
2.0800e-
003
0.0000 5.7485 5.7485 1.4000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
5.7952
Total 2.2000e-
003
1.3700e-
003
0.0190 6.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
003
4.0000e-
005
7.7400e-
003
2.0500e-
003
3.0000e-
005
2.0800e-
003
0.0000 5.7485 5.7485 1.4000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
5.7952
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 28 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 751 of 860Attachment 12 Page 182 of 259
3.9 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 1.5732 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.3100e-
003
0.0155 0.0244 4.0000e-
005
7.0000e-
004
7.0000e-
004
7.0000e-
004
7.0000e-
004
0.0000 3.4469 3.4469 1.9000e-
004
0.0000 3.4516
Total 1.5755 0.0155 0.0244 4.0000e-
005
7.0000e-
004
7.0000e-
004
7.0000e-
004
7.0000e-
004
0.0000 3.4469 3.4469 1.9000e-
004
0.0000 3.4516
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.5200e-
003
9.5000e-
004
0.0131 4.0000e-
005
5.3300e-
003
3.0000e-
005
5.3600e-
003
1.4200e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.4400e-
003
0.0000 3.9798 3.9798 1.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
004
4.0121
Total 1.5200e-
003
9.5000e-
004
0.0131 4.0000e-
005
5.3300e-
003
3.0000e-
005
5.3600e-
003
1.4200e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.4400e-
003
0.0000 3.9798 3.9798 1.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
004
4.0121
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 29 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 752 of 860Attachment 12 Page 183 of 259
3.9 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 1.5732 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.5400e-
003
0.0318 0.0247 4.0000e-
005
1.2800e-
003
1.2800e-
003
1.2800e-
003
1.2800e-
003
0.0000 3.4469 3.4469 1.9000e-
004
0.0000 3.4516
Total 1.5747 0.0318 0.0247 4.0000e-
005
1.2800e-
003
1.2800e-
003
1.2800e-
003
1.2800e-
003
0.0000 3.4469 3.4469 1.9000e-
004
0.0000 3.4516
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.5200e-
003
9.5000e-
004
0.0131 4.0000e-
005
5.3300e-
003
3.0000e-
005
5.3600e-
003
1.4200e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.4400e-
003
0.0000 3.9798 3.9798 1.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
004
4.0121
Total 1.5200e-
003
9.5000e-
004
0.0131 4.0000e-
005
5.3300e-
003
3.0000e-
005
5.3600e-
003
1.4200e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.4400e-
003
0.0000 3.9798 3.9798 1.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
004
4.0121
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 30 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 753 of 860Attachment 12 Page 184 of 259
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.3352 0.3720 3.1140 6.4600e-
003
0.7150 4.7900e-
003
0.7198 0.1910 4.4600e-
003
0.1955 0.0000 611.1042 611.1042 0.0398 0.0292 620.8078
Unmitigated 0.3352 0.3720 3.1140 6.4600e-
003
0.7150 4.7900e-
003
0.7198 0.1910 4.4600e-
003
0.1955 0.0000 611.1042 611.1042 0.0398 0.0292 620.8078
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Mid Rise 839.90 839.90 839.90 1,939,839 1,939,839 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00
Health Club 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 839.90 839.90 839.90 1,939,839 1,939,839
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Mid Rise 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 3 City Park 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00 48.00 19.00 66 28 6
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 31 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 754 of 860Attachment 12 Page 185 of 259
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Enclosed Parking with Elevator 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Health Club 9.50 7.30 7.30 16.90 64.10 19.00 52 39 9
Other Asphalt Surfaces 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Mid Rise 0.553839 0.058700 0.188468 0.120786 0.022796 0.005663 0.010629 0.007566 0.000983 0.000556 0.026354 0.000841 0.002820 City Park 0.553839 0.058700 0.188468 0.120786 0.022796 0.005663 0.010629 0.007566 0.000983 0.000556 0.026354 0.000841 0.002820 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.553839 0.058700 0.188468 0.120786 0.022796 0.005663 0.010629 0.007566 0.000983 0.000556 0.026354 0.000841 0.002820 Health Club 0.553839 0.058700 0.188468 0.120786 0.022796 0.005663 0.010629 0.007566 0.000983 0.000556 0.026354 0.000841 0.002820 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.553839 0.058700 0.188468 0.120786 0.022796 0.005663 0.010629 0.007566 0.000983 0.000556 0.026354 0.000841 0.002820
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Install High Efficiency Lighting
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 32 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 755 of 860Attachment 12 Page 186 of 259
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 108.5609 108.5609 0.0176 2.1300e- 003
109.6344
Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 108.5609 108.5609 0.0176 2.1300e- 003
109.6344
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.0111 0.0968 0.0517 6.1000e-
004
7.7000e-
003
7.7000e-
003
7.7000e-
003
7.7000e-
003
0.0000 110.2882 110.2882 2.1100e-
003
2.0200e-
003
110.9436
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.0111 0.0968 0.0517 6.1000e-
004
7.7000e-
003
7.7000e-
003
7.7000e-
003
7.7000e-
003
0.0000 110.2882 110.2882 2.1100e-
003
2.0200e-
003
110.9436
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 33 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 756 of 860Attachment 12 Page 187 of 259
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
1.55061e
+006
8.3600e-
003
0.0715 0.0304 4.6000e-
004
5.7800e-
003
5.7800e-
003
5.7800e-
003
5.7800e-
003
0.0000 82.7465 82.7465 1.5900e-
003
1.5200e-
003
83.2382
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Health Club 516113 2.7800e-
003
0.0253 0.0213 1.5000e-
004
1.9200e-
003
1.9200e-
003
1.9200e-
003
1.9200e-
003
0.0000 27.5417 27.5417 5.3000e-
004
5.0000e-
004
27.7054
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0111 0.0968 0.0517 6.1000e-
004
7.7000e-
003
7.7000e-
003
7.7000e-
003
7.7000e-
003
0.0000 110.2882 110.2882 2.1200e-
003
2.0200e-
003
110.9436
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 34 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 757 of 860Attachment 12 Page 188 of 259
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
1.55061e
+006
8.3600e-
003
0.0715 0.0304 4.6000e-
004
5.7800e-
003
5.7800e-
003
5.7800e-
003
5.7800e-
003
0.0000 82.7465 82.7465 1.5900e-
003
1.5200e-
003
83.2382
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Health Club 516113 2.7800e-
003
0.0253 0.0213 1.5000e-
004
1.9200e-
003
1.9200e-
003
1.9200e-
003
1.9200e-
003
0.0000 27.5417 27.5417 5.3000e-
004
5.0000e-
004
27.7054
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0111 0.0968 0.0517 6.1000e-
004
7.7000e-
003
7.7000e-
003
7.7000e-
003
7.7000e-
003
0.0000 110.2882 110.2882 2.1200e-
003
2.0200e-
003
110.9436
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 35 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 758 of 860Attachment 12 Page 189 of 259
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
715290 66.1813 0.0107 1.3000e-
003
66.8357
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
298357 27.6051 4.4700e-
003
5.4000e-
004
27.8781
Health Club 159683 14.7745 2.3900e-
003
2.9000e-
004
14.9206
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 108.5609 0.0176 2.1300e-
003
109.6344
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 36 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 759 of 860Attachment 12 Page 190 of 259
Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Interior
Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Exterior
Use Low VOC Paint - Non-Residential Interior
Use Low VOC Paint - Non-Residential Exterior
No Hearths Installed
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
715290 66.1813 0.0107 1.3000e-
003
66.8357
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
298357 27.6051 4.4700e-
003
5.4000e-
004
27.8781
Health Club 159683 14.7745 2.3900e-
003
2.9000e-
004
14.9206
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 108.5609 0.0176 2.1300e-
003
109.6344
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 37 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 760 of 860Attachment 12 Page 191 of 259
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 1.0838 0.0158 1.3735 7.0000e-
005
7.6200e-
003
7.6200e-
003
7.6200e-
003
7.6200e-
003
0.0000 2.2461 2.2461 2.1500e-
003
0.0000 2.2999
Unmitigated 1.5107 0.0256 1.9613 1.2400e-
003
0.0917 0.0917 0.0917 0.0917 8.4341 5.7104 14.1445 0.0157 5.5000e- 004
14.7020
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.1573 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products
0.8852 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.4269 9.8200e-
003
0.5878 1.1700e-
003
0.0840 0.0840 0.0840 0.0840 8.4341 3.4643 11.8984 0.0136 5.5000e- 004
12.4021
Landscaping 0.0413 0.0158 1.3735 7.0000e-
005
7.6200e-
003
7.6200e-
003
7.6200e-
003
7.6200e-
003
0.0000 2.2461 2.2461 2.1500e-
003
0.0000 2.2999
Total 1.5107 0.0256 1.9613 1.2400e-
003
0.0917 0.0917 0.0917 0.0917 8.4341 5.7104 14.1445 0.0157 5.5000e- 004
14.7020
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 38 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 761 of 860Attachment 12 Page 192 of 259
Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet
Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet
Install Low Flow Toilet
Install Low Flow Shower
Use Water Efficient Irrigation System
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.1573 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products
0.8852 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.0413 0.0158 1.3735 7.0000e-
005
7.6200e-
003
7.6200e-
003
7.6200e-
003
7.6200e-
003
0.0000 2.2461 2.2461 2.1500e-
003
0.0000 2.2999
Total 1.0838 0.0158 1.3735 7.0000e-
005
7.6200e-
003
7.6200e-
003
7.6200e-
003
7.6200e-
003
0.0000 2.2461 2.2461 2.1500e-
003
0.0000 2.2999
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 39 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 762 of 860Attachment 12 Page 193 of 259
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 11.7101 0.3460 8.3000e-
003
22.8324
Unmitigated 14.0713 0.4324 0.0104 27.9686
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
12.0535 /
7.59894
12.3193 0.3941 9.4400e-
003
24.9861
City Park 0 /
1.75148
0.5672 9.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.5728
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Health Club 1.16571 /
0.714468
1.1848 0.0381 9.1000e-
004
2.4098
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 14.0713 0.4324 0.0104 27.9686
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 40 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 763 of 860Attachment 12 Page 194 of 259
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
9.6428 /
7.13541
10.1975 0.3154 7.5600e-
003
20.3343
City Park 0 /
1.64464
0.5326 9.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.5379
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Health Club 0.932569 /
0.670886
0.9800 0.0305 7.3000e-
004
1.9603
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 11.7101 0.3460 8.3000e-
003
22.8324
Mitigated
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 41 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 764 of 860Attachment 12 Page 195 of 259
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 40.1070 2.3703 0.0000 99.3633
Unmitigated 40.1070 2.3703 0.0000 99.3633
Category/Year
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
85.1 17.2745 1.0209 0.0000 42.7969
City Park 0.13 0.0264 1.5600e-
003
0.0000 0.0654
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Health Club 112.35 22.8060 1.3478 0.0000 56.5010
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 40.1070 2.3703 0.0000 99.3633
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 42 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 765 of 860Attachment 12 Page 196 of 259
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
85.1 17.2745 1.0209 0.0000 42.7969
City Park 0.13 0.0264 1.5600e-
003
0.0000 0.0654
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Health Club 112.35 22.8060 1.3478 0.0000 56.5010
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 40.1070 2.3703 0.0000 99.3633
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 43 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 766 of 860Attachment 12 Page 197 of 259
11.0 Vegetation
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:36 AMPage 44 of 44 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 767 of 860Attachment 12 Page 198 of 259
Green Valley 3 Apartments Project
Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Land Use - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE's comment on "Unsubstantuated Changes to Individual Construction Phase Lengths".
Off-road Equipment - See SWAPE's comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Construction Equipment Input Parameters".
Off-road Equipment - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Trips and VMT - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Grading - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Vehicle Trips - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Enclosed Parking with Elevator 102.00 Space 0.59 54,845.00 0 Other Asphalt Surfaces 2.41 Acre 2.41 104,979.60 0
City Park 1.47 Acre 1.47 64,033.20 0
Health Club 19.71 1000sqft 0.00 19,714.00 0
Apartments Mid Rise 185.00 Dwelling Unit 1.32 204,144.00 529
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
4 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 64
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company
2025Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
203.98 0.033CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.004N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 1 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 768 of 860Attachment 12 Page 199 of 259
Energy Use - See SWAPE's comment on "Unsubstantiated Reductions to Energy Use Values".
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Area Mitigation - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Energy Mitigation - See SWAPE's comment on "Incorect Application of Energy-Related Mitigation Measures".
Water Mitigation - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblAreaMitigation UseLowVOCPaintParkingCheck False True tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 7.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 7.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 15.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 2 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 769 of 860Attachment 12 Page 200 of 259
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 27.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 230.00 309.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 27.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 27.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 27.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 27.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 13.00
tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 10,300.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 40,800.00 54,845.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 19,710.00 19,714.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 185,000.00 204,144.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.92 0.59
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.45 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 4.87 1.32
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 21.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 50.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 18.00 50.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 50.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 50.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 10.00 75.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 236.00 100.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 75.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 47.00 50.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 3 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 770 of 860Attachment 12 Page 201 of 259
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 4.91 4.54
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.96 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 20.87 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 4.09 4.54
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.19 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 26.73 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 5.44 4.54
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 0.78 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 32.93 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 4 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 771 of 860Attachment 12 Page 202 of 259
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2023 2.8014 27.6200 32.0788 0.0673 20.0678 1.2681 21.3358 10.2114 1.1666 11.3780 0.0000 6,650.276 9 6,650.276
9 1.2030 0.5075 6,748.020
4 2024 1.7929 16.3393 19.1404 0.0453 1.2279 0.6330 1.8608 0.3349 0.5956 0.9305 0.0000 4,502.482 8 4,502.482
8 0.7282 0.2089 4,580.969
2 2025 116.8255 8.6973 16.0874 0.0274 0.6161 0.4213 1.0374 0.1634 0.3876 0.5510 0.0000 2,690.279 3 2,690.279
3 0.7266 0.0130 2,712.329
6 Maximum 116.8255 27.6200 32.0788 0.0673 20.0678 1.2681 21.3358 10.2114 1.1666 11.3780 0.0000 6,650.276 9 6,650.276
9 1.2030 0.5075 6,748.020
4 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2023 2.3230 41.4579 35.2505 0.0673 20.0678 1.4405 21.0160 10.2114 1.4392 11.1594 0.0000 6,650.276 9 6,650.276
9 1.2030 0.5075 6,748.020
4 2024 1.4022 26.4499 20.8474 0.0453 1.2279 0.9232 2.1511 0.3349 0.9222 1.2571 0.0000 4,502.482 8 4,502.482
8 0.7282 0.2089 4,580.969
2 2025 116.7686 20.2303 18.8051 0.0274 0.6161 0.6698 1.2859 0.1634 0.6695 0.8330 0.0000 2,690.279 3 2,690.279
3 0.7266 0.0130 2,712.329
6 Maximum 116.7686 41.4579 35.2505 0.0673 20.0678 1.4405 21.0160 10.2114 1.4392 11.1594 0.0000 6,650.276 9 6,650.276
9 1.2030 0.5075 6,748.020
4 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 5 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 772 of 860Attachment 12 Page 203 of 259
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.76 -67.38 -11.29 0.00 0.00 -30.62 -0.90 0.00 -40.99 -3.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 6 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 773 of 860Attachment 12 Page 204 of 259
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 82.2546 1.8578 115.7819 0.1945 14.3551 14.3551 14.3551 14.3551 1,548.606 6 713.0979 2,261.704
5 2.1456 0.1095 2,347.962
9 Energy 0.0611 0.5301 0.2831 3.3300e-
003
0.0422 0.0422 0.0422 0.0422 666.1477 666.1477 0.0128 0.0122 670.1063 Mobile 1.8430 2.1616 18.2708 0.0353 4.0831 0.0264 4.1095 1.0875 0.0246 1.1121 3,683.974 8 3,683.974
8 0.2550 0.1840 3,745.190
2 Total 84.1587 4.5495 134.3357 0.2331 4.0831 14.4236 18.5067 1.0875 14.4218 15.5093 1,548.606 6 5,063.220
4 6,611.827
0 2.4133 0.3057 6,763.259
4 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 6.1715 0.1758 15.2611 8.1000e-
004
0.0847 0.0847 0.0847 0.0847 0.0000 27.5097 27.5097 0.0264 0.0000 28.1694 Energy 0.0611 0.5301 0.2831 3.3300e-
003
0.0422 0.0422 0.0422 0.0422 666.1477 666.1477 0.0128 0.0122 670.1063 Mobile 1.8430 2.1616 18.2708 0.0353 4.0831 0.0264 4.1095 1.0875 0.0246 1.1121 3,683.974 8 3,683.974
8 0.2550 0.1840 3,745.190
2 Total 8.0755 2.8675 33.8149 0.0395 4.0831 0.1532 4.2363 1.0875 0.1514 1.2389 0.0000 4,377.632 2 4,377.632
2 0.2942 0.1962 4,443.465
9 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 7 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 774 of 860Attachment 12 Page 205 of 259
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition and Site Preparation Demolition 6/15/2023 7/21/2023 5 27 2 Finishing/Landscaping Site Preparation 7/22/2023 8/9/2023 5 13 3 Rough Grading Grading 8/10/2023 9/15/2023 5 27
4 Fine Grading Grading 9/16/2023 10/24/2023 5 27
5 Utility Trenching Trenching 10/25/2023 11/30/2023 5 27 6 Building Construction Building Construction 10/25/2023 12/30/2024 5 309 7 Paving Paving 12/31/2024 2/5/2025 5 27
8 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 2/6/2025 3/14/2025 5 27 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition and Site Preparation Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Demolition and Site Preparation Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38 Demolition and Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
90.40 36.97 74.83 83.07 0.00 98.94 77.11 0.00 98.95 92.01 100.00 13.54 33.79 87.81 35.81 34.30 Residential Indoor: 413,392; Residential Outdoor: 137,797; Non-Residential Indoor: 29,571; Non-Residential Outdoor: 9,857; Striped Parking Area: 9,589 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 19.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 27
Acres of Paving: 3
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 8 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 775 of 860Attachment 12 Page 206 of 259
Finishing/Landscaping Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40 Finishing/Landscaping Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Rough Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38
Rough Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Rough Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Rough Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
Fine Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38
Fine Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Fine Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Fine Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
Utility Trenching Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Utility Trenching Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition and Site
Preparation
6 50.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 21.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Finishing/Landscaping 7 50.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Rough Grading 6 50.00 0.00 1,288.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 9 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 776 of 860Attachment 12 Page 207 of 259
3.2 Demolition and Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.2691 21.4844 19.6434 0.0388 0.9975 0.9975 0.9280 0.9280 3,746.984 0 3,746.984
0 1.0494 3,773.218
3 Total 2.2691 21.4844 19.6434 0.0388 0.9975 0.9975 0.9280 0.9280 3,746.984 0 3,746.984
0 1.0494 3,773.218
3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Fine Grading 6 50.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Utility Trenching 4 75.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 100.00 60.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 75.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 50.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 10 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 777 of 860Attachment 12 Page 208 of 259
3.2 Demolition and Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1387 0.0959 1.1448 3.3100e-
003
0.4107 2.0400e-
003
0.4128 0.1090 1.8800e-
003
0.1108 338.5915 338.5915 0.0104 9.9500e-
003
341.8183
Total 0.1387 0.0959 1.1448 3.3100e-
003
0.4107 2.0400e-
003
0.4128 0.1090 1.8800e-
003
0.1108 338.5915 338.5915 0.0104 9.9500e-
003
341.8183
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.2617 32.6638 24.6739 0.0388 0.9135 0.9135 0.9135 0.9135 0.0000 3,746.984 0 3,746.984
0 1.0494 3,773.218
3 Total 1.2617 32.6638 24.6739 0.0388 0.9135 0.9135 0.9135 0.9135 0.0000 3,746.984 0 3,746.984
0 1.0494 3,773.218
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 11 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 778 of 860Attachment 12 Page 209 of 259
3.2 Demolition and Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1387 0.0959 1.1448 3.3100e-
003
0.4107 2.0400e-
003
0.4128 0.1090 1.8800e-
003
0.1108 338.5915 338.5915 0.0104 9.9500e-
003
341.8183
Total 0.1387 0.0959 1.1448 3.3100e-
003
0.4107 2.0400e-
003
0.4128 0.1090 1.8800e-
003
0.1108 338.5915 338.5915 0.0104 9.9500e-
003
341.8183
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Finishing/Landscaping - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 19.6570 0.0000 19.6570 10.1025 0.0000 10.1025 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.6595 27.5242 18.2443 0.0381 1.2660 1.2660 1.1647 1.1647 3,687.308 1 3,687.308
1 1.1926 3,717.121
9 Total 2.6595 27.5242 18.2443 0.0381 19.6570 1.2660 20.9230 10.1025 1.1647 11.2672 3,687.308 1 3,687.308
1 1.1926 3,717.121
9 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 12 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 779 of 860Attachment 12 Page 210 of 259
3.3 Finishing/Landscaping - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1387 0.0959 1.1448 3.3100e-
003
0.4107 2.0400e-
003
0.4128 0.1090 1.8800e-
003
0.1108 338.5915 338.5915 0.0104 9.9500e-
003
341.8183
Total 0.1387 0.0959 1.1448 3.3100e-
003
0.4107 2.0400e-
003
0.4128 0.1090 1.8800e-
003
0.1108 338.5915 338.5915 0.0104 9.9500e-
003
341.8183
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 19.6570 0.0000 19.6570 10.1025 0.0000 10.1025 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.2097 33.7214 22.9600 0.0381 0.9462 0.9462 0.9462 0.9462 0.0000 3,687.308 1 3,687.308
1 1.1926 3,717.121
9 Total 1.2097 33.7214 22.9600 0.0381 19.6570 0.9462 20.6032 10.1025 0.9462 11.0486 0.0000 3,687.308 1 3,687.308
1 1.1926 3,717.121
9 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 13 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 780 of 860Attachment 12 Page 211 of 259
3.3 Finishing/Landscaping - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1387 0.0959 1.1448 3.3100e-
003
0.4107 2.0400e-
003
0.4128 0.1090 1.8800e-
003
0.1108 338.5915 338.5915 0.0104 9.9500e-
003
341.8183
Total 0.1387 0.0959 1.1448 3.3100e-
003
0.4107 2.0400e-
003
0.4128 0.1090 1.8800e-
003
0.1108 338.5915 338.5915 0.0104 9.9500e-
003
341.8183
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Rough Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 7.1257 0.0000 7.1257 3.4313 0.0000 3.4313 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.7109 17.9359 14.7507 0.0297 0.7749 0.7749 0.7129 0.7129 2,872.691 0 2,872.691
0 0.9291 2,895.918
2 Total 1.7109 17.9359 14.7507 0.0297 7.1257 0.7749 7.9007 3.4313 0.7129 4.1442 2,872.691 0 2,872.691
0 0.9291 2,895.918
2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 14 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 781 of 860Attachment 12 Page 212 of 259
3.4 Rough Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0959 6.5933 1.5335 0.0288 0.8344 0.0524 0.8867 0.2287 0.0501 0.2788 3,139.911 3 3,139.911
3 0.1031 0.4976 3,290.764
6 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1387 0.0959 1.1448 3.3100e-
003
0.4107 2.0400e-
003
0.4128 0.1090 1.8800e-
003
0.1108 338.5915 338.5915 0.0104 9.9500e-
003
341.8183
Total 0.2346 6.6891 2.6783 0.0321 1.2451 0.0544 1.2995 0.3377 0.0520 0.3896 3,478.502 8 3,478.502
8 0.1135 0.5075 3,632.582
9 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 7.1257 0.0000 7.1257 3.4313 0.0000 3.4313 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.0093 26.2791 18.9906 0.0297 0.7725 0.7725 0.7725 0.7725 0.0000 2,872.691 0 2,872.691
0 0.9291 2,895.918
2 Total 1.0093 26.2791 18.9906 0.0297 7.1257 0.7725 7.8982 3.4313 0.7725 4.2038 0.0000 2,872.691 0 2,872.691
0 0.9291 2,895.918
2 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 15 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 782 of 860Attachment 12 Page 213 of 259
3.4 Rough Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0959 6.5933 1.5335 0.0288 0.8344 0.0524 0.8867 0.2287 0.0501 0.2788 3,139.911 3 3,139.911
3 0.1031 0.4976 3,290.764
6 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1387 0.0959 1.1448 3.3100e-
003
0.4107 2.0400e-
003
0.4128 0.1090 1.8800e-
003
0.1108 338.5915 338.5915 0.0104 9.9500e-
003
341.8183
Total 0.2346 6.6891 2.6783 0.0321 1.2451 0.0544 1.2995 0.3377 0.0520 0.3896 3,478.502 8 3,478.502
8 0.1135 0.5075 3,632.582
9 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Fine Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 7.0826 0.0000 7.0826 3.4247 0.0000 3.4247 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.7109 17.9359 14.7507 0.0297 0.7749 0.7749 0.7129 0.7129 2,872.691 0 2,872.691
0 0.9291 2,895.918
2 Total 1.7109 17.9359 14.7507 0.0297 7.0826 0.7749 7.8575 3.4247 0.7129 4.1377 2,872.691 0 2,872.691
0 0.9291 2,895.918
2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 16 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 783 of 860Attachment 12 Page 214 of 259
3.5 Fine Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1387 0.0959 1.1448 3.3100e-
003
0.4107 2.0400e-
003
0.4128 0.1090 1.8800e-
003
0.1108 338.5915 338.5915 0.0104 9.9500e-
003
341.8183
Total 0.1387 0.0959 1.1448 3.3100e-
003
0.4107 2.0400e-
003
0.4128 0.1090 1.8800e-
003
0.1108 338.5915 338.5915 0.0104 9.9500e-
003
341.8183
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 7.0826 0.0000 7.0826 3.4247 0.0000 3.4247 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.0093 26.2791 18.9906 0.0297 0.7725 0.7725 0.7725 0.7725 0.0000 2,872.691 0 2,872.691
0 0.9291 2,895.918
2 Total 1.0093 26.2791 18.9906 0.0297 7.0826 0.7725 7.8551 3.4247 0.7725 4.1972 0.0000 2,872.691 0 2,872.691
0 0.9291 2,895.918
2 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 17 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 784 of 860Attachment 12 Page 215 of 259
3.5 Fine Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1387 0.0959 1.1448 3.3100e-
003
0.4107 2.0400e-
003
0.4128 0.1090 1.8800e-
003
0.1108 338.5915 338.5915 0.0104 9.9500e-
003
341.8183
Total 0.1387 0.0959 1.1448 3.3100e-
003
0.4107 2.0400e-
003
0.4128 0.1090 1.8800e-
003
0.1108 338.5915 338.5915 0.0104 9.9500e-
003
341.8183
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Utility Trenching - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.6801 6.1686 10.9782 0.0166 0.3032 0.3032 0.2790 0.2790 1,603.364 3 1,603.364
3 0.5186 1,616.328
3 Total 0.6801 6.1686 10.9782 0.0166 0.3032 0.3032 0.2790 0.2790 1,603.364 3 1,603.364
3 0.5186 1,616.328
3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 18 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 785 of 860Attachment 12 Page 216 of 259
3.6 Utility Trenching - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.2081 0.1438 1.7172 4.9600e-
003
0.6161 3.0600e-
003
0.6192 0.1634 2.8100e-
003
0.1662 507.8873 507.8873 0.0157 0.0149 512.7275
Total 0.2081 0.1438 1.7172 4.9600e-
003
0.6161 3.0600e-
003
0.6192 0.1634 2.8100e-
003
0.1662 507.8873 507.8873 0.0157 0.0149 512.7275
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.6936 14.8449 12.5202 0.0166 0.5142 0.5142 0.5142 0.5142 0.0000 1,603.364 3 1,603.364
3 0.5186 1,616.328
3 Total 0.6936 14.8449 12.5202 0.0166 0.5142 0.5142 0.5142 0.5142 0.0000 1,603.364 3 1,603.364
3 0.5186 1,616.328
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 19 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 786 of 860Attachment 12 Page 217 of 259
3.6 Utility Trenching - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.2081 0.1438 1.7172 4.9600e-
003
0.6161 3.0600e-
003
0.6192 0.1634 2.8100e-
003
0.1662 507.8873 507.8873 0.0157 0.0149 512.7275
Total 0.2081 0.1438 1.7172 4.9600e-
003
0.6161 3.0600e-
003
0.6192 0.1634 2.8100e-
003
0.1662 507.8873 507.8873 0.0157 0.0149 512.7275
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 20 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 787 of 860Attachment 12 Page 218 of 259
3.7 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0631 2.7232 0.8499 0.0122 0.4064 0.0156 0.4220 0.1170 0.0150 0.1320 1,306.632 5 1,306.632
5 0.0265 0.1934 1,364.922
0 Worker 0.2774 0.1917 2.2895 6.6200e-
003
0.8215 4.0700e-
003
0.8256 0.2179 3.7500e-
003
0.2216 677.1830 677.1830 0.0209 0.0199 683.6366
Total 0.3405 2.9149 3.1394 0.0188 1.2278 0.0197 1.2476 0.3349 0.0187 0.3536 1,983.815 5 1,983.815
5 0.0474 0.2133 2,048.558
6 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0809 23.5544 17.8738 0.0269 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Total 1.0809 23.5544 17.8738 0.0269 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 21 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 788 of 860Attachment 12 Page 219 of 259
3.7 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0631 2.7232 0.8499 0.0122 0.4064 0.0156 0.4220 0.1170 0.0150 0.1320 1,306.632 5 1,306.632
5 0.0265 0.1934 1,364.922
0 Worker 0.2774 0.1917 2.2895 6.6200e-
003
0.8215 4.0700e-
003
0.8256 0.2179 3.7500e-
003
0.2216 677.1830 677.1830 0.0209 0.0199 683.6366
Total 0.3405 2.9149 3.1394 0.0188 1.2278 0.0197 1.2476 0.3349 0.0187 0.3536 1,983.815 5 1,983.815
5 0.0474 0.2133 2,048.558
6 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.4716 13.4438 16.1668 0.0270 0.6133 0.6133 0.5769 0.5769 2,555.698 9 2,555.698
9 0.6044 2,570.807
7 Total 1.4716 13.4438 16.1668 0.0270 0.6133 0.6133 0.5769 0.5769 2,555.698 9 2,555.698
9 0.6044 2,570.807
7 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 22 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 789 of 860Attachment 12 Page 220 of 259
3.7 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0611 2.7244 0.8322 0.0120 0.4064 0.0158 0.4222 0.1170 0.0151 0.1321 1,286.296 6 1,286.296
6 0.0264 0.1903 1,343.674
0 Worker 0.2602 0.1711 2.1414 6.4000e-
003
0.8215 3.8800e-
003
0.8254 0.2179 3.5700e-
003
0.2215 660.4873 660.4873 0.0190 0.0186 666.4876
Total 0.3213 2.8955 2.9736 0.0184 1.2279 0.0197 1.2475 0.3349 0.0187 0.3536 1,946.783 9 1,946.783
9 0.0453 0.2089 2,010.161
5 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0809 23.5544 17.8738 0.0270 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.0000 2,555.698 9 2,555.698
9 0.6044 2,570.807
7 Total 1.0809 23.5544 17.8738 0.0270 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.0000 2,555.698 9 2,555.698
9 0.6044 2,570.807
7 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 23 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 790 of 860Attachment 12 Page 221 of 259
3.7 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0611 2.7244 0.8322 0.0120 0.4064 0.0158 0.4222 0.1170 0.0151 0.1321 1,286.296 6 1,286.296
6 0.0264 0.1903 1,343.674
0 Worker 0.2602 0.1711 2.1414 6.4000e-
003
0.8215 3.8800e-
003
0.8254 0.2179 3.5700e-
003
0.2215 660.4873 660.4873 0.0190 0.0186 666.4876
Total 0.3213 2.8955 2.9736 0.0184 1.2279 0.0197 1.2475 0.3349 0.0187 0.3536 1,946.783 9 1,946.783
9 0.0453 0.2089 2,010.161
5 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.8 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Paving 0.2339 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.2220 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 24 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 791 of 860Attachment 12 Page 222 of 259
3.8 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1951 0.1284 1.6061 4.8000e-
003
0.6161 2.9100e-
003
0.6190 0.1634 2.6800e-
003
0.1661 495.3655 495.3655 0.0142 0.0139 499.8657
Total 0.1951 0.1284 1.6061 4.8000e-
003
0.6161 2.9100e-
003
0.6190 0.1634 2.6800e-
003
0.1661 495.3655 495.3655 0.0142 0.0139 499.8657
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9311 20.1146 17.2957 0.0228 0.6670 0.6670 0.6670 0.6670 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Paving 0.2339 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.1649 20.1146 17.2957 0.0228 0.6670 0.6670 0.6670 0.6670 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 25 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 792 of 860Attachment 12 Page 223 of 259
3.8 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1951 0.1284 1.6061 4.8000e-
003
0.6161 2.9100e-
003
0.6190 0.1634 2.6800e-
003
0.1661 495.3655 495.3655 0.0142 0.0139 499.8657
Total 0.1951 0.1284 1.6061 4.8000e-
003
0.6161 2.9100e-
003
0.6190 0.1634 2.6800e-
003
0.1661 495.3655 495.3655 0.0142 0.0139 499.8657
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.8 Paving - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9152 8.5816 14.5780 0.0228 0.4185 0.4185 0.3850 0.3850 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Paving 0.2339 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.1490 8.5816 14.5780 0.0228 0.4185 0.4185 0.3850 0.3850 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 26 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 793 of 860Attachment 12 Page 224 of 259
3.8 Paving - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1839 0.1156 1.5094 4.6400e-
003
0.6161 2.7800e-
003
0.6189 0.1634 2.5600e-
003
0.1660 483.5341 483.5341 0.0129 0.0130 487.7418
Total 0.1839 0.1156 1.5094 4.6400e-
003
0.6161 2.7800e-
003
0.6189 0.1634 2.5600e-
003
0.1660 483.5341 483.5341 0.0129 0.0130 487.7418
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9311 20.1146 17.2957 0.0228 0.6670 0.6670 0.6670 0.6670 0.0000 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Paving 0.2339 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.1649 20.1146 17.2957 0.0228 0.6670 0.6670 0.6670 0.6670 0.0000 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 27 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 794 of 860Attachment 12 Page 225 of 259
3.8 Paving - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1839 0.1156 1.5094 4.6400e-
003
0.6161 2.7800e-
003
0.6189 0.1634 2.5600e-
003
0.1660 483.5341 483.5341 0.0129 0.0130 487.7418
Total 0.1839 0.1156 1.5094 4.6400e-
003
0.6161 2.7800e-
003
0.6189 0.1634 2.5600e-
003
0.1660 483.5341 483.5341 0.0129 0.0130 487.7418
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.9 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 116.5321 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1709 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e-
003
0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Total 116.7029 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e-
003
0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 28 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 795 of 860Attachment 12 Page 226 of 259
3.9 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1226 0.0771 1.0063 3.0900e-
003
0.4107 1.8600e-
003
0.4126 0.1090 1.7100e-
003
0.1107 322.3561 322.3561 8.6200e-
003
8.6900e-
003
325.1612
Total 0.1226 0.0771 1.0063 3.0900e-
003
0.4107 1.8600e-
003
0.4126 0.1090 1.7100e-
003
0.1107 322.3561 322.3561 8.6200e-
003
8.6900e-
003
325.1612
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 116.5321 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1139 2.3524 1.8324 2.9700e-
003
0.0951 0.0951 0.0951 0.0951 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Total 116.6460 2.3524 1.8324 2.9700e-
003
0.0951 0.0951 0.0951 0.0951 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 29 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 796 of 860Attachment 12 Page 227 of 259
3.9 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1226 0.0771 1.0063 3.0900e-
003
0.4107 1.8600e-
003
0.4126 0.1090 1.7100e-
003
0.1107 322.3561 322.3561 8.6200e-
003
8.6900e-
003
325.1612
Total 0.1226 0.0771 1.0063 3.0900e-
003
0.4107 1.8600e-
003
0.4126 0.1090 1.7100e-
003
0.1107 322.3561 322.3561 8.6200e-
003
8.6900e-
003
325.1612
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 30 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 797 of 860Attachment 12 Page 228 of 259
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 1.8430 2.1616 18.2708 0.0353 4.0831 0.0264 4.1095 1.0875 0.0246 1.1121 3,683.974 8 3,683.974
8 0.2550 0.1840 3,745.190
2 Unmitigated 1.8430 2.1616 18.2708 0.0353 4.0831 0.0264 4.1095 1.0875 0.0246 1.1121 3,683.974 8 3,683.974
8 0.2550 0.1840 3,745.190
2 4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Mid Rise 839.90 839.90 839.90 1,939,839 1,939,839 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00
Health Club 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 839.90 839.90 839.90 1,939,839 1,939,839
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Mid Rise 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 3 City Park 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00 48.00 19.00 66 28 6
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Health Club 9.50 7.30 7.30 16.90 64.10 19.00 52 39 9
Other Asphalt Surfaces 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 31 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 798 of 860Attachment 12 Page 229 of 259
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Mid Rise 0.553839 0.058700 0.188468 0.120786 0.022796 0.005663 0.010629 0.007566 0.000983 0.000556 0.026354 0.000841 0.002820 City Park 0.553839 0.058700 0.188468 0.120786 0.022796 0.005663 0.010629 0.007566 0.000983 0.000556 0.026354 0.000841 0.002820 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.553839 0.058700 0.188468 0.120786 0.022796 0.005663 0.010629 0.007566 0.000983 0.000556 0.026354 0.000841 0.002820 Health Club 0.553839 0.058700 0.188468 0.120786 0.022796 0.005663 0.010629 0.007566 0.000983 0.000556 0.026354 0.000841 0.002820 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.553839 0.058700 0.188468 0.120786 0.022796 0.005663 0.010629 0.007566 0.000983 0.000556 0.026354 0.000841 0.002820
5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.0611 0.5301 0.2831 3.3300e-
003
0.0422 0.0422 0.0422 0.0422 666.1477 666.1477 0.0128 0.0122 670.1063 NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.0611 0.5301 0.2831 3.3300e-
003
0.0422 0.0422 0.0422 0.0422 666.1477 666.1477 0.0128 0.0122 670.1063
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Install High Efficiency Lighting
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 32 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 799 of 860Attachment 12 Page 230 of 259
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Mid
Rise
4248.25 0.0458 0.3915 0.1666 2.5000e-
003
0.0317 0.0317 0.0317 0.0317 499.7940 499.7940 9.5800e-
003
9.1600e-
003
502.7640
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Health Club 1414.01 0.0153 0.1386 0.1165 8.3000e-
004
0.0105 0.0105 0.0105 0.0105 166.3538 166.3538 3.1900e-
003
3.0500e-
003
167.3423
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0611 0.5301 0.2831 3.3300e-
003
0.0422 0.0422 0.0422 0.0422 666.1477 666.1477 0.0128 0.0122 670.1063 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 33 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 800 of 860Attachment 12 Page 231 of 259
Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Interior
Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Exterior
Use Low VOC Paint - Non-Residential Interior
Use Low VOC Paint - Non-Residential Exterior
No Hearths Installed
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Mid
Rise
4.24825 0.0458 0.3915 0.1666 2.5000e-
003
0.0317 0.0317 0.0317 0.0317 499.7940 499.7940 9.5800e-
003
9.1600e-
003
502.7640
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Health Club 1.41401 0.0153 0.1386 0.1165 8.3000e-
004
0.0105 0.0105 0.0105 0.0105 166.3538 166.3538 3.1900e-
003
3.0500e-
003
167.3423
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0611 0.5301 0.2831 3.3300e-
003
0.0422 0.0422 0.0422 0.0422 666.1477 666.1477 0.0128 0.0122 670.1063 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 34 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 801 of 860Attachment 12 Page 232 of 259
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 6.1715 0.1758 15.2611 8.1000e-
004
0.0847 0.0847 0.0847 0.0847 0.0000 27.5097 27.5097 0.0264 0.0000 28.1694 Unmitigated 82.2546 1.8578 115.7819 0.1945 14.3551 14.3551 14.3551 14.3551 1,548.606 6 713.0979 2,261.704
5 2.1456 0.1095 2,347.962
9 6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.8620 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
4.8505 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 76.0831 1.6820 100.5208 0.1937 14.2704 14.2704 14.2704 14.2704 1,548.606 6 685.5882 2,234.194
8 2.1192 0.1095 2,319.793
5 Landscaping 0.4590 0.1758 15.2611 8.1000e-
004
0.0847 0.0847 0.0847 0.0847 27.5097 27.5097 0.0264 28.1694 Total 82.2546 1.8578 115.7819 0.1945 14.3551 14.3551 14.3551 14.3551 1,548.606 6 713.0979 2,261.704
5 2.1456 0.1095 2,347.962
9 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 35 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 802 of 860Attachment 12 Page 233 of 259
Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet
Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet
Install Low Flow Toilet
Install Low Flow Shower
Use Water Efficient Irrigation System
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.8620 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
4.8505 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.4590 0.1758 15.2611 8.1000e-
004
0.0847 0.0847 0.0847 0.0847 27.5097 27.5097 0.0264 28.1694 Total 6.1715 0.1758 15.2611 8.1000e-
004
0.0847 0.0847 0.0847 0.0847 0.0000 27.5097 27.5097 0.0264 0.0000 28.1694 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 36 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 803 of 860Attachment 12 Page 234 of 259
11.0 Vegetation
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
8.0 Waste Detail
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 5/1/2023 10:43 AMPage 37 of 37 Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Packet Page 804 of 860Attachment 12 Page 235 of 259
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
CEQA Review
Education:
M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.
B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.
Professional Certifications:
California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:
Matt has 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, Matt has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.
Positions Matt has held include:
•Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); •Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; •Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); Attachment C
Packet Page 805 of 860Attachment 12 Page 236 of 259
2 •Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); •Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998);
•Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); •Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998);
•Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); •Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
•Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).
Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:
With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
•Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever.
•Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial facilities.
•Expert witness on numerous cases including, for example, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination of groundwater, MTBE litigation, air toxins at hazards at a school, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination. •Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. •Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. •Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. •Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells.
•Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California.
With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
•Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. •Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
•Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
•Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. •Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.
Packet Page 806 of 860Attachment 12 Page 237 of 259
3 •Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi. •Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. •Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators.
Executive Director:
As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council.
Hydrogeology:
As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
•Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
•Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.
•Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.
At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.
As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
•Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
•Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted Packet Page 807 of 860Attachment 12 Page 238 of 259
4 public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.
Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.
EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.
With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.
Policy:
Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9.
Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific Packet Page 808 of 860Attachment 12 Page 239 of 259
5 principles into the policy‐making process.
•Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.
Geology:
With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
•Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
•Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection.
•Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon.
As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:
•Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. •Conducted aquifer tests.
•Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.
Teaching:
From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
•At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
•Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. •Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.
Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California where he taught from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017.
Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.
EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.
Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
Packet Page 809 of 860Attachment 12 Page 240 of 259
6 Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.
Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.
Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.
Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
Packet Page 810 of 860Attachment 12 Page 241 of 259
7 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.
Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.
Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.
Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996.
Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.
Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te r i z a t i o n and Cl ean up a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.
Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
Packet Page 811 of 860Attachment 12 Page 242 of 259
8 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.
Other Experience:
Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009‐2011.
Packet Page 812 of 860Attachment 12 Page 243 of 259
SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 12 October 2022
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.
M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.
B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Focus on wastewater treatment.
Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years of experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.
Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion.
Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural, and military sources.
Attachment D
Packet Page 813 of 860Attachment 12 Page 244 of 259
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 12 October 2022
Professional History:
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications:
Rosenfeld P. E., Spaeth K., Hallman R., Bressler R., Smith, G., (2022) Cancer Risk and Diesel Exhaust Exposure Among Railroad Workers. Water Air Soil Pollution. 233, 171.
Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.
Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.
Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.
Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Packet Page 814 of 860Attachment 12 Page 245 of 259
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 12 October 2022
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530.
Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.
Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.
Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.
Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178.
Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.
Packet Page 815 of 860Attachment 12 Page 246 of 259
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 12 October 2022
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.
Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.
Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1).
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.
Presentations:
Rosenfeld, P.E., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.
Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.
Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting , Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting . Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Packet Page 816 of 860Attachment 12 Page 247 of 259
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 12 October 2022
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference .
Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.
Packet Page 817 of 860Attachment 12 Page 248 of 259
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 12 October 2022
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.
Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.
Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.
Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.
Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.
Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association . Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.
Packet Page 818 of 860Attachment 12 Page 249 of 259
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 12 October 2022
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.
Teaching Experience:
UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.
National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.
National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.
California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.
UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.
University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.
U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.
Academic Grants Awarded:
California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.
Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.
Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.
Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.
King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.
Packet Page 819 of 860Attachment 12 Page 250 of 259
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 12 October 2022
James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.
United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.
Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Billy Wildrick, Plaintiff vs. BNSF Railway Company
Case No. CIVDS1711810
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-17-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County, State of Georgia
Richard Hutcherson, Plaintiff vs Norfolk Southern Railway Company Case No. 10-SCCV-092007
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2022
In the Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana Millard Clark, Plaintiff vs. Dixie Carriers, Inc. et al.
Case No. 2020-03891
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-15-2022
In The Circuit Court of Livingston County, State of Missouri, Circuit Civil Division Shirley Ralls, Plaintiff vs. Canadian Pacific Railway and Soo Line Railroad Case No. 18-LV-CC0020
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-7-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jonny C. Daniels, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.
Case No. 20-CA-5502
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-1-2022
In The Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri Kieth Luke et. al. Plaintiff vs. Monsanto Company et. al.
Case No. 19SL-CC03191
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-25-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jeffery S. Lamotte, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.
Case No. NO. 20-CA-0049
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-22-2022
In State of Minnesota District Court, County of St. Louis Sixth Judicial District Greg Bean, Plaintiff vs. Soo Line Railroad Company
Case No. 69-DU-CV-21-760
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-17-2022
In United States District Court Western District of Washington at Tacoma, Washington John D. Fitzgerald Plaintiff vs. BNSF
Case No. 3:21-cv-05288-RJB
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-11-2022
Packet Page 820 of 860Attachment 12 Page 251 of 259
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 12 October 2022
In Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Macon Illinois Rocky Bennyhoff Plaintiff vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-L-56
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-3-2022
In Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County Ohio
Joe Briggins Plaintiff vs. CSX
Case No. A2004464
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-17-2022
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern George LaFazia vs. BNSF Railway Company.
Case No. BCV-19-103087
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-17-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Bobby Earles vs. Penn Central et. al.
Case No. 2020-L-000550
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-16-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of Florida Albert Hartman Plaintiff vs. Illinois Central
Case No. 2:20-cv-1633
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-4-2022
In the Circuit Court of the 4th Judicial Circuit, in and For Duval County, Florida Barbara Steele vs. CSX Transportation
Case No.16-219-Ca-008796
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of New York Romano et al. vs. Northrup Grumman Corporation
Case No. 16-cv-5760
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-10-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Linda Benjamin vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 007599
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Donald Smith vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 003426
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-24-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Jan Holeman vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 000675
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-18-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County State of Georgia
Dwayne B. Garrett vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-SCCV-091232
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-10-2021
Packet Page 821 of 860Attachment 12 Page 252 of 259
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 12 October 2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Ruepke vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 007730
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-5-2021
In the United States District Court For the District of Nebraska Steven Gillett vs. BNSF
Case No. 4:20-cv-03120
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-28-2021
In the Montana Thirteenth District Court of Yellowstone County James Eadus vs. Soo Line Railroad and BNSF
Case No. DV 19-1056
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-21-2021
In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al.cvs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc.
Case No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-14-2021
Trial October 8-4-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a
AMTRAK,
Case No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-28-2021
In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois Theresa Romcoe vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail Case No. 17-cv-8517
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al. vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.
Case No. CV20127-094749
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-7-2021
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.
Case No. 1:17-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company.
Case No. 1720288
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al.
Case No. 18STCV01162
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020
In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant.
Case No. 1716-CV10006
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-30-2019
Packet Page 822 of 860Attachment 12 Page 253 of 259
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 11 of 12 October 2022
In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.
Case No. 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-7-2019
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.
Case No. 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19
In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiffs vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No. 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No. 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintifs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No. C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-23-2017
In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants
Case No. 1:19-cv-00315-RHW
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-22-2020
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No. LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2017
Packet Page 823 of 860Attachment 12 Page 254 of 259
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 12 of 12 October 2022
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No. RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No. LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.
Civil Action No. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition June 2015
In The Iowa District Court for Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No. 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.
Case No. CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition December 2014
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.
Case No. cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987)
Rosenfeld Deposition October 2012
In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.
Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2010, June 2011
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants Civil Action No. CV 2008-2076
Rosenfeld Deposition September 2010
In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.
Case No. 2:07CV1052
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2009
Packet Page 824 of 860Attachment 12 Page 255 of 259
Green Valley 3 Final EIR – Late Comments and Responses 12
ATTACHMENT 2
WRA RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER FOR THE GREEN VALLEY 3 APARTMENTS PROJECT, DATED JUNE 28, 2023
Packet Page 825 of 860Attachment 12 Page 256 of 259
WRA, Inc. | 2169-G East Francisco Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94901 www.wra-ca.com · ph: 415.454.8868
June 28, 2023
Jonathan Atkinson
Senior Planner
City of Fairfield
[email protected] – Sent via email
Subject: Response to comment letter on the proposed Green Valley 3 Apartments project; Fairfield, California
Mr. Atkinson:
This letter provides responses to portions of a comment letter from Lozeau Drury LLP (June 26, 2023) concerning the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Green Valley 3 Apartments project in Fairfield, Solano County, California. WRA generated a biological due diligence assessment for the project dated March 22, 2022, the results of which were incorporated into or otherwise informed the conclusions of the EIR.
The statements herein are specifically focused on biological resources, and in response to statements and recommendations from Dr. Shawn Smallwood as regards the project site and project. Topic summaries below are taken verbatim from the comment letter and shown in bold font below; each followed by respective responses from WRA.
A.1. The EIR underestimates the diversity of species using the Project site.
Observations of specie richness are dependent on many factors outside of the control of the observer(s) and may vary dependent on time of year, time of day, weather, and others. WRA acknowledges Dr. Smallwood’s observations and agrees that more survey time would presumably yield additional species observations. WRA’s biological report did not state or insinuate that the number of species observed by was conclusive as to the diversity of fauna that may occur at the project site; these observations represented a snapshot of what was present during the site visits and were not presented as the results of a dedicated bird/wildlife survey (e.g., a point-count survey or other protocol-level effort). CEQA-level biological reports primarily assess habitats and the potential for species (primarily special-status taxa) to be present based on existing conditions. Additionally, WRA only recorded species that were observed in direct association with the site and does not typically consider species that are observed only in aerial transit well above a given site or on an adjacent site to be present there. (Aerial foraging within a site’s airspace would warrant inclusion in many cases, e.g., for raptors [birds of prey], and bats, if relevant.)
Dr. Smallwood also references his on-site observations of Nuttall’s woodpecker and oak titmouse, both named as Birds of Conservation Concern by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
WRA (which also observed oak titmouse on-site) asserts that these findings are unremarkable.
Packet Page 826 of 860Attachment 12 Page 257 of 259
WRA, Inc. | 2169-G East Francisco Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94901 www.wra-ca.com · ph: 415.454.8868
2 First, while standards at to what constitutes a “special status” may vary somewhat, Bird of Conservation Concern is a relatively low-level status that is often not considered “special” in CEQA assessments. Second, both subject species are common throughout the region in a variety of environments/land covers ranging from wildlands to suburban developments that include native oak trees and/or riparian woodland. Both would be expected in the riparian woodland adjacent to the project site and their presence there does not call into question the findings in WRA’s report or conclusions in the relevant sections of the EIR.
A.2 The EIR failed to disclose and mitigate the Project’s impacts on wildlife due to habitat loss, wildlife movement, window collisions, and road mortality.
a. Habitat loss and fragmentation.
WRA acknowledges that potential nesting habitat for some bird species would be lost due to the land conversion. However, it’s unclear how Dr. Smallwood’s numbers were derived, and their validity is questionable. The project site is dominated by non-native, ruderal grassland with a history of disturbance, including recent semi-regular discing, reducing its quality as nesting habitat. The highest-quality bird nesting habitat present is the riparian corridor along with periphery of the site, which is being avoided by the project. Additionally, the project is complying will all relevant compensatory mitigation requirements in the local HCP and those associated with the regulatory permitting process. Essentially, there is no reason to assert that loss of this habitat within the site would constitute a potentially significant impact under CEQA.
b. Wildlife movement.
Dr. Smallwood’s claim that project implementation would result in significant impacts to wildlife movement is unfounded. Above all, wildlife corridors must link two areas of core habitat and should not direct wildlife to developed areas or areas that are otherwise void of core habitat.
The project site is surrounded by development including residential and commercial (hardscape) development, and major transportation infrastructure (freeways and associated roadways). The on-site and adjacent riparian corridor presumably provides local movement for common wildlife species as well as aquatic habitat connectivity, and this corridor is being avoided by the project.
The claim that corridors for flying species (birds) will be impacted is unsubstantiated.
c. Window collisions.
Dr. Smallwood references that bird collision impacts are not discussed or mitigated in the EIR.
While avian mortality due to window collisions is a real phenomenon, CEQA-level assessments typically involve developments with an especially high percentage of clear and/or reflective glazing (glass) on exterior facades, and/or other specific elements deemed likely to result in a high rate of collisions. Based on a review of project renderings in the EIR, it appears that the development will include limited exterior glazing, with most glazing elements relatively small and separated from each other by opaque materials. Additionally, these materials will be of variable color and texture, and frequently spatially offset from each other (“visual noise”), increasing the chances that birds will perceive the facades as solid surfaces. Given this design, no potentially significant impacts due to bird-window collisions are anticipated.
Packet Page 827 of 860Attachment 12 Page 258 of 259
WRA, Inc. | 2169-G East Francisco Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94901 www.wra-ca.com · ph: 415.454.8868
3 d. Road mortality.
Dr. Smallwood calculates how many additional animals will die as roadkill due to the proposed project. WRA acknowledges that increased traffic during construction could result in a minor increase in vehicle-related wildlife mortality. However, any species present on the already highly trafficked roads surrounding the project site are expected to be common, urban-adapted species, and any increase in traffic associated with the project is not expected to result in significant additional mortality to even these species. It should also be noted that, although the project proponents will seek to minimize incidences of traffic-related mortality of all species, the threshold for CEQA significance is not applicable to non-status species unless the project would have a regional impact on the viability of the species or species group, which the project will not.
Additionally, as with other components of Dr. Smallwood’s response, the validity of his calculations is unclear.
4. The EIR’s proposed mitigation measures for biological resources are inadequate.
Dr. Smallwood asserts that the mitigation measures in the EIR related to avoidance of special- status wildlife species are inadequate and recommends additional measures. Of the species he references, WRA recommended surveys for Swainson’s hawk and white-tailed kite, with avoidance of the former presumably to take place in the context of HCP compliance. For some of the remaining species WRA’s biological report outlined rationales for why these species are unlikely to occur at the site, namely California red-legged frog and burrowing owl (though note that surveys for the latter species may be required under the HCP). Of the remaining referenced species, willow flycatcher does not breed in the region, least Bell’s vireo is considered effectively extirpated in the region, and western spadefoot is unlikely to occur given the presence of only highly marginal habitat. In summary, no potentially significant impacts to the latter group of species are anticipated due to the project and no avoidance (mitigation) measures related to them are warranted.
Please contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Jason Yakich
Senior Biologist
[email protected]
Ec: Christian Marsh, Downey Brand LLP
Packet Page 828 of 860Attachment 12 Page 259 of 259
STAFF REPORT
Meeting
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
June 28, 2023
Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission
Community Development Department
IT EM A : GR E EN V A LL EY 3 A P A RT M E N T S
Resolution No. PC2023 -07
General Plan Amendment (GPA2021-001}
Zone Change (ZC2021-003}
Development Review (DR2021-013}
Environmental Review (ER2021-036)
Location: 4840 Business Center Drive (APN: 0148-540-350} Applicant: Nicolas Ruhl, The Spanos Corporation
Owner: Green Valley Land, LLC
Public hearing on the request by Nicolas Ruhl of The Spanos Corporation for a multifamily residential development involving 185 apartments on 5.78-acres of undeveloped land in the Green Valley Corporate Park at 4840 Business Center Drive (APN: 0148-540-350). The project requires City Council approval of a General Plan Amendment from Business and Industrial Park to Very High Density Residential and a Zone Change from Industrial Business Park - North Cordelia Overlay (IBP - NC) District to Residential, Very High Density - North Cordelia Overlay (RVH - NC) District. The project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 16270(a), which provides that projects that are disapproved or rejected by a public agency are statutorily exempt from environmental review. (Planner: Jonathan Atkinson, 707-428-7387, [email protected])
SITE INFORMATION
A.
B.
Location: 4840 Business Center Drive (APN: 0148-540-350} Parcel Size: 5.78 acres
C ity of Fairfield
C om m un ity D evelopm en t Dep artm ent
Prepared by: J A
Reviewed by: JA§.
ATTACHMENT 7
Packet Page 829 of 860Attachment 13 Page 1 of 10
C. Zoning and Land Use: Zoning Land Use
Project Site: Industrial Business Park - North Cordelia Vacant Overlay (IBP - NC)
North: Residential Medium Density- North Cordelia Single-Family Overlay (RM - NC) Residential
South: Industrial Business Park - North Cordelia Hotel
Overlay (IBP - NC)
East: Industrial Business Park - North Cordelia Office
Overlay (IBP - NC)
West: Open Space Conservation (OSC - NC) Open Space (riparian) D. General Plan Designations:
Project Site:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Business and Industrial Park (IBP)
Medium Density Residential (RM)
Business and Industrial Park (IBP)
Business and Industrial Park (IBP)
Conservation Open Space (OSC)
E. Site Characteristics/Special Features: One undeveloped parcel of land comprises the 5. 78- acre project site at 4840 Business Center Drive (APN: 0148-540-350) within the 132-acre Green Valley Corporate Park. The project site is a flag lot bounded by the Siena Green Valley neighborhood to the north; two office buildings to the west; a Residence Inn by Marriott hotel to the south; and a riparian corridor with a drainage ditch to the west (that traverses the parcel boundary). Green Valley Road is located on the other side of the riparian corridor. Access to the project site is shared by the Marriott Hotel and two office buildings from a driveway off Business Center Drive. There is an additional shared driveway to the east that provides another access point to Business Center Drive. The project site is relatively flat and dominated by herbaceous and ruderal vegetation that consists of non-native, annual grassland species. There is a landscape strip along the eastern edge of the project site that abuts the two office buildings. The project site co ntains 0.11 acres of seasonal wetlands that are sited in a central location.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
On August 23, 2021, the City Community Development Department received applications for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Planned Development, Development Review, and Environmental Review from Nicolas Ruhl of The Spanos Corporation for the proposed Green Valley 3 Apartments project. The project originally involved a multifamily development with 268 PC ITEM NO.: A PC DATE: 06/28/2023
PC FILE NO.: GPA2021-001, ZC2021-003, DR2021-013, ER2021-036 PAGE 2 HTTPS:/ /FAIRFIELDGOV.SHAREPOINT.COM/TEAMS/THEAGENDERS/20230628/ITEM A - GREEN VALLEY 3 APARTMENTS/1 GPA2021-001 PC STAFF REPORT DRAFT.DOCX
Packet Page 830 of 860Attachment 13 Page 2 of 10
apartments and a five-story parking garage at a residential density of 46 units per acre, requiring a Planned Development application.
On October 13 , 2021, the Planning Comm ission held a public hearing to initiate the Planned Development, fo r which it failed in a O - 5 vote.
On November 16, 2021, the City Council held a public hearing to initiate the Planned Development, for which it passed in a 7-0 vote.
Barati Consulting, LLC, an environmental consulting firm, was retained to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Environmental Review section ofthe staff report includes a chronology of key milestones during the project's environmental review.
The applicant subsequently elected to substantially redesign the project and no longer pursue the Planned Development. On February 28, 2022, the applicant submitted revised plans for the multifamily residential development involving 185 apartments and a two-story parking garage.
On June 13, 2023, the Council held a study session regarding the City's General Plan update. At the study session, the Council discussed the future land use scenario for the Cordelia area. The Council is still considering where new residential development should occur in the Cordelia area as a single action and not on a case-by-case basis. The applicant elected to advance the project to the Commission and Council for action.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project involves the development of a single four-story, approximately 204,144- square-foot apartment building with 185 rental units on 5.78 acres of undeveloped land in the Green Valley Corporate Park. The 49-foot-tall building consists of three wings situated around a central clubhouse area. The apartment complex would include 36 studio/one-bath units, 66 one-bedroom/one-bathroom units, 77 two-bedroom/two-bathroom units, and six (6) three- bedroom/two-bathroom units.
The project includes common and private open spaces. Recreational amenities include a pool/spa area with outdoor showers, picnic and barbeque areas, an outdoor kitchen, an outdoor fireplace and fire table, lounging areas, table tennis and corn hole game areas, an outdoor yoga area, a hammock lounge area, and lawn areas for passive play. A dog run is proposed in the western portion of the project site adjacent to the open space area along the drainage ditch.
The project includes the development of an approximately 54,845-square-foot two-story parking structure (up to 18 feet tall) with additional parking provided in private garages and carports and surface parking spaces along the perimeter of the project site. The project includes 328 vehicle parking spaces and 14 bicycle parking spaces.
PC ITEM NO.: A PC DATE: 06/28/2023
PC FILE NO.: GPA2021-001, ZC2021-003, DR2021-013, ER2021-036 PAGE 3 HTTPS://FAIRFIELDGOV.SHAREPOINT.COM/TEAMS/THEAGENDERS/20230628/ITEM A - GREEN VALLEY 3 APARTMENTS/1 GPA2021-001 PC STAFF REPORT DRAFT.DOCX
Packet Page 831 of 860Attachment 13 Page 3 of 10
T h e pro ject site is accessible from tw o driveways and drive-aisles that co nnect the existing o ff ic e developm ent and hotel under construction to Business Center Drive. Intern al circulation of the pro ject site would consist of a drive aisle that would loop around the perimeter of the apartment building and the tw o-story parking structure.
A. Dwelling Units/Density: 185 units on 5. 78 acres/ 32 units per acre The allowed density range for the proposed Residential Very High (RVH) District is 22 to 32 units per acre under Zoning Ordinance Table 25-4.
B. Landscape Improvements: The following landscape improvements are required for the project under Zoning Ordinance Table 25-4:
• 5 feet of landscaping along all interior property lines, except the property line abutting the Siena Green Valley single-family residences to the northeast where 10 feet is required.
• One tree for every 25 feet of street frontage.
• One tree for every 325 square feet of landscape area (for which 7 percent shall be a box-sized species).
The project is consistent with minimum landscape requirements.
C. Parking Required/Provided: 328 spaces required/ 332 spaces provided Zoning Ordinance Section 25.34.8 requires one bicycle parking space for every 25 vehicle parking spaces required. The project requires 14 bicycle parking spaces. The project is consistent with minimum parking requirements, as proposed and conditioned.
D. Setbacks: Required Provided
Front: South 15 Feet* 69 Feet
Rear: North 25 Feet* 34 Feet
Sides:
Left: West 15 Feet* 100 Feet
Right: East 15 Feet* 32 Feet
*Required by the proposed RVH District.
E. Open Space: Multifamily residential developments require 35 percent of the net parcel area to be allocated for common open space under Zoning Ordinance Table 25-4.
Additionally, no less than 50 percent of the required common open space shall be usable with a dimension of 20 by 35 feet and improved for passive or active open space. The PC ITEM NO.: A PC DATE: 06/28/2023
PC FILE NO.: GPA2021-001, ZC2021-003, DR2021-013, ER2021-036 PAGE 4 HTTPS://FAIRFIELDGOV.SHAREPOINT.COM/TEAMS/THEAGENDERS/20230628/ITEM A- GREEN VALLEY 3 APARTMENTS/1 GPA2021-001 PC STAFF REPORT DRAFT.DOCX
Packet Page 832 of 860Attachment 13 Page 4 of 10
p ro je ct is c o n sis te n t w ith th is re q u ire m e n t as p ro p o se d . T h e zo n in g o rd in a n c e also re q u ire s m u ltifa m ily re sid e n tia l d e v e lo p m e n t to p ro v id e p riv a te o p e n sp a c e . T h e p ro je ct is c o n s is te n t w ith th e re q u ire d 8 0 sq . ft fo r g ro u n d fl o o r u n its a n d 4 8 sq . ft fo r u p p e r fl o o r u n its .
F. Recreational Amenities: Under Zoning Ordinance Section 25.20.4.8.B and Table 25-B, the project requires two major and two minor recreational amenities. Major recreational amenities include recreation buildings, childcare facilities, swimming pools, tennis, basketball, or handball courts (regulation size), and amenities requiring significant improvements that serve residents. The project provides a swimming pool and residential clubhouse as major amenities.
Minor recreational amenities include children's play areas, sand volleyball courts, basketball half courts, a spa or sauna area, picnic and barbeque areas, small gyms, shared residential media lounges, and dining and kitchen facilities. The project includes a range of minor recreational amenities: Outdoor lounge areas with kitchen facilities, fireplace, yoga, and showers (in conjunction with the swimming pool and spa); corn hole; table tennis; hammock area; and a dog run.
ANALYSIS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION
A. General Plan/Zoning Consistency: To facilitate the proposed multifamily residential development, the applicant has requested a General Plan Amendment from IBP to RVH and a Zone Change from IBP - NC District to RVH - NC District subject to Council action.
The current IBP designation anticipates employment-generating uses, such as research and development, professional and administrative offices, light industry, and business support establishments. The proposed RVH designation anticipates multifamily residential developments in high-intensity areas with a density range of 22 to 32 units per gross developable acre. The proposed General Plan Amendment conflicts with the current General Plan as it will eliminate developable land that would contribute to the City's industrial sector and prominent business park.
The project is also inconsistent with the following General Plan Objectives and Policies:
• Objective LU 14:
Develop sufficient employment generating uses to maintain a positive City fiscal condition and housing balance.
• Policy LU 14.1:
Areas designated for industrial use on the General Plan Diagram should be held for such use to assure that there will be sufficient industrial land available to create an economic base in support of the costs of providing on-going public services. A slow PC ITEM NO.: A PC DATE: 06/28/2023
PC FILE NO.: GPA2021-001, ZC2021-003, DR2021-013, ER2021-036 PAGE 5 HTTPS://FAIRFIELDGOV.SHAREPOINT.COM/TEAMS/THEAGENDERS/20230628/ITEM A- GREEN VALLEY 3 APARTMENTS/! GPA2021-001 PC STAFF REPORT DRAFT.DOCX
Packet Page 833 of 860Attachment 13 Page 5 of 10
p a c e o f in d u s tria l d e v e lo p m e n t sh a ll n o t b e c o n stru e d as ju stifi c a tio n fo r utiliz in g la n d s d e s ig n a te d fo r in d u stria l u se fo r a n o th e r ty p e o f u rb a n u se . • Po lic y LU 14 .2 :
A va rie ty o f e m p lo y m e n t a re a s sh a ll b e p ro v id e d in w h ic h in d u stria l a n d co m m e rci a l a c tiv itie s w il l c o n trib u te to th e c o n tin u e d e co n o m ic w e lfa re o f th e p e o p le o f th e C ity a n d to sta b le e co n o m ic a n d ta x b a se s fo r th e C ity . • O b je ctiv e ED 1 :
En c o u ra g e a m ix o f la rg e a n d sm a ll in d u s trie s a n d b u sin e sse s to su p p o rt a stro n g an d d iv e rs e e co n o m ic b a se . T h is m ix sh o u ld c re a te la rg e n u m b e rs o f jo b s, g e n e ra te su b s ta n tia l p u b li c re v e n u e s , a n d in v o lv e h ig h le v e ls o f p riv a te ca p ita l in v e stm e n t. • P o lic y ED 1.1 :
T a rg e t a n d att ra c t in d u strie s a n d b u sin e s se s w h ic h co n trib u te to d iv e rsifi c a tio n a n d sta b iliz a tio n o f th e lo c a l e co n o m y .
• O b je ctiv e ED 2 :
Ef fe c tiv e ly co n c e n tra te in d u stria l a n d c o m m e rci a l u se s. • P o licy ED 2 .1 :
P ro te c t e x is tin g b u s in e ss e s w ith in a re a s d e sig n a te d b y th e G e n e ra l P la n fo r ex istin g o r fu tu re in d u s tria l a n d c o m m e rci a l u se s a n d d isco u ra g e e n c ro a c h m e n t b y n o n c o m p a tib le u se s. En co u ra g e th e p re se rv a tio n a n d ex p a n sio n o f e x istin g in d u stria l u se s in a re a s d e sig n a te d as in d u stria l.
• P o lic y ED 2 .2 :
In o rd e r to p ro v id e a sta b le e c o n o m ic b a se , p ro v id e su ff ici e n t tra cts o f la n d at a v a rie ty o f siz e s a v a ila b le fo r in d u s tria l a n d c o m m e rci a l u se s. • P o licy E D 2 .5 :
T o m in im iz e tra ff ic im p a cts , in d u s tria l a n d b u sin e s s ac tiv ity sh o u ld b e lo c a te d in a re a s cl o s e to m a jo r tra n sp o rt a tio n . S u c h a re a s sh o u ld h a v e ro o m fo r e x p a n sio n an d su ff ici e n t b u ff e rs to p re v e n t c o n d itio n s o f p o te n tia l in co m p a tib ility w ith su rro u n d in g u se s .
Fa irfi e ld Fo rw a rd 2 0 5 0 : T h e C ity 's co m p re h e n siv e G e n e ra l P la n u p d a te in itia tiv e is u n d e rw a y . T h e C o u n ci l is still c o n te m p la tin g a fu tu re la n d u se sce n a rio fo r th e C o rd e lia a re a . A ctio n s to a p p ro v e th e m u ltifa m ily re sid e n tia l p ro je ct are p re m a tu re an d in c o n sis te n t w ith th e o p tio n s b e in g c o n sid e re d b y th e C o u n c il. N o n e o f th e th re e la n d u se a lte rn a tiv e s d e ta ile d in th e A lte rn a tiv e s R e p o rt p u b lish e d in O cto b e r 2 0 2 1 an tic ip a te re s id e n tia l u se s fo r th e G re e n V a ll e y C o rp o ra te P a rk, in cl u d in g th e p ro je ct site . T h e re p o rt id e n tifi e s (1 ) R e s e a rc h a n d d e v e lo p m e n t/M e d ic a l jo b s-fo c u se d ce n te r; (2 ) Jo b s co rrid o r:
PC ITEM NO.: A PC DATE: 06/28/2023
PC FILE NO.: GPA2021-001, ZC2021-003, DR2021-013, ER2021-036 PAGE 6 HTTPS://FAIRFIELDGOV.SHAREPOINT.COM/TEAMS/THEAGENDERS/20230628/ITEM A- GREEN VALLEY 3 APARTMENTS/1 GPA2021-001 PC STAFF REPORT DRAFT.DOCX
Packet Page 834 of 860Attachment 13 Page 6 of 10
re s e a rch a n d d e v e lo p m e n t, b u sin e ss p a rk, fl e x o ff ic e ; a n d (3 ) In d u stria l. A p p ro v a l o f th e p ro je ct w o u ld e li m in a te th e 5 .7 8 ac re s o f d e v e lo p a b le la n d th a t ca n acco m m o d a te u se s e n v isio n e d w ith th e n e w G e n e ra l P la n . T h e re fo re , th e p ro je ct is in c o n siste n t w ith th e a n tic ip a te d la n d u se s o f th e n e w G e n e ra l P la n th a t w o u ld b e ad o p te d as p a rt o f th e Fa irfi e ld Fo rw a rd 2 0 5 0 in itia tiv e .
H o u sin g Ele m e n t: T h e ad o p te d 2 0 2 3 -2 0 3 1 H o u sin g Ele m e n t (H o u sin g Ele m e n t) d o e s n o t id e n tify th e su b je ct p ro p e rty fo r h o u sin g . T h e R e g io n a l H o u sin g N e e d s A ll o ca tio n (R H N A ) id e n tifi e s th a t th e C ity m u st p la n to a c co m m o d a te 3 ,0 6 9 h o u sin g u n its fr o m 2 0 2 3 to 2 0 3 1 .
T h e H o u sin g Ele m e n t in cl u d e s a H o u sin g Site s In v e n to ry th a t id e n tifi e s la n d su ff ic ie n tly zo n e d to a cco m m o d a te th e R H N A fi g u re s a n d lik e ly to b e d e v e lo p e d d u rin g th e 2 0 2 3 to 2 0 3 1 p e rio d . F u rt h e rm o re , th is H o u sin g Site s In v e n to ry in c lu d e s la n d re q u irin g G e n e ra l P la n A m e n d m e n ts a n d Z o n e C h a n g e s to ac co m m o d a te th e R H N A . A lth o u g h th e p ro je ct p ro p o s a l is re s id e n tia l, th e p ro je ct site is n o t id e n tifi e d in th e H o u sin g Site s In v e n to ry a n d is n o t n e e d e d fo r th e C ity to m e e t its R H N A o b lig a tio n fo r 2 0 2 3 -2 0 3 1.
T h e C o m m is s io n se rv e s a s a n ad v iso ry b o d y to th e C o u n c il fo r th e se ac tio n s. T h e re q u ire d fi n d in g s to re c o m m e n d d e n ia l o f th e G e n e ra l P la n A m e n d m e n t an d Z o n e C h a n g e are p re s e n te d in S e ctio n 4 o f th e att a c h e d R e s o lu tio n .
B . D e v e lo p m e n t R e v ie w : T h e D e v e lo p m e n t R e v ie w ap p lic a tio n is a d iscre tio n a ry re v ie w p ro ce s s in te n d e d to a n a ly z e a p ro je ct's o v e ra ll b u ild in g a n d site p la n d e sig n re la tiv e to th e site a n d su rro u n d in g a re a . A d d itio n a ll y , th e D e v e lo p m e n t R e v ie w ap p lic a tio n p ro c e ss c o n sid e rs c o m p li a n c e w ith th e G e n e ra l P la n , th e Z o n in g O rd in a n c e , d e sig n g u id e lin e s, a n d C E QA . T h e p ro je ct is c o n siste n t w ith th e a p p lic a b le sta n d a rd s fo r d e v e lo p m e n t u n d e r th e Z o n in g O rd in a n c e a n d th e C ity 's D e sig n a n d D e v e lo p m e n t G u id e lin e s fo r m u ltifa m ily re s id e n tia l p ro je cts , as p ro p o se d a n d c o n d itio n e d . A rch ite ctu ra ll y , th e p ro je ct e m p lo y s v a rio u s a rc h ite c tu ra l e le m e n ts , m a te ria ls, a n d c o lo rs to cre a te a h ig h -q u a lity d e sig n .
H o w e v e r, th e p ro je ct is in c o n siste n t w ith th e G e n e ra l P la n fo r v a rio u s re a so n s d isc u sse d in th is re p o rt , a n d th e re fo re th e D e v e lo p m e n t R e v ie w ap p lic a tio n ca n n o t b e su p p o rte d .
C. Environmental Review: Following a review of the project, City staff determined that an EIR would need to be prepared for the project in compliance with the requirements of the CEQA. The purpose of the EIR is to provide decision-makers and the public with information about environmental impacts that are potentially significant and adverse resulting from the implementation oft he project. On March 17, 2022, City staff published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR, requesting written comments regarding the scope of the EIR by April 18, 2022. On April 13, 2022, City staff held a study session with the Commission for which members of the public and Commissioners had an opportunity to provide verbal comments in addition to written comments on the scope of the EIR.
Document Publication and Review: The 45-day public review period for the draft EIR began on January 9, 2023, and ended on February 23, 2023. Copies of the draft EIR were PC ITEM NO.: A PC DATE: 06/28/2023
PC FILE NO.: GPA2021-001, ZC2021-003, DR2021-013, ER2021-036 PAGE 7 HTTPS://FAIRFIELDGOV.SHAREPOINT.COM/TEAMS/THEAGENDERS/20230628/ITEM A- GREEN VALLEY 3 APARTMENTS/1 GPA2021-001 PC STAFF REPORT DRAFT.DOCX
Packet Page 835 of 860Attachment 13 Page 7 of 10
m a d e a v a ila b le fo r re v ie w d u rin g o ff ic e h o u rs at C ity H a ll 2 nd floor and available for download on the City website. The draft EIR was also available at the Fairfield Civic Center Library at 1150 Kentucky Street, and the Fairfield Cordelia Library at 5050 Business Center Drive. The draft EIR was also available for download on CEQAnet, an online searchable environmental database of the California State Clearinghouse. On February 8, 2023, City staff held a study session with the Commission, for which members of the public and Commissioners had an opportunity to provide verbal comments and written comments on the draft EIR.
Environmental Impacts The draft EIR identified specific "Thresholds of Significance" for several environmental topics to determine the degree of each impact. Some thresholds were based on State guidelines for implementing CEQA. Many of the thresholds are defined or refined by adopted City policies. Environmental impacts are identified in the draft EIR as "less than significant" when it does not exceed an applicable threshold. Where an environmental impact potentially exceeds the applicable threshold, it is identified as "significant." The draft EIR proposes ways to avoid or reduce potentially significant environmental impacts. The draft EIR identifies these methods as "mitigation measures." The draft EIR is required to identify an impact as "significant and unavoidable" where there is no mitigation measure(s) available. The project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts. The draft EIR identified 19 separate significant impacts associated with the following environmental topic areas: air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal resources, geology and soils, noise, and transportation. The mitigation measures identified in the draft EIR reduce each significant impact to a less-than- significant impact.
Alternatives: CEQA requires that the EIR identify and evaluate a range of alternatives to the project, as proposed, in addition to evaluating the environmental impacts of the project. The alternatives must meet the basic objectives of the project while reducing or avoiding one or more of its significant impacts. Following a review of the project impacts, three alternatives were developed. In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the draft EIR evaluates a "No Project" alternative in which no development occurs on the project site.
The second alternative evaluates an office development with approximately 250,000 square feet that is consistent with the IBP-NC District. The third alternative reduces the intensity of the proposed multifamily residential development from 185 to 130 units.
Section 6.0: Alternatives of the draft EIR provides further details regarding each alternative.
Final EIR: The City received comments from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), commissioners, and members ofthe public following the publication of the draft EIR. It should be noted that the nature of the CDFW comments was that the draft EIR had addressed all its primary concerns. The final EIR, which was published on June 15, 2023, includes responses to comments, text changes to the draft EIR, and a Mitigation Monitoring Report Program (MMRP). The MMRP lists each mitigation measure from the PC ITEM NO.: A PC DATE: 06/28/2023
PC FILE NO.: GPA2021-001, ZC2021-003, DR2021-013, ER2021-036 PAGE 8 HTTPS://FAIRFIELDGOV.SHAREPOINT.COM/TEAMS/THEAGENDERS/20230628/ITEM A - GREEN VALLEY 3 APARTMENTS/1 GPA2021-001 PC STAFF REPORT DRAFT.DOCX
Packet Page 836 of 860Attachment 13 Page 8 of 10
E IR , th e re s p o n sib le a g e n cy o v e rs e e in g th e co m p le tio n o f th e m itig a tio n m e a su re , an d a tim e fr a m e fo r co m p le tio n .
Sta tu to ry E x e m p tio n fo r D e n ie d Pro je cts: B e c a u se C ity sta ff d o e s n o t su p p o rt th e p ro je ct, th e re is n o o b lig a tio n to a d o p t th e E IR . C o n se q u e n tly , th e p ro je ct is e x e m p t fr o m th e re q u ire m e n ts p u rsu a n t to C E QA G u id e lin e s S e ctio n 16 2 7 0 (a ), w h ic h p ro v id e s th a t p ro je c ts th a t a re d isa p p ro v e d o r re je cte d b y a p u b lic ag e n c y a re sta tu to rily e x e m p t fr o m e n v iro n m e n ta l re v ie w . S h o u ld th e C o m m iss io n a n d C o u n ci l w ish to su p p o rt th e p ro je ct, th e EIR h a s b e e n co m p le te d a n d c a n b e c e rtifi e d a s p a rt o f th e p ro je ct's a p p ro v a l.
D . A irp o rt L a n d U s e C o m m iss io n : S o la n o C o u n ty A irp o rt La n d U se C o m m issio n (A L U C) re v ie w is re q u ire d to d e te rm in e p ro je ct c o n siste n cy w ith th e T ra v is A ir Fo rce B a se La n d U se C o m p a tib ility P la n b e c a u se it in v o lv e s G e n e ra l P la n A m e n d m e n t an d Z o n e C h a n g e re q u e s ts . S h o u ld th e C o m m issio n a n d C o u n c il w ish e s to su p p o rt th e p ro je ct, sta ff w ill a d v a n c e th e p ro je ct to th e So la n o C o u n ty A L U C fo r re v ie w .
E . C o rre s p o n d e n c e : A p u b lic h e a rin g n o tic e w a s p o s te d o n th e P la n n in g D iv isio n w e b p a g e a n d m a ile d to a ll p e rso n s w h o o w n p ro p e rt y w ith in 5 0 0 fe e t o f th e p ro je ct a n d w ith in th e S ie n a G re e n V a ll e y n e ig h b o rh o o d ; in te re s te d m e m b e rs o f th e p u b lic ; an d th e p ro je ct a p p lic a n t o n Ju n e 1 5 , 2 0 2 3 , a n d p u b lish e d in th e D a ily R e p u b lic n e w sp a p e r o n Ju n e 16 , 2 0 2 3 .
M e m b e rs o f th e p u b lic p ro v id e d w ritt e n c o m m e n ts d u rin g b o th th e N O P a n d d ra ft EIR re v ie w p e rio d s. C o m m e n ts th a t w e re m a d e d u rin g th e N O P re v ie w p e rio d p ro v id e d a b a sis fo r th e sco p e o f th e EIR a n a ly s is. C o m m e n ts th a t w e re m a d e d u rin g th e d raft EIR re v ie w p e rio d h a v e b e e n a d d re ss e d in th e fi n a l EIR a n d in cl u d e d as a n att a c h m e n t to th is sta ff re p o rt. S ta ff re c e iv e d o n e w ritte n co m m e n t fr o m a m e m b e r o f th e p u b lic fo llo w in g th e c lo s u re o f th e d ra ft EIR re v ie w p e rio d . T h is c o m m e n t, atta c h e d to th is sta ff re p o rt , ci te s a v a rie ty o f co n c e rn s ra ise d b y o th e r m e m b e rs o f th e p u b li c, an d ad d re sse d in th e fi n a l EIR .
A t th is tim e , sta ff h a s n o t re c e iv e d a n y fu rth e r w ritte n co m m e n ts fo ll o w in g th e se p u b lic n o tifi c a tio n s.
R E C O M M E N D A T IO N
B a se d o n th e a n a ly s is c o n ta in e d in th is sta ff re p o rt, sta ff c o n cl u d e s th a t th e p ro je ct d o e s n o t m e e t th e re q u ire d fi n d in g s fo r G e n e ra l P la n A m e n d m e n t, Z o n e C h a n g e , an d D e v e lo p m e n t R e v ie w . Sta ff re co m m e n d s th a t th e C o m m issio n ad o p t R e so lu tio n PC 2 0 2 3 -0 7 d e n y in g th e re q u e s te d D e v e lo p m e n t R e v ie w a n d re co m m e n d in g C o u n c il d e n y th e re q u e ste d G e n e ra l P la n A m e n d m e n t a n d Z o n e C h a n g e a n d fi n d th e p ro je ct e x e m p t fr o m C E QA u n d e r C E QA G u id e lin e s S e c tio n 1 6 2 7 0 (a ).
PC ITEM NO.: A PC DATE: 06/28/2023
PC FILE NO.: GPA2021-001, ZC2021-003, DR2021-013, ER2021-036 PAGE 9 HTTPS://FAIRFIELDGOV.SHAREPOINT.COM/TEAMS/THEAGENDERS/20230628/ITEM A- GREEN VALLEY 3 APARTMENTS/1 GPA2021-001 PC STAFF REPORT DRAFT.DOCX
Packet Page 837 of 860Attachment 13 Page 9 of 10
A tt a c h m e n t s :
1. P la n n in g C o m m is s io n R e s o lu t io n P C 2 0 2 3 -0 7 2 . F in a l E n v iro n m e n t a l Im p a c t R e p o rt (ER 2 0 2 1 -0 3 6 ) 3 . E v a c u a t io n M e m o r a n d u m
4 . P la n s
5 . P u b lic C o m m e n t s
PC ITEM NO.: A PC DATE: 06/28/2023
PC FILE NO.: GPA2021-001, ZC2021-003, DR2021-013, ER2021-036 PAGE 10 HTTPS://FAIRFIELDGOV.SHAREPOINT.COM/TEAMS/THEAGENDERS/20230628/ITEM A - GREEN VALLEY 3 APARTMENTS/1 GPA2021-001 PC STAFF REPORT DRAFT.DOCX
Packet Page 838 of 860Attachment 13 Page 10 of 10
Agenda Item No: 22.
AGENDA REPORT
DATE:August 15, 2023
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:David Gassaway, City Manager
SUBJECT:Public Hearing and;
Resolution 2023221 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield [Approving/Sustaining] [Denying/Overruling] the Appeal of the City of Fairfield Administrative Hearing Determination Regarding Delinquent Transient Occupancy and Tourism Tax Assessment/Super 8 Motel located at 2170 North Texas Street, Fairfield, CA 94533 323021
Owners: Shri Guru Hari, LLC and Shri Mahant, LLC and Marie Parunjanwala RECOMMENDED ACTION
Hold a public hearing and adopt the resolution.
STATEMENT OF ISSUE
The Fairfield Municipal Code allows the Operator to appeal the assessment of the tax to the City Council. Fairfield Municipal Code section 18.20 requires the council to conduct a hearing and approve/sustain or deny/overrule the appeal.
DISCUSSION
On January 25, 2023, the City of Fairfield issued a letter (Attachment 1) of Delinquent Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) to the operator of Super 8 (now renamed Comfort Inn) located at 2170 North Texas Street for $686,542.98. The current operator of the motel, Shri Guri Hari, LLC, through their attorney Frank A. Weiser, appealed the assessment to the finance director (in his capacity of tax administrator) on January 31, 2023, and was granted a date of hearing on March 14, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. to have the appeal heard.
The tax administrator was provided an appeal letter (Attachment 2) which was discussed during the hearing.
The City finance director, acting in their delegated capacity as the City tax administrator, reviewed and verified the information and documentation provided on behalf of the client by Mr. Weiser and determined that the request for relief of the total tax assessment amount was denied and the proper tax Packet Page 839 of 860
Agenda Item No: 22.AGENDA REPORTDATE:August 15, 2023 TO:Mayor and City CouncilFROM:David Gassaway, City ManagerSUBJECT:Public Hearing and;Resolution 2023221 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield [Approving/Sustaining][Denying/Overruling] the Appeal of the City of Fairfield Administrative HearingDetermination Regarding Delinquent Transient Occupancy and Tourism TaxAssessment/Super 8 Motel located at 2170 North Texas Street, Fairfield, CA 94533323021Owners: Shri Guru Hari, LLC and Shri Mahant, LLC and Marie ParunjanwalaRECOMMENDED ACTIONHold a public hearing and adopt the resolution.STATEMENT OF ISSUEThe Fairfield Municipal Code allows the Operator to appeal the assessment of the tax to the CityCouncil. Fairfield Municipal Code section 18.20 requires the council to conduct a hearing andapprove/sustain or deny/overrule the appeal.DISCUSSIONOn January 25, 2023, the City of Fairfield issued a letter (Attachment 1) of Delinquent TransientOccupancy Tax (TOT) to the operator of Super 8 (now renamed Comfort Inn) located at 2170 NorthTexas Street for $686,542.98. The current operator of the motel, Shri Guri Hari, LLC, through theirattorney Frank A. Weiser, appealed the assessment to the finance director (in his capacity of taxadministrator) on January 31, 2023, and was granted a date of hearing on March 14, 2023, at 2:00 p.m.to have the appeal heard. The tax administrator was provided an appeal letter (Attachment 2) which was discussed during thehearing. The City finance director, acting in their delegated capacity as the City tax administrator, reviewed and verified the information and documentation provided on behalf of the client by Mr. Weiser and determined that the request for relief of the total tax assessment amount was denied and the proper tax to be remitted remains in the full amount of $686,542.98.
The appeal contended that the client has no financial rapport with the prior hotel owner(s), was unaware of the outstanding TOT amount, and is not responsible for such delinquent amounts. Pursuant to Chapter 18, Article III, Section 18.17.1(c) and (d) of the Fairfield Municipal Code, any person purchasing an ongoing hotel business may apply to the tax administrator for a tax clearance certificate showing the tax due, if any, from the selling operator. Suppose an operator is liable for delinquent taxes or penalties under this article and sells its business. In that case, its successor shall withhold a sufficient portion of the purchase price to satisfy the delinquency.
On April 24, 2023, Shri Guri Hari, LLC, Shri Mahant, LLC, and Marie Parunjanwala, through their attorney Frank A. Weiser appealed the assessment to the city clerk and are granted a date of hearing of July 18, 2023, at 6:00 p.m. to have the appeal heard by the council.
Fairfield Municipal Code 18.20 states:
18.20 Appeal from decision of tax administrator; findings conclusive.
Any operator aggrieved by any decision of the tax administrator with respect to the amount of such tax, interest, and penalties, if any, may appeal to the council by filing a notice of appeal with the city clerk within fifteen days of serving or mailing of the determination of tax due. The council shall fix a time and place for hearing such appeal and the city clerk shall give notice in writing to such operator at his last known place of address. The findings of the council shall be final and conclusive and shall be served upon the appellant in the manner prescribed above for service of notice of hearing. Any amount found to be due shall be immediately due and payable upon the service of notice.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The financial impact is minimal, as the hearing will occur during a regularly scheduled City Council meeting. However, approving the appeal would cost the City $686,542.98 in lost TOT revenue.
PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
By operation of the Municipal Code, the council must issue a ruling to approve/sustain or deny/overrule the appeal.
STAFF CONTACT
John Furtado
(707) 4287629
[email protected]
COORDINATED WITH
City Attorney's Office
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Attachment 1: Proposed Resolution
Attachment 2: Delinquent TO Tax Letter Super 8
Attachment 3: Attorney Letter to City
Packet Page 840 of 860
Agenda Item No: 22.AGENDA REPORTDATE:August 15, 2023 TO:Mayor and City CouncilFROM:David Gassaway, City ManagerSUBJECT:Public Hearing and;Resolution 2023221 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield [Approving/Sustaining][Denying/Overruling] the Appeal of the City of Fairfield Administrative HearingDetermination Regarding Delinquent Transient Occupancy and Tourism TaxAssessment/Super 8 Motel located at 2170 North Texas Street, Fairfield, CA 94533323021Owners: Shri Guru Hari, LLC and Shri Mahant, LLC and Marie ParunjanwalaRECOMMENDED ACTIONHold a public hearing and adopt the resolution.STATEMENT OF ISSUEThe Fairfield Municipal Code allows the Operator to appeal the assessment of the tax to the CityCouncil. Fairfield Municipal Code section 18.20 requires the council to conduct a hearing andapprove/sustain or deny/overrule the appeal.DISCUSSIONOn January 25, 2023, the City of Fairfield issued a letter (Attachment 1) of Delinquent TransientOccupancy Tax (TOT) to the operator of Super 8 (now renamed Comfort Inn) located at 2170 NorthTexas Street for $686,542.98. The current operator of the motel, Shri Guri Hari, LLC, through theirattorney Frank A. Weiser, appealed the assessment to the finance director (in his capacity of taxadministrator) on January 31, 2023, and was granted a date of hearing on March 14, 2023, at 2:00 p.m.to have the appeal heard. The tax administrator was provided an appeal letter (Attachment 2) which was discussed during thehearing. The City finance director, acting in their delegated capacity as the City tax administrator, reviewed andverified the information and documentation provided on behalf of the client by Mr. Weiser anddetermined that the request for relief of the total tax assessment amount was denied and the proper taxto be remitted remains in the full amount of $686,542.98.The appeal contended that the client has no financial rapport with the prior hotel owner(s), was unawareof the outstanding TOT amount, and is not responsible for such delinquent amounts. Pursuant toChapter 18, Article III, Section 18.17.1(c) and (d) of the Fairfield Municipal Code, any personpurchasing an ongoing hotel business may apply to the tax administrator for a tax clearance certificateshowing the tax due, if any, from the selling operator. Suppose an operator is liable for delinquent taxesor penalties under this article and sells its business. In that case, its successor shall withhold a sufficientportion of the purchase price to satisfy the delinquency. On April 24, 2023, Shri Guri Hari, LLC, Shri Mahant, LLC, and Marie Parunjanwala, through theirattorney Frank A. Weiser appealed the assessment to the city clerk and are granted a date of hearingof July 18, 2023, at 6:00 p.m. to have the appeal heard by the council. Fairfield Municipal Code 18.20 states: 18.20 Appeal from decision of tax administrator; findings conclusive.Any operator aggrieved by any decision of the tax administrator with respect to the amount of such tax,interest, and penalties, if any, may appeal to the council by filing a notice of appeal with the city clerkwithin fifteen days of serving or mailing of the determination of tax due. The council shall fix a time andplace for hearing such appeal and the city clerk shall give notice in writing to such operator at his lastknown place of address. The findings of the council shall be final and conclusive and shall be servedupon the appellant in the manner prescribed above for service of notice of hearing. Any amount found tobe due shall be immediately due and payable upon the service of notice.FINANCIAL IMPACTThe financial impact is minimal, as the hearing will occur during a regularly scheduled City Councilmeeting. However, approving the appeal would cost the City $686,542.98 in lost TOT revenue.PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATIONN/AALTERNATIVE ACTIONBy operation of the Municipal Code, the council must issue a ruling to approve/sustain or deny/overrulethe appeal.STAFF CONTACTJohn Furtado(707) 428[email protected] WITHCity Attorney's OfficeATTACHMENTS:DescriptionAttachment 1: Proposed Resolution Attachment 2: Delinquent TO Tax Letter Super 8
Attachment 3: Attorney Letter to City
Attachment 4: Business License
Attachment 5: Grant Deed
Attachment 6: City of Fairfield Notice of Decision Regarding Administrative Hearing on Delinquent Transient Occupancy Tax Assessment
Attachment 7: Attorney Letter to City Council
REVIEWERS:
Reviewer Action Date
Beavers, Esther Approved 8/1/2023 5:08 PM
Packet Page 841 of 860
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-221
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD [APPROVING/SUSTAINING] [DENYING/OVERRULING] THE APPEAL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
DETERMINATION REGARDING DELINQUENT TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY AND TOURISM TAX ASSESSMENT/SUPER 8 MOTEL LOCATED AT 2170 NORTH TEXAS STREET, FAIRFIELD, CA 94533- 323021 OWNERS: SHRI GURU HARI, LLC AND SHRI MAHANT, LLC AND MARIE
PARUNJANWALA
WHEREAS, on January 25, 2023, the City of Fairfield issued a letter of Delinquent Transient Occupancy Tax to the operator of Super 8 (now renamed Comfort Inn) located at 2170 North Texas Street for $686,542.98. The current operator of the Motel, Shri Guri Hari, LLC, through their attorney Frank A. Weiser, appealed the assessment to the finance director (in his capacity of tax administrator) on January 31, 2023, and was granted a date of hearing of March 14, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. to have the appeal heard; and
WHEREAS, on March 14, 2023, the City finance director, acting in their delegated capacity as the City Tax Administrator, reviewed and verified the information and documentation provided on behalf of the client by Mr. Weiser and determined that the request for relief of the total tax assessment amount is denied and the proper tax to be remitted remains in the full amount of $686,542.98; and
WHEREAS, Fairfield Municipal Code section 18.20 states, “Any operator aggrieved by any decision of the tax administrator with respect to the amount of such tax, interest and penalties, if any, may appeal to the council by filing a notice of appeal with the city clerk within fifteen days of serving or mailing of the determination of tax due. The council shall fix a time and place for hearing such appeal and the city clerk shall give notice in writing to such opera tor at his last known place of address. The findings of the council shall be final and conclusive and shall be served upon the appellant in the manner prescribed above for service of notice of hearing. Any amount found to be due shall be immediately due and payable upon the service of notice;” and WHEREAS, the Motel Operator, Shri Guri Hari, LLC, Shri Mahant, LLC, and Marie Parunjanwala, through their attorney Frank A. Weiser have timely exercised their right of appeal to the City Council through delivery to the City requesting an appeal of the Transient Occupancy Tax on or about April 24, 2023; and
WHEREAS, Fairfield Municipal Code section 18.20 requires the City Council to “fix a time and place for hearing such appeal and the collector shall give notice in writing to such person of the time and place of the hearing by serving it personally or by depositing it in the post office in the city, postage prepaid, addressed to such person at the address appearing on his last license or application;” and
Packet Page 842 of 860Attachment 1 Page 1 of 2
RES. NO. 2023-221